Is marriage sinful?

[Sky_River]

Sex is holy. If you don’t feel confortable with that then there’s a problem.

blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/holylaff.htm

Some sincere saints have entered into Charismatic zeal only to find they have “holy” sexual arousals, erections, and orgasms. Can one of the Charismatic gurus please explain this to us from the Word of God? Of course they can. Like their father the devil, the first liar, they give every Satanic aberration some divine interpretation.

What will be next? Watch for Holy dope, or drug induced spirit manifestations. Also, holy odors will soon develop filling churches with sweet smells. True believers will find the smells exceedingly gross. Holy auras will appear with “cloven tongues of fire.” Holy bells will ring. This may progress, after the Rapture of the true Church, to holy cursing and casting spells, holy vomiting, holy rage, holy sexual intercourse, holy urinating, holy cutting of oneself with knives, and holy cannibalism. I am simply projecting into the future what has been in the past from Babylon. It is no big trick to predict Satan’s devices if one is willing to predict it the way Satan has revealed himself in his perverse ways. Being literal with the Word of God and history is no big trick, but applying it to the present is hard to handle, right?

 

[Mavzylor]

I do say though, I hope you can overcome the fear to speaking with a priest despite having a run in with someone corrupt. Ask God to help you there. It is helpful to get as much insight from clergy as possible as not everyone knows everything… Not all will be helpful, but it just might not be their facet to help with your specific inquiries, if anything, you can always make some friends along the way, glean new insights.

Thanks for the concern. I still speak to priests, like when I go to Reconciliation. I just have a general irrational fear of being judged negatively by strangers that leads to unproductive conversation. I couldn’t handle some of the condescending remarks I’ve gotten on this thread if it were in person. Even just thinking about what the other person could be thinking about what I’m saying causes me to panic and stumble over my words. I stop thinking clearly can’t communicate a coherent thought, so I just don’t talk instead. Great listener though!

 

[Cathoholic]

Mavzylor.

Welcome to CAF forums.

A celebate life for the sake of the Kingdom of God is a higher calling.

But that is morality in the objective order.

There are people who are called to married life too.
And yes there are other people who God calls to the celibate life (for the sake of God’s Kingdom).

These latter examples are morality in the subjective order (what you or I or some other person specifically individually may be called to).

Both celibate and married lives are “good” callings.

Celibate is higher objectively.

Married non-celibate is the “highest calling” for you, if God is calling you to the married life though.

God calls some to celibate life. God calls other people to a non-celibate married life. (Again. Both are “good” callings).

The key is prayerfully discerning along with good spiritual direction where God is calling you.

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Vico]

…

Should put nothing else before God. Preference seems to be the wrong word here but one should not sin.

Merit is gained through good done in the state of sanctifying grace. Merit determines the glory in heaven.

Jesus Christ raised Matrimony to a sacrament for the baptized couple through which one may receive both sacramental grace for marriage and sanctifying grace and it does involve granting the gift of marital relations.

 

[anon90438963]

There are different gifts. Some are called to celibacy; some to marriage. The one and only thing necessary is to do God’s will.
God gave the woman to man and said “Increase and multiply.” God raised marriage to a holy sacrament. Mary and Joseph were married. Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding. Why would there be any question that marriage in and of itself is “sinful”?

 

[fhansen]

Does God prefer the celibate life? There are passages in the bible saying eunuchs will receive higher rewards in Heaven. If this is true, wouldn’t consummating a marriage be sinful? If God prefers virgins, and you choose not to be a virgin, you are putting sex before God. None of this can be true, because God made Holy Matrimony a sacrament. How is this contradiction resolved?

There’d be no celibates…if not for procreation.

 

[Wesrock]

Except didn’t it take the Church a thousand years or so to “sacramentalize” marriage, prior to that time treating it as a civil matter and leaving it up to the state?

No, this is false. Saint Augustine and other Church Fathers wrote on marriage being raised to a sacrament by Christ long before canonical law required the Church to witness marriage, but the Church still teaches that the ministers of the sacrament are the couple, not the Church witness. The Church witnessing the marriage is a practical discipline.

