Catholic Sexual Ethics

[PJD1987]

Hey everyone,

Firstly, I tried to pick the most applicable thread to post this in, and I settled on Moral Theology, but if you think there is a better place for it, please feel free to redirect me.

I am taking a course this semester called Catholic Sexual Ethics and its raising an issue that I thought I’d pose to you fine people. We just read St. Augustine’s “On the Good of Marriage” along with excerpts from St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles. What we learned from this is that St. Augustine believed that sex was evil and the Lord used pro-creation to bring a good out of an evil. Also, he believed that sex even within the marriage was sinful if not done specifically to bring a child into the world.

I suppose the issue is mostly with St. Augustine in that, the way this is all being presented is that this was the teaching of the Church, that sex was evil even within marriage if not for the purpose of procreation and more recently (20th Century) the Church is changing its tone and teaching. The problem here in my mind is that, the Church does NOT change doctrine or dogma, that’s why its doctrine and dogma, and if we have to backtrack and change our beliefs it means that the Holy Spirit misled us and did not guide us into all Truth, which necessarily shakes the foundation of our entire faith.

My position is that just because St. Augustine or anyone else, even a Pope, may have said it, its never been a defined infallible doctrine or dogma that Catholics must believe this. I also understand that our beliefs and understanding of truths does evolve as we naturally gain more knowledge on subjects, but when does an evolution of teaching become an outright change of teaching? I, unfortunately, am not well versed enough on the Church’s teaching on the matter to bring this up as I may be wrong. However, if I am wrong, and the Church did change its beliefs, doesn’t that undermine the ENTIRE concept of the Holy Spirit leading us into all Truth, and what does that mean for our faith.

As a side note, the professor has said that she is fascinated on how these beleifs “change” over time and that is what her entire work is devoted to, maybe its just semantics, but it seems “off” to me. Additionally, somewhat unrelated, she referred in class yesterday to the unborn as a “fetus” which just irked me.

I know that’s a whole lot, but your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I think a Catholic must accept and grasp the Catholic doctrine of the** “development of doctrine.” ** I think a Catholic will almost lose his or her mind if he or she hold to too strict a concept of the unchangeability of Church doctrine. The current pope has written about the “hermeneutics of continuity,” and by that he does not exactly deny that the interpretation of dogmas and doctrines can and do change. As I see it, he is saying that yes, the Church may have once said X, but now says X but also Y, and the net result is that the Church does not say exactly X anymore, but something new.

I think Blessed Pope John Paul II was talking about all this too when he frequently said that the Second Vatican Council was a case of new wine being brought out (or something like that, quoting the New Testament).

I think lots of Catholics want the security of Church teachings that have never changed and never can change. Okay, the Catholic Church has that. But don’t be too strict in how you measure “no change,” and “can’t change,” because there has been without a doubt changes in the teachings of the Catholic Church, but, I think Pope Benedict would be quick to add, not in the essence of the teaching.

But, again, I say: Don’t lose you mind over this. Don’t spend years researching all this.

Church teachings in the end are just a means to an end, the end is salvation and holiness. It is God that we must deify and worship and obey, not doctrines or dogmas.

Jesus the Person is our savior, not dogmas and doctrines. They are just tools.

The very problem you are wading into is exactly why I have taken up the call of the Second Vatican Council to make the Bible the “heart of theology.” I hardly ever read Church documents any more other than the ultra-foundational Church document, the one quoted constantly by the Church Fathers. It’s name? The Holy Bible.

The Holy Scriptures NEVER change. The Bible even says, in Hebrews 13:8,

**“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
**

Catch that? Jesus is the same always. Jesus. Jesus is a living PERSON. He is not a doctrine, dogma, or document.

Pope Benedict’s first encyclical opens with this: “We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person…” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

Here’s a Vatican document using the phrase “hermeneutics of continuity.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2010/march/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20100312_clero_en.html

I propose that we find our security, our rock, in the reality and unchangeability of the the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the unchangeability of the grace provided by sacraments, and the unchangeability of eternal life in Heaven. I propose that we follow the understanding of “development of doctrine” put forth by Blessed John Paul II and our current good pope, Benedict XVI.

Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote:

The Second Vatican Council is often considered as the beginning of a new era in the life of the Church. This is true, but at the same time it is difficult to overlook the fact that the Council drew much from the experiences and reflections of the immediate past, especially from the intellectual legacy left by Pius XII. In the history of the Church, the “old” and the “new” are always closely interwoven. The “new” grows out of the “old”, and the “old” finds a fuller expression in the “new”.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_10111994_tertio-millennio-adveniente_en.html

Again, don’t spend years studying all this. It is deep and complicated. Do you really have that much free time?

Changes occurred not just in modern times, but in the Middle Ages. Furious arguments raged over whether Aristotle should be studied by Catholics.

I think the greatest saints are martyrs have always been, mostly, simple people, who did not bother about intricate theological matters. Trust God. Trust God’s shepherds in the Catholic Church, that they know what they are doing, and will do the right thing and teach the right things.

I think it is really undeniable that Catholic saints and theologians in past times took a much more negative view of sex and sexual pleasure that is found in current Church teachings. Why struggle over this? Why not just accept it as the Church gaining new insights into things. All in all, people have never stopped enjoying sex no matter what was taught anyway. The big problem in the Catholic Church today is not whether sexual pleasure is wrong or not, but the massive premarital sexual activity going on between couples, and all the porno use (sorry to be so rude as to include that, but its a reality).

Oh well, I tried to be helpful! I am out of time! Best wishes. Live your life. Be happy. Help others. Honor God. Get to Heaven!

 

[Ancient1]

My understanding of that oft-maligned discourse of St. Augustine’s is not that sex in marriage is “evil” but something more along these lines (this is from memory, I’m not quoting any genius here):

Even in the holiest and loving marriage, one or both people probably commit “a little sin” during intercourse because they are driven at some point by their own pleasure. There is a physiological aspect to sex (that those who’ve experienced it will acknowledge) where a person almost entirely loses self-control.

An important part of marriage that is an expression of love and a means of procreation is not evil, but something beautiful. Just like the concept of Original Sin inescapable in the most pure human being, there is a kernel or moment of the act where we do not escape our selfish nature.

There is much more subtlety to understanding that passage than to simplify it that the Church or St. Augustine “taught sex was evil” in the context of marriage. That I have never heard and find rather bizarre that’s its being taught to you as some sort of valid interpretation.

Of course, as soon as you said a class in Catholic Sexual Ethics I was worried. One would hope that Catholics would be studying Sexual Morality.

 

[Ancient1]

We just read St. Augustine’s “On the Good of Marriage” … I suppose the issue is with St. Augustine in that, the way this is all being presented is that this was the teaching of the Church, that sex was evil even within marriage if not for the purpose of procreation and more recently (20th Century) the Church is changing its tone and teaching.

As a side note, the professor has said that she is fascinated on how these beleifs “change” over time and that is what her entire work is devoted to, maybe its just semantics, but it seems “off” to me.

Hello again. I spoke with a theologian friend of mine today. And I don’t mean some seminarian, I mean a published PhD expert and orthodox priest affiliated in good standing with a respected Catholic institution. (Sorry I cannot give his name in this setting.)

It seems this “Augustine said sex is evil” ERROR is very common, and one that has become popular because protestants like to use it to criticize Catholic doctrine. Libertines like to use it to show what prudes we are. You can find 1000 articles on the internet with this premise, all incorrect, usually blaming poor Augustine.

You, Paul, have good instincts. You are right on your concerns. First, it has never been the teaching or doctrine of the Church that sex within a valid marriage is evil.

Second, you can find plenty of books and opinions to the contrary; look at the author, the source and see if there’s an Obstat or Imprimatur. Was there on the book your professor choose? Who is the editor and is he/she a orthodox or free-thinking Catholic? What about the publisher? An approved one? Don’t be 100% sure you read an accurate rendition of St. Augustine’s original text. Or was it just excerpts? Those are easy to twist around.

Third, you are right to feel uneasy with your professor’s idea, which is wrong, that Church teaching changes. The Truth cannot change. If this lady is writing her own book based on the premise that Doctrine or Dogma is mutable, I would question her education and proper role in teaching a class on Catholic Sexual “Ethics”.

