Can Catholics believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness?

[valient_Lucy]

I had a thread based on this idea a few weeks ago, but it was deleted. Since there was some good discussion, I decided to repost it, under a new title. This title better expresses the topic anyway.

1. **I personally do not believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness. I also believe that this is the current dominant view of the Church today. **
2. The Church also teaches that celibacy and consecrated virginity is a more noble vocation than marriage. The current teaching of the Church today is that the nobility of the priest and religious vocations stems from the goodness of marriage. The argument is that the priest and religious sacrifices marriage to God, and since only good things can be offered to God, then marriage must be good. The Church also teaches that a nun has a nuptual bond with Christ, and the priest has a nuptual bond with the Church, so marriage must be good because their bond with Christ or the Church is seen within the context of marriage.
3. However, the Church hasn’t always looked at the relationship between marriage, sex, and celibacy in this way. The writings of the Early Church Fathers often portray marriage and sex as spiritually harmful. St. Augustine said that sex within marriage usually involved the sin of lust. He also argued that the marriage bed was undefiled because the Sacrament of Matrimony obtained pardon for the sexual sins that married couples routinely committed. St. Jerome wrote that he “praised marriage, because it gives me virgins. I gather the rose from the thorns, the gold from the earth, and the pearl from the shell.” He compares marriage to thorns, earth, and shells; things that are either harmful or have no value in and of themselves. The Early Church Fathers even argued among themselvs whether human beings would have procreated sexually before the Fall. They wondered if man would have procreated spiritually in Paradise. After the Fall, they speculated, God had cursed man by forcing him to “rut like the beasts.” In all likelihood, they viewed celibacy as a higher state because marital sex had a damaging effect on the soul. A virgin was pure; a married person was stained. (“Sex is like murder, it’s sinful, except in extreme circumstances, like self defense or marriage. Just close your eyes and focus on procreation!” John Zmirak. )

My question is, has the Church officially condemned the views of #3? Have they simply fallen out of fashion, or have they been suppressed by the Church? Can a Catholic believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness, as the Early Church did, or is this view no longer permitted? Must a Catholic hold to the interpretation presented in #2, or is this interpretation optional?

It’s interesting to see what people think.

 

[spencer2]

The church fathers speculation about spiritual procreation has no logic or reason to back it up. If humans were to create spiritually before the fall then they would not have had sexual organs. So after the fall God would have had to fashion their organs to now create like lustful beast. I think the fathers speculation about marriage being dirty or detrimental to spirituality is because pleasure is involved with the act.

 

[Lancer]

First, I recommend that you read the** Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)** to refine what you think that the Catholic Church teaches on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

To assist…here is the applicable table of contents for The Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony1601-1666 ARTICLE 7: THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1602-1620 I. Marriage in God’s Plan
1621-1624 II. The Celebration of Marriage
1625-1637 III. Matrimonial Consent
1638-1642 IV. The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony
1643-1654 V. The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love
1655-1658 VI. The Domestic Church
1659-1666 IN BRIEF

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

​

Second, here is what the CCC…(note: it is actually Our Lord Jesus himself that teaches this directly)…about Virginity versus the Sacrament of Matrimony:

Re Virginity…

Virginity for the sake of the Kingdom
1618****Christ is the center of all Christian life. The bond with him takes precedence over all other bonds, familial or social.113 From the very beginning of the Church there have been men and women who have renounced the great good of marriage to follow the Lamb wherever he goes, to be intent on the things of the Lord, to seek to please him, and to go out to meet the Bridegroom who is coming.114** Christ himself has invited certain persons to follow him in this way of life, of which he remains the model:**

"For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."115
115: (Matthew 19:12)
​

AND

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is** he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will**.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:

• Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119

Third, here is what the the opening para. of CCC opens with on Conjugal Love:

V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE
1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul;** it demands *indissolubility ***and *faithfulness *in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152

AND

The unity and indissolubility of marriage
1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: "so they are no longer two, but one flesh."153 …
http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1645.htm');

1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."155 *Polygamy *is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.156

Bottom Line: if there is one “organization” in the history of the world that “hits it right on the nail” re: Man and Woman and Matrimony Conjugal Love and Family…it is the Catholic Church…bar-none…or in baseball terms:…the Catholic Church has “knocked this one out of the park and into eternity”!!

