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

[wanner47]

spin-off from this thread…

You are incorrect. The Church has taught that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation.

You are mistaken. For Church, sexuality had two ends: procreation and ease of temptation. The second one, according to then current theology, came after the fall of Adam. The only natural reason for sexuality is procreation, and this stance was the only one prior to 19th Century. A lot of bizarre theological phenomena is linked to it, but for now, let’s just repeat that Catholic Church saw no connection between sexuality and love of the spouses. You could have loved woman, without having relations with her.

This is different from the ONLY purpose. Read the article I linked above, noting that the Church in the 1800’s said it was acceptable for couples to abstain during fertile periods to avoid pregnancy. This ruling, in the affirmative, predates Casti Connubi by many decades.

As I mentioned, Church stance begun to crumble in 19th Century. Main reason is probably secular pressure. It would be difficult for Church to defend the idea that sex is only for procreation after French Revolution changed the situation in the field. The bizarre problem is that bishops simply chose to ignore the original teaching, leaving Church vulnerable to criticism.

Church taught that sex is only for procreation, and each intercourse must be done with intent of begetting a child. Relations on infertile day were not forbidden, if the intent was begetting. But if you are having intercourse on the infertile day-because it is infertile day- you are sinning. This was the teaching until 19th Century.

I don’t have time right now to thoroughly debunk this nonsense, anyone else want to take a stab at it?

 

[PatrickSebast]

So…how exactly is anyone supposed to discuss this if he doesn’t site what writings by the Church fathers or which Church council declared this? Just have him show what makes him believe the Church taught differently, if he can’t then the argument is over. If he finds something, then it is worth discussing.

 

[Beloved2010]

Blessed John Paul II wrote Love and Responsibility. This contains a proufound reflection on sex. I don’t remember all of it, but I do some of it. In short, God ordained marriage primarily for procreation. Spouses are united as one flesh and are called to help each other obtain salvation.

Besides procreation, Bl. John Paul II stresses that spouses should strive to experience a deep personal intimacy through the act of sex. In fact without striving for this we demean this blessed and prayerful act to a mere sharing of sexual pleasure. Sex is indeed the greatest prayer and act that spouses can share. In this sense it is an icon of Trinitarian love. The Father gives Himself perfectly to the Son, who receives Him perfectly and gives Himself perfectly back to the Father, and the love that they share is the Holy Spirit. The love that they share produces the Third Person. Similarly, the husband gives himself totally to his wife as the wife perfectly receives that love and gives it back. The love that they share, namely in the act of sex, produces a third person, a child.

I recommend reading the following: Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love (Dr. Edward Sri took Love and Responsibility and wrote it for the laity. Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners is also a good one where he did the same for Theology of the Body.

 

[Chrono13]

I am ready to discuss this topic, but I have a moral issue before.

Some of the arguments presented during this discussion might irritate the faith of certain people. It is not my goal to do so. I consider myself Roman Catholic, and as such, I have duty to protect my religion and brethren who share the truth of Jesus Christ. People who commited sacrifices in order to be faithful to certain teachings and theological explanations deserve praise and respect, not critical approach.

On the other hand, I do believe such conversations are needed, and that nothing is stronger then faith Christ gave us. After all, what they might read here, they will sooner or later meet from other sources. Some not so “Catholic” as me.

Let moderators decide whether this thread should stay. I am more then sure that people who know what I am talking about understand the perils of discussion being “too open”. Hopefully, they will also understand my care for the well being of the Church. After all, most Catholics won’t go nuts over such things.

 

[edwest2]

This is simply not true.

janetsmith.excerptsofinri.com/

Peace,
ed

 

[benidict]

I am ready to discuss this topic, but I have a moral issue before.

Some of the arguments presented during this discussion might irritate the faith of certain people. It is not my goal to do so. I consider myself Roman Catholic, and as such, I have duty to protect my religion and brethren who share the truth of Jesus Christ. People who commited sacrifices in order to be faithful to certain teachings and theological explanations deserve praise and respect, not critical approach.

On the other hand, I do believe such conversations are needed, and that nothing is stronger then faith Christ gave us. After all, what they might read here, they will sooner or later meet from other sources. Some not so “Catholic” as me.

Let moderators decide whether this thread should stay. I am more then sure that people who know what I am talking about understand the perils of discussion being “too open”. Hopefully, they will also understand my care for the well being of the Church. After all, most Catholics won’t go nuts over such things.

Brother, if you are not agreeing with the party line. Prepare to be slandered and have your sources bypassed. Even if what you are saying is true, It will not matter. My prayers for you, and Hopes that people will listen to what you are saying. Peace

 

[Chrono13]

Brother, if you are not agreeing with the party line. Prepare to be slandered and have your sources bypassed. Even if what you are saying is true, It will not matter. My prayers for you, and Hopes that people will listen to what you are saying. Peace

To speak the truth, I couldn’t care less for “usual defenders” of party line. They don’t last long once the real stuff begins. I care about people less involved in the subject, who follow the teaching because of modesty and obedience. Maybe even more then rationality of teaching itself. Such souls should not be disturbed.

