Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century

[Rock_Happy]

Bolding added.

There is nothing wrong with your interest/discussion on papal bulls or papal authority as long as you are able to connect it as it relates to, or in the context of, the OP, which is about the purported change of Church teaching on the purpose of sex in the 19th century. I believe this was what Tantum Ergo was explaining earlier to you.

Now, you are inserting a topic that is further away from the OP: the history of the Jewish badge, which sounds like an insinuation of some unsavory connection by the Church with the item (of the Jewish badge).

One only has to read a sampling of your posts (not that hard to do as you are a new CAF member) to glean that you are no fan of the Catholic Church nor her teachings.

Although I don’t see the relation of the Jewish badge in this thread, I offer at the end of my post a linked article for your review to augment your efforts in “sniffing around” for the specific topic that you brought up. It is always good to get a balanced account of controversial issues that non-Catholics like to raise in this forum.

If you are talking about the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 which decreed identifying badges for Jews, you would be served by a good and balanced research of the historical account of the Crusades. That is the backdrop of the said ‘anti-Jewish’ decree.

The discussion of it is past midway in the linked article, The Church And The Jews In The Middle Age

On this note, I hope we all can go back to discussion of the OP.
,

Sorry. It was just a realization that struck me. I lost some sleep over this one. I imagine a thread on the role which the Catholic Church played in the formation of Nazi ideology and practices might be considered too incendiary here, but the implications of these Papal bulls is very disturbing. I will leave it at that. My intent was that Church moral teachings have changed drastically in the area of how non-Catholics are regarded and treated. I think that is relevant to the topic of the OP, who cites a purported specific example.

 

[benidict]

Sorry. It was just a realization that struck me. I lost some sleep over this one. I imagine a thread on the role which the Catholic Church played in the formation of Nazi ideology and practices might be considered too incendiary here, but the implications of these Papal bulls is very disturbing. I will leave it at that.

Your right. Probably for the best.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

At this point I feel that this thread has been sufficiently derailed as to compromise it’s usefulness. Individuals who would use CAF to search for an answer on the OP would find it difficult to navigate through all the disarray of commentary.

Furthermore, there seems to be a penchant by some posters on CAF to actively eulogize their views (as well as a need to get in the last word) to the detriment of reasoned discourse. I fail to see how repetition of provocative doctrinaire statements can assist others in understanding their viewpoint. I am no longer comfortable in continuing as I feel the current discussion direction has been incited to undermine the confidence of beliefs rather than promote factuality. Time to for me to presss the eject (unsubscribe) button.

 

[benidict]

At this point I feel that this thread has been sufficiently derailed as to compromise it’s usefulness. Individuals who would use CAF to search for an answer on the OP would find it difficult to navigate through all the disarray of commentary.

Furthermore, there seems to be a penchant by some posters on CAF to actively eulogize their views (as well as a need to get in the last word) to the detriment of reasoned discourse. I fail to see how repetition of provocative doctrinaire statements can assist others in understanding their viewpoint. I am no longer comfortable in continuing as I feel the current discussion direction has been incited to undermine the confidence of beliefs rather than promote factuality. Time to for me to presss the eject (unsubscribe) button.

OK, Your (name removed by moderator)ut has been most welcome. Peace to you. And God speed.

 

[Rock_Happy]

At this point I feel that this thread has been sufficiently derailed as to compromise it’s usefulness. Individuals who would use CAF to search for an answer on the OP would find it difficult to navigate through all the disarray of commentary.

Furthermore, there seems to be a penchant by some posters on CAF to actively eulogize their views (as well as a need to get in the last word) to the detriment of reasoned discourse. I fail to see how repetition of provocative doctrinaire statements can assist others in understanding their viewpoint. I am no longer comfortable in continuing as I feel the current discussion direction has been incited to undermine the confidence of beliefs rather than promote factuality. Time to for me to presss the eject (unsubscribe) button.

OK, so back to the OP. The OP stated that the Church has changed it moral teachings over time, by stating that the teachings on sex had changed substantively in the 19th century. As the thread expounded on the topic (or derailed in some people’s opinion), the point was made that the Church has changed its moral teachings in other areas, which may have some relevance to the OP’s point, since the OP seemed no longer interested in expounding on that specific example. Three examples have been given which appear to show clear changes in the Church’s moral teaching: sexual values; slavery; and antisemitism. Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the Church’s moral teachings are static, or shall we get into more topics which show clearly how the Church changes its moral teachings over time in response to social pressure?.

 

[paperwight66]

No, I question. Why are you so afraid of people who Question? What is your fear? Are you afraid to examine yourself, and your beliefs? Heres another thing. If A Bishop by himself is failable, then a group of Bishops is a failable group. There is no way they are Infailable. sorry.