Pax Christi

 

[Melchior_1]

This sort of reinforces a theory I have that there’s no such thing as new heresies. Tertullian got involved with something called Montanism.

A quick note on Montanism; a stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in Orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage, and even the dissolution of some marriages.

Yeah, they didn’t like sex. And due to falling in with these people is why Tertullian will likely never be canonized, despite being one of the foremost writers in the early Church.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The church fathers speculation about spiritual procreation has no logic or reason to back it up. If humans were to create spiritually before the fall then they would not have had sexual organs. So after the fall God would have had to fashion their organs to now create like lustful beast. I think the fathers speculation about marriage being dirty or detrimental to spirituality is because pleasure is involved with the act.

That’s an intriguing thought.

 

[valient_Lucy]

First, I recommend that you read the** Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)** to refine what you think that the Catholic Church teaches on the Sacrament of Matrimony.

I’ve already read it numerous times.

I’ve also read the Roman Catechism (the Catechism published after the Council of Trent) and it has a **very different **introduction to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

*As it is the duty of the pastor to seek the holiness and perfection of the faithful, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself, that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquillised and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things. * The Catechism of Trent.

The words increase and multiply, which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. The Catechism of Trent

Granted, the Roman Catechism was published after the Protestant Reformation, so this defense of continence makes sense. Protestant Christians thought (and still think very highly) of marriage and sex, and have never thought very highly of continence. It’s perfectly understandable that the Catholic Church felt the need to defend the goodness of continence and consecrated virginity against the heresy of the Reformation. **There was no need to defend marriage against the Protestant Reformers, since Protestants have always thought very positively of marriage and sex, **indeed, even more positively than Catholics, due to their heavy reliance on the Bible, the suppression of the veneration of saints, the lack of respect for the Church Fathers, etc.

Bottom Line: if there is one “organization” in the history of the world that “hits it right on the nail” re: Man and Woman and Matrimony Conjugal Love and Family…it is the Catholic Church…bar-none…or in baseball terms:…the Catholic Church has “knocked this one out of the park and into eternity”!!

Pax Christi

I agree wholeheartedly that the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses a very positive view of marriage and conjugal love. However, this view is very different than the understanding of the Church in previous eras. Now, this makes sense, since the Church is responding to something that she never had to face before and never anticipated: the total breakdown of marriage and families in the greater societies.

My question is, are these teachings override and reverse the previous ideas of the Early Church? Were the early teachings simply speculations that were not binding on Catholics? Have they been condemned as heresy? Or are they still acceptible positions for Catholics to take?

 

[valient_Lucy]

This sort of reinforces a theory I have that there’s no such thing as new heresies. Tertullian got involved with something called Montanism.

A quick note on Montanism; a stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and church discipline than in Orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage, and even the dissolution of some marriages.

Yeah, they didn’t like sex. And due to falling in with these people is why Tertullian will likely never be canonized, despite being one of the foremost writers in the early Church.

I’m confused. Are you saying that St. Augustine and St. Jerome were preaching Montanism? Or that the Early Church was Montanist?

 

[bingbang]

I think this line of thinking is perpetuated by the way Catholics view sex. They are told that it is so bad to have sex before marriage for so long that many keep the view that sex is bad and dirty even within marriage.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I think this line of thinking is perpetuated by the way Catholics view sex. They are told that it is so bad to have sex before marriage for so long that many keep the view that sex is bad and dirty even within marriage.

Sorry but that is such a biased view based on nothing but a perpetuated stereotype (and no, we’re not the ones really perpetuating it).

 

[valient_Lucy]

Sorry but that is such a biased view based on nothing but a perpetuated stereotype (and no, we’re not the ones really perpetuating it).

