Stephen168
New member
If one leg cannot hold up a stool, several legs could not hold it up either.
If one person doesn’t have the answer, a room full of people would not have the answer either.
Interesting understanding of the Magisterium
Catholic Church teaching on the purpose of sex changed in the 19th century
- Status
If one person doesn’t have the answer, a room full of people would not have the answer either.
Interesting understanding of the Magisterium
C
Chrono13
Guest
For now, let us just point that “Regula Pastoralis” is an authentic Church document dealing with morals.
“Immoderation” of the intercourse can be seen from this part:
- The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure.*
[Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii]
One can see that moral system of Regula Pastoralis is based upon the idea that sex is only for procreation. Even acts with desire of begetting need to be preformed with lack of pleasure.
As for Augustine, let’s repeat that he sees “caritas” in marital sexuality on base that one spouse must provide it to the other, enduring his or her desire for venial sin (sex without exclusive wish for procreation). This logic is contrary to our current stance. We don’t see caritas of marital sexuality something out of the act. We see caritas as part of the act, especially in Theology of the body.
Stephen168
New member
And while speaking from the Chair the Pope has changed dogma or does it really matter?
Stephen168
New member
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I have seen some pretty outrageous statements made when the discussion turns to evolutionary theory, for example. The discussions usually devolved into statements unsubstantiated, and often in direct conflict with known and voluminous evidence - often with corroboration from multiple disciplines, etc… That is what I mean by nonsense. When people get into heated discussions, while insisting on a point of view which is simply “made up” and imaginary - that is a discussion of nonsense.Rock
**
It seems to me that the real arguments start when this theological notion of natural law gets garbled up with the more scientific views of human nature, as if a set of theological axioms are somehow in conflict with experimental data. The argument is nonsensical.**
Why is it nonsensical? Give us a for instance.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
**I have seen some pretty outrageous statements made when the discussion turns to evolutionary theory, for example. The discussions usually devolved into statements unsubstantiated, and often in direct conflict with known and voluminous evidence - often with corroboration from multiple disciplines, etc… That is what I mean by nonsense. When people get into heated discussions, while insisting on a point of view which is simply “made up” and imaginary - that is a discussion of nonsense. **
There’s nothing here to reply to since you refuse to be specific.
There’s nothing here to reply to since you refuse to be specific.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I am all for moral guidance in our lives, and in our science. I embrace its value in my own life, and for society. I take exception when theology tries to replace well established science, or when science tries to step on the spiritual. There is a balance to be found.Rock
**
It is really surprising how much time is spent discussing mundane issues of sexuality on this site. Many thousands of words are exchanged trying to justify the Church’s position, or to clarify it, or to defend it, etc… because it is so out of sync with the current secular understanding which is more modern, and based more on recent science, along with a very different view of nature. It seems to me that the real arguments start when this theological notion of natural law gets garbled up with the more scientific views of human nature, as if a set of theological axioms are somehow in conflict with experimental data. The argument is nonsensical. Yet, there is this desire to validate theology with science and logic, perhaps because religion has historically filled in the gaps where science did not have answers. Now that the two diverge farther and farther, there is not much point in trying to reconcile one to the other. This is one of the challenges faced by many religious groups over the topic of evolution, and why discussions on evolution are banned here. In the areas of sexuality, there is not nearly as much concrete and observable evidence as in biology, so there is more ground for speculation, as we see here. **
Since in the history of the world science is a late comer, the Church has naturally reached out to embrace certain scientific concepts when they help to elucidate or advance the human condition. However, the Church is not a slave to science. For example, the Church has opposed unnatural experiments with science that are destructive or distorting of our human nature, and has rightly opposed science when it has gone off the track of human wisdom. The wisdom of the Church is real, but there is no wisdom at all in science, because science concerns itself with knowledge, not wisdom. Science will do things because it can, not because it should. For examples: nuclear weapons and cloning. The Church opposes both as unnatural reaching of the human intellect into the dark side. On the other hand, the Church would honor any scientific development that contributes to the good health or comfort of the human race.
Medical science has found safer ways to kill the unborn (not at all safe for the unborn). Again, the Church opposes another reach of the human intellect into the dark side.
Evolutionists like Richard Dawkins use the theory of evolution to advance the cause of atheism, when (if they had wisdom) they ought to know that evolution implies no such thing.
You seem to think there is no place for religion or the Church in the modern world, this despite the literal fact that no other institution is able or interested in teaching and preserving public morals. Even the Courts rely upon the moral glue that religions provide to keep society from falling apart.
