Reddit mentions: The best theological anthropology books

This is a long post, so I'm putting this up front; if you read nothing else I've said, read this: Not talking about this with him is the wrong response. You absolutely must talk to him about this. Clear communication is crucial to a healthy marriage, much less a good sexual relationship.

Now, from what you say, there are probably issues for both of you here. I can't talk too much about his motivations, because we haven't heard from him, only from you--but I'll make an effort from my perspective as a husband in a moment.

First, let's take a quick look at what you've said: you find sex with your husband tedious and dirty. "Dirty" is a problem--a significant one--because marital sex is anything but dirty. To live chastely within marriage is to have marital sex. Marital sex is a reflection of Christ's love for the Church, and the love within the Godhead. It's a sacramental act of unity and life. You absolutely must abandon this notion that sex with your husband is dirty, but it won't be easy. Labeling sex as "dirty" is an easy way we repel our sexual desire when embracing it is sinful (e.g., as teenagers and when we're engaged). Forget that label. Sex isn't dirty. Extramarital sex is sinful; sex within marriage is a gift from God to express love and intimacy with our entire selves (body and soul).

The tedium of sex may be tied to several different issues. I do want to ask about the frequency of your intercourse: from what you say, it sounds like you're having sex regularly (daily a few months ago, several times per week now). Does that mean that you are not practicing NFP and periodic abstinence? Are you instead trying to have children now, or are you using artificial contraceptives?

I ask because artificial contraceptives, aside from being sinful, are known to have detrimental side effects in your sex life. Condoms reduce sensation for both parties. Hormonal contraceptives reduce your sex drive and (based on studies in other primates) may reduce your natural desirability to your mate. If this is the situation, it could contribute to his disinterest and your boredom.

Are you experiencing painful intercourse? My wife struggled with intercourse for our first year of marriage because she had conditions called vaginismus and vestibulodynia, which caused the whole experience to be excruciating rather than pleasant. We made a joint, sincere effort using multiple methods to reduce those conditions and improve her experience for months before we saw any real progress. That can be another factor.

What is your general attitude toward sex? Have you ever found it remotely pleasurable? If not, have you spoken to your husband about your experience in the bedroom? Or are you treating sex like a solemn duty you must perform so that he feels fulfilled? The entire process of human marital sex is for both husband and wife to enjoy it. In a technical sense, neither one of you "must" enjoy it in order for the other to do so, but it is more enjoyable for both of you if you both enjoy it. If you have ever felt pleasure during intercourse, talk to your husband about that--ask him to pursue that before satisfying himself. Satisfying him sexually is easy; satisfying you sexually probably takes a little work, and that should be a worthwhile pursuit.

Now, on to him for a moment. My guess is that he loves you. If he was unchaste before dating you, then he didn't marry you just to have sex with you (because he didn't have to get married to have sex); from what you have said, he remained chaste while dating you and engaged to you, too. Which means he does love you, but he may not know quite what that means (or should mean). Again, talk to him about his actions, about how you feel, about how he feels. Talk to him about your marriage, about your future together.

On the pornography: it almost definitely predates your marriage and your relationship and is absolutely never your fault. That's on him. You didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to do it, and even if you had, he still shouldn't have done it. Never blame yourself for this. I know that's difficult to accept, but it's the truth. He, and only he, is responsible for his sins. If you're the coldest wife in the world who refuses sex for twenty years straight, watching pornography and masturbating would still be his sins.

The most important thing here is for both of you to come to a real, clear understanding of what married life within the Church is. You need to read about the Theology of the Body. Here is a short, relatively easy book on the subject. Here is the longer book behind that book. Here is a tome with the religious and philosophical underpinnings of it all. Here is a short video and here is a long one. Others will hopefully post other resources (podcasts, videos, books, etc.). This is critical. It sounds like you and your husband both are lacking important information about how marriage works in the Catholic Church.

The second most important thing is for you to improve your communication with your husband. Here is a box set of short books that can help with that (these significantly improved communication between my wife and I). I've also seen these at a local library.

Your husband needs to commit to improving your marriage as much as you do. You must talk to him as soon as possible. Don't put it off. He should know that something is wrong, especially if he's choosing pornography over you.

