Good News About Sex and Marriage...what is the deal with this book?

[valient_Lucy]

How can you not enjoy sex? At least for the guy it has to be quite enjoyable. How can you orgasm and not enjoy it?

Well, when they first married, they lived as brother and sister. After ten months, their confessor told them that marriage existed for the procreation of children, and they went on to have children. However, according to the biography I read, they both viewed the act as somewhat repugnant. They actually viewed pregnancy as a welcome respite from their sexual life.

You have to understand, neither one of them had hoped to get married. He wanted to be a priest, she wanted to be a nun, but they were rejected. Shortly before Zelie’s wedding, she visited a cloister (perhaps to visit her sister) and she cried, becaue she wanted so badly to be a nun, and the thought of marriage distressed her. I think, for both of them, their sexual life probably reminded them of failed dreams and life’s disappointments. My :twocents:.

And you know what? They weren’t sinning.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well, when they first married, they lived as brother and sister. After ten months, their confessor told them that marriage existed for the procreation of children, and they went on to have children. However, according to the biography I read, they both viewed the act as somewhat repugnant. They actually viewed pregnancy as a welcome respite from their sexual life.

You have to understand, neither one of them had hoped to get married. He wanted to be a priest, she wanted to be a nun, but they were rejected. Shortly before Zelie’s wedding, she visited a cloister (perhaps to visit her sister) and she cried, becaue she wanted so badly to be a nun, and the thought of marriage distressed her. I think, for both of them, their sexual life probably reminded them of failed dreams and life’s disappointments. My :twocents:.

And you know what? They weren’t sinning.

In addition, Zelie and her sister were very familiar with the Church teaching that virgins rank higher in heaven than married couples. They taught Pauline (one of Zelie’s daughters) that virgins alone could follow Christ in heaven, that they were His special friends, and that they were given crowns of white roses in heaven, as opposed to married couples, who received crowns of red roses.

I think Zelie (at least) viewed her sexual relationship with her husband as something that would drive a wedge between her and Christ in heaven, and would rob her of future glory. Her husband probably felt the same way.

 

[Spirithound]

I was thinking of getting this book but I don’t really agree that gay sex or birth control are bad so I don’t think it is for me.

Do you always reject out-of-hand works that disagree with your opinion?

This is what I got from wikipedia:

Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one’s motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues.

I don’t see how homosexuality or birth control conflicts with that. I do see how there could be logical moral problems with abortion though. That is one thing that you don’t need to use religion to argue against.

Contraception leads to the vice of intemperance. Since the woman is always “available” for sex, since they are not abstaining during her fertile times as NFP would suggest, the man feels that they should have sex more often.

Homosexuality…3 words: gay pride parade.

 

[manualman]

1. To worry about prudery in the modern era is like worrying that the US Government will have a large budget surplus next year. Why should we worry about an imaginary threat instead of a real threat?
2. Besides, which is worse: a married couple with a horrible sex life but both spouses go to Heaven, or a married couple with a great sex life and they both end up in Hell? **What’s more important, great sex or eternal salvation? **
3. Hmm. Instead of addressing the argument, you chose to insult me. **I guess that means you can’t say why that quote is sinful or incompatible with Catholic teaching. **Because you know that it isn’t.

1. A better analogy would be so say that there is no need to worry about anti-federalist militia groups or revolutionaries today because we live in an era of overwhelming government power. Small consolation, I suspect to Tim McVeigh’s victims. It is not sufficient to oppose error. You must also embrace the truth or you may fall victim to a DIFFERENT error.
2. Ah the false dillemma, one of the oldest tricks in rhetoric. My answer: neither. I’ll take an appropriate appreciation of God’s gift of sexuality, thank you. And I don’t consider appreciating it to place me at elevated risk of hellfire either. Moreover, I think you underestimate the place and power of sexuality in the married relationship. Especially if one spouse sees sex as an unpleasant duty and the other has healthy attitudes. That will surely be a massive wedge between them that IMO has a large chance of making their union a destructive one rather than a unitive one. Impossible? Perhaps not, with Grace. Contrary to our created nature, yes.
3. I didn’t insult you, I asked you to take your reasoning to its full logical conclusion. If that seemed like an insult, you should ponder why that is so. Catholicism isn’t merely a list of dogmas, it is a relationship with our Father, thanks to the Son and Holy Spirit. I cannot find a dogma or commandment in which it lists as “sinful” the idea that enjoyment of food is a sign of weakness and people should merely eat nutritious gruel with minimal taste. But I know an unhealthy attitude when I see one. When God gives us a gift, that is something that is good. It is an affront to Him to act as if it is bad or simply unpleasant.

