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

[Chrono13]

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.

That can become a very long topic, since there always seem to be more then one nature to document or statement. For example, Church Fathers were not infallible, yet their status as saints made every change to their conclusions heretical.

Church has not issued many documents dealing with contraception prior to 20th century. Most of them are of limited authority level, and under influence of stoicism. Yet, this did not stop Casti Connubii from stating that there is “constant teaching”. One could humbly ask what is “constant” if you literally have only Trent as more important source, surrounded by dozens of “unofficial” statements with radical dose of stoicism.

For example, St. Augustine (not of Hippo, the British saint from 6th century) asked Pope Gregory whether there can be sex without sin. His reply was negative. When the same pope was asked by exarch of Ravenna similar question, he wrote “Regula Pastoralis” which was soon accepted by all bishops. This document is full of stoic influence, claiming that spouses should not mix pleasure with sexuality. At the time of writing, it was impossible to say that text is not bonding the Church to obedience. Today, we see it as something little more then a simple letter.

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.

St. Augustine explains…
It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves* venial sin.*** For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct.
St. Augustine “On marriage and lust”

While venial sins don’t require the same process as mortal ones, certain piety and modesty were required for them to be absolved. Probably a good deed or prayer would suffice, as ordered by Church authorities.

Note that Augustine’s criticism of “wrong desires and evil appliances” would most certainly include NFP.

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?

From what I can see in Augustine, marriage makes such intercourse pardonable, but not automatically pardoned. Spouses still need to see act of marital debt as evil, and see themselves guilty of venial sin when preformed.

I’ll continue later. Thank you for your time so far.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I’ll continue later. Thank you for your time so far.

I look forward to further elaboration.

 

[pepipop]

I would like to pose a query in relation to the fact that marriage is only for the purpose for begetting children.

Hypothetically, a young man and woman, in their early 20’s, marry fully intending to have children and after 2 years of trying find that the man is infertile however the woman is fine.

1. Can they have their marriage annulled to allow the female to procreate with another?
2. If the remain together with this knowledge may they not have sexual relations with each other ever again?

Obviously both of the above scenarios are ‘cruel’ and esp. (2) in that they would be expected to remain in a marital relationship but with no sexual or ‘unitive’ relations. Needless to say they could adopt and if so, are they still to remain celibate in their marriage after adopting - a young couple in their 20’s?

 

[AndyF]

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

Indeed, if we were to believe the sentiments expressed on this thread, it would seem the new Catholicism excludes anyone who has not fully matured in Faith. Beware to anyone who taps into the sanctioned Church liberties of sententia pia and opinio tolerata.

AndyF

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The Church has always taught that sex merely for the sake of pleasure is at least venially wrong. That has been a constant teaching and is still the same even today.

And here we’re in the region of that constant Christian teaching, which we’ve noticed, that intercourse “merely for the sake of pleasure” is wrong.

This can mislead and perturb. For when is intercourse purely for the sake of pleasure? Some have thought this must mean: when it’s not for the sake of getting a child. And so, I believe, I have been told, some Catholic women have actually feared the pleasure of orgasm and thought it wrong, or thought it wrong to look for it or allow oneself to respond to feelings of physical desire. But this is unreasonable and ungrateful to God. Copulation, like eating, is of itself a good kind of action: it preserves human existence. An individual act of eating or copulation, then, can be bad only because something about it or the circumstances of it make it bad. And all the pleasure specific to it will be just as good as it is.

A severe morality holds that intercourse (and may hold this of eating, too) has something wrong about it if it is ever done except explicitly as being required for that preservation of human life which is what makes intercourse a good kind of action. But this involves thoroughly faulty moral psychology. God gave us our physical appetite, and its arousal without our calculation is part of the working of our sort of life. Given moderation and right circumstances, acts prompted by inclination can be taken in a general way to accomplish what makes them good in kind and there’s no need for them to be individually necessary or useful for the end that makes them good kinds of action. Intercourse is a normal part of married life through the whole life of the partners in a marriage and is normally engaged in without any distinct purpose other than to have it, just as such a part of married life.