But I think if there were no religion or Church in the modern world, it is more likely that, in the famous words of Hobbes, even **your life **might be closer to being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
One of the challenges for the Church, and for all of us, is that the rate of scientific progress, especially in the life sciences, but in all areas of science and technology are really quite staggering at this moment, and that rate is increasing. While the Church remains bogged down in yesterday’s topics, bold new areas are being explored without much moral guidance. In particular, I am thinking of genetic and cellular engineering. As far as I know, all denominations have been silent on the more profound things which are happening right now in the labs, and which will be part of mainstream medicine and technology within a few years. The curve is much steeper in agricultural and veterinary areas, but the moral ramifications are profound in human medicine. I feel like shaking people and saying… let’s get on the ball here. Big changes are coming. How about some moral consideration of what is happening in our society?
This is what I meant about beating the dead horse of mundane sexual issues. No amount of breast beating, preaching, legal positioning… is going to stop the civil rights momentum over gay marriage and all that. It is a generational thing, just as other civil rights issues are. You can talk until you die. Then once you are dead, nothing will have changed by your speech. The progress has enough momentum that the Church will not stop it. It is time to move on to more potentially productive battles.
Stephen168
New member
If the mission was said to neutralize the enemy by the use of tanks, then after a week, air strikes were employed, what changed? A person who hated being involved with the military would say the mission changed. A person who still liked being involved would say, the mission did not change; the primary goal was to neutralize the enemy.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I must be dense. Would you mind explaining this comment a bit more, Stephen. I don’t quite get it.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
True. Maybe I am just too lazy at the moment to try to dig through boring threads of people spouting opinion with no factual basis. Can you say that you have not observed this phenomenon, at times? I think that the moderators are wise to ban threads on evolution here, for that reason.**I have seen some pretty outrageous statements made when the discussion turns to evolutionary theory, for example. The discussions usually devolved into statements unsubstantiated, and often in direct conflict with known and voluminous evidence - often with corroboration from multiple disciplines, etc… That is what I mean by nonsense. When people get into heated discussions, while insisting on a point of view which is simply “made up” and imaginary - that is a discussion of nonsense. **
There’s nothing here to reply to since you refuse to be specific.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
What would be your motivation in keeping company for over 160 posts with such boring people “spouting opinons” on “boring threads”?
W
Windmill
Guest
I’ve been trying to follow this thread, but it has gotten so far off of the OP’s intent. Those who have a personal argument to settle should do so by way of PM’s and not clog up this thread with discussions that do not pertain to the title.
My understanding has been that, in the past, the Church emphasized procreation as the sole primary end, with relief of concupiscence and mutual love (unitive) as subordinate ends. It is not that they are not ends of marriage, but they must be ordered to and sudordinated to the primary end, which is procreation.
In modern times, the unitive end was not explicitly denoted as a subordinate end, and by this silence, many have assumed that the unitive and procreative ends are co-equal.
This presents a problem. If they are co-equal, then is there still a primary end? If there is not a primary end, who is to say which end, the unitive or procreative, is more important, and thus, indispensable.
I am open to criticism, but this has been what I have seen. The silence of subordinating the secondary ends of marriage to its primary end has created confusion.
My understanding has been that, in the past, the Church emphasized procreation as the sole primary end, with relief of concupiscence and mutual love (unitive) as subordinate ends. It is not that they are not ends of marriage, but they must be ordered to and sudordinated to the primary end, which is procreation.
In modern times, the unitive end was not explicitly denoted as a subordinate end, and by this silence, many have assumed that the unitive and procreative ends are co-equal.
This presents a problem. If they are co-equal, then is there still a primary end? If there is not a primary end, who is to say which end, the unitive or procreative, is more important, and thus, indispensable.
I am open to criticism, but this has been what I have seen. The silence of subordinating the secondary ends of marriage to its primary end has created confusion.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rock
**This is what I meant about beating the dead horse of mundane sexual issues. No amount of breast beating, preaching, legal positioning… is going to stop the civil rights momentum over gay marriage and all that. It is a generational thing, just as other civil rights issues are. You can talk until you die. Then once you are dead, nothing will have changed by your speech. The progress has enough momentum that the Church will not stop it. It is time to move on to more potentially productive battles. **
That’s your opinion. But your logic doesn’t sail.
It is always and forever right to oppose the devil’s cause. You propose giving in. How is that Christian?
Are you a Christian?
**This is what I meant about beating the dead horse of mundane sexual issues. No amount of breast beating, preaching, legal positioning… is going to stop the civil rights momentum over gay marriage and all that. It is a generational thing, just as other civil rights issues are. You can talk until you die. Then once you are dead, nothing will have changed by your speech. The progress has enough momentum that the Church will not stop it. It is time to move on to more potentially productive battles. **
That’s your opinion. But your logic doesn’t sail.