Dear benidict, the words are ‘fallible’ and ‘infallible’. They have been spelled correctly in many posts answering yours. Please do not mislead us with this ‘failable’ and ‘infailable’ stuff. The subject is nothing to do with failing.

 

[benidict]

Dear benidict, the words are ‘fallible’ and ‘infallible’. They have been spelled correctly in many posts answering yours. Please do not mislead us with this ‘failable’ and ‘infailable’ stuff. The subject is nothing to do with failing.

Oh my. Did I mispell a word? Is this a mortal sin? Noted. I mispelled a word. I shall correct it. Thank you.

 

[benidict]

history.ac.uk/reviews/review/497

I found this interesting.

 

[Chrono13]

Ouch.

It is so frustrating to see a good discussion blown away by something that certainly isn’t the issue. I haven’t been here for cca. 15 hours, only to see that topic of sexuality became topic on Jews.

In any case, I will reply to those posts long ago made which actually have something with the title. Hopefully, people will follow.

 

[wanner47]

No, I question. Why are you so afraid of people who Question? What is your fear? Are you afraid to examine yourself, and your beliefs? Heres another thing. If A Bishop by himself is failable, then a group of Bishops is a failable group. There is no way they are Infailable. sorry.

Do you know the difference between “questioning” and “dissent”?

Questioning - “Why does the Catholic Church teach X about Y?”

Dissent - “The Catholic Church teaches X about Y, and it is wrong.”

You do the latter, not the former.

I’m not afraid of questioning. I don’t even mind dissent by non-Catholics. What irritates me is dissent by Catholics. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, why are you Catholic? When I came to the conclusion that the Lutheran Church taught error, I left it; I didn’t stay within the ELCA and try to remake it in my own image.

If you believe the bishops are a group of sinful reprobates who teach error all the livelong day, and that the Pope is the same, why are you Catholic? I honestly don’t understand.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Do you know the difference between “questioning” and “dissent”?

Questioning - “Why does the Catholic Church teach X about Y?”

Dissent - “The Catholic Church teaches X about Y, and it is wrong.”

You do the latter, not the former.

I’m not afraid of questioning. I don’t even mind dissent by non-Catholics. What irritates me is dissent by Catholics. If you don’t believe what the Church teaches, why are you Catholic? When I came to the conclusion that the Lutheran Church taught error, I left it; I didn’t stay within the ELCA and try to remake it in my own image.

If you believe the bishops are a group of sinful reprobates who teach error all the livelong day, and that the Pope is the same, why are you Catholic? I honestly don’t understand.

Wanner47, what if there is an objective moral standard which disagrees with the infallible statements of the Magesterium, a standard which is higher than them? There are Christians who would point to places in the bible which are in disagreement with the Church pronouncements, in their opinion. Would not the bible be a more likely source of such a standard, than a pronouncement of a group of men, or a document produced by them? This is a roundabout way of posing the question of the possibility that more than one Christian sect is correct. Certainly, the Catholic Church is comprised of more than 40 Church’s. If the only source of the Church’s sole authority is the Church itself… well there is a problem, there. Or would you disagree? Why is the Church slower to change its doctrine on issues of social justice, such as slavery. St Thomas Aquinas stated quite clearly that slavery was supported by the words of Jesus. By 1963, the statements of the Church were in opposition to St Thomas Aquinas, and during the 1800’s the Church was sadly lacking in trying to keep up with more progressive Protestant denominations on the subject of human slavery. If any reasonable person, who is acquainted with history would agree that the moral development of Church doctrine is one of slow but persistent change to conform to societal pressure and new scientific knowledge, then what is the point of an infallible statement, which will only change at some future time?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Wanner47, what if there is an objective moral standard which disagrees with the infallible statements of the Magesterium, a standard which is higher than them? There are Christians who would point to places in the bible which are in disagreement with the Church pronouncements, in their opinion. Would not the bible be a more likely source of such a standard, than a pronouncement of a group of men, or a document produced by them? This is a roundabout way of posing the question of the possibility that more than one Christian sect is correct. Certainly, the Catholic Church is comprised of more than 40 Church’s. If the only source of the Church’s sole authority is the Church itself… well there is a problem, there. Or would you disagree? Why is the Church slower to change its doctrine on issues of social justice, such as slavery. St Thomas Aquinas stated quite clearly that slavery was supported by the words of Jesus. By 1963, the statements of the Church were in opposition to St Thomas Aquinas, and during the 1800’s the Church was sadly lacking in trying to keep up with more progressive Protestant denominations on the subject of human slavery. If any reasonable person, who is acquainted with history would agree that the moral development of Church doctrine is one of slow but persistent change to conform to societal pressure and new scientific knowledge, then what is the point of an infallible statement, which will only change at some future time?

