Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite, they are?

[VeritasLuxMea]

well there’s a difference between a pope’s opinion and dogmatic truth…
pope urban also believed the earth was flat… it doesn’t make him right; the pope is only infallible when it comes to dogmatic truth

Oh yeah, sure. I would just like to see this reference to get an idea as to why he would say something like that (if he actually did say it, I’m not taking for granted that he did.)

 

[serviichristii]

Oh yeah, sure. I would just like to see this reference to get an idea as to why he would say something like that (if he actually did say it, I’m not taking for granted that he did.)

mm yeah. Have you read the theology of the body? If you have, reread it. I know i should.

 

[Uzziah1]

There are not to my knowledge any holy days in Christianity during which time Christians are expected to abstain from sex, so if that’s what the speaker means, he should perhaps find another example.

For what its worth, though, I agree with the general assessment that sex is not a sacred thing. It is a profane good. We know this because we would all react with horror if someone had sex in a church. It is good with respect to its proper context, but that context is quite narrow.

Sex is a sacred thing, which is why sex sins are “special” sins. Sexuality is a life function, like breathing. It serves the species. Therefore, conscience protects sexuality in a special way.

Mostly, God, through Nature, with conscience, protects sexuality by requiring that we hone to the pre-wired “shape” of sexuality – engaging in sex which is an expression of heterosexual union which does not interfere with that reproductive potential of the union naturally appurtenant to the heterosexual shape, for which sexual pleasure is the reward.

That one principle – the requirement that we bow down to any reproductive potential naturally appurtenant to the heterosexual union of the sex act – is the reason for almost all of the special moral requirements governing sexual relatioinships:

Loose sex is non-unitive, therefore immoral.

Sex protected against any existing reproductive potential by birth control mechanisms comprises an attack on existing reproducdtive potential to get the sexual pleasure for free, and is therefore immoral.

Sex engaged in without attention to the sexual pleasure of the partner – “taking” sex – interferes with the sexual pleasure “trade-off” in the heterosexual relationship and is therefore immoral.

But, we men are entitled to occasional freebees.

Just joking on that last one.

 

[Marybeloved]

Of course they are not opposed which is why we have Saints who were married. Lust, however, and all forms of selfishness are certainly opposed to Sanctity. Sex is sacred because it’s the act by which God brings in new human life into the world and engenders the species. It should be reserved in its rightful place (Not worshiped, but not despised either).

 

[serviichristii]

Sex is a sacred thing, which is why sex sins are “special” sins. Sexuality is a life function, like breathing. It serves the species. Therefore, conscience protects sexuality in a special way.

Mostly, God, through Nature, with conscience, protects sexuality by requiring that we hone to the pre-wired “shape” of sexuality – engaging in sex which is an expression of heterosexual union which does not interfere with that reproductive potential of the union naturally appurtenant to the heterosexual shape, for which sexual pleasure is the reward.

That one principle – the requirement that we bow down to any reproductive potential naturally appurtenant to the heterosexual union of the sex act – is the reason for almost all of the special moral requirements governing sexual relatioinships:

Loose sex is non-unitive, therefore immoral.

Sex protected against any existing reproductive potential by birth control mechanisms comprises an attack on existing reproducdtive potential to get the sexual pleasure for free, and is therefore immoral.

Sex engaged in without attention to the sexual pleasure of the partner – “taking” sex – interferes with the sexual pleasure “trade-off” in the heterosexual relationship and is therefore immoral.

But, we men are entitled to occasional freebees.

Just joking on that last one.

correct me if im wrong, but your deifinition of moral sex is one where both people give themselves to each in love yes? and not a result of them wanting to use the other for pleasure?

i think that sums up the argument pretty well, but i had to read it over twice. Also i would like to point out that sex is more than just a reproductive notion; it is a mimicking of God’s love for us by our giving up of ourselves to the person we love.

 

[Uzziah1]

correct me if im wrong, but your deifinition of moral sex is one where both people give themselves to each in love yes? and not a result of them wanting to use the other for pleasure?

i think that sums up the argument pretty well, but i had to read it over twice. Also i would like to point out that sex is more than just a reproductive notion; it is a mimicking of God’s love for us by our giving up of ourselves to the person we love.

