Sex in the Sanctuary

[b_justb]

The question that has not been address is:

Is satisfaction guaranteed?

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by kofC660:

When marrying, the man and woman administer the Sacrament of Marriage to one another, so it would be reasonable to assume that they “finalize” the Sacrament in their own sanctuary; that is, the home they now share.

Why then not have the sacrament take place entirely at their own sanctuary.

I mean, you don’t really need a priest for the marriage to be a sacrament, right?

Beach weddings look rocking.

 

[Syele]

I just imagine the questions in this forum from protestants and anti-Catholics if this were instituted!

 

[Aramis]

Or what if they are just way tired from the wedding and plan to wait a day or two?

Nobody is saying marital sex is wrong.

But it is private.

Or should be.

I understand some celebrities have taped the events for public consumption.

My wife and I waited a day to consumate the marriage… out of sheer exhaustion. This also meant doing so at home, rather than the hotel (a wedding present was the hotel room, room service, and a movie…

 

[jmcrae]

Is the procreative act between man and woman perhaps too sinful for holy grounds?

All of the Sacraments are fulfilled in the same place every time. For example, nobody goes to First Confession in public, either, since every Confession after that will also be done in private. First Confession happens in the same place that every other Confession will also take place - in the Confessional.

When people go for First Holy Communion, they do it the same way that they will do it every time after that, as well - in the Communion line at Mass.

Thus, the first marital act also takes place in the same place that every marriage act after it will take place - at home, in bed - or where ever, in a private place.

 

[duskyjewel]

I also think part of the reason this never became Christian practice was that it was a pagan practice and the Church wanted to distance itself from the fertility rites of the pagan religions they were trying to replace.

Not so much the consummation of marriages, but there were many rituals in pagan temples that involved sexual intercourse. So I think one of the many ways Christianity strove to differentiate itself was not to have sex acts going on within its sanctuaries.

Plus, I have to agree with the previous posters…this would have been wierd in the extreme had we been expected to consummate the marriage in the Church immediately after the Mass. And we would have been all disheveled by the time we got to pictures!

 

[pumpkinbeast]

It’s an interesting idea… I’m laughing here. I like it, actually, but I can see how it would be a logistical problem… I’m coming into the church to pray, I don’t know that there was a wedding that morning, and… erm… I see the new couple in the church… x.o That would be REALLY AWKWARD. I think the main problem is that most sanctuaries are public places. Sex is a very private, intimate activity. Doing that in a public place would not be a good idea, I think… Even if there was a special sanctuary for consummating marriage, I think it would also be weird experiencing sex for the first time (hopefully) in a place where many other people also had… (I try not to think too much about what might have happened before I slept in hotel room bed, for example… x.o) Sex for the first time probably makes people nervous enough without having the chance to do it on their own, in a comfortable, familiar setting, on their own time… Like, you would probably have to book the room so that no one else disturbs you. Plus, as a few PPs pointed out, it sounds rather pagan. Ritual sex and all… Sex is supposed to be a holy activity, along with everything else, right? Renewal of the marriage vows and all… it should automatically make the bed it happens on holy or something. God is present in the bedroom as well as the church. If you want to devote your marital relations more fully to God, pray before and afterwards.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

I… I am shocked. Why is this even a matter of discussion? I do not see how it could be anything other than totally and completely sinful. I have a feeling the Holy Father would agree with me.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Noah I:

I… I am shocked. Why is this even a matter of discussion? I do not see how it could be anything other than totally and completely sinful. I have a feeling the Holy Father would agree with me.

Actually, in my perspective, and according to the guidelines provided by the CCC, it would not be sinful, not a morally evil act. Sex between married persons is itself not sinful. Whether they copulate in the middle of a football field, in a supermarket or in a church, the object of the act does not change. It’s the circumstances which change, but circumstances do not determine the rightness or wrongness of an act, but only the degree to which the act is right or wrong in that particular act. So giving oneself fully to the other in a church would be morally good, given that the object and intention (to glorify God, express marital love, and multiply) are good .

