Protestant Sex

[TLM08]

Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.

These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.

During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.

I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?

 

[ncgolf]

Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.

What attitude would that be? What specific teachings of Jesus is the Church “out of tune with.”

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you!

These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.

OK … so what point are you trying to make here?

During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.

What were the ridiculous extremes?

I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?

What aspects of sexuality are Catholics and Protestants not in tune with?

 

[1ke]

The Protestant churches you so admire in the area of sexuality taught the same thing the Catholic Church did about those commandments and the proper use of the sexual faculties until less than 70 years ago.

It is they who have broken with the truth, not they who have discovered it.

 

[fix]

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.

2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God’s plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.124

The tradition of the Church has understood the sixth commandment as encompassing the whole of human sexuality.

 

[PaulinVA]

TLM, why not give us a sample of the laundry list you are so against.

I think of our separated brethren as being rather rudderless and swaying to whatever the current whim of the culture is.

Many are called, few are chosen. If your path is easy, perhaps it is the incorrect path. If your path is hard, perhaps you are on the right track, no matter how hard it is.

 

[Charybdis]

If you look at some Protestant websites about sexuality and the bible, they basically take the premise that well, “if it’s not in the bible specifically, then it must be OK!”

That opens the door to all kinds of sexual perversions such as mutual mastubation, self masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, use of pornography, etc. etc.

The only rule they have is basically that you have to have sexual relations with your spouse only and no homosexual sex but that’s about it!!

 

[1ke]

The only rule they have is basically that you have to have sexual relations with your spouse only and no homosexual sex but that’s about it!!

Some do not even place these “limits” on sexuality.

There are many “Christian” groups now approving of gay sex and advocating for gay marriage, almost none that teach that divorce/remarriage is adultery, and some no longer teach against fornication and cohabitation-- and those are all in the bible.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Some do not even place these “limits” on sexuality.

There are many “Christian” groups now approving of gay sex and advocating for gay marriage, almost none that teach that divorce/remarriage is adultery, and some no longer teach against fornication and cohabitation-- and those are all in the bible.

You are imputing positions in the area of morality that are nowhere in the OP’s posting.

I have my own thoughts as to what the OP may be getting at. I will use 3 examples from recent threads right here at CAF: There was a thread on kissing within marriage, and a concern was expressed, as best I can remember, as to the morality of a husband kissing his wife as he went out of the door to work, the issue being that such might somehow excite the wife to passion and tempt her to inappropriate activity during the day. There are numerous threads involving one poster in particular who continues to hold that foreplay leading up to the marital embrace is immoral. There was another thread citing a Jesuit theologian who taught that marital activity must cease upon menopause as it could no longer be procreative.

There have also been threads suggesting that spouses should picture Jesus and Mary at the end of the bed watching them in order to stay within moral limits.

All of these, in my opinion, reflect a uniquely “Catholic” set of scruples, mindset, discomfort, and attitude toward physicality within marriage.

I’m not saying that the Church dogmatically teaches any of these. But attitudes and opinions like these didn’t arise in a vacuum – they would seem to have developed out of an institutional mindset that has historically been, at best, uncomfortable with the physical aspects of marriage. And this doesn’t even address teachings at the local level, which, depending on the era and location, were heavily influenced by national and cultural attitudes and not core Church teachings (ex - “Northern European” vs. “Southern European” attitudes towards the body and marital intimacy).

 

[JimG]

Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.

These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.

During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.

I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?

Not sure what laundry list of rules you have in mind. The post seems to make the point that the Commandments prohibit only adultery, and coveting another’s spouse.

Are you saying that most Protestants are OK with fornication?

 

[1ke]

You are imputing positions in the area of morality that are nowhere in the OP’s posting.

The OP proposed the Protestant groups have it “right” in the area of sexual morality. I stated what many of these groups teach.

Whether the OP meant those things or not does not negate the fact that these denominations are accepting of the behaviors I listed.

He proposed that Protestant teaching is much more “balanced and in tune with Jesus” than Catholic teaching. The examples listed show that their teaching is NOT “in tune with” Jesus.

There are numerous threads involving one poster in particular who continues to hold that foreplay leading up to the marital embrace is immoral.

None of the things you listed (marital kissing, foreplay, sex after menopause) are Catholic Church teachings.

Presenting examples of someone distorting Catholic teaching through their own misunderstanding or scrupulosity in no way refutes the Truth of Catholic teaching regarding marital seuxality.

The ideas you list are also not uniquely Catholic. There have been many heresies regarding the evil of the flesh down through time-- and several Protestant groups carried that ethos into their own sects.

