I am talking about encyclicals, councils, etc. Where the bishops discuss these issues. I don’t need anything proven to me at all. You shouldn’t assume. Of course a Bishops opinion is not infallible but that doesn’t pertain to this topic because this is not just an opinion.
Catholics will see that this is a mockery of reason and faith! A Commission never can have any authority in Christ’s Church, and the absurdity is gross – Our Lord expressly gave His authority to Peter as Supreme Vicar to teach infallibly on faith and morals. See Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, 51, which specifically rules out any possibility of changing the infallible doctrine against contraception in *Casti Connubii *of Pope Pius XI, 1930. (Post #168).
Well, I’m glad you see that unitive aspect of sexuality was a product of later development. But honestly, do you really think it had to be “developed”? Isn’t it obvious from the act itself what it is? And that this was obvious to people long before Christianity took place?
Thomas here counters theological idea that sexual intercourse before original sin didn’t include pleasure. This was error of certain theologians (it seems, from link, St. Gregory of Nyssa). Because of stoic philosophy, they concluded that every pleasure is sinful, and since there is no sexual act without pleasure, sex must be sinful too. Now, before the fall of Adam and Eve, there was no sin- and therefore, no pleasure. But how was human kind to procreate? There were many explanations: one was that sex simply didn’t create pleasure, and was act of rational decision (“Let’s make another child next year”). The other, gregorian, that there was some other mean of procreation.
This simply stresses marriage, and not marital act- as good. Even explanations such as “one bed” and “one flesh” can be used by stoic, since sharing the bed and becoming one flesh doesn’t interfere with the idea sex is only for procreation.
You have to understand, stoic philosopher can use the same sentence to defend his claims. Marriage bed is pure and positive, as long as people have sex only for procreation or in order to provide marriage debt.
Only in context that their love becomes stronger if they “carry the burden of sex” together. Desire for marital embrace is seen as “problem in marriage” and spouses must be “happy to endure” this burden because of their love, which grows stronger in tolerance
Certainly saying sex was only for procreation was not part of any true Christian development.
One is certain level of “sexophobia.” We always searched for rational reason to have sex. We always searched for excuse to preform the act. And this excuse was procreation, as the only stable natural point of sex.
Bless you. You are so more then me in eyes of God.
This part of the Bible was interpreted as love between God and Church until 19th Century. Sexual imagery was overlooked in that interpretation.
What do you mean? Procreation and unitive aspect are two different ends of embrace.
Thank you. If you feel that way, I will stay. Godwilling, for construction of faith, not it’s lacking.
So, no moral difference?
Respectfully, I disagree. Our faith teaches us that we have sex not because it feels good, but because it is good.
I think of myself as “chief of sinners”, but thanks for your kind words.
*Song of Songs *can still be interpreted as love between God and Church. How do we know the sexual imagery was overlooked and not approved? Did the ECFs also overlook God’s use of the “one flesh” imagery?
Physically, sex is only unitive when it is first procreative. By procreative, I mean “favouring creation”, or uncontracepted. We can separate the procreative and unitive aspects for discussion purposes but they are, in reality, inseparable.
I’m glad to hear that.
Catholicism teaches that the physical difference leads to the moral difference.
I disagree with this, sex is not ‘sacred’, anymore than eating or breathing are, it too is a simple biological drive - sex is pleasurable simply to motivate people to mate and reproduce thus ensuring the propagation of the species.
Well, I certainly disagree with this. Not in a dissent way, but in more objective one. People seeking truth will ask questions and will question your preaching. They will meditate upon the weight of each teaching, and how it reflects nature, life, experience and spirituality. If bishops insist on this “natural law”, and call this term universal (meaning, you don’t even have to be Catholic in order to see that something is moral to nature or not) people will compare it to what nature is, and how it is supposed to work.
Indeed. I mean, they were polygamists afterall.I can’t believe I’m sticking my head back in here
Anyway, I was wasting time on here a few weeks ago and came across links to Jewish ideas about marital sexuality. Not that I could reproduce those links (pun intended), but the rabbi who was writing made it very clear that Jewish spouses knew all about and accepted the unitive end of marriage long before Christ. So I can’t help wondering if sometimes it isn’t talked about as thoroughly as we would like by our Christian writers because they had a cultural mindset that assumed things already.
Thank God and 19th century modernists for that.
Since religious passion is not carnal.
I simply disagree. People tend to separate procreation from sexuality using NFP, and still offer unitive dimension of the act.
Sigh, I knew someone would bring this up. Firstly it is an ad hominem circumstantial to simply reject an argument/view because of the motives of the person making them.
Ahem, the whole point of the commission was to investigate matters relating to birth control and the Church - it was formed by Pope John XXIII himself and expanded by Paul VI and spend three years looking into the matter.
However a small minority of the commission led by the archconservative Cardinal Ottaviani (who also opposed separation of Church & State and religious liberty at Vatican II) dissented from the majority view stating that the Church could not change it’s teaching without damaging papal infallibility.
And thus contraception became a matter of theology and politics rather than morality and Paul VI had to reject the majority report and promulgate Humanae Vitae.
Catholicism has always taught that sex is good. You haven’t shown otherwise.Thank God and 19th century modernists for that.
You mentioned the ‘God and Church’ alIegory earlier. I still wonder how you know for certain that the ECFs appreciated only the religious passion in Song of Songs while disapproving of or ignoring the sexual passion of the narrative.
Procreation (meaning strictly reproduction) is usually separate from sexuality. Women are naturally infertile most of the time. The Catholic requirement for procreative sex involves keeping a specific physical form in the embrace. To keep this procreative form, couples must accomodate the potential union of sperm and egg in every sexual act. Accomodating this unity, through use of the procreative form, is what makes the act ‘unitive’.
Clergy simply stated that there is nothing evil in nature of sexuality. However, if not done with exclusive desire for begetting, sex is selfish and evil.
Easy. There is no other interpretation until 19th Century.
That is like saying sleeping is not part of everyday life, since most of the time we are not in bed.
Which is a) not the teaching of the Church Fathers b) absurd in case of NFP since the union of sperm and egg occurs only in case of failure of technique. Since failure is not what technique is used for, the whole idea of NFP is negation of procreative aspect of sexuality.
As a dissenter he claims not to know that no Catholic can be faithful to Christ while rejecting the infallible teaching of the Popes. He falls for the delusion that Christ does not protect His Popes from teaching error through the Holy Spirit – and arrogantly feels
He simply stated that natural law is different in St. Augustine’s writing, and in 20th Century.
St. Augustine of Hippo preached against Natural Birth Regulation in 4th Century. Some claim it was known even at the time of Galen. It was not seen as magic, but as an abuse of woman’s fertility circle.
Blessed are you, Abu, for calling me arrogant and dissenter- for surely you do so with desire to defend our Church and provide worthy apologetics. And surely, that is an act of virtue. But let us not lose the discipline required for this conversation.
Christ certainly wouldn’t defend His position in this matter trying to deny NFP existed prior to 19th century. He always won the pharisees stressing the truth and fact, not pretending something doesn’t exist or is not worth as an argument.
Fine. But he still shows pattern of stoic thinking and conclusions.