sex?

[Montalban]

The definition of a mortal sin is 'cutting oneself off from GOD.

The definition of sin is cutting oneself off from God.

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless affectionless marriage, who is ill as a consequence and who choses to stay there for the sake of the children

That’s her choice.

A man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life, but stays there for the sake of his children.

People make mistakes. For Orthodox, we do allow a solution; divorce. It is debateable with Catholics whether this situation of your imagination may lead to an annulment.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment. They chose to fulfil each others needs.

Then you’re just piling on conditions

St Paul said 'we are made righteous not by obedience to the law but by faith in Christ

He was referring to the Old Testament, to the legalism of the Jews; such as their arguing whether it was ‘work’ to save one’s ox (Luke 14:5). If he meant ‘faith’ alone, then he’d not have gone about writing letters to all those communities admonishing them for DOING the wrong thing.

 

[Other_Eric]

You miss the point. To this position is the idea that sex is about ‘love’ etc, and thus not ‘purely’ biologicial. However the key point is that it must be OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE, which is to have kids.

One might not ‘naturally’ have children from having sex, but it must be OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE. If one interferes in that natural process and therefore it is not OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE, it is deemed wrong. The example I gave, of two people not wanting to have children means that their relationship is NOT OPENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE.

The fact that sex involves love and other things on top does indeed add to it, but this in no way lessons the fact it’s about kids - or the real possibility of having them.

Amusing though your attempts to argue about your own church have been this is now bordering on boring. I have no problem with you saying Sex is not JUST about having kids. Which is what you have so highlighted. But it MUST include the openess to them.

A couple who join together with no desire to have kids and who prevent this their entire life are according to YOUR CHURCH sinful.

To begin with, this idea that a relationship must be open to the transmission of life is incorrect. It is the sexual act itself that needs to be open to the creation of new life. Still, this is but a small point as it is not unreasonable to suppose that this is what you meant. All in all, I find nothing else that objectionable in your post.

Since it appears that we agree that sexual activity remains justifiable in the absence of conception when this end is not deliberately thwarted, then perhaps we may finally begin to have a fruitful discussion on the application of Natural Law towards sexual activity.

It is true that your hypothetical example of a couple who join together in marriage intending never to have children withhold a vital element of themselves from the sacrament and render the union invalid. It’s possible that such a couple may even use Natural Family Planning to accomplish this end. Not only would this be an objective misuse of the sexuality, it would also be a blasphemy against the sacrament of marriage. So it appears that we agree here as well.

What I feel I must stress, however, is that this couple’s situation would be much different from that of a couple who are infertile due to some medical deficiency. Nor does this constitute an exception to Natural Law. The former case involves an act of the will that the latter case does not. Medical issues beyond the reasonable control of individuals can never seriously be compared to an active assent of the will to a manner of conduct that, absent just cause, results in indefinite unfruitfulness.

 

[KarenNC]

If he meant ‘faith’ alone, then he’d not have gone about writing letters to all those communities admonishing them for DOING the wrong thing.

Oh, really?

Montalban, post # 169 in this thread:
You have worked on the assumption that if we know something was written down, then this is significant evidence. All it is, is evidence that it was written down. We can’t know whether it was significant or not because we don’t have the non-written evidence by which to weigh it against.

Now it is relevant and significant evidence that something was written down??? :banghead:

 

[Montalban]

Oh, really?

Now it is relevant and significant evidence that something was written down???

For the purposes of the current debate with Sixtus what I said is not false nor contradictory to what I have said to you.

For the purposes of answering your effort at point scoring then I might add that he also gave them oral lessons about DOING the right thing.

The point is that he gave them lessons about DOING the right thing, not just having faith.

Better luck next time, hey?

 

[Montalban]

To begin with, this idea that a relationship must be open to the transmission of life is incorrect.

That’s what the Catholic church says. If they can naturally have children then they should be open to having children. It is why the Church is against artificial contraceptive means (except the ‘rhythm method’ which is still an artificial action insfar as people knowingly withold until certain times - but then the Catholic church, like yourself has problems differentiating between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ things.)

 

[Other_Eric]

The definition of a mortal sin is 'cutting oneself off from GOD.

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless affectionless marriage, who is ill as a consquence and who choses to stay there for the sake of the childre

A man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life, but stays there for the sake of his children.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment. They chose to fulful each others needs.

They remain steadfast in their faith. They now pray together, work for the good of the Church together and praise GOD together.

Therefore the criteria for a mortal sin has not been met. They have NOT rejected GOD.

How do you respond to that?

St Paul said 'we are made righteous not by obedience to the law but by faith in Christ

If, by “fulfilling each other’s needs,” you mean that they have engaged in sexual activity with one another, then I am afraid that is the easy route. Indeed, it also renders their judgment about what is best for their children suspect. If this new relationship were discovered, that would constitute a horrible trauma for them as well.

