Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite, they are?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Archedreamer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Archedreamer

Guest
Reading on Spanish Wikipedia article about Shabat I encountered this phrase " Unlike what happens in Christianity, Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite in Judaism (… so it is possible to have sex at Shabat…)".

that is a heavy stone thrown at us. More from a long-tradition Rabbinic Jewish caricature about Christians such as Barbarian Goys who have stolen their Light… so we Christians are troglodytes who say… no…sex! Vade retro! Or is it real?

I need documents to prove it is not real a complete opposition between Sanctity and Sexuality.

I remember writings of Faustina Kowalska talking about the Encounter between God and Us such as that Encounter between the married couple… The Bridegroom and his Bride. Really meaningful for me were those writings.
 
Reading on Spanish Wikipedia
Wikipedia. well, that says it all.

You should flag that as “citation needed” or flag it as unsubstantiated and make them take it out. It is not up to you to prove it, it is up to the person who wrote it.
 
Maybe for Shakers? Certainly this isn’t the teaching of the Catholic Church.
 
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.
 
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.
I would disagree. Sex is indeed sacred. It is a necessary part of one of the seven Sacraments (which I believe translates roughly to “sacred things”), and is the very act by which we cocreate new persons with God. I’d say that’s a pretty sacred thing. It is precisely because of its sanctity that the Church demands it be treated with such respect.
 
Author offered a proof: That was a dissertation on a Jewish Family Magazine where Rav (or maybe Rabbi) Harold Schulweiz said Sexuality and Sanctity were opposite at Christianity such as Innocent III and Peter Lombard have said that Holy Spirit leaves His Home when a Couple has sex. And from them Rav said it had born a Catholic tradition which decrees that Friday, Saturday and Sunday were avoiding of sex since they remembered the Crucifixion of the Saviour (friday), Virgin Mary (saturday) and Ressurection (Sunday).

That was the proof which the author relied on to say Sanctity and Sexuality are opposite at Christianity.

I need a proof for leave clear that it is not real. I will go to Humanae Vitae, there is something more clear maybe?

Even Wikipedia has such a fame among Academicals, it has meaning on most people.
 
Reading on Spanish Wikipedia article about Shabat I encountered this phrase " Unlike what happens in Christianity, Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite in Judaism (… so it is possible to have sex at Shabat…)".

that is a heavy stone thrown at us. More from a long-tradition Rabbinic Jewish caricature about Christians such as Barbarian Goys who have stolen their Light… so we Christians are troglodytes who say… no…sex! Vade retro! Or is it real?

I need documents to prove it is not real a complete opposition between Sanctity and Sexuality.

I remember writings of Faustina Kowalska talking about the Encounter between God and Us such as that Encounter between the married couple… The Bridegroom and his Bride. Really meaningful for me were those writings.
This “stuff” from Wikipedia is very wrong, in reality, it is only the disinformation from… I do not want to write these words, because I must be charitable.

In catholicism, in the marriage, the marital act (union of bodies between spouses with the pleasures, with the orgasms, with holy erotism — Songs of Song—) is a language, a prayer, a communion, a symbol of the Holy Trinity because marriage is a sacrament that was given us by Jesus-Christ, God and Holy Spirit.

For Judaism, menstruations are dirty, not holy, unclean, impure. In catholicism, it is not, of course.

For Judaism, the husband cannot touch his wife during her periods. A wife can not touch her husband during her periods. It is sinful.

No sex during some times in Judaism. Stop, stop, In catholicism the true liberty is holy and total. Per se, it is not a sin to practice conjugal act in function of:
  1. Physiologic circumstances of wife
During wife’s periods (menstruation):
During pregnancy:
Days before the child birth:
The day of child birth (of course before the waters loss, labor and the delivery):
Sometimes the conjugal act can bring on labor., but per se if there are no medical problems, conjugal making love is not a sin even just before the end of pregnancy. If each members of couple are okay no problem if no medical issue.
During breastfeeding:
During menopause:
After menopause:
  1. Time of conjugal making love (when):
The Day:
The Night:
The Morning:
The Afternoon:
The Evening:
The Week:
The Week-end:
Holy Days:
Advent:
Christmas:
On Sunday:
Before Sunday Mass:
Before Sunday Mass and before Holy Communion:
After Sunday Mass:
After Sunday Mass and after Holy Communion:
Ash Wednesday:
Lent:
Holy Week:
Easter:
  1. Place of marital act (where):
Conjugal bed at home:
Conjugal bedroom at home:
Conjugal house: at home everywhere if the intimacy is respected: no children, no people in the house, of course, and no offense possible:
Bedroom hostel:
Bedroom motel :
A bedroom of friends for couple during vacations, during week-end:
A bedroom of your parents in law (for instance in your wife’s bedroom before your wedding):
A Bedroom of your parents (for instance in your own bedroom before your wedding):
  1. The initiative of one spouse: Equality and Equity between wife and husband
Active wife:
Passive wife:
Active husband:
Passive husband:
  1. The age of each one Spouse:
Young (18 until 60 years):
Old (60 until the death):
 
that is …] More from a long-tradition Rabbinic Jewish caricature about Christians such as Barbarian Goys who have stolen their Light… so we Christians are troglodytes who say… no…sex! Vade retro! Or is it real?
This “stuff” from Wikipedia is very wrong, in reality, it is only the disinformation from… I do not want to write these words, because I must be charitable.
Those assertions (telling it is a caricature) have come from my own source. Nor author nor Rav have never said that. I felt bad when I began this post… but I think this plot is puke from my own being. I enjoy think Goys are black and Jews are white. It is because I like a jewish girl and because I have been anti-jew and because I am a some pathological person. Anyway, it is not from me to think that Jews are more than Christians and we must search something to do if someone else than me has seen grave attacks against us in the writing I have transcript.
 