Hi, friend.

An intent to give sexual pleasure to the spouse is a moral requirement if the sexual faculty is invoked.

It is sinful to have sex without seeing to the sexual pleasure of the partner. It’s innately selfish. You’d be “getting” without “giving.”

 

[Nate13]

I don’t think it is sacred. It is ultimately ordered toward objects that are themselves sacred, namely the production of new life (children). But the act itself, it seems, has never historically been regarded as sacred but, by contrast, as profane. That which is profane is not necessarily bad. It is just not worthy of standing in the presence of the sacred. Hence why the idea of a couple having sex in a church would offend our sensibilities. Sex does not belong in a church, it belongs in the relatively narrow area of life in which it has a place, i.e., the marital bedroom. Laughter is another profane good; no one imagines that laughter is bad, but we would all be offended if someone burst out into laughter during the consecration and elevation of the Eucharist. Because laughter is not an appropriate response to such a sacred occasion.

Hmm by your logic though would you not have to conclude that giving birth is sacred, and thus it would be permissible to give birth during mass? I’m not sure I follow your reasoning regarding how we determine whether things are sacred or not. You seem to be defining it as “things that are permissible to do in church”. That would seem to be an incredibly narrow view of what sacred means.

Also consider this point. Sex between a married couple is considered a consecration of their wedding vows and marriage. Consecrate by definition literally means to “make sacred” or " to set apart". In other words by having sex we make our marriages sacred and complete the Sacrament.

 

[Archedreamer]

Here is the source: books.google.com.ar/books?id=MR63Z2NcAbgC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Harold+Schulweis+Peter+Lombard&source=bl&ots=VNmcgkA1Wu&sig=nwNNZwj0XhULMFB9O1MLrrhUFQE&hl=es&sa=X&ei=kIKNT-fnNoTetgea7djBCw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
An article from Rabbi Harold Schulweiz.

Obviously, I am counter this. I just have displayed that because I want to give the source, and because with that awareness we shall be able to be harder.

 

[Nate13]

Here is the source: books.google.com.ar/books?id=MR63Z2NcAbgC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Harold+Schulweis+Peter+Lombard&source=bl&ots=VNmcgkA1Wu&sig=nwNNZwj0XhULMFB9O1MLrrhUFQE&hl=es&sa=X&ei=kIKNT-fnNoTetgea7djBCw&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
An article from Rabbi Harold Schulweiz.

Obviously, I am counter this. I just have displayed that because I want to give the source, and because with that awareness we shall be able to be harder.

“The Holy Spirit leaves the room when a married couple has sex, even if they do it without passion to make new virgins for the kingdom of heaven.” PETER LOMBARD, theologian (circa 1100-1164)

The quote can be attributed to Peter Lombard who was a theologian. The opinion of one theologian really doesn’t mean much…

The only thing I can find from Pope Innocent III along this lines is a supposed quote that bounces around on a few anti Catholic sites, but never gives a source for the claim…

“Who can be unaware that marital intercourse can never take place without lascivious ardour, without the filth of lust whereby the seed conceived is sullied and corrupted”

Regardless I can find nothing to connect Peter Lombard’s view on this to Pope Innocent III’s or any Catholic teaching. I also cannot find any official Church teaching requiring abstaining from sex on holy days. On days of penance some people might argue having sex would kind of go against the whole idea of practicing self-denial, but I can find no where that the Church has directly commented on this idea.

Also notice that the whole idea of “abstaining on holy days” is only claimed to be some unofficial Church tradition not Church teaching. I think the author takes a great leap in connecting this supposed Church tradition to something one theologian said. If it did exist I would connect it more to the idea of penance and some people feeling it was contrary to that idea to have sex on days of penance.

His reference to Nachimides is weird considering that Jewish Rabbi had this to say in regards to marriage in the 1300’s:

“When a man cleaves to his wife in holiness, the divine presence is manifested. In the mystery of man and woman, there is God. But if they are only aroused, the divine presence will leave them and it will become fire.”

This quote would seem to argue the exact opposite of what the book you linked claimed…

All in all lots of unsourced claims.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Fridays during Lent. What did you think days of abstaining involved? Just red meat?