Well, one problem is that words don’t always mean the same things from time to time.

“Prayer” means something very different to many Protestants. . .and that meaning is a narrow and ‘modern’ meaning.

When St Thomas spoke on slavery, one must remember:
His words did not carry magsterial authority, i.e. infallibility from that perspective of the Deposit of the Faith.
The definition of ‘slave’ was not the same then as now. Slavery itself was a different institution from country to country, place to place, and indeed year to year. . .

And WHEN did the BIBLE become both self-interpreting and the ultimate authority? Certainly the Bible does not claim this for itself.

I know it would be comforting for some to assume that every word spoken by St. Augustine was to be believed infallibly and for all time. . .(or St. Thomas, or any ‘Catholic writer’ or even any Catholic Pope speaking not on matters of faith and morals as a teaching to be held by Catholics), because then one could gleefully point out errors in everything from ‘science’ to ‘history’ to ‘civics’ etc. etc. and say, “See, see, they were wrong, they teach wrong things, they aren’t what they claim, nyah nyah nyah”.

But that of course would be an entirely wrong inference to take about the Catholic Church, its teachings, and what exactly those teachings are.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh drat. Must go run an errand. Back later!

 

[wanner47]

Wanner47, what if there is an objective moral standard which disagrees with the infallible statements of the Magesterium, a standard which is higher than them?

The only higher standard is Jesus Christ Himself, and given that He told the Church that whatever they bind on earth, they bind on Heaven…

There are Christians who would point to places in the bible which are in disagreement with the Church pronouncements, in their opinion.

Their opinion is mistaken.

Would not the bible be a more likely source of such a standard, than a pronouncement of a group of men, or a document produced by them?

The Bible is also a document produced by the Church, albeit written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This is a roundabout way of posing the question of the possibility that more than one Christian sect is correct.

All religions have elements of truth. The Catholic Church, however, contains the fullness of truth.

Certainly, the Catholic Church is comprised of more than 40 Church’s.

Uh… no, it’s not. It’s one Church. By the way, the correct form of pluralization for “church” is “churches” – “church’s” is the possessive form; i.e., “the church’s one foundation”.

If the only source of the Church’s sole authority is the Church itself… well there is a problem, there.

The source of the Church’s authority is Jesus Christ.

Why is the Church slower to change its doctrine on issues of social justice, such as slavery.

The Church never changed its doctrine on chattel slavery, as established earlier in this thread.

St Thomas Aquinas stated quite clearly that slavery was supported by the words of Jesus.

Proof, please?

By 1963, the statements of the Church were in opposition to St Thomas Aquinas, and during the 1800’s the Church was sadly lacking in trying to keep up with more progressive Protestant denominations on the subject of human slavery.

Also not true. catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

If any reasonable person, who is acquainted with history would agree that the moral development of Church doctrine is one of slow but persistent change to conform to societal pressure and new scientific knowledge,

A conclusion that no reasonable person acquainted with Catholic history would come to…

what any reasonable person then what is the point of an infallible statement, which will only change at some future time?

There are no infallible statements that have later “changed”.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Is this too uncomfortable an issue for you? I guess Rock Happy can start at thread on this if you would like. I would like too, but He has alot more knowledge about this it seems.

No. What is uncomfortable is that the topic, among others, gets inserted and ensuing discussion derails the thread, perhaps not knowingly by a new poster. It is certainly a discourtesy when the practice persists by those who have been posting in this forum long enough.

I don’t presume that Rock Happy is not knowledgeable in other matters, but on the subject he brought up, he did indicate he was ‘sniffing around’ and had tentative information.

As for you, sir, you seem to be ‘sniffing around’ for more mud to throw at the Church to which you say you belong. From your own words here, you have little or no faith in the Church. In fact, it is plain here that you reject the Church’s teaching authority on morality.

In threads you participated, and please correct me where I’m wrong, you indicated your disagreements with a number of core teachings on the validity of marriage, abortion and sexuality issues like masturbation. Because of said major differences, please tell us why the statement that you are just masquerading as a Catholic would be untrue.
,

 

[Joel_PF]

OK, so back to the OP. The OP stated that the Church has changed it moral teachings over time, by stating that the teachings on sex had changed substantively in the 19th century. As the thread expounded on the topic (or derailed in some people’s opinion), the point was made that the Church has changed its moral teachings in other areas, which may have some relevance to the OP’s point, since the OP seemed no longer interested in expounding on that specific example. Three examples have been given which appear to show clear changes in the Church’s moral teaching: sexual values; slavery; and antisemitism. Is there anyone on this thread who believes that the Church’s moral teachings are static, or shall we get into more topics which show clearly how the Church changes its moral teachings over time in response to social pressure?.

