Does the church call sex 'bad?'

  • Thread starter Thread starter holyrood
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A quote " At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation".

How to define the just moderation? That is the question???

In the past, some theologians have tried to give a definition in using of questions – Why, what for, where, when, how, how often, how many times, how speed, how long, how old, after how many children???
And
In giving their own answers that can be very weird.

Per se, this very rediculous.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
You have a point.
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it).
Click to expand...
This.

In fact, one does not need to look further than on this board, to find people obsessing over what is a licit form of a sexual intercourse. Here is one example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9553426
 
kompaz said:
This.

In fact, one does not need to look further than on this board, to find people obsessing over what is a licit form of a sexual intercourse. Here is one example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9553426
Click to expand...
People’s obsessions and theologians speculations are NOT Church teaching. All the Church asks is that the marital act be open to conception (not must conceive), that it be completed, and that neither treats the other as an object or hurts one another. There are some priests and lay people who get all hung up and tangled up trying to define in fine detail, but it’s not necessary. If a couple follows the simple guidelines I cited, then they need have no scruples, but take full pleasure in marital love. Really, it’s simple. My dh and I have never had any problems with it and we are quite normal.
 
kompaz said:
This.

In fact, one does not need to look further than on this board, to find people obsessing over what is a licit form of a sexual intercourse. Here is one example: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9553426
Click to expand...
:bigyikes: Okay, that that thread is honestly disturbing.

Just because some people completely obsess (and I think the degree in that thread is completely unhealthy) doesn’t make it Church teaching or even the opinion of the large part of the Church. This is a forum, with a large part of it devoted to apologetics, is going to get you an odd sampling of Catholics and their opinions, much different than you would find in your local Catholic parish.
 
holyrood said:
I believe it doesn’t. I believe the Church teaches that there’s a proper time and place for sex, and that it teaches this in wisdom, because God knows that, like fire, it can be very harmful outside of its proper time and place.

I have a friend who takes the view that the Church says sex is ‘bad.’ His reasoning is that the Church calls it sin outside of marriage, and sin is bad.

I can’t really argue with his reasoning, but I feel that the intention and reasons behind calling it sinful are an important nuance, since it’s about telling us what’s good and beneficial for us, not, as many currently believe, that the Church just wants ‘control’ over our sex lives. (That baffles me–people really think bishops and cardinals have nothing more on their minds than ‘controlling’ people? For what purpose? What in the world would they, personally be getting out of ‘controlling’ people, especially their sex lives? But I suppose that’s bordering on a rant and another thread.)

For background information, this friend is a fallen-away Catholic, who greatly admires his relatives who were devout nuns and priests, and has many fond memories of his great-aunt at prayer. He admires my faith greatly and doesn’t try to sway me or convince me to change my ways. But he himself, has lived very differently. And he feels that it’s been good and beneficial, that it’s been a way of becoming close to people. He feels all the sex has been a positive good in his life.

Do others–those who really know theology and what the Church teaches very well–see the Church as saying sex outside marriage is ‘bad’ or ‘sinful’ or both? Is it the same thing or is there a fine difference, due to the reasoning behind it?
Click to expand...
The CC does not teach that sex is bad. Quite the contrary, and it actually is a heresy to say that sex is bad or that the body is evil.

Have you ever heard about Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? I suggest you start there. Christopher West does a great job explaining it and putting it in simpler terms. (I’ve really gotten into reading his books lately) It’s quite an eye opener on how we were created for this Divine Love and how sex between spouses speaks of this Divine Love. In fact, this very thing is talked about in Song of Songs.

Yes, sex outside of marriage is wrong. But not only is it wrong, it is harmful to the human person. Again, I would suggest studying JPII’s Theology of the Body to understand why God created sex and why having sex outside of marriage destroys what God intended for mankind.
 
Catholic80 said:
Have you ever heard about Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? I suggest you start there. Christopher West does a great job explaining it and putting it in simpler terms. (I’ve really gotten into reading his books lately) It’s quite an eye opener on how we were created for this Divine Love and how sex between spouses speaks of this Divine Love. In fact, this very thing is talked about in Song of Songs.

Yes, sex outside of marriage is wrong. But not only is it wrong, it is harmful to the human person. Again, I would suggest studying JPII’s Theology of the Body to understand why God created sex and why having sex outside of marriage destroys what God intended for mankind.
Click to expand...
Hi, Catholic80,

Yes, I’ve not only heard of it, I’ve done a fair amount of reading on it and taken an 8 week course on it. I could explain all this to him, and he wouldn’t see it the same. My question was really very focused, and I suspect I worded it wrong to begin with, not including the words outside of marriage–as to whether the Church calls it ‘bad’ outside of marriage.