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Actually, in my perspective, and according to the guidelines provided by the CCC, it would not be sinful, not a morally evil act. Sex between married persons is itself not sinful. Whether they copulate in the middle of a football field, in a supermarket or in a church, the object of the act does not change. It’s the circumstances which change, but circumstances do not determine the rightness or wrongness of an act, but only the degree to which the act is right or wrong in that particular act. So giving oneself fully to the other in a church would be morally good.

I’m sorry, but this whole thing sounds really, um, pagan. If I remember correctly, no one was allowed in the ancient Jewish temple complex after having intercourse until they were cleansed, let alone having sex in the Temple itself!

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Pope Noah I:

I’m sorry, but this whole thing sounds really, um, pagan. If I remember correctly, no one was allowed in the ancient Jewish temple after having intercourse until they were cleansed, let alone having sex in the Temple itself!

Ah, but with Christians it’s not what goes into the mouth (pork and pigeons) that makes one unclean, but what comes out of the mouth! Christians have been freed from the Law!

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Ah, but with Christians it’s not what goes into the mouth (pork and pigeons) that makes one unclean, but what comes out of the mouth! Christians have been freed from the Law!

Yes! But still, the concept remains, does it not? If sex was unacceptable in God’s House before, why should it be acceptable now?

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Pope Noah I:

Yes! But still, the concept remains, does it not? If sex was unacceptable in God’s House before, why should it be now?

Before, only certain Jewish priests could enter God’s house. The rest of the Jewish people, and certainly the Gentiles (even the meteuntes ones), could not enter the Temple, except for the outermost porticos.

When the priesthood changes, there must be a change of law as well. (Hebrews 7:12)

The Levitical Priesthood (connected with the Temple) is under a different law than the raised Priesthood of Melchizidek in the new dispensation.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Before, only certain Jewish priests could enter God’s house. The rest of the Jewish people, and certainly the Gentiles (even the meteuntes ones), could not enter the Temple, except for the outermost porticos.

When the priesthood changes, there must be a change of law as well. (Hebrews 7:12)

The Levitical Priesthood (connected with the Temple) is under a different law than the raised Priesthood of Melchizidek.

Okay, this might be rank stupidity, but don’t all Christians share in the believer’s Priesthood now, thus giving them the gift of direct contact with God, i.e. the Eucharist?

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Pope Noah I:

Okay, this might be rank stupidity, but don’t all Christians share in the believer’s Priesthood now, thus giving them the gift of direct contact with God, i.e. the Eucharist?

Yes! All Christians are members of the universal priesthood. Martin Luther, John Calvin and Vatican II do well in reminding us Christians of this fact.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Yes! All Christians are members of the universal priesthood. Martin Luther, John Calvin and Vatican II both do well in reminding us Christians of this fact.

Then just because all believers share in the Universal Priesthood does not mean that intercourse is acceptable in the Sanctuary.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Pope Noah I:

Then just because all believers share in the Universal Priesthood does not mean that intercourse is acceptable in the Sanctuary.

No, it doesn’t! But with the Jews, you couldn’t bring ham into the temple for your life. Much less a menstrating woman. But Christians: in their view, what really mattered was not a person’s exterior cleansliness or simply abiding by the rules, but what went on in a person’s heart, the interior aspect. We should not judge others for what they do in church, if it’s done with a true, honset, heart-sincere devotion to God, right?

 

[childofmary1143]

surely The Moderators Must Realize The Utter Filth In This Thread??

 

[whatevergirl]

I agree with you matthew.
I think that this thread’s topic is disrespectful to say the least.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Josephite-Shmosephite

The Pope can dissolve a Josephite Marriage, and any marriage not yet consummated for that fact; he cannot, however, dissolve a consummated sacramental marriage.

While that is true, consummation is not what makes a marriage sacramental. Consummation is what renders it indissoluble. The sacrament is completed in the church/holy ground.

You’ve already quoted half of the canon yourself:

Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

The other half is here:

Can. 1055 §2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptised persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.

NB all of the highlights. A valid marriage between baptised persons that is merely *ratum *is still, necessarily, sacramental.

QED
tee
Not A Canon Lawyer