Notice that telling choice of words. Ethics DO change, morality does not. The Church has always been consistent with teachings on sexual morality, in and out of marriage, while every one of the protestant denominations have changed theirs over time. Why is she calling this a class in ethics? Her choice of words (like with “fetus”) is perhaps revealing her real attitudes and lack of proper understanding.

Finally, the essential “openness to life” or the link between marriage and procreation is certainly nothing new, pre-dating Augustine, and holding true to the present day.

This may interest you: (Fr. Hardon, can’t get much better!)

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_003.htm

Thanks for sharing this important and fascinating class, and please report how things progress!

 

[Barbkw]

Are you aware of St. Augustine’s life prior to the priesthood?

Give me chastity and continence, but not yet.

 

[Ancient1]

Are you aware of St. Augustine’s life prior to the priesthood?

Yeah, so? Augustine also had a child with his long-term mistress. Seems like when it comes to sex he knows what he’s talking about.

 

[Barbkw]

Yeah, so? Augustine also had a child with his long-term mistress. Seems like when it comes to sex he knows what he’s talking about.

My point as well.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure if I could agree with all of Augustine’s thoughts on sex and how it relates to original sin and human shame-and I don’t believe the Church does either for that matter. But the main aspect of Church teaching, from what I understand, is that procreation cannot be separated from the procreative act without doing harm to our concept of what it means to be human, without diminishing the value of human life in general. And this is one reason why contraception, for one thing, is considered to be wrong.

 

[centurionguard]

I’m not sure if I could agree with all of Augustine’s thoughts on sex and how it relates to original sin and human shame-and I don’t believe the Church does either for that matter. But the main aspect of Church teaching, from what I understand, is that procreation cannot be separated from the procreative act without doing harm to our concept of what it means to be human, without diminishing the value of human life in general. And this is one reason why contraception, for one thing, is considered to be wrong.

I’m not sure if I could agree with all of Augustine’s thoughts on sex and how it relates to original sin and human shame-and I don’t believe the Church does either for that matter.

I guess I’m somewhat confused why you state this given the immense conversion of Saint Augustine. He is a Doctor of the Church and called the Doctor of Grace.

It was disobedience of God and the entertainment of Lusts of the Flesh of realizing their nakedness after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge that got them removed from paradise.

Umpteen thousands of years later and we humans are still combating our lower nature in our Lusts of the Flesh. No human is left unscathed by these trials. Sexual Lusts (“is”) directly related to the curse of original sin. More souls fall into Hell due to prideful sins of sexual lusts than any other sin. Satan knows very well how to bring ruin to human souls caught up in their lusts.

 

[fhansen]

I guess I’m somewhat confused why you state this given the immense conversion of Saint Augustine. He is a Doctor of the Church and called the Doctor of Grace.

It was disobedience of God and the entertainment of Lusts of the Flesh of realizing their nakedness after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge that got them removed from paradise.

Umpteen thousands of years later and we humans are still combating our lower nature in our Lusts of the Flesh. No human is left unscathed by these trials. Sexual Lusts (“is”) directly related to original sin. More souls fall into Hell due to prideful sins of sexual lusts than any other sin. Satan knows very well how to bring ruin to human souls caught up in their lusts.

Augustine believed human shame was caused by the shame of sexual arousal-but I don’t know that this is the main or only reason. Certainly man lost control of his passions once he took control of his own morality -I’m just not sure that Augustine’s assessment of shame was correct. Also, Augustine taught that OS was transmitted through the sex act because the sex act, itself, was always contaminated by lust. This particular opinion, I believe, was not accepted by either Aquinas or the Church.

 

[centurionguard]

Augustine believed human shame was caused by the shame of sexual arousal-but I don’t know that this is the main or only reason. Certainly man lost control of his passions once he took control of his own morality -I’m just not sure that Augustine’s assessment of shame was correct. Also, Augustine taught that OS was transmitted through the sex act because the sex act, itself, was always contaminated by lust. This particular opinion, I believe, was not accepted by either Aquinas or the Church.

But even in a Catholic marriage there is always a (“risk”) that the sexual act itself can become contaminated by selfish sexual lust if the joining of husband and wife isn’t totally unitive being one in mind, one in heart and one in soul. The giving of oneself as a spouse in marriage must be totally unselfish for the other spouse in an act of genuine love.
The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation, the creation of another precious life as a sole gift from God.

