Do you feel the "silence and dominate" approach to sexuality is what the Church teaches? That's never what I got from it, but my perspective is different as well. If eros is to become what it truly is, we must understand eros is not strictly sexual. If we let eros be unguided, it most becomes dominant over reason and thus distorted, no longer like a child playing and being himself, but a child telling his father what to do. The language of chastity in the catechism doesn't seem to me to indicate a total "dominance" from the onset because the phrases included in the Catechism starting at 2337, such as "integration," "long and exacting work," "laws of growth", "stages marked by imperfection" and by its rejection of "mere external constraint." (Starting at P2337.) It could be perhaps that I am misunderstanding you as well.
I think I agree with what you're saying. That particular issue is not so much one of "official" Church teaching as it is how sexuality is discussed in certain parts of popular Catholic culture. I've found it's more common in a lot of discussions of same-sex desire, where such desire is treated as a pathology to be overcome or as inherently sinful and to be totally rejected
Do you feel the "silence and dominate" approach to sexuality is what the Church teaches? That's never what I got from it, but my perspective is different as well. If eros is to become what it truly is, we must understand eros is not strictly sexual. If we let eros be unguided, it most becomes dominant over reason and thus distorted, no longer like a child playing and being himself, but a child telling his father what to do. The language of chastity in the catechism doesn't seem to me to indicate a total "dominance" from the onset because the phrases included in the Catechism starting at 2337, such as "integration," "long and exacting work," "laws of growth", "stages marked by imperfection" and by its rejection of "mere external constraint." (Starting at P2337.) It could be perhaps that I am misunderstanding you as well.
I think I agree with what you're saying. That particular issue is not so much one of "official" Church teaching as it is how sexuality is discussed in certain parts of popular Catholic culture. I've found it's more common in a lot of discussions of same-sex desire, where such desire is treated as a pathology to be overcome or as inherently sinful and to be totally rejected
The critical comments toward you only show the critics didn’t carefully read your article.
I suspect many of them didn't read it *at all*