M
mpartyka
Guest
–Mike
- Status
D
DevotedCatholic
Guest
Is the topic about contraception when it comes to sexual relations and not being able to use it for medical reasons, or are these two different view points within the Catholic Church?
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Now come on, Mike! You really think that a couple is engaging in the act each and every time saying, “I hope we make a baby!” That is downright ridiculous even for a couple who is not making exclusive use of the infertile phase.
That is what you are saying the ECFs said. The “I want to make a baby and that is the reason for engaging in this act,” thought process must be happening? Come on!! That is NOT what they said. They said, you can not *engage in the act that makes babies *without acknowledging that the act makes babies.
Sex makes babies. Some of the ECFs had the personal opinion that they must be attempting to make a baby. That is why some decided that sex during pregnancy was wrong.
Your understanding of the ECFs is still flawed. You decide that because they “said” it, it must be true. Even if they really DID say what you are promoting, you have them being infallible in ALL they wrote. That is just not true. They all had to come to an agreement and it had to be passed down through the years consistently to be part of the deposit of faith. They didn’t agree with each other, even though you say that every one of them who wrote on it, wrote the same thing. Even if that is what happened and they might have written the same thing, *your *interpretation is still wrong. You disagree with current teaching. Since current teaching is built entirely on previous teaching, I am much more inclined to believe the Church than your own personal misinterpretation.
It doesn’t conflict. You read into the ECFs what you are choosing to believe. Again, your problem, not mine. The ECFs said, in a nutshell, ‘Sex makes babies. Nothing can be done to change that fact.’ Some of the ECFs held the personal opinion that sex could not be accomplished without lust, and that sex when reproduction was impossible was for lust and lust alone. Hmmm. I see a theme there that I also see in your writings. One particular ECF, namely St. Augustine, was a former playboy and saw lust everywhere in his own past. He extrapolated his experience and decided that that was the way it was for everyone.
If you agree with St. Augustine’s personal opinion that sex cannot be accomplished without lust, then just say so. He was wrong. It can be and in fact brings couples even closer to holiness. You are welcome to hold the same personal opinion. It doesn’t make it right even if you have a giant like Augustine on your side. He was an ECF. He was not infallible in his own right and neither are you.
There is no change. They didn’t decide it back then. Now if you said that the same debate has been going on since the ECF, then I might agree. They *never *said, “You cannot have relations in the non-fertile phase.” That is what you are suggesting and as I said before, even then they didn’t require charting to only have relations when reproduction is possible.
It boils down to what I have stated before: either sex that doesn’t result in conception is allowed (not sinful at all) or knowledge of fertility is condemned. Based on your assertions you have to make the choice. I reiterate: even couples who do not make exclusive use of the infertile phase still have infertile relations! Either they can’t have those relations, or you are wrong!
N
newbetx
Guest
basically, this thread is about Mike’s OP questions:
There are other threads discussing the issues and options about ABC and medical issues. You might search “double effect” or browse the “Family Life” forum. Ask and Apologist" has some responses, too.
M
mpartyka
Guest
(Post 1 of 2)
The ECFs understood that sex is for having babies. They also believed that an act was 100% legitimate only if you used it with the proper intention (i.e., you were using the act for the purpose of accomplishing that which the act was intended to accomplish). Thus, they believed that having sex for purposes other than having babies was venially sinful (though excused under the sacrament) because you were using the act for purposes other than that for which the act was designed.
So, if all the ECFs who wrote on marriage said, “Sex for purposes other that having a baby is venially sinful (though excused by the sacrament),” and there were no ECFs that said otherwise, then there’s a very strong probability that what these ECFs each held individually was held by the early Church as a whole.
(continued…)
The ECFs believed that for the marital act to be considered blameless, the intent of the act must be to have a child.
Nonsense. If acknowledging that sex makes babies were all that is required, then why the ban on ABC? Why not simply say, “Before you have contraceptive sex, pray to God and say, ‘We will accept whatever child results from this act’”? (For that matter, isn’t it the acknowledgement that sex makes babies the reason why the couple is using ABC?)
The ECFs understood that sex is for having babies. They also believed that an act was 100% legitimate only if you used it with the proper intention (i.e., you were using the act for the purpose of accomplishing that which the act was intended to accomplish). Thus, they believed that having sex for purposes other than having babies was venially sinful (though excused under the sacrament) because you were using the act for purposes other than that for which the act was designed.
And your examples to the contrary are…where?