I guess it does, and my struggle, I think, is that my lifetime experiences with people’s criticisms of Catholic teaching leave me feeling there’s a world of judgment behind saying the Church calls sex outside of marriage ‘bad,’ that what my friend is really saying is that the Church is wrong, and it’s really about controlling men wanting to control everyone’s lives, including their sex lives. I think there’s a huge gulf between saying something is bad out of understanding and concern that it leads to problems (ie, smoking) and saying something is bad out of a desire to control people.

I realize I was making a leap there, and even if that’s what my friend feels (that it’s about controlling, ignorance, or whatever), that I should be addressing that, not trying to convince him that the Church doesn’t call sex outside of marriage bad.

I suppose what I’d really like is for him to acknowledge that it’s about sex outside of marriage often being harmful in many ways, to the individual and to society, rather than to use the word bad.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Completely and obviously false.
If the Church never forced anyone to do anything the Papal States could not have existed.
Della said:
This is obviously false. Just how does the Papal States “force” anyone to do anything? With its vast and terrible armies? Considering the number of Catholics who disobey the Church on sexual matters, it just plain ridiculous to say the Papal States are able to control anyone’s actions.

)
Click to expand...
The Papal States (a Catholic theocracy headed by the Pope) obviously doesn’t force anyone to do anything in the present day, because it no longer exists (the Church was forced to give it up at bayonet point).

You can read more about the Papal States here:
newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm

The point is, when the Papal States existed, the Church/state government forced its citizens to obey the law just like any other government. Which dis-proves Ed’s claim that the Church never forces people to do what it wants.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it). …And most sex inside marriage.
Della said:
Church citations please.
Click to expand...
Do you deny that:
  1. The Church considers sex between two men or two women sinful.
  2. The Church considers sex between unmarried couples of the opposite gender sinful.
  3. The Church considers sex between married couples sinful if they use any artificial birth control.
  4. The Church considers activities such as oral and anal sex sinful even between married couples.
  5. The Church considers sex were both participants are not in the right mindset (i.e. one or both naturally experience Lust) sinful.
If you deny none of these things, then I don’t see how you can reasonably disagree with me on this.
 
holyrood said:
Thank you, Della, on both posts. I find it sad to ask a question on Catholic doctrine on a Catholic forum and have someone think that spewing obvious hatred of the Catholic church is somehow an accurate answer. If someone doens’t believe Catholic theology or want to follow it, no problem, but why the hatred?

Just adding: I’ve been raised Catholic my entire life, 13 years of CCD and/or Catholic school, have been going to church pretty much weekly from birth onward, at churches literally all over the country and world, and I have never heard a single word saying sex is anything but a beautiful, holy moment between man and wife.
Click to expand...
Then you are very fortunate.
But there is no reason to think that your experience is the historical norm.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it). …And most sex inside marriage.

Do you deny that:
  1. The Church considers sex between two men or two women sinful.
  2. The Church considers sex between unmarried couples of the opposite gender sinful.
  3. The Church considers sex between married couples sinful if they use any artificial birth control.
  4. The Church considers activities such as oral and anal sex sinful even between married couples.
  5. The Church considers sex were both participants are not in the right mindset (i.e. one or both naturally experience Lust) sinful.
If you deny none of these things, then I don’t see how you can reasonably disagree with me on this.
Click to expand...
Everyone one the 5 things on your list are pretend sex. The Church’s teaching on the the intrinsic goodness of sex is not denied by sinful misuse of the sexual faculty.
 
Here is the teaching of the Church on the topic of just moderation by Pope Pius XII.
Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times there is the     risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it     is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the     necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its     realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency     to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God and     not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering     the essence of the instinctive act. In addition there would be substituted a license to     serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature in the place of the     moral obligations to dominate passions; and this sooner or later cannot but turn out to be     a danger to morals, conscience and human dignity.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift     and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act     only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to     stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in     forming and constituting the natural act. Now, instead, all this is subordinated and     ordered to that unique, great law of the "<generatio et educatio prolix,>"     namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of     life.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge in     the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts the whole marital life, not without     serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine,     inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure in the preparation     and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole     moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the     rest, in whatever way it is done, were to be justified by the expression of mutual     affection, sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, worthy of praise and reward before     God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the     Christian—a dignity—which restrains the excess of sensuality.
Click to expand...
Code: 
 No; the gravity and sanctity of the Christian moral law do not admit an unchecked     satisfaction of the sexual instinct tending only to pleasure and enjoyment; they do not     permit rational man to let himself be mastered to such an extent, neither as regards the     substance nor the circumstances of the act.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it). …And most sex inside marriage.

