The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
stewstew03 said:
(By the way, I noticed that while you make a distinction between “ancient homosexuality” and “modern homosexuality” you fail to offer a similar analysis vis-a-vis slavery, but I digress).
Click to expand...
'zactly. 👍
 
PRmerger said:
I agree with you, Angelino. The Catholic Church’s understanding of marriage and homosexuality is, indeed, not static.

However, this ought not be confused with: "The Catholic Church once taught [A] regarding marriage and now teaches [not A].
Click to expand...
PRmerger said:
No teaching by the CC is static, so it’s an irrelevant assertion you are making.

I don’t think apologists rely on any static teaching.

However, that ought not be confused with an apologist addressing a particular truth of this teaching. And the truth of that statement is eternal.
Click to expand...
How is the second paragraph in your first post not a direct and complete contradiction of the first paragraph in your second post?
 
mek42 said:
How is the second paragraph in your first post not a direct and complete contradiction of the first paragraph in your second post?
Click to expand...
Take this example: the Church’s teaching on the Divinity of Christ is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this. That is what theology is for. That is why we have doctors of the Church.

Yet the teaching that Jesus is God is eternal, always and eternally true. Objectively true.

Similarly, the Church’s teaching on marriage is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this.

Yet the teaching that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of procreation and union is eternal, always and eternally true.
 
PRmerger said:
Take this example: the Church’s teaching on the Divinity of Christ is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this. That is what theology is for. That is why we have doctors of the Church.

Yet the teaching that Jesus is God is eternal, always and eternally true. Objectively true.

Similarly, the Church’s teaching on marriage is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this.

Yet the teaching that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of procreation and union is eternal, always and eternally true.
Click to expand...
Nor has the Church, as far as I know, ever taught that homosexuality is okay.
 
stewstew03 said:
When did the Catholic Church teach that homosexuality was acceptable behavior?
Click to expand...
Homosexuality and homosexual acts are two different things.
stewstew03 said:
This is a silly interpretation that seems to be saying “Paul is only addressing people at that point in time, he doesn’t mean for readers outside of that time period to take him seriously.”
Click to expand...
I am not saying what you contend here. Let me clarify again: Cherry-picking these verses and viewing them in a void is to deprive them of their context.
stewstew03 said:
What is the “modern understanding of homosexuality” and how is it different than the “ancient understanding of homosexuality”?
Click to expand...
Staying strictly with Church documents, homosexuality as a condition of being is not addressed as such until 1975. Before that, homosexuality was always addressed as an action (sodomy).

Staying strictly in science, homosexuality has gone from a dangerous psychosis, to a psychological disorder, to a choice, to a biologically-based characteristic.
stewstew03 said:
Your argument is basically this: “If the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, then the bible also teaches that slavery is okay.”
Click to expand...
Nope. My argument is that our understanding and teaching on both homosexuality and marriage is not static. A sub-argument of this is an appeal to not cherry-pick verses out of context.
stewstew03 said:
(By the way, I noticed that while you make a distinction between “ancient homosexuality” and “modern homosexuality” you fail to offer a similar analysis vis-a-vis slavery, but I digress).
Click to expand...
Our understanding of homosexuality is informed by science, much like our understanding of heliocentrism. Slavery isn’t.
stewstew03 said:
Furthermore, I’m not aware of any claims that Scripture should be interpreted without any historical context.
Click to expand...
See Blessed John Paul’s comments on evolution.
stewstew03 said:
Paul’s letter to Philemon should be read “literally.” He is literally telling Philemon, “Hey, Philemon, I’m sitting here in prison with Onesimus. I’d like to keep his company, but I know that by law he should return home. By the way, while we were in prison I preached the Gospel to him and he converted to Christianity, so he’s not a slave anymore – he’s our brother in Christ, so treat him as such.”
Click to expand...
Actually, it says this, “I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.” Paul hopes that Onesimus will be freed, but leaves the decision up to his owner.
 
PRmerger said:
Take this example: the Church’s teaching on the Divinity of Christ is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this. That is what theology is for. That is why we have doctors of the Church.

Yet the teaching that Jesus is God is eternal, always and eternally true. Objectively true.

Similarly, the Church’s teaching on marriage is not static. We are always developing our understanding of this.

Yet the teaching that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of procreation and union is eternal, always and eternally true.
Click to expand...
PRmerger -

I think you and I are fundamentally on the same page. My only question is this: as to your statement on marriage, what apologia exists that rectifies “purpose of procreation” with the reality that both St. Paul and St. Constantine taught that the purpose of marriage was to remedy concupiscence (a way of legitimizing and satisfying male sexual desire in a non-sinful way)?

I’m not writing this just for the sake of argument, I am genuinely interested in reading it.
 