 

[e_c]

Our Lord says that “those who can bear it” ought to do it - but not everyone can bear it, which is fine (and will be rectified in Heaven). It is a conditional commandment, or invitation, just like total poverty and total obedience. Paul says that it is better not to marry (objectively), but that “there is no sin” if there is a marriage, and that sometimes it could be the right thing to do. Marriage provides many goods…

Of course… on the other hand… if we all took up celibacy, it seems the Eschaton would quickly arrive!

There are several heresies that condemned marriage “in se” - such as Montanism.

 

[Rau]

Does God prefer the celibate life? There are passages in the bible saying eunuchs will receive higher rewards in Heaven. If this is true, wouldn’t consummating a marriage be sinful? If God prefers virgins, and you choose not to be a virgin, you are putting sex before God. None of this can be true, because God made Holy Matrimony a sacrament. How is this contradiction resolved?

To give $1000 to the poor is s good deed. To give $1500 to the poor is a good deed, better than the prior. If I chose to give $1000 shall I enjoy some favour for bothering to help the poor, or condemnation for failing to help more?

 

[Vico]

…

[Denzinger 430 - Sources of Catholic Dogma]

LATERAN COUNCIL IV 1215
Ecumenical XII (against the Albigensians, Joachim, Waldensians etc.
The Trinity, Sacraments, Canonical Mission, etc.*
Chap. 1. The Catholic Faith
(Definition directed against the Albigensians and other heretics]

One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, * in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours. And surely no one can accomplish this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself conceded to the Apostles and to their successors. But the sacrament of baptism (which at the invocation of God and the indivisible Trinity, namely, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is solemnized in water) rightly conferred by anyone in the form of the Church is useful unto salvation for little ones and for adults. And if, after the reception of baptism, anyone shall have lapsed into sin, through true penance he can always be restored. Moreover, not only virgins and the continent but also married persons pleasing to God through right faith and good work merit to arrive at a blessed eternity.

[Denzinger 693, Sources of Catholic Dogma]

EUGENIUS IV 1431-1447
COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445
Ecumenical XVII (Union with the Greeks, Armenians, Jacobites)
Decree for the Greeks *
[From the Bull “Laetentur coeli,” July 6, 1439]

De novissimis] * It has likewise defined, that, if those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made satisfaction by the worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they may be released from punishments of this kind, the suffrages of the living faithful are of advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful according to the institutions of the Church. And that the souls of those, who after the reception of baptism have incurred no stain of sin at all, and also those, who after the contraction of the stain of sin whether in their bodies, or when released from the same bodies, as we have said before, are purged, are immediately received into heaven, and see clearly the one and triune God Himself just as He is, yet according to the diversity of merits, one more perfectly than another. Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464].

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

To give $1000 to the poor is s good deed. To give $1500 to the poor is a good deed, better than the prior. If I chose to give $1000 shall I enjoy some favour for bothering to help the poor, or condemnation for failing to help more?

That is a good analogy.

 

[BobCatholic]

To clarify here, I doubt God frowns upon getting money to support the family.

Ananias and Sapphira may disagree with that, as well as the rich young ruler. The love of money is the root of all evil. How is love of money defined? Simple, people want money, even if through legitimate means and for legitimate reasons.

However, I would agree that it is easier for married people (esp in today’s society) to become fixated with money and material things.

In today’s society, wages and salaries are stagnant, not increasing while the basic cost of living keeps rising. Job security is nonexistent but financial responsibilities are guaranteed to be there. The scales are out of balance and you wonder why some people are fixated on money?

Also, just to clarify, not all celibate people take a vow of poverty. Diocesan priests in the Latin Church do not take vows of poverty.

I know, I was talking about religious order monks and nuns. Diocesan priests don’t count as religious order priests.

 

[Elf01]

Ananias and Sapphira may disagree with that,

Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying, not having money. Peter implies that they did not have to give alll

But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 ‘Ananias,’ Peter asked, ‘why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And** after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal?** How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us[a] but to God!’ 5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body,** then carried him out and buried him.**

NRSVACE

 

[phil19034]

So sacred and holy are only practically the same bibically?

sacred and holy are often used as synonyms, but they do have a slight difference.

Holiness is subjective but sacredness is objective.

 

[BobCatholic]

Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying, not having money. Peter implies that they did not have to give alll

Because they were supposed to give up all their money. This meant a vow of poverty. They were not supposed to have any money for their family.