Please read the Theology of the Body. It’s the perfect text for anyone seeking answers to the question. Sanctity and sexuality are NOT opposite. In fact the Church encourages sexual intercourse, provided of course it is done in the appropriate circumstances (within marriage, as an act of love and not of lust, and done with openness to procreation).
 
I would disagree. Sex is indeed sacred. It is a necessary part of one of the seven Sacraments (which I believe translates roughly to “sacred things”), and is the very act by which we cocreate new persons with God. I’d say that’s a pretty sacred thing. It is precisely because of its sanctity that the Church demands it be treated with such respect.
I would agree with this. Every act of sex between a married couple is a restatement of their wedding vows. Its also an act in which as you said we participate in God’s creation. This is actually all the more reason to think it would be crazy to say the Church said no sex on holy days. I’d say it would actually make holy days a completely fitting day to have sex.

Now if sex were just viewed as some secular thing with no religious meaning, then it could possibly make some sense if the Church said no sex on holy days. It doesn’t say that though.
 
It is very easy for a belligerent to toss quote bombs at catholics that appear to imply a catholic suspision about the goodness of sexuality. This is precisely because we are a 2,000 year old church that has passed through many ages and many eras of weird ideas about many topics, including sexuality (we’re in a peculiar age on that topic right now, in fact).

Catholicism has battled many weird sexual philosophies. Today we battle the casual disregard for the sanctity of sexual intercourse as the physical manifestation of the union of man and wife that reflects the creative love of God himself.

In the era of the Manicheans, we battled against the idea that sexual contact that created new humans was wrong. The Manis believed that only the spiritual world was good, the physical world was evil and that procreation trapped a spiritual being in a physical prison. Thus they (weirdly) concluded that only non-procreative sex was morally acceptable. In many of the eco-cults of our world today, that idea is re-emerging in a slightly mutated form (see vhemt.com). But when we, today, read Augustine’s arguments against the Manicheans, it’s easy to misapply what he is saying if your forget who he was speaking to.

The bottom line is that catholicism enshrines the marital sexual union as a HOLY practice, intergral to one of our seven sacraments: marriage. At times in history, there may have been calls for fasting at specific times (I’m not a historian of such matters). So? We restrict eating meat on Fridays, and nobody takes that as a declaration of meat being evil somehow! We fast as a discipline and offering to God. Fasting, by definition, is the giving up of something that is GOOD as an excercise of our free will. An instruction to the faithful to fast from an activity at certain times is far from a denigration of the value of that activity. On the contrary, we only fast from what we VALUE. Nobody is impressed if you give up brussel sprouts for lent, right?

Tell the wiki dude he’s all wet.
 
I would disagree. Sex is indeed sacred. It is a necessary part of one of the seven Sacraments (which I believe translates roughly to “sacred things”), and is the very act by which we cocreate new persons with God. I’d say that’s a pretty sacred thing. It is precisely because of its sanctity that the Church demands it be treated with such respect.
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.
 
Sex is sacred inso much as it is the way in which man most fully reflects the image and likeness of God, the only time in which our human nature has been given the ability to bring forth human life as an outgrowth and expression of our love.

As for the appropriateness problem of a married couple getting it on in church, there is a much simpler explanation: The sanctuary is HOLY. By definition that means it is “set apart” for the purpose of celebrating the Eucharist. This is why it would ALSO be inappropriate to use the building as an auditorium for a comedian’s show (laughter).
 
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.
Good Friday, Ash Wednesday, Fridays during Lent. What did you think days of abstaining involved? Just red meat?
 
Author offered a proof: That was a dissertation on a Jewish Family Magazine where Rav (or maybe Rabbi) Harold Schulweiz said Sexuality and Sanctity were opposite at Christianity such as Innocent III and Peter Lombard have said that Holy Spirit leaves His Home when a Couple has sex.
Wait, I want to be sure I understand this. You’re saying that Innocent III said that “The Holy Spirit leaves [a couple’s] home when they have sex?” Did he really say that?!
 
Wait, I want to be sure I understand this. You’re saying that Innocent III said that “The Holy Spirit leaves [a couple’s] home when they have sex?” Did he really say that?!
So God’s life leaves us when we have sex? So if i die during sex i would go to hell?
No that’s not right. Read the theology of the body.
 
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.
Just because sex isn’t appropriate at a church that doesn’t mean its not sacred. read the theology of the body; it was written by Pope John Paul II, and is the perfect book for this topic. If anyone wants the resource, PM me.
 
So God’s life leaves us when we have sex? So if i die during sex i would go to hell?
No that’s not right. Read the theology of the body.
I don’t think that Innocent III said that, either, because it sounds preposterous. However, the poster seemed to indicate that and, if so, I want to see a source if possible.
 
I don’t think that Innocent III said that, either, because it sounds preposterous. However, the poster seemed to indicate that and, if so, I want to see a source if possible.
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top