I’m almost getting the idea that we aren’t going to be able to agree!

 

[valient_Lucy]

1. A better analogy would be so say that there is no need to worry about anti-federalist militia groups or revolutionaries today because we live in an era of overwhelming government power. Small consolation, I suspect to Tim McVeigh’s victims. It is not sufficient to oppose error. You must also embrace the truth or you may fall victim to a DIFFERENT error.
2. Ah the false dillemma, one of the oldest tricks in rhetoric. My answer: neither. I’ll take an appropriate appreciation of God’s gift of sexuality, thank you. And I don’t consider appreciating it to place me at elevated risk of hellfire either. Moreover, I think you underestimate the place and power of sexuality in the married relationship. Especially if one spouse sees sex as an unpleasant duty and the other has healthy attitudes. That will surely be a massive wedge between them that IMO has a large chance of making their union a destructive one rather than a unitive one. Impossible? Perhaps not, with Grace. Contrary to our created nature, yes.
3. I didn’t insult you, I asked you to take your reasoning to its full logical conclusion. If that seemed like an insult, you should ponder why that is so. Catholicism isn’t merely a list of dogmas, it is a relationship with our Father, thanks to the Son and Holy Spirit. I cannot find a dogma or commandment in which it lists as “sinful” the idea that enjoyment of food is a sign of weakness and people should merely eat nutritious gruel with minimal taste. But I know an unhealthy attitude when I see one. When God gives us a gift, that is something that is good. It is an affront to Him to act as if it is bad or simply unpleasant.

I’m almost getting the idea that we aren’t going to be able to agree!

It’s the Catholic Church who hates sex, not me. That was (and still is) one of the hardest things about becoming a Catholic, and about staying a Catholic. But, I’ve learned that if you disagree with the Church, you change your mind. I’m still working on it. But I’ll get there.

She’s been right about everything else. **I don’t understand why the Church hates marriage and sex, but I know that if she does, she must have a very good reason. ** Eventually, I’ll figure out what that is.

 

[valient_Lucy]

It’s the Catholic Church who hates sex, not me. That was (and still is) one of the hardest things about becoming a Catholic, and about staying a Catholic. But, I’ve learned that if you disagree with the Church, you change your mind. I’m still working on it. But I’ll get there.

She’s been right about everything else. **I don’t understand why the Church hates marriage and sex, but I know that if she does, she must have a very good reason. ** Eventually, I’ll figure out what that is.

And that is the big problem with books like Good News about Sex and Marriage. Books like this whitewash and sugarcoat the Church’s teachings, and present the Church’s view of sex and marriage as a positive point of view. Then, when people find out what the Church really thinks, they feel deceived.

When I entered the Church, I thought that the Church’s view on sex and marriage was a positive one. Apologists presented the Church’s teachings as very similar to what I had been taught as a Protestant. I was shocked when I learned the truth. I felt betrayed. I hated going to Mass. I thought about leaving the Church.

No one should have to feel what I felt.

 

[davidv]

It’s the Catholic Church who hates sex, not me.

This is a blatant falsehood. There is no, and has never been, a Church teaching that says this. You may cite all the personal writings of individual Catholics all you want, but none of them speak for the Church.

That was (and still is) one of the hardest things about becoming a Catholic, and about staying a Catholic. But, I’ve learned that if you disagree with the Church, you change your mind. I’m still working on it. But I’ll get there.

She’s been right about everything else. **I don’t understand why the Church hates marriage and sex, but I know that if she does, she must have a very good reason. **Eventually, I’ll figure out what that is.

You don’t understand it because it is not true.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is a blatant falsehood. There is no, and has never been, a Church teaching that says this. You may cite all the personal writings of individual Catholics all you want, but none of them speak for the Church.