 

[fix]

There have been many heresies regarding the evil of the flesh down through time-- and several Protestant groups carried that ethos into their own sects.

This is the irony of it all. The Puritan ethic is certainly not Catholic.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

The OP proposed the Protestant groups have it “right” in the area of sexual morality. I stated what many of these groups teach.

None of the things you listed (marital kissing, foreplay, sex after menopause) are Catholic Church teachings.

QUOTE]

Gee, that must be why I stated “I’m not saying that the Church dogmatically teaches any of these.” Do you actually respond to what people write, or just say your piece regardless?

 

[Rico_S]

Do you actually respond to what people write, or just say your piece regardless?

Some posters are better than others, but many do adopt a “stick to the talking points” method of defense when talking about these types of issues. (I do not know if 1ke falls into that category).

This line in your earlier post:

I’m not saying that the Church dogmatically teaches any of these. But attitudes and opinions like these didn’t arise in a vacuum – they would seem to have developed out of an institutional mindset that has historically been, at best, uncomfortable with the physical aspects of marriage.

will be ignored. Since you cannot provide evidence of a formal shift in catholic doctine…no magesterial document to show that the view of sexuality has evolved over the years…then it must be true that there has been no shift in Catholic doctrine. Sexuality with the marital union as presented by the Church to the faithful is the same today as it was 100 years ago…or 500 years ago…or 1500 years ago.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

TLM, why not give us a sample of the laundry list you are so against.

I am not the OP, nor do I have a laundry list that I am against. But I will give you an example for discussions sake:

–Each sexual act should not have to be procreative.

That should give you something specific to kick around.

–Rico

 

[fix]

I am not the OP, nor do I have a laundry list that I am against. But I will give you an example for discussions sake:

–Each sexual act should not have to be procreative.

That should give you something specific to kick around.

–Rico

Ordered toward procreation, yes.

 

[Rico_S]

Ordered toward procreation, yes.

Yes, I am saying that each act shouldn’t necessarily have to be ordered toward procreation. A nice laundry list of do’s and don’ts follow b/c this is point.

–Rico

 

[fix]

Yes, I am saying that each act shouldn’t necessarily have to be ordered toward procreation. A nice laundry list of do’s and don’ts follow b/c this is point.

–Rico

How is that different from any other moral issue?

I mean you can claim laundry lists for every possible moral act.

 

[Rico_S]

How is that different from any other moral issue?

I mean you can claim laundry lists for every possible moral act.

Fix:

Yes, I understand. But I think the op is trying to say that the Catholic church seems overly rigorous in defining the do’s and don’ts of the morality of the marital embrace; where as it is not so rigorous in other areas of morality. Why is this so?

 

[manualman]

Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.

These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.

During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.

I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?

There are equal and opposite errors that people make about sex. One is to treat it as something shameful and secretive, a necessary evil perhaps. The other is to downgrade it to something on the order of a tasty dessert, an indulgence for the passions with no deeper meaning.

You say that you think the protestant view of sex to be more ‘balanced and in tune with Jesus.’ Consider that what you may actually be seeing is that they are more in tune with 21st Century American culture, not the teaching of Jesus.

People throughout history have driven into the ditch on BOTH sides of the straight and narrow. If you are an American who grew up in the post 60’s America you should be VERY worried about teachings and feelings on sex that seem ‘comfortable.’

We are a fallen people, we have inclinations towards greed, envy and lust. Those have to be kept in check for sex to be what God intended.

As others have noted, you need to be specific in your assertions if you want constructive discussion.

 

[manualman]

I am not the OP, nor do I have a laundry list that I am against. But I will give you an example for discussions sake:

–Each sexual act should not have to be procreative.

That should give you something specific to kick around.

–Rico

Straw man. The church does NOT require every occasion of sex to be procreative. Otherwise infertile couples, post menstrual couples, women who needed hysterectomies, repentant (and confessed) vasectomy patients, and so on would be prohibited from having sex at all. This is not the case.

What we are prohibited from doing is a VIOLENCE to the very nature of sex. We cannot take deliberate action to sterilize lovemaking because doing so subtly damages the very nature of intercourse.

This isn’t a rule or a restriction, it is an expression of reality. A physics teacher isn’t dogmatic or repressive when he warns a student not to step off a cliff or gravity will kill him! In the same way, the Church doesn’t create this command as a discipline, she explains the reality as part of how God created us. Instead of goins SPLAT at the base of the cliff, defying God in matters of sexuality gets us THIS culture we currently live in. SPLAT indeed.