Can Catholics believe that marital sex is incompatible with holiness?

[Bookcat]

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. … 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.

This is simply not the case. See my post up above.

It was not the teaching of the Church. Marriage…Marital relations …are not evil. And the Church has repeatedly condemned the various heresies that have risen that have thought this…

Sex within marriage is good. … it has been the teaching and understanding that Marriage is a good. Even Paul who esteemed and recommended celibacy said that the marriage bed was to be undefiled and that “no sin” to marry…and that one does well to marry…that each has his own special gift from God…(in I Cor chapter 7)

 

[valient_Lucy]

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

The Church in America has certainly adopted the language of Protestants when it comes to sexual ethics. Take a look at the chastity tab on Catholic Answers. The home page of the Pure Love Club uses a lot of Protestant language to describe chastity. “Romance without regrets,” “you’re worth waiting for,” etc… this is Protestant jargon. I’ve even heard Catholic teenagers and young adults talking about “saving themselves for marriage.” This is Protestant jargon that stems from a Protestant understanding of sexual ethics.

Even today, I was listening to Father Corapi on the radio. He talked about how fornication is a sin because sex within marriage is sacred. Protestants would understand this explaination, but I’m not sure that the early Church would agree with his reasoning.

 

[valient_Lucy]

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.

Actually, the Catechism of Trent says that couples should abstain from the marital act for three days before receiving communion.

The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion. This observance is recommended by the example of David, who, when about to receive the show bread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from women for three days.

The Catechism of Trent.

**The priests and religious who advised married couples to abstain from communion if they had engaged in sex the night before were following the *official teachings *and practices of the Church at the time. **

The Catechism of Trent, or the Roman Catechism, remained in effect until 1992, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published. Any priest in the 1950’s who advised a couple to receive communion the day after marital relations was **no different **than a priest today who tells a couple they can use contraception. He was going against the official teachings and practices of the time.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is simply not the case. See my post up above.

It was not the teaching of the Church.
Sex within marriage is good. … it has been the teaching and understanding that Marriage is a good.

Why should I take your word for it? Can you provide any evidence that this was the teaching of the Early Church?

 

[Rence]

This is simply not the case. See my post up above.

It was not the teaching of the Church. Marriage…Marital relations …are not evil. And the Church has repeatedly condemned the various heresies that have risen that have thought this…

Sex within marriage is good. … it has been the teaching and understanding that Marriage is a good. Even Paul who esteemed and recommended celibacy said that the marriage bed was to be undefiled and that “no sin” to marry…and that one does well to marry…that each has his own special gift from God…(in I Cor chapter 7)

Bookcat, you’ve always made a big effort to explain things and always try to be helpful. So can you please explain to me how the quotes from the Council of Trent are not teachings of the Church? Were these things quoted by Lucy from the Council of Trent condemned as heresies? and when?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Bookcat, you’ve always made a big effort to explain things and always try to be helpful. So can you please explain to me how the quotes from the Council of Trent are not teachings of the Church? Were these things quoted by Lucy from the Council of Trent condemned as heresies? and when?

Thank you. I would also like to know when the Council of Trent was condemned as a heretical council.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, you’ve always made a big effort to explain things and always try to be helpful. So can you please explain to me how the quotes from the Council of Trent are not teachings of the Church? Were these things quoted by Lucy from the Council of Trent condemned as heresies? and when?

Nothing in the teachings of the Council of Trent teach that marriage nor marital relations are sinful or evil.

I was not talking about teachings of the Trent…but of those views that from time to time arouse in history that said that marriage etc was evil. Which of course the Church does not teach.

The Church teaches rather that marriage is a sacrament …and as Paul puts it the marriage bed was to be undefiled and that “no sin” to marry…and that one does well to marry…that each has his own special gift from God…(in I Cor chapter 7)

 

[valient_Lucy]

Nothing in the teachings of the Council of Trent teach that marriage nor marital relations are sinful or evil.

I was not talking about teachings of the Trent…but of those views that from time to time arouse in history that said that marriage etc was evil. Which of course the Church does not teach.