Such acts will usually take place only when desire prompts, and desire is for intercourse as pleasurable; the pleasure, as Aristotle says, perfects the act. But that does not mean that it is done “purely for pleasure”. For what that expression means is that sensuality is in command: but that one has intercourse when desire prompts and the desire is for pleasure, does not prove, does not mean, that sensuality is in command. One may rightly and reasonably be willing to respond to the promptings of desire. When that is so, the act is governed by a reasonable mind, even though no considering or reasoning is going on. The fact that one is thus having intercourse when, as one knows, there’s nothing against it, makes it a good and a chaste marriage act and a rendering of the marriage debt.

There is indeed such a thing in marriage as intercourse “purely for pleasure”; this is what the Christian tradition did condemn. Marks of it could be: immoderate pursuit of, or preoccupation with sexual pleasure; succumbing to desire against wisdom; insisting against serious reluctance of one’s partner. In all these cases but the last both parties may of course be consenting. For human beings often tend to be disorderly and extreme in their sensuality. A simple test of whether one is so is this: could one do without for a few weeks or months in case of need? For anyone may be faced with a situation in which he ought to do without; and he should watch that he does not get into a state in which it is impossible for him. But we ought to remember also, what isn’t always remembered, that insensibility and unjustified abstention is also a sin against moderation, and is a defrauding of one’s partner.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

That can become a very long topic, since there always seem to be more then one nature to document or statement. For example, Church Fathers were not infallible, yet their status as saints made every change to their conclusions heretical.

It’s my understanding that sainthood does not confer infallibility nor does it accord with automatic confirmation of their theological conclusions. Being recognized for their theological contribution in no way warrants all of their inferences to be institutionalized Church doctrine. One must differentiate being an influence on doctrine and being actual doctrine.

Church has not issued many documents dealing with contraception prior to 20th century. Most of them are of limited authority level, and under influence of stoicism. Yet, this did not stop Casti Connubii from stating that there is “constant teaching”. One could humbly ask what is “constant” if you literally have only Trent as more important source, surrounded by dozens of “unofficial” statements with radical dose of stoicism.

I think what is meant by “constant teaching” is that the essence of the teaching has been maintained and not an absolute rigid preservation. A refinement or amplification of certain principles does not constitute substantive change and should not be construed as a teaching change. To simply impute that enhancing or illuminating teaching is a substantive teaching change is misrepresentative of the position.

From what I can see in Augustine, marriage makes such intercourse pardonable

, but not automatically pardoned. Spouses still need to see act of marital debt as evil, and see themselves guilty of venial sin when preformed.
I’m not sure that is the case. The following is taken from his work* On the Good of Marriage*:

Therefore the Apostle allows not marriage as matter of pardon: for who can doubt that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not sinned, unto whom pardon is granted. But he allows, as matter of pardon, that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it; provided however it be not so in excess as to hinder what ought to be set aside as seasons of prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men*.*

Here we see that Augustine is conferring marriage with the intrinsic capacity to pardon the conjugal love act. As he stated, marriage procures pardon for the act (provided it is not overdone). So, in essence we have marriage pardoning the “marital debt” obligation, thereby assenting that conjugal love without the intent to beget children is permissible.

 

[AndyF]

The Church has always taught that sex merely for the sake of pleasure is at least venially wrong. That has been a constant teaching and is still the same even today.

orthodoxytoday.org/articles/AnscombeChastity.php

I was commenting on the habit of Catholics being intolerant of free opinion.

But yes, in context, it is intrinsically wrong. As per the question if guilt can be imputed, it would depend on vincible or invincible ignorance of the individual. For instance, once having heard the statement such, “The Catholic Church states it is the true Church, and it states fornication is a sin” should cause a person to cease his habit until he verifies this is true. Therefore for this person he no longer can defend through invincible ignorance.