More details will enable us to help you more, but nothing will help as much as clear communication with your husband and a dedication to building the best marriage possible.

To answer the question, one must consider all three components of the morality of the act: object, intent, circumstances. Object and intent alone can render an act morally good or evil, whereas the circumstances can only increase or diminish the goodness or evil of an act.

Placing all three components together and considering first a set of circumstances, then intent, and then object, will be particularly edifying as these last two are elements going to vary and what the question concerns.

As an example, consider a couple having sex in wedlock; these will be the circumstances, and the circumstances are certainly good.

Next, consider the couple wants to, for good reasons (more on this later), delay the onset of children; this is the intent, one which is good by itself without any other qualifiers.

Finally, there are two means to delay the onset of children, as previously discussed. These will be the object chosen. The first is chemical/barrier contraception, and the second is NFP.

Use of chemical/barrier contraception in this way is always objectively disordered. As a result, even a couple in wedlock (which is good) intending to delay the onset of children for good reasons (which is good) is doing wrong by using contraceptives (which is bad). Bl. Pope John Paul II's encyclical Familiaris Consortio aids in explaining why:

> When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. emphasis ours

Use of NFP in this way is not objectively disordered. Why? He tells us in the very next paragraph:

> When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.
emphasis ours

Self-giving can be literally understood as the transmission of seed from the male to the woman and her reception of the seed in the procreative process into her, or the accepting of fertility by the male and the giving of fertility by the female. As the female's fertility naturally includes periods of infertility, there is no frustration in this process (the acceptance and giving of one's fertility) due to periods of natural infertility.

However, a barrier method of contracepting frustrates this in an obvious way. A chemical method of contraception frustrates it in a less obvious but still substantial way, effecting the transmission/reception of seed or frustrating the natural cycle of egg implantation. Bl. John Paul II understands this type of self-giving in light of our being created in the Imago Dei; he saw the body as an expression of God's creation, and the relation between husband and wife mirroring the nature of the Trinity and the act of creation. This is a deep mystery and one better explored through a careful reading of his life's work, Man and Woman He Created Them. These works merit attention on their own accord, and can't be done "true" justice on reddit (not only because of reddit's space constraints, but given Bl. John Paul II's deep theology and philosophy rooted as they are in the Christian understanding). In this way, the sexual self-giving of the spouses utilizing contraception is a literal lie, as there is no self-giving; one or both spouses is withholding of themselves.

In bullet points, use of contraceptives:

• places a barrier (physical or chemical) between the spouses, whereby total self-giving is impossible
  
  
• refuses cooperation in the natural cycles of fertility which God has ordained
  
  
• abuses the sexual faculty, treating that which is healthy as diseased
  
  
• makes an object one or both of the spouses for use as a tool of carnal satisfaction
  
  
• weakens the bonds of charity by abandoning chastity
  
  Whereas NFP:
  
  
• unites the spouses in total self-giving
  
  
• preserves the natural moral order of creation
  
  
• treats the sexual faculty and human body as good
  
  
• emphasizes the dignity of the person through education and understanding of their bodies
  
  
• strengthens the bonds of charity by embracing chastity
  
  So, when does NFP become sinful? Very simply, when the process is abused; when the intent is no longer to delay the onset of children for good reasons, but selfish ones. Altering that aspect of the act flips many of the above bullet points and renders the action subjectively disordered.
  
  It is true that the intent of an individual is so hard to gauge; for this reason certain persons would attempt to set NFP as "equal" to chemical/barrier contraceptives as a result of this objective vs subjective component to morality. They are correct that intent is, largely, an interior motivation which we are unable to gauge; however, they are incorrect to assign as equals contraceptives and NFP given the substantive differences in application. The couple using NFP is just as accountable to God as the couple using contraceptives. Further, with recourse to the pastoral care of the Church in regards to the subjective intent of practitioners, this objection is eliminated.
  
  As to the specific "modes" of NFP, there are many natural methods of regulating conception and birth whose "success rate" rivals or surpasses that of artificial contraceptives, without the disastrous "side" effects of chemically-induced periods of infertility, which include cancer. They include the Billings Ovulation Method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System, and others. These systems were pioneered by health care professionals and scientists, are minimally invasive, very low-cost, and involve both spouses in monitoring periods of fertility. To learn more about which system may work best for you, please consult some of the links listed below.
  
