Can Catholics believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness?

[Bookcat]

Getting to the question per se:

Q.

Can Catholics believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness?

A.

No they may not. For The Church teaches: "…Christian spouses, in virtue of the sacrament of Matrimony, whereby they signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and His Church,(Cf. Eph. 5:32.) help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children. By reason of their state and rank in life they have their own special gift among the people of God (Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 7). Dogmatic Constitution on the Church LG 11 Second Vatican Council

 

[valient_Lucy]

A married woman can reach a higher state of holiness than a Carmelite nun!

If this is the case, then why is marriage often described as a concession for human weakness? How exactly does viewing marriage and family as a crutch for weak Christians ennoble it?

 

[Bookcat]

If this is the case, then why is marriage often described as a concession for human weakness? How exactly does viewing marriage and family as a crutch for weak Christians ennoble it?

It is not. Not by the Church. The Church does not view it that way. Period.

One must not mix up some writings of some members of the Church particularly from ages from ages past with the teachings of the Catholic Church…

Such is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Bookcat]

How exactly does viewing marriage and family as a crutch for weak Christians ennoble it?

It is not viewed this way by the Catholic Church. Period.

This is how the Church views Marriage:

…Christian spouses, in virtue of the sacrament of Matrimony, whereby they signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and His Church,(Cf. Eph. 5:32.) help each other to attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children. By reason of their state and rank in life they have their own special gift among the people of God (Cf. 1 Cor. 7, 7).–Lumen Gentium 11

 

[valient_Lucy]

One must not mix up some writings of some members of the Church particularly from ages past with the teachings of the Catholic Church…

So where is the line between what the Early Church taught and what the Early Church Fathers taught? That’s a dangerous distinction to draw.

 

[Bookcat]

So where is the line between what the Early Church taught and what the Early Church Fathers taught? That’s a dangerous distinction to draw.

Some Fathers were wrote very well on the subject:

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us… I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. (§ 2365 CCC)

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

St. Ambrose, De viduis 4,23L 16,255A Quoted in CCC. ( 4th Century…300’s)

…

Nope not dangerous. Just reality. Just cause a Church Father said or wrote something…does not mean it was per se Church Teaching. Many wrote and said things that the Church does not except… This is just simply a fact. Many things were speculative or personal takes on things…or not a full developed understanding…

This is why the Church has Peter…the Fathers are wonderful and can very much reflect the Tradition…but not in each case…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Some Fathers were wrote very well on the subject:

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us… I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. (§ 2365 CCC)

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

St. Ambrose, De viduis 4,23L 16,255A Quoted in CCC. ( 4th Century…300’s)

…

Nope not dangerous. Just reality. Just cause a Church Father said or wrote something…does not mean it was per se Church Teaching. Many wrote and said things that the Church does not except… This is just simply a fact. Many things were speculative or personal takes on things…or not a full developed understanding…

This is why the Church has Peter…the Fathers are wonderful and can very much reflect the Tradition…but not in each case…

Bookcat, I’m not asking what the Church teaches today. I’m asking what Catholics in the early centuries of the Church taught. Do we have a copy of the Catechism from the year 450?

Unfortunately, the only way to know what the Church taught during the early centuries is to read the Church Fathers.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Nope not dangerous. Just reality. Just cause a Church Father said or wrote something…does not mean it was per se Church Teaching.

So in other words, “Just because a Church Father said or wrote something about the Real Presence doesn’t mean the Early Church actually taught the Real Presence.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

So, where did the negativity come from during previous centuries? I know that’s a difficult question to answer, but let’s just take the Early Church Fathers. I’ve heard several different ideas (they thought the world would end soon, they were influenced by Stoicism, etc) but I’m curious to know where the negativity came from, and when that started to change.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Oh, someone on another thread had said that it was St. Thomas Aquinas who was seen as settling the question over whether or not sex was a part of the curse of the Fall or whether God intended us to procreate in that fashion. Is this true?

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, I’m not asking what the Church teaches today. I’m asking what Catholics in the early centuries of the Church taught. Do we have a copy of the Catechism from the year 450?

Unfortunately, the only way to know what the Church taught during the early centuries is to read the Church Fathers.

Well…one sees even in the examples of the Church Church Fathers I quoted above…

And Sacred Scripture…Sacred Tradition…Church Councils…and the Teachings of the Church as she teaches today…which while they are going to have developed and deepened are going to be from the same deposit of the Faith from the beginning…(again a Church Father who makes a mistake or under-understands something does not reflect the teaching of the Church)…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well…one sees even in the examples of the Church Church Fathers I quoted above…

And Sacred Scripture…Sacred Tradition…Church Councils…and the Teachings of the Church as she teaches today…which while they are going to have developed and deepened are going to be from the same deposit of the Faith from the beginning…(again a Church Father who makes a mistake or under-understands something does not reflect the teaching of the Church)…

I guess the question is then “How does the development of doctrine work?”

 

[Bookcat]

So in other words, “Just because a Church Father said or wrote something about the Real Presence doesn’t mean the Early Church actually taught the Real Presence.”

Just cause a Church Father said or taught something --does not mean that the Church taught something…but with the Eucharist that is a teaching of the New Testament …Paul …and yes there are witnesses of it all over the place in the Early Church Fathers…The Church has taught this and handed it on from the beginning…

The teaching regarding Marriage too is clear from Sacred Scripture and we find it in early Church Fathers and the Church has taught that it is a good…a sacrament even (which is a holy thing…not a sinful thing)…

It is just simple that this is part of DIVINE REVELATION and has been taught by the Church…Marriage is from God.

The fact that some in their focus on the defense of the great good of virginity … may have expressed things too far the other way…(I have not gone to much into reading the context…even if some say something incorrect…)…does not make it Church teaching.

It is PART OF DIVINE REVELATION

 

[Bookcat]

I guess the question is then “How does the development of doctrine work?”

Here this will help: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#III

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33062

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=6188&date=2010-04-26

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

The goodness of marriage was taught from the beginning…certainly we have delved deeper and deeper into the mystery etc just like with the Eucharist…it was taught from the beginning by the Church and through the ages we have deepened our understanding…

I will not be able to say much more. For I am “leaving on Jet plane” as the song goes and will be away for the next 2 weeks…

Take care and say a prayer for my trip if you think of it

 

[valient_Lucy]

Here this will help: vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#III

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33062

catholic.com/radio/event.php?calendar=1&category=&event=6188&date=2010-04-26

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

The goodness of marriage was taught from the beginning…certainly we have delved deeper and deeper into the mystery etc just like with the Eucharist…it was taught from the beginning by the Church and through the ages we have deepened our understanding…

I will not be able to say much more. For I am “leaving on Jet plane” as the song goes and will be away for the next 2 weeks…

Take care and say a prayer for my trip if you think of it

Have a good trip. I remembered you in my Chaplet of Divine Mercy last night.

 

[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.

Actually, I don’t think that this theory is so implausible, **if you choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. **

Think of it this way. Before the Fall, if there was no death, then there would have been no need for predators. This means that either God did not create cats (or lions or wolves or sharks) before the Fall, or he had to radically redesign them before the Fall. If they were created exactly as they are now, then they would have been created with useless features, such as sharp teeth.

So it is entirely plausible (working from a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis) to conclude that man could have procreated spiritually before the Fall and that sexual reproduction after the Fall.

That being said, I don’t agree with this because I don’t believe in Young Earth Creationism.

However, I could see how someone, working from the book of Genesis, could conclude that human sexual reproduction is a result of the Fall. It’s perfectly logical, working from that basis.

 

[Geaux_LSU]

The Church though has not “adopted the views of protestants on marriage”…she professes what she received from God…and has deepened in understanding and articulating down through the ages.

So true! There is nothing “Protestant” about speaking the truth, regardless of what denomination it is spoken from. Coming from a protestant background, I appreciate the “saving yourself for marriage” sermons my pastor would give at my old church; and looking back, I’ve come to realize it was basically JPII’s TOB put in layman’s terms. Truth is truth…

 

[tafan]

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.”)?

I will grant you that your original question is intriguing. However, you give Protestants way too much credit; it was Protestants who adopted very puritanical ideas about sex early on. And now, since the 1930s they have stripped sex of at least half of its meaning and purpose, that is hardly “thinking highly of it” and thankfully the Catholic Church has emphatically not adopted a Protestant understanding of human sexuality.