Do you deny that:
  1. The Church considers sex between two men or two women sinful.
  2. The Church considers sex between unmarried couples of the opposite gender sinful.
  3. The Church considers sex between married couples sinful if they use any artificial birth control.
  4. The Church considers activities such as oral and anal sex sinful even between married couples.
  5. The Church considers sex were both participants are not in the right mindset (i.e. one or both naturally experience Lust) sinful.
If you deny none of these things, then I don’t see how you can reasonably disagree with me on this.
davidv said:
Everyone one the 5 things on your list are pretend sex. The Church’s teaching on the the intrinsic goodness of sex is not denied by sinful misuse of the sexual faculty.
Click to expand...
LOL:D

Thanks I needed a good laugh.

So none of those things are real sex heh?
I find it amusing that according to your definition many (if not most, especially when you consider the thought crime rules) people thoroughout history have been conceived via what you label pretend sex.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it). …And most sex inside marriage.

Do you deny that:
  1. The Church considers sex between two men or two women sinful.
  2. The Church considers sex between unmarried couples of the opposite gender sinful.
  3. The Church considers sex between married couples sinful if they use any artificial birth control.
  4. The Church considers activities such as oral and anal sex sinful even between married couples.
  5. The Church considers sex were both participants are not in the right mindset (i.e. one or both naturally experience Lust) sinful.
If you deny none of these things, then I don’t see how you can reasonably disagree with me on this.

LOL:D

Thanks I needed a good laugh.

So none of those things are real sex heh?
I find it amusing that according to your definition many (if not most, especially when you consider the thought crime rules) people thoroughout history have been conceived via what you label pretend sex.
Click to expand...
We aren’t discussing whether or not pre-marital or adulterous sex may be productive. They certainly may be, but it’s not “real” sex in that they are destructive to the human person, as are the other examples you cited. Thus the Church calls them sinful/bad for this reason, as well as the fact that they violate God’s design for the joining of a man and a woman to form human families.
 
Della said:
We aren’t discussing whether or not pre-marital or adulterous sex may be productive. They certainly may be, but it’s not “real” sex in that they are destructive to the human person, as are the other examples you cited. Thus the Church calls them sinful/bad for this reason, as well as the fact that they violate God’s design for the joining of a man and a woman to form human families.
Click to expand...
So if a husband and wife have sex, and the wife conceives as a result, that wasn’t ‘real’ sex according your definition if either one of them experienced Lust or did anything else naughty at the time?

Remember, *vaginal sex can’t even occur *unless the man experiences Lust.

So according to your definition, virtually all sex is unreal.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
So if a husband and wife have sex, and the wife conceives as a result, that wasn’t ‘real’ sex according your definition if either one of them experienced Lust or did anything else naughty at the time?

Remember, *vaginal sex can’t even occur *unless the man experiences Lust.

So according to your definition, virtually all sex is unreal.
Click to expand...
You need to know what the word lust means to comment in proper context to the Catholic teachings:

“Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
*
Catechism* of the Catholic Church 2351
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
So if a husband and wife have sex, and the wife conceives as a result, that wasn’t ‘real’ sex according your definition if either one of them experienced Lust or did anything else naughty at the time?

Remember, *vaginal sex can’t even occur *unless the man experiences Lust.

So according to your definition, virtually all sex is unreal.
Click to expand...
You definition of lust is not correct. Lust is a disordered desire for someones body. Passion is not a sin.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The modern Church doesn’t technically disapprove of all sex.
It just approves of a very very narrow range of sexual activity (so narrow that married couples may not be able to ever actually achieve it). …And most sex inside marriage.

Do you deny that:
  1. The Church considers sex between two men or two women sinful.
  2. The Church considers sex between unmarried couples of the opposite gender sinful.
  3. The Church considers sex between married couples sinful if they use any artificial birth control.
  4. The Church considers activities such as oral and anal sex sinful even between married couples.
  5. The Church considers sex were both participants are not in the right mindset (i.e. one or both naturally experience Lust) sinful.
If you deny none of these things, then I don’t see how you can reasonably disagree with me on this.

LOL:D

Thanks I needed a good laugh.

So none of those things are real sex heh?
I find it amusing that according to your definition many (if not most, especially when you consider the thought crime rules) people thoroughout history have been conceived via what you label pretend sex.
Click to expand...
Laugh away at your error. I did not say they were not real, I said they were pretend, aka, counterfeit.

The definition is not mine, it is the Churches. If you want to argue against the Church’s teaching with a different meaning you are using a logical fallacy that can be dismissed out of hand as irrational.
 
The conjugal passion in couple is not a sin.
The conjugal sexual passion for the bonding of love is not sinful.
The conjugal physical love for avoiding to fall in the wrong effects of the concupiscence is not sinful.
The conjugal passion, per se, is not against the conjugal reason.
The passion is not lust.
Only, the conjugal lust is wrong and bad for the couple, the wife, the husband and the family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top