 

[Rock_Happy]

To speak the truth, I couldn’t care less for “usual defenders” of party line. They don’t last long once the real stuff begins. I care about people less involved in the subject, who follow the teaching because of modesty and obedience. Maybe even more then rationality of teaching itself. Such souls should not be disturbed.

There is a party line here. The purpose of the site is to expand upon and promote a very narrow view of Catholicism. As long as you understand that, you will be fine and things will make sense.

 

[wanner47]

There is a party line here. The purpose of the site is to expand upon and promote a very narrow view of Catholicism. As long as you understand that, you will be fine and things will make sense.

If by “narrow” you mean “correct,” then I agree.

Still waiting for proof that the Church’s teaching about sex changed in the 19th century…

 

[Chrono13]

There is a party line here. The purpose of the site is to expand upon and promote a very narrow view of Catholicism. As long as you understand that, you will be fine and things will make sense.

I am new here, so I don’t know. I intend to have maximum respect for other forum members, no matter how broad or narrow their mind is.

 

[Chrono13]

If by “narrow” you mean “correct,” then I agree.

Still waiting for proof that the Church’s teaching about sex changed in the 19th century…

If I am right, how do you think this might affect people?

 

[wanner47]

If I am right, how do you think this might affect people?

If you are right, and the Church changed its teaching, it means that the Gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the Church and Jesus was a liar. It means that Christianity is a false religion and that there is no God.

Which makes me grateful that you are entirely incorrect. I’m just waiting for you to provide proof of your claims.

 

[Chrono13]

If you are right, and the Church changed its teaching, it means that the Gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the Church and Jesus was a liar. It means that Christianity is a false religion and that there is no God.

Which makes me grateful that you are entirely incorrect. I’m just waiting for you to provide proof of your claims.

Actually, this is the answer I was afraid I’d hear. If I am right, people will think Catholic Church is false religion and leave. It is not my interest to do such thing. I have faith which can sustain certain facts, but it is unconventional faith, and it took time for me to embrace such gift of the Lord.

I’d rather surrender to narrow minded, then threat his soul. Narrow mind is the fruit if this world. Soul, of that one beyond.

 

[PatrickSebast]

Actually, this is the answer I was afraid I’d hear. If I am right, people will think Catholic Church is false religion and leave. It is not my interest to do such thing. I have faith which can sustain certain facts, but it is unconventional faith, and it took time for me to embrace such gift of the Lord.

I’d rather surrender to narrow minded, then threat his soul. Narrow mind is the fruit if this world. Soul, of that one beyond.

No one is going to leave the Church because they couldn’t answer one single post on a message board full of posts where people have questioned or attacked the Church.

 

[davidv]

Actually, this is the answer I was afraid I’d hear. If I am right, people will think Catholic Church is false religion and leave. It is not my interest to do such thing. I have faith which can sustain certain facts, but it is unconventional faith, and it took time for me to embrace such gift of the Lord.

I’d rather surrender to narrow minded, then threat his soul. Narrow mind is the fruit if this world. Soul, of that one beyond.

Does Truth matter to you?

The Church teaches the truth because it teaches that which she received from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

So, if you have it, please provide evidence that what was once said to be true and now is said to be false or was once said to be false and is now said to be true.

 

[Warrior1979]

If you are right, and the Church changed its teaching, it means that the Gates of Hell did indeed prevail against the Church and Jesus was a liar. It means that Christianity is a false religion and that there is no God.

I disagree with your conclusions; those are extreme positions. A simple way to simply dispute your conclusions is the fact that there is more than one Church with Apostolic lineage that differ on fundamental issues, including moral ones. Did the Gates of Hell prevail against these other Church? It would’ve had to according to your philosophy, since the have differences with the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, this is the answer I was afraid I’d hear. If I am right, people will think Catholic Church is false religion and leave. It is not my interest to do such thing. I have faith which can sustain certain facts, but it is unconventional faith, and it took time for me to embrace such gift of the Lord.

I’d rather surrender to narrow minded, then threat his soul. Narrow mind is the fruit if this world. Soul, of that one beyond.

So you’re saying that you’d rather that a billion people stick to something which isn’t true, or isn’t true the way we’ve been taught (by the Church ITSELF) to believe, rather than actually tell the truth?

Oh come on. Tell us the truth. Why assume a billion people can’t be given YOUR gifts too?

 

[benidict]

I disagree with your conclusions; those are extreme positions. A simple way to simply dispute your conclusions is the fact that there is more than one Church with Apostolic lineage that differ on fundamental issues, including moral ones. Did the Gates of Hell prevail against these other Church? It would’ve had to according to your philosophy, since the have differences with the Roman Catholic Church.

Would you be speaking about the Orthodox perchance? that does raise some interesting questions in itself. Different thread though.

 

[Rock_Happy]

If by “narrow” you mean “correct,” then I agree.

Still waiting for proof that the Church’s teaching about sex changed in the 19th century…

Not sure about sex, but its teachings on slavery changed in the 19th century. Many Catholics like to rationalize things away, but the historic record is clear.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Not sure about sex, but its teachings on slavery changed in the 19th century. Many Catholics like to rationalize things away, but the historic record is clear.

The historic record is clear, all right. . .and the teaching did NOT change in the 19th century. The Church has always been against chattel slavery.