Andy

 

[manualman]

In the protestant world, all sorts of loony things happen when people image themselves to be learned and start to fixate on particular passages of Scripture to exclusion of the bulk of the rest of Scripture and create bizarre and unrecognizable doctrines. As catholics, we (should) know that Scripture as a WHOLE is inerrant and infallible, but not necessarily clear, nor easy to understand. This is because the Scriptures are BOTH the work of humans AND of God. The culture, experience and bias of the author DOES have an effect on what is written, but God somehow manages to still have a Divine Authorship as well so that in context with the rest of Scripture, the inspired message is harmoniously present.

Atheist enthusiasts like to use the same trick as the protestant off-shoot sects (Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc), but instead in an attempt to show how the Bible is self contradictory and unreliable. When meanings are taken out of context of the greater whole, they can and do make case after case for apparent contradictions within Scripture. But when each individual passage is interpreted correctly, there is perfect harmony throughout Scripture.

The same goes for the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church (on any issue: slavery, sexuality, usury, etc.). Individuals are ALWAYS a product of their age and influenced by their culture. Certain posters here on CAF ought to see past their own smug and superior pride and recognize that, believe me it’s a revelation (been there). So those who WANT to certainly can play the same trick with Church writings and teachings that Hitchens, et al do with Scripture. But it’s an empty game for all of them.

St. Peter, Augustine, Origen, St. Gregory, St. Francis, you name them, ALL humans are products of their age and are affected by the culture that formed them. As a result, the Sacred Tradition of the Church is formed not by individual “proof texts” like the weirdo religions are, but by the consistent themes visible in the whole.

This doctrinal stream DOES develop over time. Some are unwilling to see the difference between development and ‘change.’ Development is like seeing the world through unfocused binoculars and gradually focusing them. It is the SAME image being viewed, but it gradually becomes more clear with the passage of time. The image itself never changes, but our comprehension does (and sometimes so do the meanings of words, a big issue with usury and slavery).

Understood in this light, it is less alarming to read Origen or Augustine’s view on sexuality. They first comprehended the moral fatality of severing the link between sex and procreation. This resonated in their souls because of how extreme was the contrast with the culture of depravity they grew up in. They may not have totally comprehended the way in which sexual union also cements the bond between man and wife. It took many years more focusing for this to become clear.

So far, I see no “proof texts” incompatible with the above understanding of how catholicism has over the centuries provided a progressively ever clearer description of the divinely revealed purpose and meaning of human sexuality.

Keep beating your heads on it, guys.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Understood in this light, it is less alarming to read Origen or Augustine’s view on sexuality. They first comprehended the moral fatality of severing the link between sex and procreation. This resonated in their souls because of how extreme was the contrast with the culture of depravity they grew up in. They may not have totally comprehended the way in which sexual union also cements the bond between man and wife. It took many years more focusing for this to become clear.

So far, I see no “proof texts” incompatible with the above understanding of how catholicism has over the centuries provided a progressively ever clearer description of the divinely revealed purpose and meaning of human sexuality.

Keep beating your heads on it, guys.

I’m in agreement with your viewpoint. However, there is some merit to debating the finer points. It keeps the grey matter active.

 

[Quatsch]

spin-off from this thread…

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

The Church’s understanding of sex has developed and will continue to develop.

This is an excellent book that covers the history of the Church’s views on sex:

amazon.com/Catholic-Sexual-Ethics-Ronald-Lawler/dp/0879739525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305042324&sr=8-1

 

[manualman]

Absolutely! If you’ve got the chops for doing the research every time somebody fits an arrow to the string, then God bless you. I had my questions answered long ago and have found that conforming my conscience to the teachings of the Church has paid back far more than I’ve ever put in. That’s enough for me personally, and I’ll gladly testify to it, but I do math for a living; historic research gives me headaches…

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I had my questions answered long ago and have found that conforming my conscience to the teachings of the Church has paid back far more than I’ve ever put in.