  ---
  
  Additional resources:
  
  Casti Connubii - "On Christian Marriage," Pope Pius XI, 1930 - an encyclical responding to doctrinal innovations by the Anglican communion concerning Christian marriage and the regulation of birth using artificial means
  
  Humanae Vitae - "Of Human Life," Pope Paul VI, 1968 - an encyclical reaffirming ancient Christian doctrine concerning the regulation of birth using artificial means and natural means
  
  Familiaris Consortio - "Of Family Partnership," Bl Pope John Paul II, 1981 - an encyclical concerning the Christian family, which addresses in part the harm contraceptives do to the marital union
  
  Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction - a health institute focused on Catholic teaching concerning the transmission of human life that provides an abundance of resources (educational material, points of contact, etc.) for couples interested in NFP
  
  Contraception: Why Not? - an informational talk given concerning the underlying reasons for our society's current acceptance of contraceptive use and the Catholic understanding and advantages of embracing Church teaching
  
  National Catholics Bioethics Center - a scientific institute dedicated to answering questions related to health, science, and the dignity of the human person, with additional resources concerning the Church's teaching on NFP and artificial contraceptives
  
  Learn NFP Online - online resource endorsed by the USCCB for instruction in some of the methods of NFP

There is a great book written by an old professor of mine called Straight to Jesus.

They talk about a lot of stuff, but the author lives with people in the Love in Action organization and writes a lot about Exodus Int. as well.

Please understand that a lot of these organizations have existed due to federal funding for such organizations based on homosexuality being categorized as something that can be converted/cured/repaired/etc. Whether it's the APA classifying it that way or whatever.

That federal funding is now on its way out. A lot of it is because laws are changing, the DSM has changed, and the public is showing quite a bit of opposition to it. These organizations are now coming out (heh) and saying that they know it doesn't work.

I know several people at my church who "struggle with same sex attraction" (though ex-Gay is a term that is closely related to the movement surrounding these particular organizations), and they have entered into straight marriages, had kids, etc., just as a lot of the members of these organizations have.

I am glad that these people have been able to seek and find Jesus in the ways that they have, but I am concerned with my friends' wellbeing in the way of maintaining their marriages over the course of their lives. It's just a concern that I have based on my interactions with them, not a sweeping concern I have with all people in this type of situation.

I am glad they have had the freedom to make the choice to decide what their relationships are going to look like based on what they want in life, but I do not think they will ever be able to snap their fingers and change who they are and are not attracted to.

I guess the point of all of this is that it's not 100% religiously/Biblically/spiritually motivated. There is money behind it as well. Just like any other business or non-profit. Jobs, livelihoods, etc. are wrapped up in this too.

Now that that money is dwindling, I think we will see a lot of people involved with this kind of therapy reevaluating their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the topic.

Hi LaPieuse, and congratulations on your continued movement to the Catholic Church.

Natural Family Planning is a beautiful way to increase communication and intimacy with your spouse. It requires a bit of discipline, as you will be very closely tracking your cycle and NFP requires chastity and abstinence at times, but the reward is great.

For your research, I highly recommend:

• The Marquette Method
  
  
• Marquette's NFP Forum
  
  
• The Clearblue Fertility Monitor
  
  Regarding your husband's concern, I understand the natural fear that comes with bringing a child into this world. Remember, though, that fear is not from the Lord.
  
  A question I believe you both have to ask yourself, however, is, "Are we really not prepared to raise a child, or is it just inconvenient for us right now?"
  
  My wife and I wanted to wait at least two years after our marriage before we would attempt to have children. Fortunately, that mentality barely lasted but a few months, and we have been trying for children ever since. We are financially secure, but I would not consider us "well off" or "rich" by any stretch of the imagination. We simply know how to live below our means.
  
  If you would like further study on the Catholic Church's teaching regarding marriage, human sexuality, and children, I highly recommend studying St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body. You can also Google or YouTube "Theology of the Body" for talks from dynamic speakers that introduce you to the "good news about sex and marriage."
  