Is that why my Catholic calendar has those little pictures of a bed “X-ed out” on those days?

 

[clem456]

mm yeah. Have you read the theology of the body? If you have, reread it. I know i should.

Yes yes and yes. Theology of the Body.
Reader beware: TOB requires a lot of patience. For me, I am constantly amazed at the truth it reveals from Scripture about how and why we are made (sexuality is but a part of this). It really could take me a lifetime to try and absorb it all. As always, JP2’s theology appeals to reason in the light of faith. It makes great common sense.

 

[HailStarofSea]

Yes yes and yes. Theology of the Body.
Reader beware: TOB requires a lot of patience. For me, I am constantly amazed at the truth it reveals from Scripture about how and why we are made (sexuality is but a part of this). It really could take me a lifetime to try and absorb it all. As always, JP2’s theology appeals to reason in the light of faith. It makes great common sense.

Sanctity and sexuality are not opposite, but virginity is superior to any sexual act which does make sexuality lesser.

Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas, no. 32: “This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as we have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent, and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church."

Council of Trent, pg. 225: “If anyone saith that the marriage state is to be preferred before the state of virginity, let him be anathema.” …] "writing to the Corinthians, [Paul] says: I would that all men were even as myself; that is, that all embrace the virtue of continence…A life of continence is to be desired by all.”

 

[manualman]

Sanctity and sexuality are not opposite, but virginity is superior to any sexual act which does make sexuality lesser.

Incomplete answer. It is only superior if the virginity is offered to God as an excercise of free will in voluntarily giving back a sacred gift to humanity so as to free the self for total gift to God and his ministry to others. Lifelong virginity merely for it’s own sake is not likely (IMO) very impressive to God or in any way superior to marriage.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The Church said that religious life is superior to married life? What?! This is news to me!!!

 

[Nate13]

The Church said that religious life is superior to married life? What?! This is news to me!!!

Actually it was the Apostle Paul that said it, and they just repeated it. And they did not say religious life but rather unmarried. You don’t have to be a priest or nun to be celibate and give yourself to God.

The Catechism does say this though:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Actually it was the Apostle Paul that said it, and they just repeated it. And they did not say religious life but rather unmarried. You don’t have to be a priest or nun to be celibate and give yourself to God.

The Catechism does say this though:

Ok so in the Church’s view, unmarried life is ‘superior’ to that of married life? Why? Do we not desperately need both?

This reminds me of the male/female thing. Why do men find it so important to assert that they are ‘superior’ to women?

 

[igor1980]

Ok so in the Church’s view, unmarried life is ‘superior’ to that of married life? Why? Do we not desperately need both?

This reminds me of the male/female thing. Why do men find it so important to assert that they are ‘superior’ to women?

From the Council of Trent, The Twenty-Fourth Session:
(source: history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html)

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

 

[Nate13]

Ok so in the Church’s view, unmarried life is ‘superior’ to that of married life? Why? Do we not desperately need both?

This reminds me of the male/female thing. Why do men find it so important to assert that they are ‘superior’ to women?

Last time I checked both men and women can enter the religious life and choose to be celibate for Kingdom. So according to your false assumptions about what superiority means would we not have to assume that all nuns are superior to both men and women that choose to marry? No, one has claimed “superiority of men” here so why the heck are your bringing that up?

What I find stupid is that you didn’t even bother to ask the glaring question of what celibacy was more superior at doing as opposed to married life. Lets think about a few obvious things here. How many hours a day are you able to devote to prayer because you have chosen the married life? How many hours a day is a priest or nun able to devote to prayer? Celibacy and marriage are both routes to knowing God, but celibacy is in many ways more intrinsically a direct route. Since the whole goal of life is to come to know God, the decisions that make that easier are by virtue of that point, superior.

 

[igor1980]

I’d like to know how this doctrine about celibate life being superior to marriage makes sense with the Natural Law doctrine.

How can celibacy be a higher state, while if all of us where celibates there will be no more humankind? It is God’s Law that mankind must find its own end?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Fridays during Lent. What did you think days of abstaining involved? Just red meat?

I have heard that during the Medieval era married Catholics were also supposed to abstain from sex on Holy Days (which in practice meant more than half the year).