Sanctity and Sexuality are not opposite, they are?

[AngryAtheist8]

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).

Without lust (at least on the part of the man) there can be no sex between husband and wife.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.”

Really…

What if the man was simply interested in making a baby (i.e. procreation)?
If it was a man having sex with his wife would that really be immoral (according to Catholicism)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.”

I hope you realize that these quotes support the notion that sex is a necessary evil at best (according to Catholicism).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

Its always said that.
That’s one of the reasons that stuff like Theology of the Body (saying marriage and marital love is awesome too) is necessary for the Catholic Church now (they need to get the message out that marriage is great as well because at this point its not the default setting for people anymore).

So so many of the Marian doctrines are about the Mother of God’s virginal status.
Heck, she is usually called* the Virgin Mary*.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

Because it increases our status and lets us feel important just because were not a woman:shrug:

I don’t claim its fair (in fact I think its not) but it is pretty understandable.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea
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)

Quote:
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.

As Nate correctly points out, this kind of Christian thinking goes back all the way to the time of Saint Paul.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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./**QUOTE]

As I understand it, everything that separates/cuts us off from God is considered evil (or at least a sin) under Catholicism.

Therefore, according to your logic sex is evil/inherently sinful.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Of course if Catholics as a group had actually done the holy thing and all abstained from sex, the religion would have died out centuries ago.

The clergy NEEDS the laity, regardless of how much holier the clergy supposedly are.

Humanity *could not survive *without men and women breeding.
But the clergy is not so vital (at least in a practical sense).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

That assumes that everybody converts to Catholicism beforehand.
What is more likely is that Catholicism would simply die out.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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

Well obviously St. Paul is not anathema. But why not? Doesn’t what he said fit that description?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Because it increases our status and lets us feel important just because were not a woman:shrug:

I don’t claim its fair (in fact I think its not) but it is pretty understandable.

I don’t think it’s understandable to be able to do it with a straight face in this day and age. You know what I mean?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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.

As Igor pointed out,

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.

So when the Canon seems to contradict a Saint on its face, then yes, I ask for clarification, and it’s kinda messed up to say that it’s a stupid question.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t think it’s understandable to be able to do it with a straight face in this day and age. You know what I mean?

Then you are fortunate.
Plenty of people (especially religious people) take it for granted that men are better than women. Its even reflected in the laws of places like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

[HailStarofSea]

As Igor pointed out,

So when the Canon seems to contradict a Saint on its face, then yes, I ask for clarification, and it’s kinda messed up to say that it’s a stupid question.

Where does the Canon contradict the Saint? But if they do contradict, the canon where it says “anathema” is correct. Saints aren’t perfect. Only Jesus and Mary are perfect, and even the canon isn’t infalliable except when it specifically says it is… i.e. “anathema.”

 

[HailStarofSea]

Of course if Catholics as a group had actually done the holy thing and all abstained from sex, the religion would have died out centuries ago.

The clergy NEEDS the laity, regardless of how much holier the clergy supposedly are.

Humanity *could not survive *without men and women breeding.
But the clergy is not so vital (at least in a practical sense).

The Catholic Church is the largest Church in the world. Part of this is because of clergy missions to developing countries. At this point in time, Catholicism is weak in former Christian countries that are mostly secular but exploding in China and Africa. The clergy who traveled, established schools etc., were celibate. So clergy are vital as well. Mother Teresa, the Bharat Ratna (Jewel of India) - the highest civilian honor in India, has inspired many.

 

[HailStarofSea]

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?

This is my question too… would God rather end the world this way? We weren’t supposed to be in it, after all, since it was a punishment for Adam and Eve after they at the fruit?

AngryAtheist:

As I understand it, everything that separates/cuts us off from God is considered evil (or at least a sin) under Catholicism.

Therefore, according to your logic sex is evil/inherently sinful.