_Angelino said:
Homosexuality and homosexual acts are two different things.
Click to expand...
No argument there. But you were advocating the idea that it’s not inconsistent to be a practicing Catholic while also supporting homosexual acts.
I am not saying what you contend here. Let me clarify again: Cherry-picking these verses and viewing them in a void is to deprive them of their context.
Click to expand...
Right. Who’s cherry-picking? You said that Paul doesn’t mean to condemn “modern” homosexual acts, without explaining the difference between modern acts and ancient acts.
Staying strictly with Church documents, homosexuality as a condition of being is not addressed as such until 1975. Before that, homosexuality was always addressed as an action (sodomy).
Click to expand...
According to the Catechism, “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’”
Staying strictly in science, homosexuality has gone from a dangerous psychosis, to a psychological disorder, to a choice, to a biologically-based characteristic.
Click to expand...
Okay.
Nope. My argument is that our understanding and teaching on both homosexuality and marriage is not static. A sub-argument of this is an appeal to not cherry-pick verses out of context.
Click to expand...
According to the Catechism, “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’” Which part of this should be understood as “not static.”
Our understanding of homosexuality is informed by science, much like our understanding of heliocentrism. Slavery isn’t.
Click to expand...
Okay. Are you contending that at some point science will make a stunning revelation that homosexuality is really ordered toward life after all, and therefore not opposed to natural law?
See Blessed John Paul’s comments on evolution.
Click to expand...
Help me out here rather than forcing me to dig for information to understand your point.
Actually, it says this, “I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary.” Paul hopes that Onesimus will be freed, but leaves the decision up to his owner.
Click to expand...
Actually it says this:

8 Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,
9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—I, Paul, an ambassador and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus—
10 appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
11 (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.)
12 I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart.
13 I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel;
14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
15 Perhaps this is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back for ever,
16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.
17 So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me.
18 If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.
19 I, Paul, write this with my own hand, I will repay it—to say nothing of your owing me even your own self.
20 Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in Christ.
21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.

(Bolded portions mine.) Again, how does this verse help your argument?
 
_Angelino said:
Staying strictly in science, homosexuality has gone from a dangerous psychosis, to a psychological disorder, to a choice, to a biologically-based characteristic.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “biologically based characteristic”? And where does science say this?
 
_Angelino said:
PRmerger -

I think you and I are fundamentally on the same page. My only question is this: as to your statement on marriage, what apologia exists that rectifies “purpose of procreation” with the reality that both St. Paul and St. Constantine taught that the purpose of marriage was to remedy concupiscence (a way of legitimizing and satisfying male sexual desire in a non-sinful way)?

I’m not writing this just for the sake of argument, I am genuinely interested in reading it.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that St. Paul taught that the only purpose of marriage was to remedy concupiscence?
 
angelino

Our understanding of homosexuality is informed by science, much like our understanding of heliocentrism. Slavery isn’t.

Has science found a gene for homosexuality? Please provide your source?

Our understanding of homosexuality is informed by observing the act of sodomy as the foundational act of homosexuality. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect sodomy with homosexuality. That understanding is ancient, and even when sodomy was popular in ancient times) it was condemned. See Plato and Aristotle, for example.

The idea of same-sex marriage is preposterous and can only be tolerated in a civilization that is morally and psychologically unhinged from both religion and common sense.
 
_Angelino said:
I always scratch my head when I see these same Biblically-based and historical justifications against gay marriage that are trotted out with a complete blind eye to their context:
1)
That Mosaic law (including Leviticus) is binding on Christians
It isn’t. This is why we can eat pork, men don’t have to be circumcised, and women can wear pants. This has been settled since the Council of Jerusalem.
2)
That Sodom was punished because of the presence of gay sex within the city
It wasn’t. The punishment had to do with the townsmen’s hatred of outsiders and their insistence on dominating and subjugating outsiders through en mass gang rape.
3)
That Paul preached against homosexuality as we know it today
He didn’t. He preached against pederasty and promiscuity.
4)
That, assuming Paul was talking about the modern notion of homosexuality, we should take his words literally with no attention paid to the context of the time in which he was writing
5)
He also returns a runaway Christian slave to his Christian master in the Letter to Philemon. I always enjoy asking my Biblical literalist friends if this means Christians should support slavery.
6)
That the Church has always said that the purpose of marriage is procreation
This first appeared in the Council of Trent. Both Paul (“it is better not to marry”) and Augustine counseled it as a remedy for concupiscence (a way of legitimizing and satisfying male sexual desire in a non-sinful way).
7)
That while perhaps the reasons for marriage have evolved, those type of people who able to enter into marriage has never changed
See the 12th century institution of priestly celibacy.
8)
That the Church can’t be wrong in characterizing homosexuality as some sort of scientifically-based biological disorder
Galileo anyone?
9)
That “natural law” requires marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman
Nearly every ancient society, practiced polygyny from the Persians, to the Indians, to the Chinese, to the Jews of the Old Testament.
10)
And, my favorite, The Church has never redefined it’s stance on a settled moral issue of this magnitude
I’ll set aside for the moment that this argument presupposes that the Holy Spirit cannot continue to reveal and refine the Truth to us. That’s too philosophical to come to any consensus.
11)
How about a question that is more concrete? Which Council was wrong: 3rd Lateran when it expressly authorized certain forms of slavery, or Vatican II when it expressly condemned all of it?
Click to expand...
You can start by making use of your head other than to scratch it…🙂
Too many points in only one thread…
 
Marriage is a gift. In order for one to preserve the purity of his/her soul, one must avoid the multitudes of temptations presented on a constant basis. Sexual sin is most contagious and escalates very quickly to depravity. Marriage contains the sexual act inside a covenant with Our Lord, blessing it as it were. Outside of that covenant, it is not blessed and at the mercy of satan.
 
Dave

**Marriage contains the sexual act inside a covenant with Our Lord, blessing it as it were. Outside of that covenant, it is not blessed and at the mercy of satan. **

And Satan is never merciful! 😉
 
Love is the root of our relationship with other people and it materializes into good works. This way we are in the image of God. The adulterer looks for consummation of his love in sex and become alike with the animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top