It is always and forever right to oppose the devil’s cause. You propose giving in. How is that Christian?
Are you a Christian?
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
This is in response to yours and to the OP:
Unitive and procreative. Procreative and unitive. That’s what the Church teaches on sex within the sacrament of marriage with no ambiguity.
Procreation is the primary end of the sexual act the way nutrition is the primary end of eating. Both are life-giving. That there is associated pleasure to the point of satiation with said basic human drives is a testament to the grand design and order our Creator made. If pleasure is pursued to excess, taking primary or sole focus, that would make it lust and would therefore be a sin.
The Catholic Church in her wisdom has developed or refined the teaching, with beginnings during the time of St. Augustine (354-430 AD). He was the first to actually teach within the Church on sexual morality, noting that the procreation of children was the primary purpose of marriage and sex.
Thomas Aquinas taught as a scholastic that sexual pleasure was good, but must not be separated from reason. Again, the primary purpose of marriage and sex was procreation. During the Renaissance, St. Alphonsus Liguori (1696 -1787) once again affirmed procreation as the primary end of marriage and sexuality.
In continuing Christian teaching and in response to the Anglican Lambeth Conference’s implied approval of contraception, Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical in December 1930, entitled, “Casti Connubi.” In it, Pope Pius described the holiness and origins of marriage as being from the Creator and wrote of the evil of contraception.
Again in 1951, Pope Pius XII condemned the use of contraceptives in his “Address to Midwives.” A slight “stall” of sorts occurred in 1965 during the Second Vatican Council when Pope Paul VI determined that no teachings on sexuality be formed until he received results from a commission on birth control previously established by Pope John XXIII in 1963.
Gaudium et Spes, Pope Paul VI’s 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, addresses problems related to artificial contraception.
Humanae Vitae was released by Pope Paul VI in 1968 to reaffirm the Church’s traditional teaching of equal status and inseparability of both the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex. He went on to emphasize the teaching authority of the Church, based on natural law and illuminated by divine Revelation.
In his writing on the consequences of artificial contraception, Pope Paul VI offered warnings. These warnings, in light of our present social circumstances, seem prophetic. He warns us that the consequences include a general lowering of moral standards; a reduction of women to the status of mere instruments for the satisfaction of one’s own desires, and a general lowering of standards of the affection and partnership of marriage. Further, he warned that public authorities may impose contraception on its populace without regard to moral law.
Familiaris Consortio, by Pope John Paul II, in 1981 stressed that contraception is contradictory to total and reciprocal self-giving love. He says that those who use it are not really capable of giving themselves fully to one another.
Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Spendor in 1993 stresses moral absolutes and that even when attempting to choose artificial contraception as a “lesser evil,” it remains intrinsically evil and sinful.
The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the regulation of procreation and warns that spouses must act “in conformity with the objective criteria of morality,” and continuing on to address periodic continence. Today, we learn proper methods of this in the Natural Family Planning program.
In the Catechism, it should be of note that there is a section devoted to the Love of Husband and Wife. It should put to bed any question that the Church disregards the pleasure and enjoyment of the body. She recognizes the physical union of husband and wife in body and spirit. True love making and life giving.
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”
2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”
Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
,
C
Chrono13
Guest
This is difficult to believe. This thread communicates the issue that Church has not confessed unitive nature of sexuality until 19th Century.
However, pleasure is what drives people to activity, and not desire to beget children. This means that majority of acts are indeed done in context of lust. All this obsession about procreation and being open to life is somewhat misleading. Sexual enjoyment, provided by Creator, is certainly primary pursuit in marital sexuality. Piety and moderation are required for just couple, but I don’t see why this piety needs to be expressed through obsession with procreation. If you enjoy sex, that doesn’t mean you are selfish. Or that you regard your spouse as an item.
First, let’s stress again that marriage and marital sex are two different terms in theological writings and should not be seen as sharing mutual nature. Augustine viewed marriage as relationship providing procreative aspect, sacramental bond and mutual care. However, marital sexuality had only procreative purpose. It was not primary purpose. It was the only purpose. Secondary end can only be seen in terms of marital debt, and this system didn’t see sexuality as something unitive the way we do today.
Second, we should question this “Church has developed and refined” theory. We probably all agree that sexuality is not merely for procreation, and that obsession with this exclusivity is wrong. Now, if this is what has been teached, that is the issue.** Even if Church develops theology, it certainly can’t teach a moral error during the course of development. **
Now, look at the “exotic” nature of the teaching itself. Certainly apostles did not leave anything that would turn into such ethical approach, not to mention Jews who enjoyed polygamy. Whatever apostles thought of marital sexuality, that would not turn into obsession about procreation to the extent that even NFP is forbidden for 19 centuries.