I believe that if you take a group of writers, select all of those writers who have written on a particular subject, and find that those selected writers are in basic agreement on that subject, then, in the absence of examples to the contrary, the consensus opinion on the subject given by the selected writers most likely reflects the consensus opinion of the whole group of writers. (Whether or not they were right to hold this opinion is another thing entirely.)
So, if all the ECFs who wrote on marriage said, “Sex for purposes other that having a baby is venially sinful (though excused by the sacrament),” and there were no ECFs that said otherwise, then there’s a very strong probability that what these ECFs each held individually was held by the early Church as a whole.
Keep in mind that I’m not the only person saying this. I found an anti-contraception Orthodox author who did a similar survey of the ECFs and came to the same conclusion.
Yes, because it contradicts previous teaching (and because it doesn’t go far enough in contradicting previous teaching – hence the cognitive dissonance that has driven some Catholics out of the Church).
Maybe you should be questioning your assumption. Is current teaching built entirely on previous teaching? When it’s clear that the previous teaching differs from the current teaching, how can that be so?
(continued…)
M
mpartyka
Guest
(Post 2 of 2)
As for whether sex can be accomplished without the use of lust, it’s clear you disagree with St. Augustine. Do you also disagree with Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great?
More from Pope Gregory the Great:
–Mike
What I find hilarious about your condemnation of St. Augustine is that, of all the ECFs, he looked upon sex in the most favorable light. For example, St. Augustine was the only ECF I’ve ever seen who believed that sexual intercourse was created for pre-fallen, sinless humanity! All the other ECFs I’ve seen believed that sexual intercourse either didn’t exist for humans until after the Fall or was created by God in Eden only because of His foreknowledge that Adam and Eve would fall into sin and consequently need sex to continue the human race. (One ECF even labeled sex “intercourse befitting beasts.”)
As for whether sex can be accomplished without the use of lust, it’s clear you disagree with St. Augustine. Do you also disagree with Pope Leo the Great and Pope Gregory the Great?
You are still misunderstanding my argument. The ECFs didn’t believe that the only purpose of sex in marriage was to have kids. They believed that the only blameless purpose of sex in marriage was to have kids. Sex in marriage was also permitted for the relief of concupiscence (i.e., lust) in one or both partners, but this particular use of sex in marriage was not considered blameless, only excused.
More from Pope Gregory the Great:
As I hope you now can see now, you are creating a false dilemma, and, by the way, whether sex actually results in conception or not is a red herring. What matters is intent. A couple who has non-contraceptive sex with the intent of creating a baby (which is what sex is for) is found to be blameless for engaging in sex. A couple who has non-contraceptive sex for reasons besides creating a baby is found to be in venial sin, but this sin is automatically excused on account of the Sacrament of Marriage.
–Mike
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Okay Mike.
I will try this one last time and then I have to stop. You don’t want to understand, I get that. You want to be right.
I fully acknowledge that there were great men who found the act of marital intercourse accomplished only through lust. I know about their writings. It doesn’t make their perception of the marital act correct. Just because they are an ECF (or a pope for that matter) doesn’t make their personal opinion correct.
I agreed that yes, the debate is still happening. That doesn’t make it *fact *that the marital act is accomplished through lust. All that you are showing is that down through the ages there have been assorted people (some even great theologians) who believed it. Obviously you are following the Protestant misunderstanding of papal infallibility.
What matters here is the fact of the act. Period. The marital act, even when infertile, is not objectively sinful. The “excuse” you keep pointing to is IF the act is lustful, then it is only venial. (Since lust is always described as a mortal sin, this distinction is important.) The Sacrament excuses lust as venial instead of mortal.
Your interpretation doesn’t make logical sense. Your interpretation puts people into a state of sin for a simple knowledge of fertility. That doesn’t follow reason. You might want to read a little deeper. One of the pope’s you reference actually believed that only the woman was in a state of sin, and not the man. Do you really want to stay on his side now? (My guess is yes.)
If you want to stay on that side of things, please stop wasting my time.
People aren’t “abandoning the Church” like you think. As these teachings are spelled out more and more clearly, people are coming back with a vengeance. My own husband began his conversion because he saw that the Church taught the whole Truth about marriage. He also saw that She taught the whole Truth about everything.
I will try this one last time and then I have to stop. You don’t want to understand, I get that. You want to be right.
I fully acknowledge that there were great men who found the act of marital intercourse accomplished only through lust. I know about their writings. It doesn’t make their perception of the marital act correct. Just because they are an ECF (or a pope for that matter) doesn’t make their personal opinion correct.