  Prayers for you and your spouse on your journey.

Sheakespeare expressed the Christian understanding of humanity when Hamlet said, “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?” (II.ii).

Fundamentalists rightly put a focus on sin, because everyone has a problem with it. Not everyone has a problem with low self-esteem; in fact, pride is one of the most common sins! However, a balanced approach to scripture presents a much more three-dimensional picture of man as both glorious and fallen.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Ps 8:3-8 Yet you have made [humanity] a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,

1 Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels?

If you're interested in a literary-theological book, I'd recommend Mere Humanity by Donald Williams – it's an examination of man through the authors G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, and J. R. R. Tolkien.

Hmm, a throwaway account...I'll bite.

[Jeremiah 13:1-11 ESV] is a good place to start.

God says to Jeremiah that the nations of Israel and Judah are like a ruined loincloth. They do not fulfill the purpose for which they were made. The two nations have gone after other gods to worship them and followed their own hearts. In verse 11 God says, " For as the loincloth clings to the waist of a man, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me, declares the LORD, that they might be for me a people, a name, a praise, and a glory, but they would not listen."

For further in-depth study on this question I'd recommend John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory which is an explanation of Jonathan Edwards' essay The End for Which God Created the World.

I think a different approach on this topic might bring you further. If we do not understand things or things look suspicious to us, we should raise a question. We should challenge answers we are confronted with and be open for new approaches. The alternativ is to "make a cap on it" to paraphrase a german saying, meaning that one avoids the tensions of an open-ended debate by creating overhasty claims/axioms to defend a premature "solution".

I would suggest you to raise the question "What is free will and how does it relate to ones salvation?" and start a open ended study on this topic. You might not come to an definite end, but you will limit the field of tension and reduce biased preconceptions.

Have a good one. A a fun start might be the conversation between Luther and erasmus about free will. Luther has a strong "unfree" position (denomination), while Erasmus argues for a free will. Its also fun to read, because you get a picture of how much of a dick Luther was, haha.

I highly recommend the introductory essay to Theology of the Body by the translator Michael Maria Waldstein. The guy is incredibly brilliant and distills both the philosophical issues and the theological ones.

As far as JPII's other works, he was heavily influenced by the thomist theologian Matthias Joseph Scheeben. Mysteries of Christianity is a huge work, but its a great primer. Aside from that, I'd agree with /u/Pope-Urban-III, get familiar with St. Thomas first.

In so far as JP2 was a Phenomenologist, he christianized phenomenology; so getting a real solid foundation in phenomenology won't be as helpful as a thomistic foundation.

>What are some major historical narratives in which the narrative gets in the way of the history?

W.R.T. my own field, medieval philosophy and religion, I think the most problematic and pervasive narratives are those of the Enlightenment and the Protestant reformers. Modernity's self creation myth is one of pulling humanity free of that dark, thoughtless mire of the Middle Ages, when people were ignorant and nothing of note was really accomplished (this, this, and this sort of stuff notwithstanding). We're left with what Stephen Jaeger has called the "diminutive Middle Ages"

As an example of how the prejudices engendered by the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment (which was of course a byproduct of that Reformation) impoverish the field, I recently did some course work on devotion to the Virgin Mary and it's astounding how much literature on the subject simply repeats Protestant polemics, or how much people assume that devotion to the Virgin was primarily a female activity (because we know how only women identify with other women, right? and that "identification" is by far the most important factor in these sorts of things, right?) suppressed by the Church, ignoring that the exact opposite occurred. Devotion to the Virgin was primarily a male activity, women's texts focusing much more on Christ, and was strongly encouraged by the Church, but almost no one mentions this (Rachel Fulton-Brown being a notable exception). Likewise, it's astounding how much the study of Late Antiquity is a mere rehashing of argument made 300 years ago by Edward Gibbon, arguments which often don't match up all that well with what our sources tell us.

> Can you think of any historians/theorists/critics/philosophers who have some light to shed on these matters?

