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

  • Thread starter Thread starter wanner47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
wanner47 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something. Do the Orthodox have a Valid Priesthood? Yes or No?
 
benidict said:
Crises of faith my dear friend. No. Lets say an awakening. Peace 👍
Click to expand...
Hello my friend. 🙂

An awakening is what I called it when I drifted into neo-pagan religions at some point in my life. Be careful.
 
wanner47 said:
Because if the Church changed its mind, it meant that at one time She taught error.
Click to expand...
I think this is the crux of the issue. There are those who would argue a change would indicate fallibility (with that being their raison d’etre as to why they are on this board) and use it to discredit Church doctrine. That’s why there is a contention over, in many cases, inconsiderable elements. Also, the term change is being misapplied or magnified. A refinement, clarification or expansion of theological understanding of doctrine is often exploited is an invalidation of Church infallibility in teaching moral truths. There may be a change in the absolute sense (e.g. not* exactly* the same as before) but that not necessarily constitute a substantive change in the context of moral teachings.
 
Why hasn’t anyone actually posted the “very strong comment” from St. Augustine?

*65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.
  1. Moreover, when you are so eager in your desire to prevent the soul from being confined in flesh by conjugal intercourse, and so eager in asserting that the soul is set free from seed by the food of the saints, do you not sanction, unhappy beings, the suspicion entertained about you? For why should it be true regarding corn and beans and lentils and other seeds, that when you eat them you wish to set free the soul, and not true of the seeds of animals? For what you say of the flesh of a dead animal, that it is unclean because there is no soul in it, cannot be said of the seed of the animal; for you hold that it keeps confined the soul which will appear in the offspring, and you avow that the soul of Manichæus himself is thus confined. And as your followers cannot bring these seeds to you for purification, who will not suspect that you make this purification secretly among yourselves, and hide it from your followers, in case they should leave you? If you do not these things, as it is to be hoped you do not, still you see how open to suspicion your superstition is, and how impossible it is to blame men for thinking what your own profession suggests, when you maintain that you set free souls from bodies and from senses by eating and drinking. I wish to say no more about this: you see yourselves what room there is here for denunciation. But as the matter is one rather to repress than to invite remark, and also as throughout my discourse my purpose appears of exaggerating nothing, and of keeping to bare facts and arguments, we shall pass on to other matters.*
It isn’t really a strong condemnation of NFP at all, but a condemnation of a very specific group of people who taught that it was a sin to create a child and and thus trap a soul into a physical form. They had removed the pro-creative aspect of sex entirely. This certainly doesn’t count as clear evidence, and there needs to be an additional source besides Augustine’s teachings because we don’t follow every single thing he said anyway.
 
Oh and what exactly is the proof of a change on slavery? I am reading through this topic and can’t seem to find anything besides “St. Augustine said something about it, which I am not going to post!”

Evidence is not presented until you actually post the evidence so that people can read it in context.
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
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?
Click to expand...
Theological grade is an important part of the subject, but asking absolute clearance about certain decisions would make the whole material inaccessible and communication impossible.

For example, Pope Gregory wrote “Regula Pastoralis”, text targeted as guidance for bishops regarding various topics (sexual bias included). While this text doesn’t have nature of infallibility, it certainly isn’t without pontifical weight. Especially since all bishops accepted his moral doctrines, which puts universal magisterium in game.
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)?
Click to expand...
At this time, for the good of discussion, let’s say that we are speaking of major change of the teaching. With a sidenote that certain people will say this change doesn’t exist, and will probably build their argumentation in that way.
 
Chrono13 said:
Theological grade is an important part of the subject, but asking absolute clearance about certain decisions would make the whole material inaccessible and communication impossible.

At this time, for the good of discussion, let’s say that we are speaking of major change of the teaching. With a sidenote that certain people will say this change doesn’t exist, and will probably build their argumentation in that way.
Click to expand...
A major change to an important teaching is a weighty theological matter and it must be deliberated with all the relevant components. To suggest some materials are inaccessible and not to be included would deny material evidence to support one side or the other. Hence, any conclusions drawn would be questionable at best.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Perception was simply that thing is settled without need for bull, encyclical or council. Texts of Augustine and Church Fathers were seen as tradition, not as suggestion.
I think that the Church has emphasized different aspects of sexuality differently but that doesn’t mean anything has changed.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t mean it has not. Changing the aspect usually changes the weight of fact- and final practice.
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.
Click to expand...
Find one Church document before 19th Century which says sexuality is sign of love.

The Church discussed nature of sexuality, and concluded that procreation is only valid cause for such activity. As such, each act without *intent *to procreate was act of lust.
Remember, the fathers are not authority, the authority is the Church.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Let’s talk about Church.
 
Re: the Orthodox, they do have a valid priesthood and valid Apostolic succession. They have a valid Eucharist.

But they allow contraception (i.e., condoms) and divorce, which is contrary to what they taught up until 1930 or so. 🤷 They have changed moral teaching in that regard.
 
Chrono13 said:
Perception was simply that thing is settled without need for bull, encyclical or council. Texts of Augustine and Church Fathers were seen as tradition, not as suggestion.

It doesn’t mean it has not. Changing the aspect usually changes the weight of fact- and final practice.

Find one Church document before 19th Century which says sexuality is sign of love.

The Church discussed nature of sexuality, and concluded that procreation is only valid cause for such activity. As such, each act without *intent *to procreate was act of lust.