 

[valient_Lucy]

I think this line of thinking is perpetuated by the way Catholics view sex. They are told that it is so bad to have sex before marriage for so long that many keep the view that sex is bad and dirty even within marriage.

I don’t think that believing that sex before marriage necessarily means that a religion believes that sex is bad.

Jews believe that sex within marriage is a mitzvah, or a commandment and good deed. They wrote about marriage in the book of Proverbs, telling a man to be faithful to his wife “May her breasts satisfy thee at all times, may you be forever captivated by her love!” (paraphrased from the KJV). While the early Church advised Christians to abstain from sex for three days before receiving communion, the great Jewish rabbis advised married couples to have sex on the Sabbath.

I think it has to do with “Why does a person or religious belief teach that sex outside of marriage is bad?” The early Church seems to have taught that sex outside of marriage was bad because sex was bad, and keeping it within marriage was a way of making an allowance for human weakness and minimizing the spiritual damage that it caused. “If you insist on smoking, please do it on the balcony.”

Now the Church now teaches an understanding more in line with a Protestant (and probably Jewish) understanding of sex. The teaching is that sex within marriage is sacred, and that sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration. They are taught that human sexuality is a gift for your spouse, and that sex within marriage is worth waiting for, and you should save yourself for your spouse, ideas that are, quite frankly, very Protestant.

It’s possible in earlier times Catholics did feel that sex even within marriage was dirty or bad, and after their wedding night, curled up in the fetal position screaming “Unclean! Unclean! I want my innocence back!” For them, sex was a dangerous animal, and if you couldn’t kill it,(live celibately) you had to treat it very carefully, since it would probably kill you (send you to Hell.)

I doubt that Catholics today, who are taught that sex within marriage is sacred and sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration, that human sexuality is a gift, and you should share this wonderful gift with your spouse, would have that reaction.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I don’t think that believing that sex before marriage necessarily means that a religion believes that sex is bad.

Jews believe that sex within marriage is a mitzvah, or a commandment and good deed. They wrote about marriage in the book of Proverbs, telling a man to be faithful to his wife “May her breasts satisfy thee at all times, may you be forever captivated by her love!” (paraphrased from the KJV). While the early Church advised Christians to abstain from sex for three days before receiving communion, the great Jewish rabbis advised married couples to have sex on the Sabbath.

I think it has to do with “Why does a person or religious belief teach that sex outside of marriage is bad?” The early Church seems to have taught that sex outside of marriage was bad because sex was bad, and keeping it within marriage was a way of making an allowance for human weakness and minimizing the spiritual damage that it caused. “If you insist on smoking, please do it on the balcony.”

Now the Church now teaches an understanding more in line with a Protestant (and probably Jewish) understanding of sex. The teaching is that sex within marriage is sacred, and that sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration. They are taught that human sexuality is a gift for your spouse, and that sex within marriage is worth waiting for, and you should save yourself for your spouse, ideas that are, quite frankly, very Protestant.

It’s possible in earlier times Catholics did feel that sex even within marriage was dirty or bad, and after their wedding night, curled up in the fetal position screaming “Unclean! Unclean! I want my innocence back!” For them, sex was a dangerous animal, and if you couldn’t kill it,(live celibately) you had to treat it very carefully, since it would probably kill you (send you to Hell.)

I doubt that Catholics today, who are taught that sex within marriage is sacred and sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration, that human sexuality is a gift, and you should share this wonderful gift with your spouse, would have that reaction.

Which brings me back to my original question. The Catholic Church has now adopted the Protestant understanding of human sexuality (that it is a gift from God, that sex within marriage is sacred, and that sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration). However is a Catholic required to accept this interpretation, or can they continue to believe the more ancient understanding of sex (“If you insist on having sex, please do so only within marriage.”)?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Which brings me back to my original question. The Catholic Church has now adopted the Protestant understanding of human sexuality (that it is a gift from God, that sex within marriage is sacred, and that sex outside of marriage is an act of desecration). However is a Catholic required to accept this interpretation, or can they continue to believe the more ancient understanding of sex (“If you insist on having sex, please do so only within marriage.”)?