You mean the Magisterium and the Catholic Church is authoritative and eminently qualified to determine matters of faith and doctrine?! Who would have thought it!

 

[razredge]

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.

I disagree with these conclusions.

The Church (thankfully!) has changed or ‘reinterpreted’ a number of doctrines across the centuries.

I really don’t see how that automatically means the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I disagree with these conclusions.

The Church (thankfully!) has changed or ‘reinterpreted’ a number of doctrines across the centuries.

I really don’t see how that automatically means the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

Actually, you’re wrong. The Church has deepened its understanding, not changed its doctrines. Disciplines, on the other hand, by their nature can and do change according to custom, which is why we no longer ‘recline at table’ to receive the Eucharist or speak Koine Greek or fast for 12 hours or abstain from dairy, eggs, etc. in addition to meat for the entire period of Lent and Advent etc. etc.

Name ONE doctrine of the Church that has changed. I mean ‘changed’, not developed. Changed as in, taught something was X at point A, and then ‘not X’ at point B.

Show me where, for example, the Church taught that God was “Three Persons in One God” and then changed to “He is One Person.” Oh wait, that would be Unitarians, not Catholics.

Or that the Eucharist was once taught to be the real Flesh and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. . .and then changed to be ‘only a symbol.’ Oh wait, that would be many (not all) later day Protestants!

Or that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual virgin. . .and then changed to “she had several children besides Jesus.” Oh wait, that’s Protestants again!

Where on earth is the teaching that “Ye Christians are only to have sex for the purpose of children for sex is fleshly evil, and ye are not to enjoy especially ye women, and this is to be believed by the whole world.” Oh wait, that was the gnostics and the Albigensians, and a later little ‘hiccup’ from the Jansenists!

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I was commenting on the habit of Catholics being intolerant of free opinion.

But yes, in context, it is intrinsically wrong. As per the question if guilt can be imputed, it would depend on vincible or invincible ignorance of the individual. For instance, once having heard the statement such, “The Catholic Church states it is the true Church, and it states fornication is a sin” should cause a person to cease his habit until he verifies this is true. Therefore for this person he no longer can defend through invincible ignorance.

Andy

Yes, but it is normally only a venial sin to have sex merely for pleasure unless the intemperance is great. Not to say we shouldn’t worry about committing even venial sins but you don’t want to become too strict

It is very similar to the teaching on gluttony

It is incontrovertible that to eat or drink for the mere pleasure of the experience, and for that exclusively, is likewise to commit the sin of gluttony. Such a temper of soul is equivalently the direct and positive shutting out of that reference to our last end which must be found, at least implicitly, in all our actions.

newadvent.org/cathen/06590a.htm

It is human weakness that we don’t only eat in order to deliver the ideal amount of nutrients to the body. But as long as we, at least implicitly, intend the natural end of eating and the intemperance isn’t too great we don’t commit a grave sin in eating for pleasure.

This whole talk reminds me of a scene in the movie “Like Water for Chocolate”

In the scene the character, Pedro, says a prayer before sex, promising god that love and lust had nothing to do with it. It was an act undertaken reluctantly (and with a sheet with a hole in it between the participants) and only to bring another soul into the world in service to the Church

 

[Chrono13]

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, if sex without procreative intent is of evil nature, all views we apply need to follow that (name removed by moderator)ut. Both man and woman are responsible of venial sin, if they know that the reason of their copulation is not done in exclusive desire of begetting.If woman “takes burden” of husband in marital bed, she is still in act against nature- even if marriage makes such transgression pardonable.

If you would see me eating a pie *you know I stole *, taking a piece would not make you more positive, but less negative then me (since you were not the one who stole it). You would still be responsible for abusing the pie owner’s misfortune.

