W
wanner47
Guest
Valid? Yes. Licit? No.
Priests who leave the Catholic Church still retain the ability to consecrate the Eucharist as well. But it is always illicit.
Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century
- Status
Priests who leave the Catholic Church still retain the ability to consecrate the Eucharist as well. But it is always illicit.
B
benidict
Guest
What about Priest who have always been Orthodox? What if they were never Catholic to begin with . How can they Consecrate the Eucharist, if they are not part of the ONE TRUE CHURCH?
W
wanner47
Guest
Because they have valid apostolic succession (meaning their bishops can be traced back to the Apostles). Since they have valid apostolic succession, they also have valid holy orders. However, they are not in communion with the Catholic Church, which makes their sacraments illicit (unless one is in immediate danger of death and does not have recourse to Catholic sacraments).
C
Chrono13
Guest
This is not referring to “unitive” in sexuality, rather something we have so far called “marital debt”. It is a system based on Saint Paul’s remarks in 1 Cor 7:1-7:6.
These passages were interpreted somewhat like this: all people have sexual urges. Those who can’t control them should marry and relieve themselves from sexual tension. Now the spicy part comes. Acts done to lower the tension were seen as moment of weakness much more then moments of love and marital joy (since procreation is only valid reason for intercourse) . As a matter of fact, many (if not most) of saints considered such acts a venial sin. While not being mortal, it was expected for a believer to feel remorse, since he had intercourse without exclusive desire to beget a child. You will agree that this is not what we today call “unitive”.
Origen simply says that a man in marriage has duty to have sex with his spouse if she can’t control her desires. If he doesn’t even tough he has self-control, he is sinning and is responsible for woman’s weakness.
Origen is also a fan of stoic philosophy and approach to sex. In Homilia in Genesim he claims that those “truely circumcised have sexual intercourse only for the sake of prosperity”. And that people who have sex with pregnant woman are “worse then dumb beasts, since animals don’t have relations once conception has been made.”
B
benidict
Guest
Any Orthodox wanna start a new thread to discuss this? I find it fascinating.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I believe here you have indicated that Church taught that sex is only for procreation. (bold emphasis is mine)
You have now introduced the concept of a “marital debt” obligation, which is beyond the scope of sex is only for procreation model. Would you care to reconcile this position shift? They do not appear compatible with one another. As for “marital debt”, by which I assume you mean both principals bound by marital contract and are now obligated to have sexual relations, why is this not considered “unitive”? Does this not strengthen the bonds of marriage? Does it not make partners less likely to have adulterous relations and thoughts? Does “unitive” merely mean romantic love?
By reading Ephesians 5: 24-33, it is my understanding these passages advance the position both marriage partners are to “love” one another. Does it not point towards the view marriage is to contain “love” as an intrinsic part of the martial contract? As for his commentary, Origen was providing his remarks on the Gospel of Matthew but you relate his comments to 1 Corinthians. I am uncertain that Origen would be commenting on Matthew solely through the lens of 1 Corinthians passages.
It would by my position Origen supports marriage and marital relations as a type of unity. St. Clement spoke of marriage as a cooperative endeavour, one that promotes a form of harmony. Origen, who was a disciple of Clement, sees marriage containing “a mutual giving” within it. I would agree, however, Origen saw continence as superior and it is undoubtedly reflected in his writings. Regardless, Origen differentiates between carnal love and conjugal love. Conjugal (martial) love is seen as more spiritual in nature (although in his view it is deficient when compared to continence) while carnal love is about seeking a selfish satisfaction of sexual enjoyment and not the seeking the well-being of the partner.
We have the components of a cooperative endevour that contains a form of harmony, which contains “love”, “a mutual giving” and “marital debt” within the context of marriage. We also have conjugal love being denoted as being spiritually superior to carnal love. In my opinion, an introduction of a “unitive” concept for marital sexual relations, for which there appears basis, doesn’t seem to be a key shift in Church teachings.
W
wanner47
Guest
There have been many such threads, and there’s a whole subforum devoted to Eastern Catholicism. I’m sure if you do a search for “Eastern Orthodox” you will find a wealth of information.Any Orthodox wanna start a new thread to discuss this? I find it fascinating.
B
benidict
Guest
Yes. But it sure would be nice to have YET ANOTHER loophole in Catholic teaching explained.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Browsing about, it looks like anything within reason, and outside of reason can be justified because there is a couple thousand years of opinions to draw from. I am skeptical of the ones who trot out some 11th century mystic and call him a scientist, etc… to deny some modern scientific finding which contradicts dogma.Yes. But it sure would be nice to have YET ANOTHER loophole in Catholic teaching explained.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Nice. "Yet another loophole’. Yes, that’s certainly the kind of unbiased and neutral language which demonstrates that a person would be impartial and objective about hearing things. . .Yes. But it sure would be nice to have YET ANOTHER loophole in Catholic teaching explained.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
BTW, we are still waiting to see where the official teaching on 'the purpose of sex" as taught by the Catholic Church in the 19th century was somehow ‘changed’ at some point.
