The Justice of God in our bodies

  • Thread starter Thread starter nablaise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nablaise

Guest
Man’s Disobedience Justly Requited in the Rebellion of His Own Flesh; The Blush of Shame for the Disobedient Members of the Body.
When the first man transgressed the law of God, he began to have another law in his members which was repugnant to the law of his mind, and he felt the evil of his own disobedience when he experienced in the disobedience of his flesh a most righteous retribution recoiling on himself. Such, then, was the opening of his eyes which the serpent had promised him in his temptation Genesis 3:5 — the knowledge, in fact, of something which he had better been ignorant of. Then, indeed, did man perceive within himself what he had done; then did he distinguish evil from good,— not by avoiding it, but by enduring it. For it certainly was not just that obedience should be rendered by his servant, that is, his body, to him, who had not obeyed his own Lord. Well, then, how significant is the fact that the eyes, and lips, and tongue, and hands, and feet, and the bending of back, and neck, and sides, are all placed within our power— to be applied to such operations as are suitable to them, when we have a body free from impediments and in a sound state of health; but when it must come to man’s great function of the procreation of children the members which were expressly created for this purpose will not obey the direction of the will, but lust has to be waited for to set these members in motion, as if it had legal right over them, and sometimes it refuses to act when the mind wills, while often it acts against its will! Must not this bring the blush of shame over the freedom of the human will, that by its contempt of God, its own Commander, it has lost all proper command for itself over its own members? Now, wherein could be found a more fitting demonstration of the just depravation of human nature by reason of its disobedience, than in the disobedience of those parts whence nature herself derives subsistence by succession? For it is by a special propriety that those parts of the body are designated as natural. This, then, was the reason why the first human pair, on experiencing in the flesh that motion which was indecent because disobedient, and on feeling the shame of their nakedness, covered these offending members with fig-leaves; Genesis 3:7 in order that, at the very least, by the will of the ashamed offenders, a veil might be thrown over that which was put into motion without the will of those who wished it: and since shame arose from what indecently pleased, decency might be attained by concealment.
St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence
And by his mercy we should be restored, right? I think it is not impossible that some of us truly faithful catholics are capable of near perfect self-control. After all, if they make good use of sacraments, why would the Holy Spirit withhold from them this gifts?

God bless
 
And by his mercy we should be restored, right? I think it is not impossible that some of us truly faithful catholics are capable of near perfect self-control. After all, if they make good use of sacraments, why would the Holy Spirit withhold from them this gifts?

God bless
You have to be careful with Augustine and sex. He was generally of the opinion that sex even in marriage was still a venial sin. This is an opinion that has been widely dissented from in the centuries since. Even the great Thomas Aquinas, who so often quoted Augustine as an authoritative source, disagreed with him on this point. Of course, John Paul II has taught of the virtue and the good that is in marital intercourse (when it is not stained, of course, by lust).

Remember that none of the Church fathers are infallible. All of them in some way contributed to the true doctrine of the faith, teaching things which led to greater understandings of faith which were eventually confirmed by the Church. On the other hand, all of them also taught an idea or two which were either incorrect or imperfect, and which were later condemned as erroneous. Augustine, for example, had a very harsh view of sex, as he had given himself so much to sins of the flesh in his life that he had a hard time seeing the virtue in the marital act. Anyone who has struggled with pornography will be able to understand this… after so many years of viewing women as objects, a converted man often sees any beauty as evil, and it can take an awful long time to begin to see the difference between lust and beauty.

Nevertheless, the fathers are a great thing to read!
 
You have to be careful with Augustine and sex. He was generally of the opinion that sex even in marriage was still a venial sin. This is an opinion that has been widely dissented from in the centuries since. Even the great Thomas Aquinas, who so often quoted Augustine as an authoritative source, disagreed with him on this point. Of course, John Paul II has taught of the virtue and the good that is in marital intercourse (when it is not stained, of course, by lust).