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.

I agree to certain point. But, again, sexuality can’t express conjugal love to Augustine, and carnal only expresses itself to lust. You can clearly know this from fact that marital debt sees conjugal love outside of act itself- in “carrying the burden of sexual relation”.

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.

As I mentioned, “Regula Pastoralis” (“Book of pastoral rule” ie. “What bishops must teach in order to have correct rule”) of Pope Gregory can been seen as declarative statement. Not one in region of infallibility, tough, but Church is obliged to accept even doctrines which are not ex cathedra.

 

[Chrono13]

I would like to pose a query in relation to the fact that marriage is only for the purpose for begetting children.

Hypothetically, a young man and woman, in their early 20’s, marry fully intending to have children and after 2 years of trying find that the man is infertile however the woman is fine.

1. Can they have their marriage annulled to allow the female to procreate with another?
2. If the remain together with this knowledge may they not have sexual relations with each other ever again?

Obviously both of the above scenarios are ‘cruel’ and esp. (2) in that they would be expected to remain in a marital relationship but with no sexual or ‘unitive’ relations. Needless to say they could adopt and if so, are they still to remain celibate in their marriage after adopting - a young couple in their 20’s?

This example was usual through history of Catholic Church. There was no single response.

In case of stoic logic, this pair can stay in marriage as long as they engage in sexual relation with hope of procreative miracle. Otherwise, they can have sexual relations in matters of marital debt same as fertile pair- and sinning as fertile pair.

 

[benidict]

I disagree with these conclusions.

The Church (thankfully!) has changed or ‘reinterpreted’ a number of doctrines across the centuries.

I really don’t see how that automatically means the Gates of Hell have prevailed.

He my friend. I agree with you. Would you perchance have some specifics on doctrinal changes? And some reading material to go with such? You can pm me if you wish. Peace and prayers for you. Nice to see Im not alone.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If you would see me eating a pie *you know I stole *, taking a piece would not make you more positive, but less negative then me (since you were not the one who stole it). You would still be responsible for abusing the pie owner’s misfortune.

It would seem who ever baked this pie is a really good baker. It look like anybody will do anything to get a taste.

As I mentioned, “Regula Pastoralis” (“Book of pastoral rule” ie. “What bishops must teach in order to have correct rule”) of Pope Gregory can been seen as declarative statement. Not one in region of infallibility, tough, but Church is obliged to accept even doctrines which are not ex cathedra.

I’m not one to accept “can be seen as declarative…” as definitive but I will accept it as a possibility. The “Regula Pastoralis" does reiterate the attitude that the purpose of sex is procreation and to be done in the confines of marriage. Moreover, the translation I have of the “Regula Pastoralis” states (regarding married couples):

“Therefore, they are to consider that, if they associate too often and too immoderately, they are not in lawful union, if they make a habit of it;”

Consequently, if conjugal sex is done too often and too immoderately, it would require prayer to efface the sin. In the context of the document, this is a condemnation of conjugal sex becoming a habitual end unto itself but not of conjugal sex to satisfy desire. The influence of Augustine theology is evident but there isn’t a proscription against to satisfy the desires of a couple and, in fact, the document reiterates that it’s acceptable. However, when conjugal love is overdone, then its a moral issue.

So, does the “Regula Pastoralis" definitively conflict with the concept of conjugal love as being unitive? Does it definitively state sex is only for procreation? I would say not. The addition of a unitive aspect of conjugal love is not incompatible with the previous Church teachings, especially in light of a “marital debt” obligation, a “caritas” that Augustine advocated and the fact marriage procures for it a pardon.

Further comments would be appreicated.

 

[Rock_Happy]

He my friend. I agree with you. Would you perchance have some specifics on doctrinal changes? And some reading material to go with such? You can pm me if you wish. Peace and prayers for you. Nice to see Im not alone.

Try this. Scholarly work by a respected Catholic:

ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf