C
Chrono13
Guest
A lot of things.
- Status
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Don’t contracept. (Or take direct action to interfere with the generative aspect of the marital act.)
I’m not sure. Preoccupation with one’s beloved to the point of distraction, maybe.
I hope so. St. Augustine, like St. Francois de Sales, lacked infallability, but his love of God was so deep that his writing is spiritually invaluable for his audience.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Laws of generation in his writings are more or less same as in Augustinian writ.
There is only one way to be preoccupied with another being in stoic ethic. If you have sex without desire of begetting. Everything above this “use” is excess of venial fault (as St. Augustine writes). And this is what seems to be suggested.
Indeed. Now, do they approve sex without intent of begetting?
A
Abu
Guest
It is essential to assent to the teaching of Christ through His Church.
Blessed John Paul II considers “the belief that everything to do with sex can only be an object for use, that sex merely gives the opportunity for sexual release and does not open the way to love between people. This view smacks of Manichaeism, and is incompatible with the view of physical and sexual matters found in the Book of Genesis, and more particularly in the New Testament.” Love & Responsibility, Collins, 1981, p 188].
It is incompatible also with the Fathers as well as the illustrious St Augustine who specifically names offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament as blessings of matrimony:
From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930
10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] “These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: “By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”[11]
9. Encycl. Ad salutem, 20 April 1930
10. St. August., De bono coniug., cap. 24, n. 32.
11. St. August., De Gen. ad litt., lib. IX, cap. 7, n. 12.
Blessed John Paul II considers “the belief that everything to do with sex can only be an object for use, that sex merely gives the opportunity for sexual release and does not open the way to love between people. This view smacks of Manichaeism, and is incompatible with the view of physical and sexual matters found in the Book of Genesis, and more particularly in the New Testament.” Love & Responsibility, Collins, 1981, p 188].
It is incompatible also with the Fathers as well as the illustrious St Augustine who specifically names offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament as blessings of matrimony:
From Casti Connubii, Pius XI, 1930
10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] “These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament.”[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: “By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”[11]
9. Encycl. Ad salutem, 20 April 1930
10. St. August., De bono coniug., cap. 24, n. 32.
11. St. August., De Gen. ad litt., lib. IX, cap. 7, n. 12.
A
Abu
Guest
What a misunderstanding and mighty phobia, as offspring + conjugal faith + the sacrament, attest – fornication and adultery are outside of marriage – and, apart from those sins, only sexuality in marriage is referred to by the Fathers.
We’ve seen in post #226 that the DIDACHE, one of the earliest written disciplinary documents from the infant Church (100-150 A.D.) condemned both abortion and contraception, as well as the Fathers of the Church, the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX (1148-1241) the Council of Trent and the infallible doctrine in Casti Connubii of Pius XI and in *Humanae Vitae *of Paul VI – consistent and from the earliest times.
Those who claim superiority to papal doctrine which has been clearly offered have no claim to truth and fidelity against Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI refers to that “doctrine handed down from the beginning without interruption” which fact alone makes it an infallible teaching according to the “universality of time” which argument was used also by Pius XII for the dogma of Our Lady’s Assumption (1950).
C
copperblade
Guest
So you take “pardonable” to mean venial sin?
Also do you read it as:
This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage.
or
This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt, on account of marriage.
C
Chrono13
Guest
I don’t understand what you mean. Could you please elaborate?
You were prompted ten posts later to explain why would “potion mixing” Didache forbids count as contraception. Pagan herbalism was also used to increase fertility or cure diseases. You ignored this point. And repeat the quote again.
Is it fair to say that Decretals of Pope Gregory and Council of Trent forbid contraception on other base then Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae? Can you at least allow that possibility?
If contraception was banned using stoic logic, you surely have a bumpy ride talking about “doctrine without interruption” or when speaking about “universality of time”.
C
Chrono13
Guest
No. Augustine said sex without intent of conceiving is venial sin in case of married, and thus “pardonable”. The latter seems to mean of “non-mortal” sinfulness.
I read the entire sentence:
“This gratification incurs not the imputation of guilt on account of marriage, but receives permission on account of marriage.”
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
You’re reading something that’s not in the text. St. Augustine doesn’t say the sex is sinful. He says there is sin in the situation, so we could argue more logically that the sin is due to fallen human nature which, unlike sex, is not divinely created.
Why does St. Augustine make such special mention of this ‘pardonable transgression’? Isn’t every transgression pardonable?
I don’t think St. Paul or St. Augustine would permit anyone to do something sinful. The fact that we may do it imperfectly dosen’t change the inherent goodness of sex. Sex is so good in fact, that saints have given us permission to enjoy it even in our imperfect, earthly way. The ‘pardonable transgression’ that I see is being human.
C
copperblade
Guest
Maybe I’m just being dense right now, but I’m having a hard time reading that sentence as anything other than saying “it’s ok in marriage” as in non-sinful.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I’ll take your word for it, you’re better versed inthe ECFs than I am. I do think they were getting their inspiration from the same place.
I just meant maybe love makes you easily distracted at work.
Yes. For further details, see our pages long conversation.
Sorry I missed this Mary Gail. In the other thread, Image of God attributes that quote to St. Francois de Sales’s work entitled Introduction to the Devout Life.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I’m reading the same thing.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Just look at the paragraph…
*
For thus says the Scripture (“Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other; except it be with consent for a time, that ye may have leisure for prayer; and then come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” Now in a case where permission must be given, it cannot by any means be contended that there is not some amount of sin. *
That is the logic of St. Augustine. He interprets apostle’s permission a proof that there is some amount of sin when pair “comes together” without intent of begetting. Later, he will speak of this sin as “pardonable” and “venial” but the system that intercourse apart from procreation is problematic will make the whole theology much complex.
If imperfect means without desire of begetting, yes. But I suspect Paul went so far. There are some arguments which can be drawn for that. But discussion for another time.
C
Chrono13
Guest
Yes. You are dense.
It says sexuality is problematic, but ok… it’s in marriage. So we can tolerate it.And I’m not sure this is what we teach today.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Chrono,
I have found your explanations to be good and well thought out. But I do see one major flaw that I noted, earlier up-thread, that many theologians make too. You are using “procreation” and “begetting” interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. (Goodness I am using that word a lot lately!) You are referencing St. Augustine as having said it is sinful without “procreative intent.” But then you are also saying he is saying it, “without intention of begetting.” Which one is it? They are not the same thing.
IF St. Augustine DID say that sex was sinful while not trying to beget, then we have a different discussion. (We raise the issue of translations, too.) But the main issue you will have raised, (if that is what St. Augustine *actually *said,) is that he was not pope. While he is a doctor of the Church and his writings hold more weight than some, he was NOT protected infallibly on faith and morals. Casti Connubii said that it was NOT sinful to have sex without trying to beget. It was written by a pope. Pope Pius the IX said it was “consistent teaching of the Church,” that infertile sex was not sinful. So even *IF *(and that is a big fat IF,) Augustine’s beliefs were what you are saying, a Pope trumps a doctor of the Church on teaching of faith and morals.
Now here is what the studies about Augustine actually say he was saying: He said that it is likely to lust after one’s own spouse, even while in the process of begetting, begetting wasn’t his point there. His point was that if (he believed it was more when, not if) spouses lusted for their own spouse, it was a *venial *sin. Due to his background he found it hard to fathom that a couple could have sex without lust. He believed it was possible to be lust-free, but that most people weren’t. He was pointing out that most people would be in a constant state of sin, most of the time, so if you were going to be lusting it was better to be lusting while begetting. What he DID say about *procreation *was that if you do not keep procreation intact, you are, by the very nature, lusting, It was the sin of contraception that made that *mortal *sin, even within marriage. His point was, the whole reason to have sex while breaking the design, was entirely lustful. On all of these teachings he is entirely correct and they are what is referenced in Casti Connubii.
It appears that later theologians were reiterating that it was *venial *sin “pardonable” lust, that was present in marriage, not a mortal sin, due to being married. . But that contraception is what tipped it to mortal sin.
Please really think about what you are asserting, Chrono. You are perpetuating a myth that can lead to strife in marriage. I have encountered many people who believe it, and it is harming their marriage. They believe, based on your same assertions, that as long as they are “making a baby,” then their sex is what God wants, even though they are actually harming each other through lust. (Even though it is venial sin, it still does damage to the marriage.) St. Augustine was an authority on lust, having been so closely related to it for so many years. To really embrace St. Augustine’s writings is to try to free up marriage from lust. I have higher hopes than Augustine that it is possible in this life. Through prayerful periodic continence, many couples have found a profound joy in sacrificing and are often freed from lust.
I have found your explanations to be good and well thought out. But I do see one major flaw that I noted, earlier up-thread, that many theologians make too. You are using “procreation” and “begetting” interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. (Goodness I am using that word a lot lately!) You are referencing St. Augustine as having said it is sinful without “procreative intent.” But then you are also saying he is saying it, “without intention of begetting.” Which one is it? They are not the same thing.
IF St. Augustine DID say that sex was sinful while not trying to beget, then we have a different discussion. (We raise the issue of translations, too.) But the main issue you will have raised, (if that is what St. Augustine *actually *said,) is that he was not pope. While he is a doctor of the Church and his writings hold more weight than some, he was NOT protected infallibly on faith and morals. Casti Connubii said that it was NOT sinful to have sex without trying to beget. It was written by a pope. Pope Pius the IX said it was “consistent teaching of the Church,” that infertile sex was not sinful. So even *IF *(and that is a big fat IF,) Augustine’s beliefs were what you are saying, a Pope trumps a doctor of the Church on teaching of faith and morals.
Now here is what the studies about Augustine actually say he was saying: He said that it is likely to lust after one’s own spouse, even while in the process of begetting, begetting wasn’t his point there. His point was that if (he believed it was more when, not if) spouses lusted for their own spouse, it was a *venial *sin. Due to his background he found it hard to fathom that a couple could have sex without lust. He believed it was possible to be lust-free, but that most people weren’t. He was pointing out that most people would be in a constant state of sin, most of the time, so if you were going to be lusting it was better to be lusting while begetting. What he DID say about *procreation *was that if you do not keep procreation intact, you are, by the very nature, lusting, It was the sin of contraception that made that *mortal *sin, even within marriage. His point was, the whole reason to have sex while breaking the design, was entirely lustful. On all of these teachings he is entirely correct and they are what is referenced in Casti Connubii.
It appears that later theologians were reiterating that it was *venial *sin “pardonable” lust, that was present in marriage, not a mortal sin, due to being married. . But that contraception is what tipped it to mortal sin.
Please really think about what you are asserting, Chrono. You are perpetuating a myth that can lead to strife in marriage. I have encountered many people who believe it, and it is harming their marriage. They believe, based on your same assertions, that as long as they are “making a baby,” then their sex is what God wants, even though they are actually harming each other through lust. (Even though it is venial sin, it still does damage to the marriage.) St. Augustine was an authority on lust, having been so closely related to it for so many years. To really embrace St. Augustine’s writings is to try to free up marriage from lust. I have higher hopes than Augustine that it is possible in this life. Through prayerful periodic continence, many couples have found a profound joy in sacrificing and are often freed from lust.
L
LittleDeb
Guest
And for further clarification on St. Augustine. I have been rereading the quotes again and there is a consistent misinterpretation happening. Some people quoting him have forgotten the context. Some are disregarding his audience.
Some of the groups he is writing about held that marriage was NOT designed for children. Some groups held the idea and forced people to remain celibate, while others allowed people to “marry” but conception was unlawful. (Kind of like China but without even one child allowed.) I emphasize forced in that sentence. Celibacy is to be embraced by those to whom it is given.
One of the quotes floating around in this thread is where he is reiterating that “cohabitation is NOT unlawful since it is the purpose of marriage for the result of creating off-spring.” You have to know the audience. There were societies who thought they were more holy by making marriage only to protect and provide, but not to “cohabit”. They prevented, by law, marital intercourse. It was presumed that if you were “under one roof” you were having sex. This heresy was repeated in early America by some of the people who fled here, “for religious freedom.” In those cultures, being pregnant showed you had sinned, even if you were married.
If you don’t know the audience and the idioms of the time, early writing is very easy to misrepresent. My theologian friend, a student of Dr. Waldstein’s, has what he calls a “dumb example that works to explain it.” He says, “If I walked up to you in modern America and said, ‘knock’ you would not know what I was trying to say. But if I walked up to you and said, ‘Knock knock?’ you would know how to respond. That is an idiom.” Please know your audience and idioms as you seek to understand the Early Church Fathers and Scripture.
Some of the groups he is writing about held that marriage was NOT designed for children. Some groups held the idea and forced people to remain celibate, while others allowed people to “marry” but conception was unlawful. (Kind of like China but without even one child allowed.) I emphasize forced in that sentence. Celibacy is to be embraced by those to whom it is given.
One of the quotes floating around in this thread is where he is reiterating that “cohabitation is NOT unlawful since it is the purpose of marriage for the result of creating off-spring.” You have to know the audience. There were societies who thought they were more holy by making marriage only to protect and provide, but not to “cohabit”. They prevented, by law, marital intercourse. It was presumed that if you were “under one roof” you were having sex. This heresy was repeated in early America by some of the people who fled here, “for religious freedom.” In those cultures, being pregnant showed you had sinned, even if you were married.
If you don’t know the audience and the idioms of the time, early writing is very easy to misrepresent. My theologian friend, a student of Dr. Waldstein’s, has what he calls a “dumb example that works to explain it.” He says, “If I walked up to you in modern America and said, ‘knock’ you would not know what I was trying to say. But if I walked up to you and said, ‘Knock knock?’ you would know how to respond. That is an idiom.” Please know your audience and idioms as you seek to understand the Early Church Fathers and Scripture.
A
Abu
Guest
Excellent post, LittleDeb (#572)
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
“56. Since, therefore, **openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine **regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Humanae Vitae, 10:
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)
(10) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50- 5 1: AAS 58 ( 1 966) 1070-1073 [TPS XI, 292-293].
H.V., 11
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
(12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.
It is only the dissenters who can wallow in fantasy against the constant, infallible doctrine of Christ through His Church.
Simply, the Fathers and Doctors considered sexuality in marriage, and they considered it in the three main attributes of offspring + conjugal faith + the sacrament. Sexuality outside of marriage was fornication or adultery or bestiality or sodomy. The repeated mighty aversion to these facts is the phobia.
Contraception was banned because the Fathers knew from Sacred Scripture that offspring was the main purpose of sex within marriage. (Post #376). The errors of Stoicism were exposed in post #242, as St Augustine knew.
Rather the impossible musings of the dissenter, who exhibits the repetitive arrogance of denigrating, Vatican II, Popes Paul VI, Blessed John Paul II, and Pius XI in Casti Connubii who teaches:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
“56. Since, therefore, **openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine **regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Humanae Vitae, 10:
From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)
(10) See Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today, nos . 50- 5 1: AAS 58 ( 1 966) 1070-1073 [TPS XI, 292-293].
H.V., 11
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)
(12) See Pius XI. encyc. letter Casti connubii: AAS 22 (1930), 560; Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 843.
It is only the dissenters who can wallow in fantasy against the constant, infallible doctrine of Christ through His Church.
L
LaSainte
Guest
I think every quote above also makes NFP sound illicit as well. I’m not sure it can be refuted that up until the 1800s, the Church would absolutely have considered NFP to be immoral. I do not think any of these saints or church fathers or Pope St. Gregory would have allowed for the idea that it was licit to plan and chart specifically to be able to have sex while avoiding procreation. Can anyone here honestly say given all the writings of the popes and saints, that if NFP was known about it would have always been permitted by the Church? Please let’s be honest.
Since this is the case, can we really call the teaching of the Church on marital sexuality “constant”?
Since this is the case, can we really call the teaching of the Church on marital sexuality “constant”?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Very important point.
- Status