I agreed that yes, the debate is still happening. That doesn’t make it *fact *that the marital act is accomplished through lust. All that you are showing is that down through the ages there have been assorted people (some even great theologians) who believed it. Obviously you are following the Protestant misunderstanding of papal infallibility.
What matters here is the fact of the act. Period. The marital act, even when infertile, is not objectively sinful. The “excuse” you keep pointing to is IF the act is lustful, then it is only venial. (Since lust is always described as a mortal sin, this distinction is important.) The Sacrament excuses lust as venial instead of mortal.
Your interpretation doesn’t make logical sense. Your interpretation puts people into a state of sin for a simple knowledge of fertility. That doesn’t follow reason. You might want to read a little deeper. One of the pope’s you reference actually believed that only the woman was in a state of sin, and not the man. Do you really want to stay on his side now? (My guess is yes.)
If you want to stay on that side of things, please stop wasting my time.
People aren’t “abandoning the Church” like you think. As these teachings are spelled out more and more clearly, people are coming back with a vengeance. My own husband began his conversion because he saw that the Church taught the whole Truth about marriage. He also saw that She taught the whole Truth about everything.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Don’t go just yet. I have a couple of questions below.
I don’t think you want to understand, either, but I’m not entirely sure why.
I recognize that a personal opinion is not necessarily church doctrine. What I question is, on what basis is a personal opinion held by every ECF who ever wrote on the subject of marriage rejected from being understood as the official doctrine of the Church of their day in the absence of any shred of evidence to the contrary…except for the present-day Church’s claim that it isn’t so?
Once more for effect: You are basing your argument that the ECFs’ teaching on sex in marriage was “only their personal opinion” on nothing besides the present-day Church’s say-so. If you will simply acknowledge this, then, yes, I would agree we have nothing more to talk about because you aren’t looking at the evidence objectively.
From where do you get, “Lust is always described as a mortal sin”? Lust is a sin, sure…but a mortal sin?
Sure it does, if you acknowledge, as the ECFs did, that marital sex is a good which is always accompanied by a necessary evil (i.e., lust) such that it is better to forego the good if possible. (But even if you don’t acknowledge this, the ECFs taught that the venial sin of engaging in sex for pleasure was automatically excused by the Sacrament of Marriage, so what’s the big deal?)
Do you have the reference? Even if this is the case, how can you not tell the difference between a belief stated by one pope at a particular time and a belief stated again and again by popes and other ECFs throughout several centuries?
–Mike
J
JDaniel
Guest
Thank you. I will print out your reply and give it to my friend. I have to believe that he is truthful concerning the sex part of cohabiting - because he is bummed about it almost every time we get together!#4 is in confilct with number 6. The cohabitation part. This might get excused. Depending on the priest, he may not allow confession until one moves out. I’ve heard of this before. Yes, they definately need to see the priest and prepare for the sacrament. The key is when they marry, the make a promise that they will accept children if they are blest with them. If the tubal confession was not sincere, then saying yes would be a lie. But we must give benefit of doubt here and assume the best. There is always a possiblity no matter how small. Not sure the reason to get married if they don’t want more kids but there is nothing against it post menopause. In their case, I hope they plan on doing some service for children and consider adoption. That “Yes” is a serious statement and needs to be fully considered by the couple prior to marriage.
It would be difficult for anyone to assume that two sterilized people (and apparently many people must know this since you do) living together are not having sex already. The preist may find it difficult, too.
The forum is NOT official Church advice. Most of us here are not priests and we do not know ALL that lay behind this. If your friends sent you here instead of going themselves to authority, then they must be afaid of something or being told something. If it is as you said, “they might be told not to have sex until menopause.”… no, that should not happen. However, due to other circumstances, their current situation may be put to the test.
I do find it odd that they claim to be chaste while living together but worry they won’t be able to have sex once they are married. But false understanding of the Catholic faith abound beyond what I could have imagined. So tell them that they need to see the priest and make the sacrafices necessary to marry in the Church. It will be well worth it.
Additionally, I would recommend the couple get (or you could get it for them) a copy of Christopher West’s The Good News About Sex and Marriage. (Or Popcak’s “Holy Sex!”) It will do much to explain the “rules” that apparently they don’t quite understand and set them off in the right direction for their upcomming marriage. TGNAS&M addresses each of the issues you bring up in a Church approved way.