Of course the Church doesn’t teach this now. I’m not denying that. No one is.

I brought up the Catechism of Trent (published after the Council of Trent) because another poster spoke of the “misguided notion” that couples should abstain from communion the day after the marital act. However, the Catechism of Trent specifies that couples should abstain from marital relations **three days ** before receiving communion. This was the official teaching and practice of the Church. To say that it was only misguided, prudish priests and nuns who taught so is simply incorrect.

 

[Bookcat]

The Church in America has certainly adopted the language of Protestants when it comes to sexual ethics. Take a look at the chastity tab on Catholic Answers. The home page of the Pure Love Club uses a lot of Protestant language to describe chastity. “Romance without regrets,” “you’re worth waiting for,” etc… this is Protestant jargon. I’ve even heard Catholic teenagers and young adults talking about “saving themselves for marriage.” This is Protestant jargon that stems from a Protestant understanding of sexual ethics.

Even today, I was listening to Father Corapi on the radio. He talked about how fornication is a sin because sex within marriage is sacred. Protestants would understand this explaination, but I’m not sure that the early Church would agree with his reasoning.

The use of some terms by chastity groups etc which are borrowed from protestants is not “the Church in America”…but the choice of those who write such things…and there is nothing wrong with such.

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.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, the Catechism of Trent says that couples should abstain from the marital act for three days before receiving communion.

The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion. This observance is recommended by the example of David, who, when about to receive the show bread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from women for three days.

The Catechism of Trent.

**The priests and religious who advised married couples to abstain from communion if they had engaged in sex the night before were following the *official teachings ***and practices of the Church at the time.
.

Not teachings…disciplines. Modes of life.

Whatever “disciplines” that have been in effect at different times in history…such does not mean that sex in marriage was sinful. Rather the custom of abstaining during special times “for the sake of prayer” is seen in the writings of Paul who allows such for a period “for the sake of prayer”.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism of Trent, or the Roman Catechism, remained in effect until 1992, when the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published. Any priest in the 1950’s who advised a couple to receive communion the day after marital relations was **no different **than a priest today who tells a couple they can use contraception. He was going against the official teachings and practices of the time.

Actually …it doe not work like that. It is not like canon law…that 1917 code being in effect (with various adaptations) until the 1983 code was put into effect…

the culture and practice of the 16th century was certainly different than the 1950s.

 

[Bookcat]

Why should I take your word for it? Can you provide any evidence that this was the teaching of the Early Church?

Just read Paul for example…

 

[Bookcat]

Abstaining from Marital relations prior to Holy Communion… does not mean marital relations were sinful…anymore than abstaining from food from midnight or even an hour as it is now…means that food is sinful.

It was the practice “for the sake of prayer” and in prep. for Holy Communion…

also during periods of time in the year “for prayer” for intense periods of prayer …

and during certain feasts etc…

again it was not that sex in marriage was sinful…anymore than food was evil…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Why should I take your word for it? Can you provide any evidence that this was the teaching of the Early Church?

Just read Paul for example…

Why were St. Paul’s writings about marriage and sex seemingly ignored by the Church Fathers?

The Early Church Fathers speculated that sex was a curse, a result of the Fall. If the Church has always clearly taught throughout the ages that marital relations were good, then how on earth could they even entertain the idea that they were a result of the Fall, like pain, disease, or death?

That seems a lot more like a reversal of doctrine than a development of doctrine.

 

[Bookcat]

Why were St. Paul’s writings about marriage and sex seemingly ignored by the Church Fathers?

The Early Church Fathers speculated that sex was a curse, a result of the Fall. If the Church has always clearly taught throughout the ages that marital relations were good, then how on earth could they even entertain the idea that they were a result of the Fall, like pain, disease, or death?

That seems a lot more like a reversal of doctrine than a development of doctrine.

If certain individuals got some things wrong…well that’s all there was to it…(supposing that some may have) …some writers in the early years did make mistakes.