If, rather, you mean something else, that they respect each other’s respective marriage commitments and regard each other as friends on a purely platonic level, then I do not see that sin would be involved. Marriage has never been about ensconcing oneself away from the rest of the community.

I suspect Montalban has a point when he suggests that you’re piling conditions onto this scenario in an attempt, perhaps, to find a loophole in morality. Mortal sin may be cutting oneself off from God, but giving God lip service whilst flaunting His moral law does not indicate that God has not been rejected.

 

[Other_Eric]

That’s what the Catholic church says. If they can naturally have children then they should be open to having children. It is why the Church is against artificial contraceptive means (except the ‘rhythm method’ which is still an artificial action insfar as people knowingly withold until certain times - but then the Catholic church, like yourself has problems differentiating between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ things.)

I do not think that it is either the Church or myself that are having difficulties differentiating between what is natural and what is not. Leaving aside the semantics over the difference between relationships and sexual acts, let’s instead focus on Natural Family Planning (NFP) and your preferred rhythm method and explore why it is that neither of these methods violate the Natural Law.

In both NFP and the rhythm method, couples endeavor to abstain from sexual activity until those periods when the woman is infertile. Now this period of infertility is itself a natural event. Therefore, the exploitation of this natural occurrence cannot itself be said to be unnatural.

That conception takes place during this supposed infertile period is not unknown so even the couple engaging in either of these methods knows that there are no surefire guarantees and that by engaging in the sexual embrace, they are accepting the possibility of a new life. What is important in this case is that they are leaving the possibility for the generation of new life in the hands of God and are doing nothing to frustrate it themselves.

In this way it can be seen that neither NFP nor the rhythm method violate Natural Law because the ultimate decision for the creation of new life has been left in the hands of God, not assumed by man.

 

[Valke2]

I know a blind person who has a *companion *dog. Does that mean I should suspect that they’re having sex?

It is clear as to what was meant.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Hey Reborn, Why on earth would you go to a mall and ask such a personal question of people. Very inconsiderate of how other people. I thought one of your moto’s was to not harm other people! I even remeber you stating, when you first came on this board, that you try to think hard upon your actions before you do them so as not to harm anyone! Now we find out the you do things like this on a whim!

Swissshhhh! woah, hey what was that… Oh just someones credibility!

Peace!

 

[Hastrman]

The definition of a mortal sin is 'cutting oneself off from GOD.

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless affectionless marriage, who is ill as a consquence and who choses to stay there for the sake of the childre

A man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life, but stays there for the sake of his children.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment. They chose to fulful each others needs.

They remain steadfast in their faith. They now pray together, work for the good of the Church together and praise GOD together.

Therefore the criteria for a mortal sin has not been met. They have NOT rejected GOD.

How do you respond to that?

St Paul said 'we are made righteous not by obedience to the law but by faith in Christ

By committing adultery, they have commited a mortal sin–the act is rejection of God. The rationalizing, “Oh it doesn’t really count” compounds the sin.

By recieving the sacraments without acknowledging their sin they sin again, in blasphemy–attending sacrifices when in a condition of pollution.

Delightful.

I’m gonna go watch some yakuza movies; I need to dwell on more morally uplifting individuals.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

okay i actually went out and asked abunch of people in the mall i live near about there opinions on sex. and some said it was dirty and wanted to scold me for even asking such a thing, others who are obviously christians said that it is very wrong to have sex.

But there were a handfull who said something along the lines of “sex is pleasurable and is a gift from God, but just dont abuse it”

whats your opinion?

Any human activity can be wrong: from speaking & thinking to what we do with our sexuality. Slander may be more easily disguised than some sexual activities, but it is no less damaging: it’s easier to disguise slander & malice & gossip & back-biting as zeal for God, than to say this about sexual activity.​

The circumstance that slander, etc., are not animal activities, & are less untidy, than sexual practices, doesn’t make them morally right, let alone holy: & satan fell by pride, not by sexual activity. Jesus denounced the pride of the Pharisees with great severity.

Sexuality is part of our nature as human beings - it is as much in need of redemption and sanctification as our intellects, our hearts, or our pockets. It is not something to be ashamed of - sin, nothing else, is something to be ashamed of; and we can sin as much by lying as by anything else we do with our bodies: whether by idolising food or sex or people’s looks. If sexuality were bad of itself - why are human beings sexually differentiated ?

I’m guessing that some people have an overly spiritual notion of Christianity; as though flesh & blood were indelicate, & it were beneath God’s dignity to have anything to do with them. If that were so, why did God take a fully human nature - including a human sexuality ? He is as truly, fully, genuinely human as we are: otherwise, He is not really man at all. In which case, “the Word became flesh” ceases to be true, and the Crucifixion is emptied of its meaning, “and [we] are still in [our] sins.”

 

[Montalban]

It is clear as to what was meant.

You want to imply that it meant having sex with the beasts