Bless you for helping them and bless them for heading in the right direction.
Such questions are understandable when they come from people who have left the church for a period of time and recently returned.
Again, muchas gracias.
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
There’s something to say about the manner of relationship that posits two people together, who love each other and are best friends, and who won’t mind wiping the saliva from the chin of the first one who suffers a stroke.
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
L
LittleDeb
Guest
Mike,
Did you really ask where lust is described as a mortal sin??? You’re kidding right? One of the seven *deadly *sins???
Not one shred of evidence? The nearly 2000 years of people writing since the ECFs is not one shred of evidence? Mike, you are the one making the assertion that there has been a change. If you say there has been a change it is up to you to show where the change happened. I say that that there hasn’t been a change, only a deepening of understanding. Yet again, your understanding of the ECFs is seriously flawed. They are where we begin, not where we end. They are not the final say. Doctrine is founded in the early Church and deepens through the ages.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread already…your assertion closely resembles the problem of Arianism. There were many, many theologians who supported Arianism. It didn’t make them right just because they were prolific in their writing. It doesn’t even matter if “most” of them believed they were correct. They weren’t.
Based on your assertions you are going to owe the Mormons some major back-pedaling and apologies. They base their understanding of the nature of Jesus in large part to the early writings on Arianism. Just like you, they read into the ECF what they want to believe. They assert as one of their stances for the supposed “apostacy” is that the current Church doesn’t follow “the early Church and their correct understanding on the nature of Jesus.”
Normally, I am happy to provide references for someone to study deeper. But you have ignored the previous requests to read even the first 20 talks of TOB. I am not going to do your homework for you. You have no interest in understanding Church teaching, I am tired of you wasting my time.
I have had to step back many times during this thread and not respond right away in order to remain charitable. I find myself becoming sarcastic with you. Sarcasm is not the norm for me. I cannot tell you the intimate relationship the back-space key and I are having! There is no conflict. The marital act is not objectively sinful (whether “excused” or not.) Please, please study Theology of the Body. All of Church teaching makes sense with it, including the “pre-fall sexuality” that St. Augustine was trying to express.
May God bless you in your journey and may we rejoice if/when you ever come into the fullness of the Church.
Did you really ask where lust is described as a mortal sin??? You’re kidding right? One of the seven *deadly *sins???
Not one shred of evidence? The nearly 2000 years of people writing since the ECFs is not one shred of evidence? Mike, you are the one making the assertion that there has been a change. If you say there has been a change it is up to you to show where the change happened. I say that that there hasn’t been a change, only a deepening of understanding. Yet again, your understanding of the ECFs is seriously flawed. They are where we begin, not where we end. They are not the final say. Doctrine is founded in the early Church and deepens through the ages.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread already…your assertion closely resembles the problem of Arianism. There were many, many theologians who supported Arianism. It didn’t make them right just because they were prolific in their writing. It doesn’t even matter if “most” of them believed they were correct. They weren’t.
Based on your assertions you are going to owe the Mormons some major back-pedaling and apologies. They base their understanding of the nature of Jesus in large part to the early writings on Arianism. Just like you, they read into the ECF what they want to believe. They assert as one of their stances for the supposed “apostacy” is that the current Church doesn’t follow “the early Church and their correct understanding on the nature of Jesus.”
Normally, I am happy to provide references for someone to study deeper. But you have ignored the previous requests to read even the first 20 talks of TOB. I am not going to do your homework for you. You have no interest in understanding Church teaching, I am tired of you wasting my time.
I have had to step back many times during this thread and not respond right away in order to remain charitable. I find myself becoming sarcastic with you. Sarcasm is not the norm for me. I cannot tell you the intimate relationship the back-space key and I are having! There is no conflict. The marital act is not objectively sinful (whether “excused” or not.) Please, please study Theology of the Body. All of Church teaching makes sense with it, including the “pre-fall sexuality” that St. Augustine was trying to express.
May God bless you in your journey and may we rejoice if/when you ever come into the fullness of the Church.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Lust is a grave sin, but that doesn’t make every instance of it a mortal sin. Mortal sin requires full consent of the will.
Pope Gregory the Great died in late 6th century, so that’s only 1400 years. I’m arguing that for at least the first 600 years of Christianity, there was a consensus view in the Church that engaging in married sex for reasons other than procreation was venially sinful (though excused). You have presented no evidence originating from those first 600 years which would contradict my argument.