Remember that none of the Church fathers are infallible. All of them in some way contributed to the true doctrine of the faith, teaching things which led to greater understandings of faith which were eventually confirmed by the Church. On the other hand, all of them also taught an idea or two which were either incorrect or imperfect, and which were later condemned as erroneous. Augustine, for example, had a very harsh view of sex, as he had given himself so much to sins of the flesh in his life that he had a hard time seeing the virtue in the marital act. Anyone who has struggled with pornography will be able to understand this… after so many years of viewing women as objects, a converted man often sees any beauty as evil, and it can take an awful long time to begin to see the difference between lust and beauty.

Nevertheless, the fathers are a great thing to read!
Well said. One of my Favorites in St. John Chyrsostom. But he was so wrong when exegeting passages concerning The Blessed Virgin.
 
You have to be careful with Augustine and sex. He was generally of the opinion that sex even in marriage was still a venial sin. This is an opinion that has been widely dissented from in the centuries since. Even the great Thomas Aquinas, who so often quoted Augustine as an authoritative source, disagreed with him on this point. Of course, John Paul II has taught of the virtue and the good that is in marital intercourse (when it is not stained, of course, by lust).

Remember that none of the Church fathers are infallible. All of them in some way contributed to the true doctrine of the faith, teaching things which led to greater understandings of faith which were eventually confirmed by the Church. On the other hand, all of them also taught an idea or two which were either incorrect or imperfect, and which were later condemned as erroneous. Augustine, for example, had a very harsh view of sex, as he had given himself so much to sins of the flesh in his life that he had a hard time seeing the virtue in the marital act. Anyone who has struggled with pornography will be able to understand this… after so many years of viewing women as objects, a converted man often sees any beauty as evil, and it can take an awful long time to begin to see the difference between lust and beauty.

Nevertheless, the fathers are a great thing to read!
I understand what you are saying but may be you diidn’t point out correctly what is it that Augustine had wrong. The fact that lust corrup sex is true, so that it could be a venial sin is true. JPII even indicate that a man can commit adultery with his wife. So I don’t see where they desagree, could you clarify please?

Considering what I have read so far, Augustine states that if a couple could have sex without lust, then it would be pure, free from the venial sin brought by lust. This sounds the same as our popes are telling us. The Church teaches us to have a pure heart.

Augustine seems to suggest that it is impossible for a couple to have intercouse without the presence of lust. And if this is the case, then there is venial sin. This is probably where someone may think that Augustine is wrong/harsh. But I don’t see how he is wrong.
One have to consider also that Augustine preaches the power of the grace of God. So he can not be against the fact that God’s grace can take away this lust and purify married couple, in fact this is what he seems to be preaching.

Well, please let me know where I am getting him wrong.

God bless
 
To me, Augustine’s thoughts on sex and lust were insightful but somewhat distorted. He seemed to reject any sexual desire as being disordered rather than comparing it to, say, hunger which drives our appetite for food. I think he thought that any sexual desire was worthy of the shame humans experience rather than considering that shame, itself, might be a disordered result of the fall-a disordered reaction to a worthy, natural drive of man. IOW, man was ashamed of being man, and tried-and still tries- to hide himself. For all humans virtue must be practiced, meaning that balance needs to be maintained by reason in all our activities-Augustine felt this was impossible with sex. And it’s not so easy but neither is controlling the appetite for food for many of us. My take on Augustines’ notions may be in error here and I’m curious what others think of this.
 
To me, Augustine’s thoughts on sex and lust were insightful but somewhat distorted. He seemed to reject any sexual desire as being disordered rather than comparing it to, say, hunger which drives our appetite for food. I think he thought that any sexual desire was worthy of the shame humans experience rather than considering that shame, itself, might be a disordered result of the fall-a disordered reaction to a worthy, natural drive of man. IOW, man was ashamed of being man, and tried-and still tries- to hide himself. For all humans virtue must be practiced, meaning that balance needs to be maintained by reason in all our activities-Augustine felt this was impossible with sex. And it’s not so easy but neither is controlling the appetite for food for many of us. My take on Augustines’ notions may be in error here and I’m curious what others think of this.
The point of St. Augustine is that that ‘natural drive of man’ was corrupted and it will always be so until restored by the grace of Christ.
Man was not ashamed of being man. You are gettting Augustine completly opposite. Did you actually read him? or you heard some critics?