I mean a real change. Not a development. . .that is not change.
The original person to whom wanner was responding in her opening post on this thread was basically saying this:
Originally Posted by Chrono13 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*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,*
But nobody has shown that what Chrono claims WAS IN FACT the teaching of the Church --that sex is ‘only for procreation’ and absolutely nothing else.
We’re still waiting. . .:coffeeread:
I mean a real change. Not a development. . .that is not change.
The original person to whom wanner was responding in her opening post on this thread was basically saying this:
Originally Posted by Chrono13 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*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,*
But nobody has shown that what Chrono claims WAS IN FACT the teaching of the Church --that sex is ‘only for procreation’ and absolutely nothing else.
We’re still waiting. . .:coffeeread:
B
benidict
Guest
Oh trust me my friend. I am becoming very Biased, and am beginning to wonder what ELSE I can dig up.Nice. "Yet another loophole’. Yes, that’s certainly the kind of unbiased and neutral language which demonstrates that a person would be impartial and objective about hearing things. . .
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
That’s not a very healthy attitude. And trust me, I’d say the same thing if you were biased about any other subject. IOW, if you were saying you were becoming biased against Protestants and were going around with the same kind of intent of 'looking into, deriding, ‘digging up’ to criticize, I would say that it was not a healthy attitude.
B
benidict
Guest
Plenty of wrong with protestantism. I should know. I found alot of problems with their teachings.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But you’re not going about posting on protestant message boards and making the same remarks about how you want to ‘dig up more’ on Protestantism that you’re making about Catholicism, right?Plenty of wrong with protestantism. I should know. I found alot of problems with their teachings.
B
benidict
Guest
I did that for 2 years. feel free to look thru my history on CAF. Have a good night.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
Well, Catholicism can be fascinating. There are the “cafeteria” conservative Catholics who accuse the “cafeteria” moderate Catholics of not being true Catholics, and so forth. When you add in the Church’s history, there can be quite a lot to talk about. The topic of the Church’s place in society today is also intriguing. Was the election of such a conservative pope as Benedict wise, or does it mark the beginning of the end for the Church as an institution? I don’t have a strong opinion on this question, but it intrigues me. The Church has historically changed its teachings to accommodate new scientific findings, and has slowly adjusted its understanding to conform with changing social standards. Some would say that with its influence declining in the educated and economically dominant cultures in the world, that the turn toward conservatism is an attempt to regain vitality by turning to the more conservative cultures of the “third world.” If true, then this would be an example of the Church adjusting its teachings away from its previously preferred cultural bias, to a new world order, which the former cultures are not aligned with. Is the future of the Church in Africa and South America. Will it continue to whither in North America and Europe? That is the current trend. The future in unknown. How will the Church change its doctrine to accommodate its new constituency? Will it veer back and try to find a middle line, if it senses that the northern hemisphere will be lost completely from its membership and its coffers, or is it going to become the Church of the lower half of the planet? It might not be such a bad idea to hear what critics of the Church have to say. Obviously, they are here to understand the Church, even when they disagree with it.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Thank You, God- for a poster with a sharp mind! It is so much easier and enjoyable to discuss things with such brother.
Church Fathers were aware of the paradox you are pointing out. St. Augustine, “On Marriage and Concupiscence”:
*But in the married, as these things are desirable and praiseworthy, so the others are to be tolerated, that no lapse occur into damnable sins; that is, into fornications and adulteries. To escape this evil, even such embraces of husband and wife as have not procreation for their object, but serve an overbearing concupiscence, are permitted, so far as to be within range of forgiveness, though not prescribed by way of commandment: and the married pair are enjoined not to defraud one the other, lest Satan should tempt them by reason of their incontinence. For thus says the Scripture (“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. Since, however, the cohabitation for the purpose of procreating children, which must be admitted to be the proper end of marriage, is not sinful, what is it which the apostle allows to be permissible, but that married persons, when they have not the gift of continence, may require one from the other the due of the flesh - and that not from a wish for procreation, but for the pleasure of concupiscence? This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage. This, therefore, must be reckoned among the praises of matrimony; that, on its own account, it makes pardonable that which does not essentially appertain to itself. For the nuptial embrace, which subserves the demands of concupiscence, is so effected as not to impede the child-bearing, which is the end and aim of marriage. *
The underlined sentences are dealing with Augustine’s true approach to “marital debt” . Sex without *intent *to procreate is unnatural and sinful, yet in “range of forgiveness”. It’s sinfulness comes from the fact that it is not done with exclusive desire to beget a child.