I could just as easily argue, “Deb, you are the one making the assertion that the teaching of the Church on sex in marriage has remained constant for 2000 years. If you say there has been no change, it is up to you to show that no change happened.”
How does a “deepening of understanding” modify the status of an act from “venially sinful” to “not sinful at all”? I can see how a “deepening of understanding” might lead the Church to better recognize why an act is considered venially sinful, but I don’t see how a “deepening of understanding” would cause the Church to say that something previously considered venially sinful is no longer to be considered sinful at all without acknowledging that a change has been made.
Understood, but in the case of Arianism, we can objectively say the Arians were wrong because we have many testimonies from the ECFs who preceded the Arians that contradict the Arian position.
I think you might be confusing the Mormons with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ve actually written a paper on this very topic. If you Google “Partyka” and “Watchtower” you’ll find it. Basically, I took the writings of several ECFs that the JWs had quote-mined for Arian-sounding statements about Christ and showed those same ECFs had made many, many clearly-Trinitarian statements about Christ. (Some of those clearly-Trinitarian statements I found only a few sentences away from what the JWs had quote-mined!)
Total cop-out on your part. I’m asking you for a single name and reference from a 5th- or 6th-century pope, and you’re telling me that in order to get that reference from you I would first have to read 20 papers by a 20th-century pope. Either cough up the reference or admit you made it up.
–Mike
N
newbetx
Guest
I wish I had time to keep up with you guys… I somewhat agree that, with time, the chuch’s teaching (notice the small c) has changed. I think it had to. That is not to say the fundamental morality of the teaching has changed. That would be “Big C” stuff. I think we are mired in big C little c stuff. That can be confusing.
TOB is not a rehash of old church teaching that I can see. It does take into account prior teaching but it goes much deeper. TOB is not dogma, so I assume it qualifies as the same “opinion” as other theolgeans. But it is based on biblical references.
Mike proposes the Church really only had two choices and the one they chose (door #3) was invalid. I dissagree. I find Door #3 extremely valid.
BTW, Mike, I listened to this CD and it has some personal reflection from the Pope’s secretary about HV you might find interesting. For everyone else, it is very interesting to get this level of insight into the pope’s life.
To return to your first OP question…
“1) Has the Church’s teaching on sexual relations within marriage changed over time, and should this have an impact on how the Church views ABC?”
The answer STIL is that ABC was considered but rejected because it STILL violated proper form for marital relations. I think you implied you believed it should have changed due to the ECF’s misunderstanding of biology. The Church isn’t blind. If you don’t think that the Holy Spirit is very active in Church Fathers, go listen to that CD again. Maybe the ECF’s didn’t have it all right. I personally don’t think Genesis has it all right, either. But that does not diminish the fact that, in general, the guidlines are correct.
I guess my opin is this. Many new technilogical/scientific/medial inventions come along. They can be used for good or evil. The Church will guide us on what is good and what is not. Not all advancements are good. And not all are completely evil. However, we are guided as to how to use them for good and it’s up to us to do so. NFP is “new technology.” It falls into this category. It is generally good if one follows the guidlines. It can be misused. I can attest to this.You err when you say it is generally misused. ABC is almost always misused. You claim no more than NFP. We say you are incorrect. I can attest to that, too. However, it is not ours to judge. And Mike, that is what many think you do when you put NFP on the same level as ABC (no matter what HV says. It doesn’t say they are on the same plane, just the outcome is the same). And I think this is where communications breaks down. You may counter and say that we, then, can’t judge a couple on ABC. You would be correct, again. Judging is not the same as correcting. We struggle to correct vs. judge. It’s difficult. And if someone thinks they are not sinning, well, correction is next to impossible. Right? Communication terminates.
Mike, You and Little Deb aren’t anywhere on the same page and I doubt you’ll get there. I’m not saying it’s bad. It is difficult to communicate when we don’t have the same lexicon or the same basic understandings or background. I find it admirable that you have looked into the ECF’s as I have not done that yet. I have much to learn. I still do recommend you pick up a copy of one of the TOB books and see what one of our more recent Church Fathers has to say on the subject.
Peace!
TOB is not a rehash of old church teaching that I can see. It does take into account prior teaching but it goes much deeper. TOB is not dogma, so I assume it qualifies as the same “opinion” as other theolgeans. But it is based on biblical references.
Mike proposes the Church really only had two choices and the one they chose (door #3) was invalid. I dissagree. I find Door #3 extremely valid.