Agreed. Let’s talk about Church.
Click to expand...
Can you find me a Church document prior to the 19th century that said it was a sin for a couple to have sex if they knew a woman was in the infertile phase of her menstrual cycle?
 
PatrickSebast said:
Why hasn’t anyone actually posted the “very strong comment” from St. Augustine?

65. Lastly, there is the symbol of the breast, in which your very questionable chastity consists. For though you do not forbid sexual intercourse, you, as the apostle long ago said, forbid marriage in the proper sense, although this is the only good excuse for such intercourse. No doubt you will exclaim against this, and will make it a reproach against us that you highly esteem and approve perfect chastity, but do not forbid marriage, because your followers—that is, those in the second grade among you—are allowed to have wives. After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage, and makes the woman not a wife, but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion. Where there is a wife there must be marriage. But there is no marriage where motherhood is not in view; therefore neither is there a wife. In this way you forbid marriage. Nor can you defend yourselves successfully from this charge, long ago brought against you prophetically by the Holy Spirit.

It isn’t really a strong condemnation of NFP at all, but a condemnation of a very specific group of people who taught that it was a sin to create a child and and thus trap a soul into a physical form. They had removed the pro-creative aspect of sex entirely. This certainly doesn’t count as clear evidence, and there needs to be an additional source besides Augustine’s teachings because we don’t follow every single thing he said anyway.

Augustine’s line of reasoning is very evident. He, at the same time, attacks heresy by exposing it’s teachings (that procreation is evil, because it entangles souls in flesh) and “correcting” it with his stoic belief that procreation is only “excuse” for intercourse.

Gnostics didn’t use NFP in order to satisfy lust. They used it because of the belief that begetting is evil act, and used contraception to stop it. Augustine claims they got it all wrong. Begetting is the sole reason of sexual activity, and each act done without wish for begetting is “talking a wife for sexual gratification.”

This can be traced in other work of this saint. For example, his idea that genital erection is not under control of ration because of Original Sin.
Click to expand...
 
Chrono13 said:
Find one Church document before 19th Century which says sexuality is sign of love.
Click to expand...
Origen of Alexandria spoke of the unitive nature of sex in a marriage. In his commentaries of Matthew, he expounded…

And even he that withholds himself from his wife often makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy here desires, even though he does so under the greater gravity and self-control. And perhaps this man is more culpable who, so far as it rests with him, makes her an adulteress when he does not satisfy her desires…

It is obvious by reading Origen`s comments that sex was also considered unitive and not only intended as a procreative act.

See Commentaries on Matthew (c. 249 AD)
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
A major change to an important teaching is a weighty theological matter and it must be deliberated with all the relevant components. To suggest some materials are inaccessible and not to be included would deny material evidence to support one side or the other. Hence, any conclusions drawn would be questionable at best.
Click to expand...
By “material which is inaccessible” I didn’t mean evidence for one’s position. Rather, I was referring that we might slip the objective truth if we stress certain issues too much in the topic of contraception.

For example, if you have document in 16th century which claims contraception is evil, opposite side might suggest that NFP was considered contraception in 16th Century (and draw further conclusions from this fact).

Asking this side to provide document which claims NFP *specifically * was considered contraception is simply bypassing the minimum level of objectivity. Documents don’t deal with each and every birth control technique, they deal with theological systems which make them moral or not.
 
wanner47 said:
Can you find me a Church document prior to the 19th century that said it was a sin for a couple to have sex if they knew a woman was in the infertile phase of her menstrual cycle?
Click to expand...
Documents don’t usually deal with specific techniques. The point is that NFP was considered contraception because of Stoic philosophy, and each attack on contraception in the past was an attack to NFP.
 
wanner47 said:
Re: the Orthodox, they do have a valid priesthood and valid Apostolic succession. They have a valid Eucharist.

But they allow contraception (i.e., condoms) and divorce, which is contrary to what they taught up until 1930 or so. 🤷 They have changed moral teaching in that regard.
Click to expand...
So that means, that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the only TRUE Church. there are options, and The two do not agree on some very key points. So to state that The Catholic Church is the One true Chruch, is not than a factual statement. There is another with Equal authority. Correct? Is this what you are saying? Just want to be sure Im clear.
 
benidict said:
So that means, that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the only TRUE Church. there are options, and The two do not agree on some very key points. So to state that The Catholic Church is the One true Chruch, is not than a factual statement. There is another with Equal authority. Correct? Is this what you are saying? Just want to be sure Im clear.
Click to expand...
No, I did not say that. A valid priesthood does not = equal authority. It’s clear from early Church writings that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over the whole Church and was NOT merely “first among equals” as the Orthodox claim.
 
wanner47 said:
No, I did not say that. A valid priesthood does not = equal authority. It’s clear from early Church writings that the Bishop of Rome had supreme authority over the whole Church and was NOT merely “first among equals” as the Orthodox claim.
Click to expand...
So are you saying a Church CAN split from Rome, and still have a valid priesthood? And a valid Eucharist?
 
benidict said:
So are you saying a Church CAN split from Rome, and still have a valid priesthood? And a valid Eucharist?
Click to expand...
I am actually perplexed by this too. It seems to me that Rome is very interested in making it as easy as possible for the Orthodox to come into communion when the Orthodox sees Catholics as being in schism. Strange.

If the Orthodox church has a valid priesthood/communion, etc etc, why then does going to liturgy not fulfill the Sunday obligation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top