I used to believe that. I wish I could believe it again. But it’s impossible. I’ve tried.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

1. A better analogy would be so say that there is no need to worry about anti-federalist militia groups or revolutionaries today because we live in an era of overwhelming government power. Small consolation, I suspect to Tim McVeigh’s victims. It is not sufficient to oppose error. You must also embrace the truth or you may fall victim to a DIFFERENT error.
2. Ah the false dillemma, one of the oldest tricks in rhetoric. My answer: neither. I’ll take an appropriate appreciation of God’s gift of sexuality, thank you. And I don’t consider appreciating it to place me at elevated risk of hellfire either. Moreover, I think you underestimate the place and power of sexuality in the married relationship. Especially if one spouse sees sex as an unpleasant duty and the other has healthy attitudes. That will surely be a massive wedge between them that IMO has a large chance of making their union a destructive one rather than a unitive one. Impossible? Perhaps not, with Grace. Contrary to our created nature, yes.
3. I didn’t insult you, I asked you to take your reasoning to its full logical conclusion. If that seemed like an insult, you should ponder why that is so. Catholicism isn’t merely a list of dogmas, it is a relationship with our Father, thanks to the Son and Holy Spirit. I cannot find a dogma or commandment in which it lists as “sinful” the idea that enjoyment of food is a sign of weakness and people should merely eat nutritious gruel with minimal taste. But I know an unhealthy attitude when I see one. When God gives us a gift, that is something that is good. It is an affront to Him to act as if it is bad or simply unpleasant.
   I’m almost getting the idea that we aren’t going to be able to agree!

Very good point.

As an example, my grandmother was born in 1888. She lived to be 103. She continued to fast every friday until the end of her life. She also lived in Italy during both world wars, and at times faced poverty and hunger. Sometimes all they had to eat was bread and wild chicory. Ever time she ate anything, she would thank God. “Thank you Lord for this wonderful food.” Wild chicory is not the tastiest thing, yet she would appreciate and enjoy it, and be thankful. She wouldn’t think, “I’m eating this bitter herb because I have to, and I’ll just grin and bear it.”

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

And that is the big problem with books like Good News about Sex and Marriage. Books like this whitewash and sugarcoat the Church’s teachings, and present the Church’s view of sex and marriage as a positive point of view. Then, when people find out what the Church really thinks, they feel deceived.

When I entered the Church, I thought that the Church’s view on sex and marriage was a positive one. Apologists presented the Church’s teachings as very similar to what I had been taught as a Protestant. I was shocked when I learned the truth. I felt betrayed. I hated going to Mass. I thought about leaving the Church.

No one should have to feel what I felt.

Maybe some thing doesn’t want you to be Catholic, to go to Mass and is playing head games with you. Maybe you haven’t discovered the truth…but are mistaken about what the truth is?

 

[ironband]

It’s the Catholic Church who hates sex, not me. That was (and still is) one of the hardest things about becoming a Catholic, and about staying a Catholic. But, I’ve learned that if you disagree with the Church, you change your mind. I’m still working on it. But I’ll get there.

She’s been right about everything else. **I don’t understand why the Church hates marriage and sex, but I know that if she does, she must have a very good reason. ** Eventually, I’ll figure out what that is.

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Time out! The Catholic Church hates marriage and sex?

Matrimony is a sacrament. The Church can not hate one of her sacraments. Could the Church hate Baptism? Eucharist? Confirmation? Holy Orders? Confession/Penance/Reconciliation? Anointing of the Sick?

Jesus chose a wedding as the setting for His first miracle and the beginning of His ministry on Earth:

The Church attaches great importance to Jesus’ presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the **goodness of marriage **and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ’s presence. - CCC #1613 (emphasis added)

To say that the Catholic Church hates marriage contradicts this.

As to the Church hating sex, I suppose that depends on the context. But consider:

Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values. - CCC #1643 - emphasis added

Within marriage, between spouses making a full gift of themselves to one another, this certainly doesn’t sound like a condemnation or hatred of sex. Like any gift, it can be misused…but certainly in the proper context and attitude, this act which cooperates with God’s creative power and unifies the spouses to one another is not hated by the Church.

I can only reccommend a full review of Article 7 of the Catechism (I’m sure you’ve read it before…but it never hurts to review). usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml

 

[ironband]

I’d also like to add:

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 - CCC 2362, referencing Pius XII, Discourse, October 29, 1951
and Gaudium et spes 49 § 2.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This is a blatant falsehood. There is no, and has never been, a Church teaching that says this. You may cite all the personal writings of individual Catholics all you want, but none of them speak for the Church.