BTW, Mike, I listened to this CD and it has some personal reflection from the Pope’s secretary about HV you might find interesting. For everyone else, it is very interesting to get this level of insight into the pope’s life.
To return to your first OP question…
“1) Has the Church’s teaching on sexual relations within marriage changed over time, and should this have an impact on how the Church views ABC?”
The answer STIL is that ABC was considered but rejected because it STILL violated proper form for marital relations. I think you implied you believed it should have changed due to the ECF’s misunderstanding of biology. The Church isn’t blind. If you don’t think that the Holy Spirit is very active in Church Fathers, go listen to that CD again. Maybe the ECF’s didn’t have it all right. I personally don’t think Genesis has it all right, either. But that does not diminish the fact that, in general, the guidlines are correct.
I guess my opin is this. Many new technilogical/scientific/medial inventions come along. They can be used for good or evil. The Church will guide us on what is good and what is not. Not all advancements are good. And not all are completely evil. However, we are guided as to how to use them for good and it’s up to us to do so. NFP is “new technology.” It falls into this category. It is generally good if one follows the guidlines. It can be misused. I can attest to this.You err when you say it is generally misused. ABC is almost always misused. You claim no more than NFP. We say you are incorrect. I can attest to that, too. However, it is not ours to judge. And Mike, that is what many think you do when you put NFP on the same level as ABC (no matter what HV says. It doesn’t say they are on the same plane, just the outcome is the same). And I think this is where communications breaks down. You may counter and say that we, then, can’t judge a couple on ABC. You would be correct, again. Judging is not the same as correcting. We struggle to correct vs. judge. It’s difficult. And if someone thinks they are not sinning, well, correction is next to impossible. Right? Communication terminates.
Mike, You and Little Deb aren’t anywhere on the same page and I doubt you’ll get there. I’m not saying it’s bad. It is difficult to communicate when we don’t have the same lexicon or the same basic understandings or background. I find it admirable that you have looked into the ECF’s as I have not done that yet. I have much to learn. I still do recommend you pick up a copy of one of the TOB books and see what one of our more recent Church Fathers has to say on the subject.
Peace!
M
mpartyka
Guest
I disagree that whether an act is sinful or not falls under the umbrella of “little c” stuff. To me, “little c” stuff would include matters of discipline – not eating meat on Friday, not letting priests marry, allowing group confession rather than insisting upon private confession, etc., etc. “Big C” stuff, to me, includes matters of right and wrong. Is it right or wrong for married couples to have sex when having kids is not the intent? The ECFs believed it was wrong, but only venially wrong, and the Sacrament of Marriage constituted an automatic excuse for it anyway. So, from the perspective of the married couple, no change of behavior would be required were the Church to revert to its previous teaching on sex in marriage. All that would be required on the part of the married couple is a change of attitude or understanding about the purpose of sex in marriage. Married couples would need to understand that although marriage does provide a remedy for concupiscence, it’s better to not be “sick” with concupiscence at all rather than to keep “treating” it with sex.
–Mike
N
newbetx
Guest
I don’t know if you realize this or not… but that is EXACTLY what TOB communicates to us! We are called to see and understand our sexuality differenlty than what culture has presented to us.
The ECF didn’t have this perspective at their disposal. But now WE do. We have been blessed with a “new” perspective. One that is sound and based on scripture. WHY are those stories in the bible if it’s not meant to provide us a lesson? Tying them all toghether, JP II shows us a great revelation that, while difficult to achieve, rings true with what we know love to be. Aren’t things that are worth having worth working for? Sacraficing for? Sex is a gift! I pity those who only see it was a curse, a duty, or something dirty.
Mike. please read about TOB. It’s an amazing work. In order for you to get the most out of it we can’t debate it “tree at a time.” You need the forest view. Sex is MORE than just producing offspring. If it were not, it wouldn’t be so enjoyable. There is a reason behind this. Please read. Deal?
Peace.
M
mpartyka
Guest
N
newbetx
Guest
M
mpartyka
Guest
Just FYI, I’m right now about a fifth of the way through TOB. It’s slow going because I’m trying to absorb it rather than skim it.
The source material I’m reading can be found at ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM.
–Mike
The source material I’m reading can be found at ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM.
–Mike
N
newbetx
Guest
That I can certainly understand. I’m happy I took the “digested” path, through Christopher West, Fr. Ricardo and a few others. I listened to their audio while I did yard work or walked.
The Weekly Audiences you are reading were delivered over many years. Will you be studying all 129?
- Status