A lot of good work has been done on this recently, I actually think it's a very exciting and (hopefully) transformative time for the field, the aforementioned Jaeger and Fulton-Brown and, of course, Caroline Walker-Bynum (see History in the Comic Mode, a festschrift delivered to Bynum, and the essay by that name in Fragmentation and Redemption for more on method).

Sounds good!
I would recommend L'Abri Fellowship in Southborough MA for resources. They are apologists-extraordinaire.
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_T._Dickerson, this modern Tolkien scholar and professor of computer science will be a great resource to you- especially his latest book: http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Machine-Means-Human-Matters/dp/1587432722/ref=la_B001JPALWW_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1348111841&sr=1-3
He goes to to toe with atheist arguments in some of his writings.
If you contact him, he can point you in the right direction. I saw him speak at L'Abri last year, and he was great!
seriously check out L'Abri though. For real.

Reformed Theology is actually much bigger than it's soteriology. More so than anything else, it has to do with how one understands the sovereignty of God and God's general disposition toward humankind. For this I'd recommended Jonathan Edwards' The End for Which God Created the World, the complete text of which can be found in John Piper's book God's Passion for His Glory (the kindle version of Edward's book seems to be only $2.99 on Amazon right now).

Also significantly important for understanding Reformed Theology is understanding Covenant Theology (though I don't have a book to suggest to you for this).

The issue of predestination is just a nasty side-effect of other overriding assumptions of Reformed theology.

You might want to check out Roger Olson's Against Calvinism and Michael Horton's For Calvinism if you want two books by competent authors in dialog with each other on the issue. Both of those books are available in Kindle format for about $5 right now.

Hi frychu, and thank you for the kind words. I have trouble keeping my mouth shut about some things and thus am not surprised to find myself downvoted.

What I tried to show is that, with some help from current knowledge and technology, every cell in the human body is potentially capable of becoming a human being. If this potential is a reason to be upset about the loss of such cells, then every shower is a humanitarian disaster, as is every drop of blood from a cut or scrape, not to even mention mastur... but see, I feel that this way lies madness. It's crazy to be concerned over each of billions of human cells.

I feel the way to keep from going over the deep edge here is to take a look at what we consider a "soul." Some ideas you'll probably agree with is that a soul is aware of itself, has emotions, memories, a personality and perhaps an ability to reason. In a funny coincidence, naturalists (and most of us atheists are, whether they know it or not) ascribe these exact characteristics to something called a "mind." But there is also abundant evidence in support of the notion that minds don't exist separately from brains.

Now a newborn baby definitely has a mind, with all the properties I've ascribed to it above. A random human cell does not, nor even an egg, nor even a freshly fertilized egg. Nor, for several weeks, a fetus. No brain, no mind, no soul. Yes, I know, this is not the view of mainstream Christianity, certainly not in the US. However, I just yesterday read that even some Christian apologists are backing down from their idea of the soul as a mysterious, disembodied supernatural something floating in an invisible alternate reality. One example can be found in Christian editors' foreword of the book Whatever Happened to the Soul?.

To answer your question: If scientists were to clone a human baby from a human cell, it would be self-aware, have emotions and all other characteristics you and I would associate with having a soul. The best psychiatrist and the most inspired cleric would not be able to tell the difference between the child (once it was old enough to have conversations with) and any other. To claim that such a child would, simply by dint of its "artificial" origin, be missing a soul would be cynical and cruel, so surely it must. But again, this becomes a non-problem once you simply accept that a soul is a mind originating in a functioning brain.

I came down here to say a similar thing - I study Christian theology and one of the topics I'm interested in is the relationship between body mind and spirit. Speaking theologically, the dualism Milk-and-Ashes speaks of comes into Christian thought from greek philosophy. In the Hebrew tradition there was no separation between body and soul - a human person was a whole unit and therefore individual human personhood arose from that unified whole entity. The early Christian fathers (and they were mostly fathers) had been educated in their Roman tradition which was based on greek ideals (many tutors of wealthy families were highly educated greek slaves) and so men like Augustine had a lot of that worldview in their thinking. Hence his views on sex and sexuality!

It's an interesting one to reflect on - I read a piece by a person born without legs who was sick of people telling her that when she got to heaven she would have legs. Apart from the rudeness of people feeling they could comment, her question was "Who would I be, if in heaven I have legs? My entire identity as a human person has been formed in this body; I know no other way to be human."