To put it another way, can a Catholic believe, as the early Church believed, that marital sex is a necessary evil, and therefore incompatible with a life of holiness and prayer? Or must they believe, as the modern Church teaches, that marital sex is a positive good, and not incompatible with a life of holiness and prayer?

 

[davidv]

To put it another way, can a Catholic believe, as the early Church believed, that marital sex is a necessary evil, and therefore incompatible with a life of holiness and prayer?

No, and the Church never taught what you say she did.

Or must they believe, as the modern Church teaches, that marital sex is a positive good, and not incompatible with a life of holiness and prayer?

 

[valient_Lucy]

To put it another way, can a Catholic believe, as the early Church believed, that marital sex is a necessary evil, and therefore incompatible with a life of holiness and prayer?

No, and the Church never taught what you say she did.

I’m sorry to disillusion you David, but the Church absolutely did teach this. To say otherwise is to cling to an idea without any historical basis in fact. It’s no different than saying that the early Church denied the Real Presence. I grant that it would be fantastic if the early Church had understood the idea that human sexuality was a gift from God, and that sex within marriage was good. I wish it was true. I want it to be true. But it’s simply not true.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m sorry to disillusion you David, but the Church absolutely did teach this. To say otherwise is to cling to an idea without any historical basis in fact. It’s no different than saying that the early Church denied the Real Presence. I grant that it would be fantastic if the early Church had understood the idea that human sexuality was a gift from God, and that sex within marriage was good. I wish it was true. I want it to be true. But it’s simply not true.

So, given the historical fact that the early Church thought that marital sex was a necessary evil and incompatible with holiness, the question is, has this idea been condemned as a heresy? Is there any chance the Church will return to this teaching or has this idea rightfully been thrown in the garbage? I want to make sure there’s no chance that the Church will ever teach these ideas again.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m confused. Are you saying that St. Augustine and St. Jerome were preaching Montanism? Or that the Early Church was Montanist?

I’m not saying that at all

Only Tertullian fell into heresy. He had three distinct periods of his writings:

1. Orthodox period. where everything was awesome.
2. Semi-montanist, where although his writings weren’t heretical you could tell something was amiss.
3. Montanist, where Tertullian proceeds to jump the shark into full blown heresy.

Out of the Church Fathers only Tertullian fell into this, which is why he isn’t considered a Saint. Several other Church Fathers objected to Montanism, and they had to fight another heresy formed by those who called themselves “Tertullianists”.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catholic Church has not “taught” that marital relations was evil. Marriage and marital relations were not an “evil”. Even if certain individuals did not have a fully developed understanding of the nature of marriage…(for example some may have seen that venial sins accompanied the act…whereas while this can be the case it need not be… but heck such sins can easily accompany going out to eat or other aspects of life…) it has been seen as good and taught as such by the Church.

Marriage is a Sacrament even…

The various heresies that have come up thru history that said marital sex and procreation was evil were condemned by the Catholic Church.

While it is true that from Christ and from Paul and then onward… esteemed celibacy for the sake of Kingdom… marriage was not an evil nor was marital relations. In fact there has been the “marital debt” where there is an obligation in justice to marital relations …we even find this in Paul who highly recommended celibacy…but who still said to each his own gift.

( nor has the Church adopted a “protestant view” of marriage…)

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between what “The Church” believed and taught at a macro level, and what “the churches” (i.e., individual experiences at the parish level) may have taught or been in the last hundred years or so.

It has occasionally been discussed in various threads, and it has also my own experience as late as the 1950’s, that parishes staffed by religious orders whose roots were Northern European may have had a more rigorist, puritanical, “colder” approach to marital intimacy than, say, religious orders whose roots were Mediteranean in origin. It has certainly been true that at various times and places people have developed the idea from exposure to such ideas that, for example, a couple who were intimate on a Saturday night couldn’t receive Communion the following day. This is not to say that “The Church” ever taught that, but such ideas did develop. So at a “micro” level I believe that peoples’ exposure to certain attitudes could have led to the belief that “marital sex was incompatible with holiness.”