You don’t understand it because it is not true.

I used to believe that. I wish I could believe it again. But it’s impossible. I’ve tried.

I can’t believe it anymore than I can believe that Islam is the religion of peace, even though its followers have a real fondness for blowing themselves up and killing innocent people. Sure, none of the terrorists or suicide bombers or terrorists speak for Islam. But they do what they do because they feel that, by doing it, they are following the teachings of their faith.

Sure, the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church don’t speak for the Church. But they wrote what they wrote because they believed in the Church.

It’s very sad, because I used to love the Church. I thought that coming into the Church was the best thing that ever happened to me. But now I just feel as though I’ve been hoodwinked.

I wish I could love the Church again. But right now I don’t know if I’ll ever feel that again.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Lucy, maybe you could go to Father Corapi’s website and search for “marriage” he has 2 CD talks on the subject that are very ,very good. My DH and I listen to them often.

One of the reasons you might think that being a religious is more holy than being married does not mean being married is bad.

A Priest is married to the Bride of Christ…so his Bride is better than I am as a wife. Doesn’t make a Priest better than my husband…the Priest has a better spouse than my DH does.

A nun is married to Jesus…a Nun is not better than me, her spouse is better than my husband…

Does that make sense?

Just look at the Gospels. How many parables does Jesus use regarding weddings? Marriage is a sacrament. It is holy and good.

 

[zz912]

It’s the Catholic Church who hates sex, not me. That was (and still is) one of the hardest things about becoming a Catholic, and about staying a Catholic. But, I’ve learned that if you disagree with the Church, you change your mind. I’m still working on it. But I’ll get there.

She’s been right about everything else. **I don’t understand why the Church hates marriage and sex, but I know that if she does, she must have a very good reason. ** Eventually, I’ll figure out what that is.

I think I see the problem.

In plain language the CCC, multiple Popes, encyclicals and other pronouncements, theologians, and contemporary thinkers all say that sex in marriage is a good and a gift from God to be cherished, respected, and protected. But by finding a few early writers and Doctors who were writing against rampant hedonistic pagan sexual mores of their day (much worse then today), who were not protected with the charism of infallibility, but you hold them up as the “true” beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Listen to the Church and the Magisterium. They speak very plainly about how the Church views sex.

 

[OraLabora]

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Time out! The Catholic Church hates marriage and sex?

No, of course not but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t numerous clergy and Catholic writers who have messed with people’s heads by saying that sex is wrong except for procreation.

It’s kind of like having a great application but the user interface stinks and ruins the experience: the people that the faithful rely on for their teaching, their interface to the Church, their pastors, being human themselves, do often let the faithful down by poor teaching. Unfortunately many take that as the “Church” speaking and aren’t willing to look at the brilliant logic of the true teaching of the Church because their interface with the Church was less than ideal.

 

[manualman]

This thread sure has taken a turn for the strange.

Lucy, I think you have fallen victim to a deception. It is a very similar deception to that used against the Church on the topic of slavery. It is a historic fact that the Church did not very agressively pursue the implications of human dignity contrasted with the functioning of the institution of slavery for centuries. Many people think this black mark somehow disproves the church! By their logic, basic decency requires the recognition that one human being cannot own another human being and treat him as mere chattle property. Therefore anyone who does this or enables it to continue must lack any sort of common decency. Such people cannot be in a state of Grace, therefore the Catholic Church is lost and corrupt.

The fundamental flaw in the logic is that Grace does NOT automatically heal you of all your failures (at least not in this life). Infallibility is not impeccability, it is a NEGATIVE protection. The Church never TAUGHT that human slavery was morally acceptable and defensible. She just failed to denounce it for a long time. (But not as badly as the rest of the culture around her)

Grace works in human history slowly. In any age, the mark of the Church is that she shines brightly in comparison to the culture of the age, not necessarily that she shines brightly by objective standards. This is NOT relativism because the subject is NOT right and wrong. The subject is the evaluation of the effects of the faith on a culture. And it has always been positive, including in the slavery issue.