They are essentially the same, but developments happen over time.

Sex is a case in point. Since most Christian authors were monks or bishops, and celibate, they looked at sex only from an external view. It was a correct view, but lacking in some respects.

The unitive aspect of sex was either ignored or given little attention to - I would not say it was denied, but it was certainly downplayed: your marked division between sex and matrimony seems a little artificial to me, since sex is the distinguishing mark of matrimony, to the point of being an essential part of the Sacrament - I find no reason to assert, as you do, that the “mutual comfort” was seen as having no connection to the marriage bed; if it were so, then this “mutual comfort” would not be much different from that given by friends and family. It is well known, also, that St. Thomas viewed the pleasure of sex as a good thing (in fact, he wrote that in our original Paradise sex would have been even more pleasurable), though he viewed pursuing sex with pleasure as the end as a bad thing (like eating with pleasure as the end). Still, seeing the unitive aspect as “pleasure” is itself a deficient view of sex.

Still, important developments happened, beginning probably as you say in the 19th century, but coming to a complete fruition in the 20th with John Paul II’s theology of the body. Were the cause of these developments social pressures? Sure, with a lot of other factors.

But were they foreshadowed, for instance, in the Bible? Yes, of course. Just look at the Song of Songs. The images of marriage and sex have always been used as symbols for spiritual realities. A stern, puritanical outlook may have somewhat dominated since Trent. It was as a defense against sin, but fell short in pushing married lay couples to a virtuous, saintly life.

Slavery was either seen as a tolerable evil of our fallen state or condemned as wrong (the first to condemn slavery in itself was, as far as I know, St. Gregory of Nyssa). What hasn’t changed is that, even among those who tolerated it, the treatment of slaves in a humane way and their initiation into the Faith has always been a requirement.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The reason you and others are hoping for this to happen, is because way deeeep down inside, you know I and others are correct in our views. That is what you fear. That somehow you may actually on some level, be forced to agree. Even if you do not do so publicly. Think it does not happen? I have already had it happen here, where people who shall remain nameless, agree with me, Yet debate against me publicly. They fear their own. And do not wish to be nailed on CAF. Cant say that I blame them. Its not easy putting your neck out there. And its not easy taking an unpopular view. I never have sought popularity anyhow, so its What ever.

No, sir. Your response to Charlemagne’s post is incorrect. You mistake great disappointment for fear. There have been more than a few CAF members who exerted much effort to explain the teachings in the 18 months you have been with CAF, logging nearly 3800 posts.

Your misunderstandings (and rejection) of Church teachings is not minor. You really expect people to believe your understanding and representation of how ‘people who shall remain nameless’ agree with you but debate you publicly are afraid, do not wish to be nailed on CAF? You undermine Church authority and mischaracterize her positions and teachings. And you are doing it in a Catholic forum, no less.

benidict, you know you will always be welcome in the Church, but you are the one who is placing yourself outside the Church in continually espousing ‘your truths’ and false interpretation of Church position and teachings. No one at CAF is placing you outside of the Church but you.

There is the Christian duty of fraternal correction, which you have been receiving in this forum, not a simplistic response of brothers being judgmental or other CAF members being reactionary. Execution of judgment is reserved for and by God.

In close, I echo Charlemagne’s prayers for you. You are not open to the grace of discernment. Engaging with you in threads is not productive.
,

 

[Rock_Happy]

They are essentially the same, but developments happen over time.

Sex is a case in point. Since most Christian authors were monks or bishops, and celibate, they looked at sex only from an external view. It was a correct view, but lacking in some respects.

The unitive aspect of sex was either ignored or given little attention to - I would not say it was denied, but it was certainly downplayed: your marked division between sex and matrimony seems a little artificial to me, since sex is the distinguishing mark of matrimony, to the point of being an essential part of the Sacrament - I find no reason to assert, as you do, that the “mutual comfort” was seen as having no connection to the marriage bed; if it were so, then this “mutual comfort” would not be much different from that given by friends and family. It is well known, also, that St. Thomas viewed the pleasure of sex as a good thing (in fact, he wrote that in our original Paradise sex would have been even more pleasurable), though he viewed pursuing sex with pleasure as the end as a bad thing (like eating with pleasure as the end). Still, seeing the unitive aspect as “pleasure” is itself a deficient view of sex.