 

[Vico]

Because they were supposed to give up all their money. This meant a vow of poverty. They were not supposed to have any money for their family.

Haydock Commentary on Acts 5:1-2. It was a sacrilegious fraud.

1 But *a certain man, named Ananias, with Saphira, his wife, sold a field,2 And by fraud kept part of the price of the field, his wife being privy thereto, and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles.

Ver. 2. By fraud kept part.[1] Ananias, and his wife Saphira, had made a promise or vow, to put into the common stock the price of what they had to sell. When they had sold the field, they resolved by mutual consent to keep for their private use part of the money, and to bring in the rest, as if they had received no more. The whole price being promised, and by that means consecrated to God, St. Augustine calls it a sacrilegious fraud, and St. Chrysostom, a theft of what was already made sacred to God. (Witham)

 

[BobCatholic]

Haydock Commentary on Acts 5:1-2. It was a sacrilegious fraud.

1 But *a certain man, named Ananias, with Saphira, his wife, sold a field,2 And by fraud kept part of the price of the field, his wife being privy thereto, and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles.

Ver. 2. By fraud kept part.[1] Ananias, and his wife Saphira, had made a promise or vow, to put into the common stock the price of what they had to sell. When they had sold the field, they resolved by mutual consent to keep for their private use part of the money, and to bring in the rest, as if they had received no more. The whole price being promised, and by that means consecrated to God, St. Augustine calls it a sacrilegious fraud, and St. Chrysostom, a theft of what was already made sacred to God. (Witham)

Correct.

They were supposed to give up EVERY PENNY of money. Hold nothing back. God hates money.

Did anyone ask why they made such a vow of it was not required to be saved?

They couldn’t have been a monk and nun, which requires such a vow, they’re celibate and cannot be married. And God hates divorce.

So why did they make such a vow?

 

[Vico]

Correct.

They were supposed to give up EVERY PENNY of money. Hold nothing back. God hates money.

Did anyone ask why they made such a vow of it was not required to be saved?

They couldn’t have been a monk and nun, which requires such a vow, they’re celibate and cannot be married. And God hates divorce.

So why did they make such a vow?

The commentary in the NABRE is:

5:1–11 The sin of Ananias and Sapphira did not consist in the withholding of part of the money but in their deception of the community. Their deaths are ascribed to a lie to the holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), i.e., they accepted the honor accorded them by the community for their generosity, but in reality they were not deserving of it.

 

[BobCatholic]

The commentary in the NABRE is:

5:1–11 The sin of Ananias and Sapphira did not consist in the withholding of part of the money but in their deception of the community. Their deaths are ascribed to a lie to the holy Spirit (Acts 5:3, 9), i.e., they accepted the honor accorded them by the community for their generosity, but in reality they were not deserving of it.

But why did they make that vow?

If it was not required (because they’re not a monk or nun) then it was a rash vow and thus they are not responsible for upholding the vow. This is Church teaching.

But clearly a rash vow is still binding under penalty of death.

I suspect there was a lot of peer pressure against them. OR they were falsely led to believe that giving up all money is required for salvation. If yes, that should reduce their culpability (but it did not) - that leads to bigger questions about whether lack of culpability is sufficient to avoid being punished.

Understand, I’m not disagreeing that they lied or approving/defending that. I’m questioning the belief that laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God, and this is because of money.

 

[Vico]

But why did they make that vow?

If it was not required (because they’re not a monk or nun) then it was a rash vow and thus they are not responsible for upholding the vow. This is Church teaching.

But clearly a rash vow is still binding under penalty of death.

I suspect there was a lot of peer pressure against them. OR they were falsely led to believe that giving up all money is required for salvation. If yes, that should reduce their culpability (but it did not) - that leads to bigger questions about whether lack of culpability is sufficient to avoid being punished.

Understand, I’m not disagreeing that they lied or approving/defending that. I’m questioning the belief that laypeople are second class citizens in the kingdom of God, and this is because of money.

Jesus instructed them to do this, in general, in Luke 12
33 Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.

Acts 4:34-35 explains what was being done in the community:

34 There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, 35 and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need.

36 Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas (which is translated “son of encouragement”), a Levite, a Cypriot by birth, 37 sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles.