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

[Rock_Happy]

Show me where St. Augustine taught this ‘infallibly’ and that the ‘slaves’ referenced were chattel slaves.

You are just being obstinate and silly now. The citation is listed. He said it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, where there is hysteria, there is something more at stake than the truth. At least that is my experience in life.

There is a long historic trail on the subject of slavery, and the Church did not reach consensus until around 1960 with Vatican II. Prior to that, it was all over the place, and clearly supported slavery until the late 1800’s, as did most societies. Don’t yell at me if your historic sense is different than mine. We just differ in our opinion.

On the subject of marriage, I could bore everyone with citations regarding “Pauline Privilege” dating from the 16th century through the early 20th century. It would be a long and tedious discussion, but the bottom line is that the Church changes its teachings over time on fundamental moral issues. That is my opinion. Don’t take it personally, if yours differs.

My goodness, where ever do you see hysteria?

No dear, we don’t ‘differ in our opinion’. You have a lot of wrong facts and you aren’t tossing in anything but your own unsupported opinion.’

I don’t ‘yell’ at anybody but then again, I try not to use innuendo, ‘loaded language’ and other little not-so-subtle attempts at ad hominems.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You are just being obstinate and silly now. The citation is listed. He said it.

"Obstinate and silly’. Not exactly the most respectful way to address somebody with whom you disagree.

I never said he didn’t say it. I asked you to show me where this was infallible teaching.

Every word that St. Augustine ever said is not **infallible Catholic teaching. **

 

[Rock_Happy]

My goodness, where ever do you see hysteria?

No dear, we don’t ‘differ in our opinion’. You have a lot of wrong facts and you aren’t tossing in anything but your own unsupported opinion.’

I don’t ‘yell’ at anybody but then again, I try not to use innuendo, ‘loaded language’ and other little not-so-subtle attempts at ad hominems.

Let me understand you. You dismiss the acts of Popes and of statements of saints to defend your own personal agenda, whatever that is. You engage preposterous speech, and then deny your culpability, and all is right in your world. At this point, how much credibility do you think you have at all?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let me understand you. You dismiss the acts of Popes and of statements of saints to defend your own personal agenda, whatever that is. You engage preposterous speech, and then deny your culpability, and all is right in your world. At this point, how much credibility do you think you have at all?

You obviously don’t understand me at all. I have no idea what prompted this diatribe but I’m not going to derail a thread over it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Meanwhile, back to the thread topic. I agree with wanner, the Catholic Church most certainly did NOT change its teaching on the purpose of sex in the 19th century.

 

[edwest2]

Well, where there is hysteria, there is something more at stake than the truth. At least that is my experience in life.

There is a long historic trail on the subject of slavery, and the Church did not reach consensus until around 1960 with Vatican II. Prior to that, it was all over the place, and clearly supported slavery until the late 1800’s, as did most societies. Don’t yell at me if your historic sense is different than mine. We just differ in our opinion.

On the subject of marriage, I could bore everyone with citations regarding “Pauline Privilege” dating from the 16th century through the early 20th century. It would be a long and tedious discussion, but the bottom line is that the Church changes its teachings over time on fundamental moral issues. That is my opinion. Don’t take it personally, if yours differs.

I think you should provide supporting documents. The slavery issue is presented well here:

christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/julyweb-only/7-14-53.0.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Chrono13]

Second, the Church has not changed its teaching on marriage and its purpose:

Catechism of St. Thomas:

"Matrimony has a threefold good. The first is the birth of children and the educating of them to the worship of God. The second is that fidelity which one must render to the other; and the third is that it is a Sacrament, or, in other words, the indivisibility of Matrimony which shows forth the indivisible union of Christ and His Church. " sounds like marriage is not only for kids (In Genesis, God made Eve because Adam needed a suitable partner AND to procreate)

This is usual mislead of “traditional” approach. We are not talking about marriage, but marital sex. These two are not the same, and have been approached differently- hence theological threefold can not be connected with marital sexuality.

“Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice” Sounds like the unitive purpose of sex to me

Thomas is often mysterious about his real points. Usually because he didn’t expect people will cherrypick his writings searching for arguments. First question is what makes sexuality venial sin, and what harmed with more serious one? Thomas is most probably repeating St. Augustine’s view that sex without exclusive intent of begetting is venial sin, and using contraception mortal one.

Second question is why would “mutual comfort” be act of justice, and not of love. I am open to alternatives but it seems that Thomas is referring to marital act as legal duty to relieve spouse of sexual tension. This was common approach up to 20th Century. It was legal for a man to say to his wife “I can’t control my sexual desire. Let’s have a relation without intent of begetting a child, only to stop me from making a sin”. But it was not seen as justice to say “I love you, and I want to have an intimate realtion with you as a sign of love”.

Lastly, with regards to the fertile periods, I know of no Church document or statement that has ever condemned what we call now NFP. Remember also that it wasn’t discussed as much prior to the 20th century because of how much worse the technology was. Nowdays, NFP is like 99% effective if done correctly because it is no longer just the rythm method

St. Augustine made very strong remark that heretics are known for calculating their fertility period after menstruation. The topic was not discussed, because it was considered settled.

 

[Chrono13]

In the text regarding contraception on CA website (catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp) we read:

*It should be noted that some of the Church Fathers use language that can suggest to modern ears that there is no unitive.aspect to marital intercourse and that there is only a procreative.aspect. It is unclear whether this is what some of them actually thought or whether they are intending simply to stress that sexual activity becomes immoral if the procreative.aspect of a given marital act is deliberately frustrated. However that may be, over the course of time the Church has called greater attention to the unitive.aspect of marital intercourse, yet it remains true that the procreative.aspect of each particular marital act must not be frustrated. *

What is the author of the text referring to? What seems to be unclear? If Church Fathers he cites for his argument are claiming there is no unitive role of marital act, what does it really mean in practice? What does it mean that sex is “not unitive” in their writings, and what are concrete quotes that are unclear?

When, and how, did Church begin to stress that sex is unitive part of marital bond?

 

[Chrono13]

On the subject of marriage, I could bore everyone with citations regarding “Pauline Privilege” dating from the 16th century through the early 20th century. It would be a long and tedious discussion, but the bottom line is that the Church changes its teachings over time on fundamental moral issues. That is my opinion. Don’t take it personally, if yours differs.

I’d like you to bore me with that, at least on Private Message if you don’t intend to share it with the flock of the forum.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’ve been following this thread and at risk at sounding obtuse, would it be possible for the principals involved to clarify the theological grade of certainty of the doctrine being debated? As we talking about de fide dogmas? Sententia probabilis teachings? Or is the matter somewhere in between?

Furthermore, is is possible to clarify what is meant by change? Are we speaking about meaningful or substantive changes (e.g. major changes to the nature of the teaching) or subsidiary changes (e.g. refinements, clarifications and expansions)?

 

[TomD123]

“St. Augustine made very strong remark that heretics are known for calculating their fertility period after menstruation. The topic was not discussed, because it was considered settled.”

The Church would not consider something settled because of one theologian’s comments. When the Church wants to settle issues that are really important, they do so usually through some encyclical or council that addresses the entire Church and is more formal, not just letting Augustine talk and then going on with it.

I think that the Church has emphasized different aspects of sexuality differently but that doesn’t mean anything has changed. We know that sex is not merely for procreation and I have yet to see one official Church statement that seems to indicate that procreation was the only purpose to sex. The Church again did not discuss the use of fertility periods before as much because in the past this was much less effective and people had more children.

Remember, the fathers are not authority, the authority is the Church.

 

[benidict]

Let me understand you. You dismiss the acts of Popes and of statements of saints to defend your own personal agenda, whatever that is. You engage preposterous speech, and then deny your culpability, and all is right in your world. At this point, how much credibility do you think you have at all?

I happen to agree with this. What they are doing my friend, is holding the party line, despite, clear evidence to the contrary. I think there is a major problem here.

 

[TrueLight]

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 wa

iting for you to provide proof of your claims.