Some Feminist Theologians are reflecting on what impact women's embodiment has on our understanding of ourselves in relation to God. Here's one example: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0826407862/?coliid=I2SVD7BV7REIWW&colid=26CYR2VX9YNS1&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it

In my own pondering around gender, transgender etc, I have considered this angle, in a similar way to the woman I mentioned above - I have come to human personhood in this woman's body and I can't conceive of myself apart from it. I've wondered whether the idea that one can have a female brain in a male body is not just a form of dysmorphia arising out of an individual's struggle with their identity, but is also a product of a prevailing worldview, often implicit in our culture, of mind/body dualism as had been mentioned. It has come at us from both patriarchal Christendom Christianity, and from the Enlightenment re-examination of Ancient Greek thought (so a double whammy).

In my own experience, one of the seminal (is there a feminine equivalent please??) moments of my life was giving birth to my daughter, when my entire person was suddenly united in the enormous struggle to bring her into the world. It broke for ever for me the separation I had always felt between my body as this thing I rode round in that was for men to look at and enjoy, and for me to struggle to keep thin and lovely, and my soul/mind that was my own. I still say "Stupid brain keeping me awake". but at a deep level my body became my self and still is.

Anthony hoekema wrote a good book on it. Can't say I agree with absolutely everything said in it, but it should greatly help you learn and articulate things concerning what the image of God in man is. https://www.amazon.com/Created-Gods-Image-Anthony-Hoekema/dp/0802808506

That's certainly an opinion people have, but why don't you investigate the Church's position and then decide what you believe? I challenge you to see what the Church has to offer. This way you're at least addressing fully thought-out ideas instead of what lots of people think the Church teaches. Here are some resources. :)

This book Is a pretty basic introduction but deals with the issue pretty heavily.

/u/Mysterium-fidei - in case you weren't sure what this meant, "Theology of the Body" is a series of reflections made by Pope John Paul II and they are all available to read in their entirety online right now.
Links here:
From EWTN - https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Same links from USCCB but with a different resource for an introduction:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/catholic-teaching/theology-of-the-body.cfm


You can just jump right in to reading the actual sermons (there are 129 of them) or you could go for a summarizing type book. I made my suggestion of the Sri book, although that is a precursor to TOB.

Here is a link to TOB translated into book form, instead of the individual sermons (I haven't read this one):
https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-Created-Them/dp/0819874213

You can see in the links below the "Frequently Bought Together" section has a Beginners Guide and a Commentary Book that are often bought to help those who may need more than just the original text.

This guy is scary smart. His book, The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas and His Interpreters is incredible.

I recommend you the social ecology of religion. I read this when studying religions, and I found it really informative and interesting.

Those aren't the Theology of the Body, rather summary explanations. The first link would indeed be the most updated of a very popular yet still scholarly explanation.

This, too my knowledge, is the most recent publication of the original TOB talks in book form:

https://www.amazon.com/Man-Woman-He-Created-Them/dp/0819874213/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537279865&sr=8-1&keywords=man+and+woman+he+created+them&dpID=21R3P665NSL&preST=_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

On Human Nature in general, the works of Nemesius and John of Damascus are very useful, but may not be what you are looking for. I don't think there will be anything like a modern psychological or biological approach in the Church Fathers.

You should read "God Is Not...: Religious, Nice, "One of Us," An American, A Capitalist"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1587431017/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_tV4JxbCZ8AC79

This is entirely a strawman argument. You're stating what you think the Catholic Church believes, which is incorrect, and then arguing against your mis-stated beliefs. You've either misinterpreted what you've been told, or those people are misinformed themselves.

>It doesn't ultimately matter to me what you (or the CC) want to call doctrine.

Yea, it really does. You can't debate something if you can't even define what it is you're debating.

>I can see something like abortion remaining forbidden indefinitely, but contraception and gay marriage? They're far too recent to be given any quality of immutability as regards the church's teaching on them.

Homosexuality is not a recent occurrence in human history. Engaging in homosexual activity has been consistently addressed as gravely disordered. The fact that people with homosexual tendencies want to now marry in recent years doesn't change anything.