In the root of the matter, “marital debt” was against the natural law, since the only “natural” reason for sex was procreation. But Augustine claimed such intercourse is *pardoned *by marital bond. Note the italics. Sex without desire for begetting is sinful, but pardonable. It was still expected from a husband and wife to feel remorse, and avoid such relation.
To answer your question “How is marital debt legal, if sex is only for procreation?”- it was not legal, but on the account of marriage, it was considered sort of lesser evil then fornication.
And, just a sidenote- you have to love Augustine’s claim that sex is sinful on the account that marriage is permited. Good things don’t need permission, and allowing something means it is bad.
Indeed, you can say that giving marital debt strengthed pair even in Stoic philosophy. But only in terms of helping and sustaining one’s weakness. Husband was supposed to be grateful to his wife that she had relation with him, and lowered his temptation. But he was not supposed to be grateful for love she showed by intercourse, since sex was not seen as something which can express love.
Marriage was indeed seen as bond of respect and love. But marital act was not seen as means to express that love.
Simply, I wanted to say that Origen didn’t see anything “unitive” (by today’s meaning of the word) in satisfying wife’s desires. He was referring to this as “sustaining one’s weakness” similarly to 1 Corinthians. Woman was not wanting for love, but eager to lust.
Paul would certainly object such radical interpretation of his writings.
This could be more then a match to prove. Origen would never see sexual intercourse something that can provide well-being of another, unless for reasons mentioned regarding marital debt.
After all, he was a student of Clement, and Clement has- more then once- stated that sex is to be done only with intent of procreation in order to be moral act.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Church was not analyzing each and every birth control technique in order to forbid it or allow it. You can only follow the system which made things moral or not. If sex was only for procreation, NFP is illegal because it breaks connection between intent and act. As can be detected in the reply of St. Augustine to heretic using NFP.
If Church did not teach that sex is only for procreation, one requires clarification what Church taught instead of that.
S
Soldier_Of_God
Guest
I appreciate the sentiment and the feeling is likewise.
to procreate is unnatural and sinful, yet in “range of forgiveness”. It’s sinfulness comes from the fact that it is not done with exclusive desire to beget a child.
Certainly the Stoic philosophy and the personal biases of Clement, Origen and Augustine would lend itself to indicate their disdain of conjugal sex as somehow being non-licit when not intending to beget a child. However, to extend that as a conclusive Church teaching requires a few elements, one of which would be definitive Church statement of such acts as being illicit. Although teachings of Church Father had the rudiments of tradition, to postulate that all their judgments was the authoritative teaching requires more substantive verification. Often, their views were not without controversy or contention, internal and external to the Church.
I appreciate that Augustine’s position attempts to reconcile the “marital debt” with the concept of “sex is for procreation only” incongruity. However, if the Church teaching is that “marital debt” is a pardonable sin within the confines of marriage, wouldn’t there be a requisite to seek out absolution for such activity? I am unaware of a historical Church obligation to so. If, however, marriage automatically grants such a pardon, how is it then that conjugal love is construed to be illicit? A pardon exonerates someone of any wrong they may have done. If I am automatically considered exonerated of any wrong when I do a specific activity, would it not, by definition, be licit?
I can see how Stoic philosophy would view conjugal sex as sustaining weakness. However, this appears to me to be an exercise of semantics. The same situation could be logically viewed differently with the same reasoning. As a for instance, if I were to approach you as you were eating, let’s say, a pie and take some of that pie away, you would say to me ‘Excuse me, you’re taking away some of my pie!’ Could I not reply 'Actually, I’m just giving pie to myself’? In this case, both positions are true. Nonetheless, one position is ascribe a negative connotation while the other is ascribed a more positive one. Could it not be argued that the lack of conjugal love is a weakness (as it is used to strengthen) using the same reasoning but advancing a different perspective?
Now, I acknowledge that these individuals are taking the Stoic stance on the matter but that doesn’t necessitate that conjugal loves isn’t a respected aspect of sex in their view. The fact they take great pains to discuss the matter indicates that conjugal love is not considered the same as carnal love. It seems their bias has come through on their reasoning but in the end, there isn’t an outright condemnation of conjugal love either, largely shown through the effort of attempt to reconcile the “marital debt” with continence.
Very likely true especially when one must consider Origen self-castrated himself. However, St. Augstine did endeavor to combine eros and agape in the notion of “caritas”, which is fairly close to the current position of the Church today. I think in order to clearly demonstrate that Church teaching has undergone a significant shift in the 19th century, we need to find declarative statements that sex is for procreation only and that conjugal sex is sinful if performed outside the intent to conceive. To me it appears the conjugal sex is permissible and always been accepted by the Church, even if there isn’t an attempt to conceive. That in of itself shows the Church has implicitly understood the unitive nature of conjugal love.
Any additional thoughts would be appreciated.
- Status