Even if you read the OP which I quoted him, he is saying tha man was ashamed of not being able to control himself, so he hide his ‘uncontrolable’ members. Read the original post again, I dont’ know where you got those ideas.

In few words man was ashamed of not being man anylonger, he had fallen into something lowly.

God bless
 
And by his mercy we should be restored, right? I think it is not impossible that some of us truly faithful catholics are capable of near perfect self-control. After all, if they make good use of sacraments, why would the Holy Spirit withhold from them this gifts?

God bless
I think you have it perfectly right.

🙂
 
The point of St. Augustine is that that ‘natural drive of man’ was corrupted and it will always be so until restored by the grace of Christ.
Man was not ashamed of being man. You are gettting Augustine completly opposite. Did you actually read him? or you heard some critics?

Even if you read the OP which I quoted him, he is saying tha man was ashamed of not being able to control himself, so he hide his ‘uncontrolable’ members. Read the original post again, I dont’ know where you got those ideas.

In few words man was ashamed of not being man anylonger, he had fallen into something lowly.

God bless
I recently finished Confessions and City of God and while Augustine’s one of my favorite Catholic thinkers, I’ve struggled to understand his concepts on sex, some making much sense with others being not so clear to me. Maybe I need to expand into other areas of his writings. But what I don’t understand is why he zeroed in on indecent motions of the flesh as being such a source of shame since the war between the flesh and the spirit is fought on many other grounds as well-many appetites being disordered.

I do know that man was ashamed of being man-and still is. That shame was never meant to be and reveals a shame even for God, the creator, and delights satan.

But maybe I’m confusing different “shames” here, false ones with valid ones.
 
I recently finished Confessions and City of God and while Augustine’s one of my favorite Catholic thinkers, I’ve struggled to understand his concepts on sex, some making much sense with others being not so clear to me. Maybe I need to expand into other areas of his writings. But what I don’t understand is why he zeroed in on indecent motions of the flesh as being such a source of shame since the war between the flesh and the spirit is fought on many other grounds as well-many appetites being disordered.

I do know that man was ashamed of being man-and still is. That shame was never meant to be and reveals a shame even for God, the creator, and delights satan.

But maybe I’m confusing different “shames” here, false ones with valid ones.
Perhaps. The shame I am referring to is the one Augustine mentioned in the quote in the original post.

I think the reason he focused on ‘sexual shame’ is because it is the one which is central. It is through sex that a human is created. It is the shame spoken of in Genesis. The one connected to original sin.

But you are also right that we have also other emotions and instincts that we don’t menage to master as we should. But these too are connected to the ‘wound’ in the seeds of our fathers and ourselves which we will end up transmitting through our sexuality. Sexuality is the only domain where man express the fullness of what he is and even regenerate himself.

I don’t know how he explained all these in the City of God and Confessions. I read few parts in the City of God. The quote in the OP came from an other book of his called: Marriage and Concupiscence.

Concerning other parts we can’t control, I think them to reveal to us our desobediance as much as we have caused their development through the habit of sin. For example, I have been thinking about gluttony. It can be hard to control oneself in matter of eating. Yet, we know that we are commended to it what we need and give the rest to the poor. But we eat and eat, and start trying to loose wheight, etc.

It is sad that other 7 vices (deadly sins) don’t seem to ever be mentioned on this ‘moral theorogy’ board. We probably never confess them as well.

Pride, Avarice (Greed), Lust, Anger (Wrath), Gluttony, Envy (Jealousy), Lazyness (Sloth).

All these sins are part of our rebellious kingdom which we are supposed to rule in Christ. They are of the ‘flesh’. Augustine is saying that the ‘flesh’ rebel against us (its king) whenever we rebel against God (our king).

We should really talk seriously about these too…

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top