And finally, let us note that it wasn’t the Church, but clergy, which taught all this. Laymen, as we know from secular literature, not only dissented from this teaching, but often made fun out of it (similar as today they do on contraception). Sexuality has been seen by them as enjoyful and lovable activity. This means layman body had deeper understanding of the sexual act then clergy which “develops theology”.
Is this why he forbid kisses between lovers?
All mentioned documents were issued after 19th Century. One must confess that their calling upon tradition is very problematic, knowing what was practiced prior to that time.
The most obvious proof is approach to Natural Family Planning, which is contrary to general practice before 19th Century. If sex is only meant for procreation in nature, charting infertility is “organized lust” since the intent of charting is having sex without procreation. Church Father Augustine expressed his open revolt to practicing this fertility control technique.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
I was speaking of the threads on evolution. You will find that I tend not to participate in such threads because (1) people hold themselves out as experts in areas which they are not. Even the Pope has made very uninformed statements on the subject. (2) nobody is educated or informed in those particular threads. people just talk “at” each other, and not much listening is going on. I find threads like this one more interesting, as I learn new things here. Sometimes I can contribute something, as well. There seems to be a misconception (in my opinion) which you could call the “party line” here, that Church moral teaching is unchanged. The opinion is held so strongly that when I posted references to 25 papal bulls encouraging antisemitism that I was accused of inventing the list, when it had actually been compiled by the Secret Society in 1939. I am also learning more about Catholicism. I doubt that there is much for me to learn about biology here, so those threads are boring to me. I doubt that there is much to contribute to those threads, because the people in them are often too positional to learn much.What would be your motivation in keeping company for over 160 posts with such boring people “spouting opinons” on “boring threads”?
S
spencer2
Guest
Augustine’s revolt was well warranted because those people did not want any children, they saw it as evil to conceive. nfp today is used for couples today for spacing children or avoiding a pregnancy that may strain the marriage due to economic, psychological, or medical reasons. The perfect virtue would be total abstinence but there are few couples that could follow this strict continence. Unfortunately emotional and physical attraction along with the joy and pleasure involved during intercourse makes a couple lean toward future relations.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
The Church gave up the antisemitism battle. It changed its teachings on slavery. It changed it teachings on usury. It changed its teachings on the treatment on non Christians. It changed the standards on annulments. As society progresses, the Church changes the focus of its teachings. The bible has not changed with respect to money lending, but our society has changed, Muslim cultures came to the same conclusions on money lending as Christians did, and are just now changing their laws in some Muslim states. Religious institutions do change their teachings in order to survive. The Church is not an exception, or it would not be here today. It changes more slowly than many other Christian Churches, and more rapidly than the Muslim teachings seem to on major issues.rock
**This is what I meant about beating the dead horse of mundane sexual issues. No amount of breast beating, preaching, legal positioning… is going to stop the civil rights momentum over gay marriage and all that. It is a generational thing, just as other civil rights issues are. You can talk until you die. Then once you are dead, nothing will have changed by your speech. The progress has enough momentum that the Church will not stop it. It is time to move on to more potentially productive battles. **
That’s your opinion. But your logic doesn’t sail.
It is always and forever right to oppose the devil’s cause. You propose giving in. How is that Christian?
Are you a Christian?
The Church will change on its focus, or it will slowly fade away. The question is which battles can it win, and which ones should it put less effort into. If the current trends continue, and more countries in Europe, North America, and South America continue to change their laws in ways which the Church opposes, what does it stand to gain by being the strident voice? My prediction is that it will become less vocal, as it has with money lending and other issues. I don’t pretend to know the future, as you do, but I think that history is a reasonable reference if one is going to make predictions.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
rock
**
I don’t pretend to know the future, as you do, but I think that history is a reasonable reference if one is going to make predictions. **
What I know about the future is that it is full of surprises. You seem to think not. You seem to think that certain things are already settled and the Church should adapt to those changes as if the Church should yield to the ways of Satan. That’s not going to happen.
I ask you again. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in Satan? Do you believe Satan wants to corrupt us? How do you think he would best succeed at that, if not by getting Christians to yield to his will … which is malicious and seeks to undo the natural order of things?
**
I don’t pretend to know the future, as you do, but I think that history is a reasonable reference if one is going to make predictions. **
What I know about the future is that it is full of surprises. You seem to think not. You seem to think that certain things are already settled and the Church should adapt to those changes as if the Church should yield to the ways of Satan. That’s not going to happen.
I ask you again. Are you a Christian? Do you believe in Satan? Do you believe Satan wants to corrupt us? How do you think he would best succeed at that, if not by getting Christians to yield to his will … which is malicious and seeks to undo the natural order of things?
- Status