C
cheese_sdc
Guest
No, but you equated the perfection of Catholicism’s teachings with the perfection of God. I would disagree with that.
- Status
T
ThyKingdomCome
Guest
not the perfection, the inability to be wrong in matters of faith and morals (they are not equal to God, but God promised to protect the Church from making these errors). This teaching of Catholicism is basic to our understanding of the Church and her Authority. But obviously, if we can’t agree on the Church Authority issue, then discussion of what the church teaches is meaningless.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Does that include usury?
T
ThyKingdomCome
Guest
Maybe that should be a question for another thread.
T
TheRiver
Guest
I always start out with wedding night sex many years before the wedding, it’s far more fun that way, who wants to wait 6 years ?
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Maybe, but it is applicable. I mean if you look at how the definition of usury has changed it makes you wonder about statements like “inability to be wrong in matters of faith and morals”.
That’s the problem with absolute statements. All someone has to do is find an instance when Catholic thinking on sin has changed (wouldn’t that be an instance of “morals”). I can think of thinks like usury, which at one time was defined as taking any interest on a loan. Or eating meat on Friday, which was a sin, and now is not considered sinful.
But as you say. It is a discussion for another time.
D
David_Collits
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but just to be clear, the Church teaches that direct sterilisation is gravely wrong. See: Humanae Vitae at #14.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Tobias 8:4 RKV
Notice Tobit acknowledges that they will not be “one flesh” until the third night, at consummation. But all that means is that Tobit anticipates the meaning of the Book of Genesis and the Sacrament of marriage (one flesh).
It is not children which makes the two one flesh, it is the mating and sharing of the “clay” semenial and fertile mucous, which causes the change in the body to a permanent unity.
To contracept would be to avoid becoming one flesh, in that the whole of the filling and exchange of body is incomplete. Tobit and Sara were put to the test by God – and in psalm 50/51 David speaks of the iniquity in which his mother mated, and which he saw as the source of his sin. The self same sin which manifested as adultery with Bathsheeba later – and which condemned David’s child to death by God.
It is up to God to determine whether or not your husband needs to be challenged with abstaining for a few days after the marriage; Because one does not have to abstain, but could take the risk – waiting the extra three days is a sacrifice, freely offered, and for that for that reason it has special value to God.
Sexuality on the first night, for me, was not really pleasant anyway. My desire for it was because of the permanence it signaled – and the fear I had of my bride somehow slipping away; with the marriage always open to divorce by some twist of the devil. It was pure insecurity which drove me that first night – The actual joy of the sexuality did not come until we were rested; and I say this with some sadness because of the trials given to us after the one flesh union.
I wonder, sometimes, if we had offered that sacrifice that it would have pleased God such that he would not have allowed some of the later trials we have had to endure with the devil certainly involved. That is, that God would have blessed us too, in a special way, as he does Tobit.
Mary and Joseph, by not consummating, had a marriage which was not a one flesh union. Theirs was a marriage which could have been potentially severed – but Mary being sinless, and Joseph being Just, there never arose such a separation until the death of Joseph. What is to fear more, the loss of one whom is unjust – or the extra trust to be gained by finding true justice in one’s spouse, without a hint of lust in the exchange?
May you not be fooled; God has told us what pleases him. Follow the example of the Just and saintly – they are for us to model after. I believe you will find an extra deep marriage union if you bear your cross to the fullest; liars do not pass God’s tests.
May the lord bless you, and may his face shine upon you, and grant you a deep peace.
–Your brother in Christ, Andrew.
Their marriage was valid on the first night, but in anticipation of the resurrection and because of the deaths due to lust which had preceded in the previous suitors, Tobias and Sara spent three nights in prayer – the very and only example St. Paul gives for abstaining.
Notice Tobit acknowledges that they will not be “one flesh” until the third night, at consummation. But all that means is that Tobit anticipates the meaning of the Book of Genesis and the Sacrament of marriage (one flesh).
It is not children which makes the two one flesh, it is the mating and sharing of the “clay” semenial and fertile mucous, which causes the change in the body to a permanent unity.
To contracept would be to avoid becoming one flesh, in that the whole of the filling and exchange of body is incomplete. Tobit and Sara were put to the test by God – and in psalm 50/51 David speaks of the iniquity in which his mother mated, and which he saw as the source of his sin. The self same sin which manifested as adultery with Bathsheeba later – and which condemned David’s child to death by God.
It is up to God to determine whether or not your husband needs to be challenged with abstaining for a few days after the marriage; Because one does not have to abstain, but could take the risk – waiting the extra three days is a sacrifice, freely offered, and for that for that reason it has special value to God.
Sexuality on the first night, for me, was not really pleasant anyway. My desire for it was because of the permanence it signaled – and the fear I had of my bride somehow slipping away; with the marriage always open to divorce by some twist of the devil. It was pure insecurity which drove me that first night – The actual joy of the sexuality did not come until we were rested; and I say this with some sadness because of the trials given to us after the one flesh union.