Also, Victorian attitudes infiltrated society, and even in non-catholic circles, there were attitudes that a “good wife” did not enjoy “the act,” and coupling that with what at times may have been a certain “ambiguity” in teaching at the parish / pre-Cana level, it’s not hard to believe that over time “impressions” built up regarding negative attitudes within Catholicism about marital relations.

I think it’s clear today that marital sex is surely not incompatible with holiness.

 

[Rence]

I’ve already read it numerous times.

I’ve also read the Roman Catechism (the Catechism published after the Council of Trent) and it has a **very different **introduction to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

*As it is the duty of the pastor to seek the holiness and perfection of the faithful, his earnest desires must be in full accordance with those expressed by the Apostle when writing to the Corinthians: I would that all men were even as myself, that is, that all should embrace the virtue of continence. No greater happiness can befall the faithful in this life than to have their souls distracted by no worldly cares, the unruly desires of the flesh tranquillised and restrained, and the mind fixed on the practice of piety and the contemplation of heavenly things. * The Catechism of Trent.

The words increase and multiply, which were uttered by the Lord, do not impose on every individual an obligation to marry, but only declare the purpose of the institution of marriage. Now that the human race is widely diffused, not only is there no law rendering marriage obligatory, but, on the contrary, virginity is highly exalted and strongly recommended in Scripture as superior to marriage, and as a state of greater perfection and holiness. The Catechism of Trent

Thank you. Unfortunately if I say that, like somewhere else not too far away on this forum, than I am the one who doesn’t understand what I am reading I’d like to see how those who enjoy contradicting me would like to interpret the above. Oh yeah, wait, they didn’t bother to correct my “confused” interpretation of the quote from the Scriptures that I actually did provide. I wonder if that means they haven’t got a different one

I agree wholeheartedly that the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses a very positive view of marriage and conjugal love. However, this view is very different than the understanding of the Church in previous eras. Now, this makes sense, since the Church is responding to something that she never had to face before and never anticipated: the total breakdown of marriage and families in the greater societies.

My question is, are these teachings override and reverse the previous ideas of the Early Church? Were the early teachings simply speculations that were not binding on Catholics? Have they been condemned as heresy? Or are they still acceptible positions for Catholics to take?

If these teachings override or reverse the previous ideas of the Early Church would depend on how conservative or traditional the Catholic is. I read the most outrageous and outdated things here and it’s fascinating because I’ve never met someone so conservative in real life. Only in the movies. I would think the council teachings would have been meant to be binding unless ‘corrected’ elsewhere later? I doubt they’ve been condemned as heresy because it would have ramifications on those who created those teachings in the past. But I don’t think that they are acceptible positions for Catholics to take. I think it’s like many other things written for our learning pleasure: written in a different time, in a different place, by very different (congregation of medieval and highly conservative men) people.

But obviously the teaching approach has to be different and needed to change, because you’re right, the total breakdown of marriage and families in the greater societies is well on its way. Why would people get married if it’s taboo to enjoy sex whether married or single? If I had a choice of enjoying sex married or single, it’d be single hands down. I choose to be chaste because that’s how I was raised, but it’s not hard to understand why others are not…among other things (like hard work and much effort) marriage is expensive, and even more expensive is divorce. And someone who is not properly catechized (sp?) will look at all the restrictions on marriage that are imposed and not want to bother with all of it – or ignore them.

I don’t know about where you are Lucy, but those who truly know the rules of marriage as dictated by the Church are very rare where I am, and I don’t know too many who know the teachings but actually follow those rules where I used to live — and 500 miles away after I moved. Artificial contraception is the most well known and indisputable example. That’s a lot of space between to encounter the same views of marriage.