Perhaps what Saint Augustine was driving at in speaking about Shame is when there’s a breakdown in the unitive genuine sexual act that causes such to be selfish between one or both spouses.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

But even in a Catholic marriage there is always a (“risk”) that the sexual act itself can become contaminated by selfish sexual lust if the joining of husband and wife isn’t totally unitive being one in mind, one in heart and one in soul. The giving of oneself as a spouse in marriage must be totally unselfish for the other spouse in an act of genuine love.
The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation, the creation of another precious life as a sole gift from God.

Perhaps what Saint Augustine was driving at in speaking about Shame is when there’s a breakdown in the unitive genuine sexual act that causes such to be selfish between one or both spouses.

Your response raises 2 questions with me:

– You state “The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation . . .” Surely a marital embrace can be “genuine” without necessarily resulting in procreation, provided that artificial contraception is not employed.

– How do the spouses in fact determine if their (intended) act is “one in mind, one in heart and one in soul?” If one partner may be tired but willing to meet the reasonable needs of the other, it would seem that these elements may be lacking. Should intimacy then be avoided until the “spiritual temperature” (my words) is perfect? If not, how can the act be justified?

 

[centurionguard]

Your response raises 2 questions with me:

– You state “The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation . . .” Surely a marital embrace can be “genuine” without necessarily resulting in procreation, provided that artificial contraception is not employed.

– How do the spouses in fact determine if their (intended) act is “one in mind, one in heart and one in soul?” If one partner may be tired but willing to meet the reasonable needs of the other, it would seem that these elements may be lacking. Should intimacy then be avoided until the “spiritual temperature” (my words) is perfect? If not, how can the act be justified?

Their are always imperfections in every Catholic marriage given the weakness of the human condition. Some might ask what is the greatest secret in every Catholic marriage?
Most might say unconditional love. Their right. However; for conditions of unconditional love to be met another vital attribute of love has to be given to the other spouse who is perhaps selfish in giving of their total love. Ask a Catholic married couple celebrating over 50 years a marriage what kept their love together. I’m strongly contemplating it was the ("forgiveness’) for the lacking of each other that strengthened their love.

When there is a lacking of 100% love in either spouse, should not the stronger love of one spouse make up what is hopefully temporarily lacking in the other spouse who may be giving only 70% of their love?

" Surely a marital embrace can be “genuine” without necessarily resulting in procreation, provided that artificial contraception is not employed.

Yes it can, but it doesn’t change the fact of Gods free gift of procreation in such an embrace.

– How do the spouses in fact determine if their (intended) act is “one in mind, one in heart and one in soul?” If one partner may be tired but willing to meet the reasonable needs of the other, it would seem that these elements may be lacking. Should intimacy then be avoided until the “spiritual temperature” (my words) is perfect? If not, how can the act be justified?

Its justified by spiritual growth, faith, and love of God as it is between the maturity of growth and perfection of love between that of both spouses have for one another. This incorporates Sacrificial Love of looking only for the best in each other. Ultimately; it should echo the same Sacrificial Love God (“Jesus”) gave to His Spouse, His devout children in the Church.

 

[centurionguard]

Your response raises 2 questions with me:

– You state “The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation . . .” Surely a marital embrace can be “genuine” without necessarily resulting in procreation, provided that artificial contraception is not employed.

– How do the spouses in fact determine if their (intended) act is “one in mind, one in heart and one in soul?” If one partner may be tired but willing to meet the reasonable needs of the other, it would seem that these elements may be lacking. Should intimacy then be avoided until the “spiritual temperature” (my words) is perfect? If not, how can the act be justified?

Your response raises 2 questions with me:

– You state “The fruit of such genuine embrace of course is procreation . . .” Surely a marital embrace can be “genuine” without necessarily resulting in procreation,

I would like to add one more thought to this. Once Procreation is decoupled/ignored from the marriage sex act itself from a biological and ethically moral standpoint in Catholic Church law, the sex act it itself between husband and wife becomes self-seeking in pleasure only.
The majority of Catholics today are blindsided by this as are Protestant Christians.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I knew these hangups came from somewhere! GRR