I have never understood how whether the church changed its teaching or not, then the Gates of Hell prevailed. Ultimately, God wins.

 

[wanner47]

I happen to agree with this. What they are doing my friend, is holding the party line, despite, clear evidence to the contrary. I think there is a major problem here.

Why do you say this? I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary, let alone *clear *evidence.

 

[TrueLight]

I’d like you to bore me with that, at least on Private Message if you don’t intend to share it with the flock of the forum.

No, don’t make it private. I’d like to see too.

 

[wanner47]

I have never understood how whether the church changed its teaching or not, then the Gates of Hell prevailed. Ultimately, God wins.

Because if the Church changed its mind, it meant that at one time She taught error. If the Church ever teaches error to its people, if She ever gives Her people permission to sin against God, then I would say that the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church.

Jesus founded ONE Church upon Peter the Rock. That Church has continued to teach for the past 2,000 years. It’s amazing, when you think about it. Sin still exists, and that’s clearly evident when you look at all the people who have chosen to sin and split from the true Church – the Orthodox, the Reformers, etc. – so that they could continue in their sin. If you look at these Churches, all of them have changed their moral teachings at one point. What used to be a sin (e.g., contraception, divorce) is no longer a sin. But the Church has never done this. Her doctrines have developed over time, but they have not done a 180 on any doctrinal teaching that pertains to faith and morals.

 

[TrueLight]

Because if the Church changed its mind, it meant that at one time She taught error. If the Church ever teaches error to its people, if She ever gives Her people permission to sin against God, then I would say that the Gates of Hell have indeed prevailed against the Church.

Jesus founded ONE Church upon Peter the Rock. That Church has continued to teach for the past 2,000 years. It’s amazing, when you think about it. Sin still exists, and that’s clearly evident when you look at all the people who have chosen to sin and split from the true Church – the Orthodox, the Reformers, etc. – so that they could continue in their sin. If you look at these Churches, all of them have changed their moral teachings at one point. What used to be a sin (e.g., contraception, divorce) is no longer a sin. But the Church has never done this. Her doctrines have developed over time, but they have not done a 180 on any doctrinal teaching that pertains to faith and morals.

The Orthodox has changed their teaching more than the Catholic church? I don’t think they would agree with that.

What I’m saying is supposed the church decides that a couple can get married and not be open to life, for example, especially if they are older. It doesn’t mean the primary purpose of sex is not still procreation (and intimacy) within a marriage. It just means that every rule has exceptions and maybe a special dispensation may be in order.

I don’t see how that means the gates of hell have prevailed. I believe this kind of thinking creates crises of faith.

The Church grows in understanding the same way it grew in understanding of the Trinity. It doesn’t mean the Church was wrong before the Trinity was more fully defined.

 

[benidict]

Why do you say this? I’ve yet to see any evidence to the contrary, let alone *clear *evidence.

Evidence has been provided on this topic, and many others. When this happens, A blind eye is turned to it, and The sources are maligned, reguardless or how correct they may be. If you wish to ignore what has been given, so be it. I truly do not care. I have come my self to some conclusions, that have led me to abandon the congregation, and just stay home. I have the Rosary, I have the prayers of the Church I can recite. I also have my faith in Christ. I for one, am done with the organized aspect of Catholicism. There are other options. Many monks have lived alone, and done just fine, without the structure. I will be adopting many aspects of this method in the years to come. Among others. Peace.

 

[TrueLight]

Evidence has been provided on this topic, and many others. When this happens, A blind eye is turned to it, and The sources are maligned, reguardless or how correct they may be. If you wish to ignore what has been given, so be it. I truly do not care. I have come my self to some conclusions, that have led me to abandon the congregation, and just stay home. I have the Rosary, I have the prayers of the Church I can recite. I also have my faith in Christ. I for one, am done with the organized aspect of Catholicism. There are other options. Many monks have lived alone, and done just fine, without the structure. I will be adopting many aspects of this method in the years to come. Among others. Peace.

This is a perfect example of the type of crisis of faith I talked about in the post right before this.