 

[Bookcat]

Lets look at a moral manual for confessors from 1961 by Jone…it directly notes regarding holy times and the like …that marital relations are fine anytime…and it notes even that such is fine the night before communion…

(long before the CCC came out)

Of course the author would I am sure be right in step with the idea that it can be very good to abstain for some time for prayer…or even prior to Holy Communion …or on special days or even seasons…again…as Paul puts it “for the sake of prayer”…not cause it is sinful…

for such can certainly still be a practice.

 

[Bookcat]

So marital relations are good and not sinful (though one can sin…) as is taught by the Catholic Church.

And as Paul mentions…it can be good for a married couple to abstain “for the sake of prayer” …for certain periods of time.

Not cause marital relations are sinful of course…(regarding sins…he says put off all the ways of sin…not just abstain for a time)…this is not cause it is sinful (he says it is not a sin to marry even directly at one point…and each has his gift)…but “for the sake of prayer”…

And this has been a good practice within the Church ever since…

though one is not obliged to this …it can be an agreed upon thing by spouses for the sake of prayer…and has been used in certain seasons etc of the Church for ages…

remembering of course that outside of some special vocation…the couple it of course resume their martial relations afterwards…as Paul notes…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Just read Paul for example…

Bookcat, how do you explain St. Jerome’s understanding of First Corinthians 7?

*It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness. He would never have added let each man have his own wife, unless he had previously used the words but, because of fornications. Do away with fornication, and he will not say let each man have his own wife. *

*Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves unto prayer. What, I pray you, is the quality of that good thing which hinders prayer? Which does not allow the body of Christ to be received? So long as I do the husband’s part, I fail in continency. The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. *

St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 Chapter 12
newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

In these passages, St. Jerome says the following:

1 Abstaining from sex is good, engaging in sex is bad.
2 God tolerates the sin of sex within marriage in order to prevent a worse sin, sex outside of marriage. But sex within marriage has only a “slight degree of goodness.” In other words, sex within marriage is understood as the way many Protestants understand masturbation. “Well, it’s not good, but it’s better than fornication.”
3 If a husband has sex with his wife, he cannot pray.

If, as you claim, the Church has always taught that sex within marriage was good and was not incompatible with holiness, then why was St. Jerome’s writings not condemned as heresy

 

[davidv]

Bookcat, how do you explain St. Jerome’s understanding of First Corinthians 7?

*It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. But surely a thing which is only allowed because there may be something worse has only a slight degree of goodness. He would never have added let each man have his own wife, unless he had previously used the words but, because of fornications. Do away with fornication, and he will not say let each man have his own wife. *

*Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves unto prayer. What, I pray you, is the quality of that good thing which hinders prayer? Which does not allow the body of Christ to be received? So long as I do the husband’s part, I fail in continency. The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray. *

St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 Chapter 12
newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm

In these passages, St. Jerome says the following:

1 Abstaining from sex is good, engaging in sex is bad.

No, he doesn’t not say that. If fact He says the opposite. (form article 3)

For ourselves, we do not follow the views of Marcion and Manichæus, and disparage marriage; nor, deceived by the error of Tatian, the leader of the Encratites, do we think all intercourse impure;

2 God tolerates the sin of sex within marriage in order to prevent a worse sin, sex outside of marriage. But sex within marriage has only a “slight degree of goodness.” In other words, sex within marriage is understood as the way many Protestants understand masturbation. “Well, it’s not good, but it’s better than fornication.”

God is good and does not tolerate any sin. Your claim to the contrary is fallacious.

3 If a husband has sex with his wife, he cannot pray.

If, as you claim, the Church has always taught that sex within marriage was good and was not incompatible with holiness, then why was St. Jerome’s writings not condemned as heresy

Because they are not heresy. You have misinterpreted Jerome to say things he did not say.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I always try to be fair and give credit where credit is due. I just wanted to point out that the Early Church’s negative attitude towards marital sex actually did, as a result, raise the status of women. It respected women who did not marry, thus giving her status apart from being a wife.

The opposite of this can be seen in the Protestant Reformation. As Protestant Christianity elevated the status of marriage, women lost status.