Still, important developments happened, beginning probably as you say in the 19th century, but coming to a complete fruition in the 20th with John Paul II’s theology of the body. Were the cause of these developments social pressures? Sure, with a lot of other factors.

But were they foreshadowed, for instance, in the Bible? Yes, of course. Just look at the Song of Songs. The images of marriage and sex have always been used as symbols for spiritual realities. A stern, puritanical outlook may have somewhat dominated since Trent. It was as a defense against sin, but fell short in pushing married lay couples to a virtuous, saintly life.

Slavery was either seen as a tolerable evil of our fallen state or condemned as wrong (the first to condemn slavery in itself was, as far as I know, St. Gregory of Nyssa). What hasn’t changed is that, even among those who tolerated it, the treatment of slaves in a humane way and their initiation into the Faith has always been a requirement.

I’m not even sure what the OP was at this point because jumping to the first page of this thread takes me to a reply to the OP. Much of the Church’s teachings on sex derive from its views on “Natural Law”. At least that is what I understand. What the Church considers to be Natural Law, or with Nature, or contrary to Nature, is related to what a biologist, psychologist, or other scientist might consider to be nature, but it originated from philosophers many centuries ago, when the boundaries between science, religion and philosophy were all but nonexistent. So, there is this sort of impressionistic concept of the Nature of Man, and Natural Law, which is a reflection of what people thought about these things 10 centuries ago.

It is really surprising how much time is spent discussing mundane issues of sexuality on this site. Many thousands of words are exchanged trying to justify the Church’s position, or to clarify it, or to defend it, etc… because it is so out of sync with the current secular understanding which is more modern, and based more on recent science, along with a very different view of nature. It seems to me that the real arguments start when this theological notion of natural law gets garbled up with the more scientific views of human nature, as if a set of theological axioms are somehow in conflict with experimental data. The argument is nonsensical. Yet, there is this desire to validate theology with science and logic, perhaps because religion has historically filled in the gaps where science did not have answers. Now that the two diverge farther and farther, there is not much point in trying to reconcile one to the other. This is one of the challenges faced by many religious groups over the topic of evolution, and why discussions on evolution are banned here. In the areas of sexuality, there is not nearly as much concrete and observable evidence as in biology, so there is more ground for speculation, as we see here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rock
**
It is really surprising how much time is spent discussing mundane issues of sexuality on this site. Many thousands of words are exchanged trying to justify the Church’s position, or to clarify it, or to defend it, etc… because it is so out of sync with the current secular understanding which is more modern, and based more on recent science, along with a very different view of nature. It seems to me that the real arguments start when this theological notion of natural law gets garbled up with the more scientific views of human nature, as if a set of theological axioms are somehow in conflict with experimental data. The argument is nonsensical. Yet, there is this desire to validate theology with science and logic, perhaps because religion has historically filled in the gaps where science did not have answers. Now that the two diverge farther and farther, there is not much point in trying to reconcile one to the other. This is one of the challenges faced by many religious groups over the topic of evolution, and why discussions on evolution are banned here. In the areas of sexuality, there is not nearly as much concrete and observable evidence as in biology, so there is more ground for speculation, as we see here. **

Since in the history of the world science is a late comer, the Church has naturally reached out to embrace certain scientific concepts when they help to elucidate or advance the human condition. However, the Church is not a slave to science. For example, the Church has opposed unnatural experiments with science that are destructive or distorting of our human nature, and has rightly opposed science when it has gone off the track of human wisdom. The wisdom of the Church is real, but there is no wisdom at all in science, because science concerns itself with knowledge, not wisdom. Science will do things because it can, not because it should. For examples: nuclear weapons and cloning. The Church opposes both as unnatural reaching of the human intellect into the dark side. On the other hand, the Church would honor any scientific development that contributes to the good health or comfort of the human race.

Medical science has found safer ways to kill the unborn (not at all safe for the unborn). Again, the Church opposes another reach of the human intellect into the dark side.

Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins use the theory of evolution to advance the cause of atheism, when (if they had wisdom) they ought to know that evolution implies no such thing.

You seem to think there is no place for religion or the Church in the modern world, this despite the literal fact that no other institution is able or interested in teaching and preserving public morals. Even the Courts rely upon the moral glue that religions provide to keep society from falling apart.

But I think if there were no religion or Church in the modern world, it is more likely that, in the famous words of Hobbes, even **your life **might be closer to being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rock
**
It seems to me that the real arguments start when this theological notion of natural law gets garbled up with the more scientific views of human nature, as if a set of theological axioms are somehow in conflict with experimental data. The argument is nonsensical.**

Why is it nonsensical? Give us a for instance.