There are greater and lesser degrees of good and evil. In Heaven, there are different places for greater degrees of holiness. Marriage isn’t evil. It is a lesser good.

AngryAtheist:

Of course if Catholics as a group had actually done the holy thing and all abstained from sex, the religion would have died out centuries ago.

The clergy NEEDS the laity, regardless of how much holier the clergy supposedly are.

Humanity could not survive without men and women breeding.
But the clergy is not so vital (at least in a practical sense).

The religion is dying out in the West, the former Christian countries are mostly secular. However, it is exploding in China and Africa, due mostly to the self-sacrifice of Catholic priest and nun missionaries who also built schools.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is my question too… would God rather end the world this way? We weren’t supposed to be in it, after all, since it was a punishment for Adam and Eve after they at the fruit?

There are greater and lesser degrees of good and evil. In Heaven, there are different places for greater degrees of holiness. Marriage isn’t evil. It is a lesser good.

The religion is dying out in the West, the former Christian countries are mostly secular. However, it is exploding in China and Africa, due mostly to the self-sacrifice of Catholic priest and nun missionaries who also built schools.

So what?

That doesn’t make it vital to the species:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This is my question too… would God rather end the world this way? We weren’t supposed to be in it, after all, since it was a punishment for Adam and Eve after they at the fruit?

**There are greater and lesser degrees of good and evil. In Heaven, there are different places for greater degrees of holiness. Marriage isn’t evil. It is a lesser good. **

The religion is dying out in the West, the former Christian countries are mostly secular. However, it is exploding in China and Africa, due mostly to the self-sacrifice of Catholic priest and nun missionaries who also built schools.

There are actually quite of few saints who talk about marriage (or at least marital sex) as though it were evil.
But that’s not the main issue.
The thing is:
If celibacy is the holiest option, and the objective is to achieve holiness, then shouldn’t Catholics be obligated to always abstain from sex?

 

[HailStarofSea]

So what?

That doesn’t make it vital to the species:shrug:

Well, is procreation really that vital? I seem to remember Adam, Eve, and Jesus coming into being without the need for any of that.

Also, the most important consideration is eternal life, and whether we enter Heaven or Hell and the clergy’s role is far more important than the laity in this respect. Its probably better to never have been born than to spend an eternal life in Hell.

There are actually quite of few saints who talk about marriage (or at least marital sex) as though it were evil.
But that’s not the main issue.
The thing is:
If celibacy is the holiest option, and the objective is to achieve holiness, then shouldn’t Catholics be obligated to always abstain from sex?

There’s a word for this “superogatory” - goes above and beyond the call of duty. Only a “duty” can be obligated.

Here’s an example:

“In January of 1982 an Air Florida plane crashed into the Potomac River. In the ensuing crisis, a man in the water passed the life-line on to the others four times. When the rescue helicopter came back a fifth time, he had gone under never to be seen again. He was as anonymous as he was selfless.”4

It would be ludicrous to claim that this action was morally forbidden: we react to this man’s sacrifice by commending his action, not condemning it. Simultaneously, it would be absurd to claim that this person was morally required to make such a sacrifice. We do not condemn the others involved in the crash for not passing their life-lines along to others. Moreover, the plane crash was an unfortunate accident, and this man deserved to survive as much as anyone else in the water. We are left to conclude that the action must be considered morally permissible, but unlike standard (merely) permissible actions in the tripartite scheme, this action has moral worth. Hence, a fourth category of moral actions seems necessary to fill this conceptual gap.

sevenpillarsinstitute.org/dictionary/supererogation

Or a doctor who works on repairing broken bones instead of going into finance. We would think this is a good person. But the same doctor who works on repairing broken bones with a practice primarily devoted to those who can’t afford to pay and lives on next to nothing in Southeast Asia is more noble. But we can’t obligate doctors to do this.

 

[TarkanAttila]

A strong suggestion if someone hasn’t made it already.

Read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, or some book which explains it.