>Catholicism has long upheld a tradition of faith and reason as regards moral issues; that is, they're not truths to be handed down, but rather must be arrived at by reason.

Once again, incorrect. Catholic moral teaching is informed by both revelation (sort of what you're calling faith) and also reason as we understand the natural law, that is, the order of purpose and dignity as God created it with respect to mankind and the world. Catholic moral theology isn't just "reasoned out" with no recourse to the revealed truth that has been handed down.

>This attitude is definitely part of the Catholic tradition.

Not in the way you just described it.

>I'm of the view that there exist no good arguments against gay marriage/contraception

The combined 1,000+ pages of sexual ethics written by John Paul II are apparently rubbish, but you're entitled to your opinion.
Theology of the Body |
Love and Responsibility

>Same goes for ordination of women, though perhaps that will last a little longer (which is mind-boggling, since the arguments against it are even worse than those against gay marriage/contraceptives) if only because PJPII abused his position in an attempt to silence all discussion on it, despite the findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the matter.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission findings do not, themselves, carry any doctrinal weight. It is the Pope, in collegiality with the bishops of the Church that exercise the teaching authority of the Church. The Pope generally directs that discussion and has the prerogative to disagree.

No, but this is often a misunderstanding by self-proclaimed Calvinists and most often as a mischaracterization by its opponents. This provides a reasonable definition: https://www.monergism.com/topics/free-will/compatibilism

I dislike the term "soft determinism," but call it what you will. It's not anymore "soft" than ABR mp3 encodes are "soft" VBRs (audio nerd joke, excuse me).

A wonderfully easy and accessible book on the wider subject can be found here: https://www.amazon.com/What-about-Free-Will-Reconciling/dp/1629951862

Also, original sin tends to be discussed in the theological category of "anthropology" - who are we, as human beings? So more broadly speaking, looking for works in that field of theology may help you as well, e.g. this small patristic anthology.

I think the meme 'Anonymous' is a sign of precisely what you're describing. I recently wrote a critical account of what I mean if you're interested I can share the link.

edit: I'm completely serious btw.

a few sources of my research:
http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Consciousness-Richard-Maurice-Bucke/dp/1907661603/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368632362&sr=8-1&keywords=cosmic+consciousness
http://www.amazon.com/Man-Symbols-Carl-Gustav-Jung/dp/0440351839/ref=pd_sim_b_6
http://www.amazon.com/Telemorphosis-Univocal-Jean-Baudrillard/dp/1937561003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368632665&sr=1-1&keywords=telemorphosis

This is a tough read and yes it has piper, but he is only doing commentary on edwards' book. If you want to understand why piper teaches what he teaches, read this one.

https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Passion-His-Glory-Jonathan/dp/1581347456/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1520269274&sr=1-1&keywords=god%27s+passion+for+his+glory+john+piper

It is writings on JPII. Basically taking his Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body and making it accesible to mere mortals.

By "not believe in birth control" I assume you mean "not believe contraception is moral". Obviously we believe that there exist pills that are referred to as "birth control" pills.

Contraception (verb) is immoral according to Natural Law philosophy, as well as Catholic Teaching.

It may seem like a hard pill to swallow (pun absolutely intended), but this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and has been (albeit less formally) for almost 2000 years. In fact, up until about a century ago, this belief was held more or less universally by all Christians.

If you're interested in why contraception is immoral, I suggest reading:

• Humanae Vitae
  
• Love and Responsibility
  
• Theology of the Body

If you want to see what can be drawn from that one little line quoted by LouIchthys, give John Paul II's Theology of the Body a run for your money.

I'm not sure if you fully understand the concept of scapegoating in the religious / anthropological sense - here's a book you might want to look into.http://www.amazon.com/The-Scapegoat-Ren%C3%A9-Girard/dp/0801839173

Many Christians don't believe we have a "soul" in the dualist or Cartesian sense. I suggest Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? and In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem

Edit: also this.

Slightly related, an interesting book that talks about the internal struggle of evangelical Christians whose religious beliefs contradict their sexual feelings is Straight to Jesus.