Same goes for sex. In every age, the sexual attitudes of those in the church were GENERALLY healthier than those in the rest of the culture. Grace has that effect: positive, but not controlling. Culture influences us all. (Media biases aside, this is true today as well when the facts show that priests and religious commit sexual abuse at LOWER rates than does the general populace of people in positions of authority and trust. We are still made up of fallen sinners, but Grace helps us rise higher than mere human strength ever can)

So instead of trying to be your own Magisterium and reinterpreting the meaning of what Early Fathers said without the benefit of adequate context, why not simply accept what the church ACTUALLY teaches instead of claiming that you have some sort of secret insight into catholicism that a century worth of popes apparently lacked?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Manualman, you’re right. I was deceived.

The popes, Christopher West, and other Catholic apologists know full well what the Catholics for most of Church history thought about sex and marriage. They cannot plead ignorance. That makes their actions seem that much more malicious.

But I cannot blame them. I was not deceived by them. I deceived myself. **I allowed myself to be blinded. **

Three years before I converted, when I began to be insterested in Catholicsm, my mom asked me why I was interested in the Church. “This isn’t rational. There’s no rational reason to join the Catholic Church. You’re interested in this because you want this to be true. This appeals to a need you have that isn’t being met.” She was right. As always, my mom knows me far better than I know myself. A part of me, for whatever reason, wanted the Church to be true, enough for me to turn off my capacity to question and to reason. I ignored anything that went against it. When my medieval history professor told our class that there was no historical basis for papal primacy, I brushed it aside. I didn’t bother to investigate it further. When she told us that the concept of marriage being a sacrament was an invention of the High Middle Ages (the period from 1000-1300) I ignored her. I have no one to blame but myself for my present predicament. I had plenty of warnings.

Don’t worry. I won’t leave the Church. I have too much pride. As much as I love my mom, it would be too humiliating to tell her that she was right all along. **I’d rather die than have to swallow that much pride and admit how foolish I was. **

There was a time for studying, questioning, critical thinking, and reason. And that was before my conversion. The second after I entered the Church, it was too late. That time has passed. I’ve made my bed, and now I have to sleep in it.

 

[ironband]

Oh Lucy,

My heart is just breaking for you. Your despair is palpable.

You are certainly in my prayers today.

 

[bingbang]

Manualman, you’re right. I was deceived.

The popes, Christopher West, and other Catholic apologists know full well what the Catholics for most of Church history thought about sex and marriage. They cannot plead ignorance. That makes their actions seem that much more malicious.

But I cannot blame them. I was not deceived by them. I deceived myself. **I allowed myself to be blinded. **

Three years before I converted, when I began to be insterested in Catholicsm, my mom asked me why I was interested in the Church. “This isn’t rational. There’s no rational reason to join the Catholic Church. You’re interested in this because you want this to be true. This appeals to a need you have that isn’t being met.” She was right. As always, my mom knows me far better than I know myself. A part of me, for whatever reason, wanted the Church to be true, enough for me to turn off my capacity to question and to reason. I ignored anything that went against it. When my medieval history professor told our class that there was no historical basis for papal primacy, I brushed it aside. I didn’t bother to investigate it further. When she told us that the concept of marriage being a sacrament was an invention of the High Middle Ages (the period from 1000-1300) I ignored her. I have no one to blame but myself for my present predicament. I had plenty of warnings.

Don’t worry. I won’t leave the Church. I have too much pride. As much as I love my mom, it would be too humiliating to tell her that she was right all along. **I’d rather die than have to swallow that much pride and admit how foolish I was. **

There was a time for studying, questioning, critical thinking, and reason. And that was before my conversion. The second after I entered the Church, it was too late. That time has passed. I’ve made my bed, and now I have to sleep in it.

So you don’t like the Catholic Church and its teachings, but choose to stay in it because you don’t want to admit to your mother that she was right? I think you seriously need to re-evaluate your life and the relationships in it.

What is worse? Belonging to a church that you resent and don’t agree with or admitting to your mother that she was right?

If I were you I would leave the church and explore other options. Obviously the Catholic Church is not for you and pride should not be a reason to stay with the church. Do you really have such a bad relationship with your mother that you can’t tell her that she was right and you made a mistake? Are the two of you so competitive always trying to one up each other or something? I just can’t relate to this at all.