I wonder, sometimes, if we had offered that sacrifice that it would have pleased God such that he would not have allowed some of the later trials we have had to endure with the devil certainly involved. That is, that God would have blessed us too, in a special way, as he does Tobit.
Mary and Joseph, by not consummating, had a marriage which was not a one flesh union. Theirs was a marriage which could have been potentially severed – but Mary being sinless, and Joseph being Just, there never arose such a separation until the death of Joseph. What is to fear more, the loss of one whom is unjust – or the extra trust to be gained by finding true justice in one’s spouse, without a hint of lust in the exchange?
May you not be fooled; God has told us what pleases him. Follow the example of the Just and saintly – they are for us to model after. I believe you will find an extra deep marriage union if you bear your cross to the fullest; liars do not pass God’s tests.
May the lord bless you, and may his face shine upon you, and grant you a deep peace.
–Your brother in Christ, Andrew.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Eating meat on Fridays throughout the year, etc. is a discipline that the Church can change. It was never taught as a matter of faith, and the Church has always had the freedom to change and adjust her disciplines… You may already know that, but just in case you didn’t, I wanted to point out the difference.Maybe, but it is applicable. I mean if you look at how the definition of usury has changed it makes you wonder about statements like “inability to be wrong in matters of faith and morals”.
That’s the problem with absolute statements. All someone has to do is find an instance when Catholic thinking on sin has changed (wouldn’t that be an instance of “morals”). I can think of thinks like usury, which at one time was defined as taking any interest on a loan. Or eating meat on Friday, which was a sin, and now is not considered sinful.
But as you say. It is a discussion for another time.
This is beside the point anyhow. There’s no way it can be argued that using artificial birth control is morally sound for a faithful Catholic. It’s a sin, can be a mortal sin if you’re fully aware of it. The Church has been clear. You can use NFP when you need to or you can abstain or you can ideally just be open to life. HTH
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
There is a great discussion going on in another thread about changes in Catholic moral thinking over the ages. As usual, conservative Catholics cannot admit to the truth that there have been changes, and therefore the Church can be wrong.
As far as birth control, I would agree that any abortative method of birth control is wrong. However, there are many options available that are non-abortative (barrier, for example).
A
ac_claire
Guest
Is your position that you thnk it’s ok to use ABC even though the Church says it’s a sin because the Church has changed her mind/erred before in teaching on matters of sin?
The Church only can’t err when teaching on matters of faith of morals. She certainly can be wrong about matters of discipline or interpretation of earlier Church teachings/writings, etc, etc.
Therefore the Church can establish a rule (for instance) that eating meat on Fridays is forbidden, and sinful if done intentionally. As long as that discipline is in place, if a Catholic intentionally breaks the rule then that Catholic has sinned. The sin is due to disobedience; not because eating meat on Friday’s is inherently evil. Unlike ABC which is intrinsically evil under any circumstance.
Does that make sense?
C
curl
Guest
I personally found that to be refreshingly clear (as well as well-reasoned and kindly-said).
Thanks for that, - curl
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
No. My position is that it is okay to use ABC because I think it is okay to use it. Back when I was Catholic, my wife and I used NFP for several years. However, the harm it was doing our marriage was such that we were headed for divorce (our marriage has challenges that most others don’t have).
After studying and reading (including Humanea Vitea), I decided that rather than head for divorce, we would use ABC. My wife, a more scrupulous catholic than myself, had as an out, a medical condition which is treated with birth control pills, and so can soothe her conscience by that fact.
I find some of the hairsplitting that goes on in discussions about the morality of ABC ridiculous.
A
agapewolf
Guest
THe gospel according to cheese.
And then eve ate the apple, because she decided for herself what was right and wrong.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
He looked upon all that He had made, and found it gouda.
And not really - she was after knowledge.
A
agapewolf
Guest
Yes, really. This is an very basic understanding of what the sin was about…He looked upon all that He had made, and found it gouda.
And not really - she was after knowledge.
I really don’t find it funny. You are making up your own rules and how “you” decide its right or wrong. Christ didn’t give you the keys to heaven.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
We’ll table that discussion for another day.
I did. At least one of us is amused.
Well, when the rules are as crazy as the one that Catholicism inflicts on its members… Unfortunately, even though I can be circumspect with language, a frank and realistic discussion of some of the craziness would be at the very least “R” rated, and quite possible “X” rated.
For example - according to the NFP experts a women is completely infertile at certain times during the month. During those times, it is okay for a couple to engage in sexual activity, to the point of climax and it is perfectly okay for a man to spend himself in this infertile orifice. (See how hard this is to do politely!)
However, it is not “okay” for a man to spend himself in other infertile orifices? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Regarding barrier methods - the Church says that these negate the “unitive” portion of the sexual act. But think about it - unless you’re doing something really odd, the genitals are not the only place a couple is touching. The priests have boiled intercourse down to the penetrative act only. In my opinion, that is as degrading to good sex as some of the weird practices that go on.
I apologize to the moderators. I really tried to keep my language as clinical and non-salicious as possible.
S
Sure
Guest
Your description misses the basic philosophical point that things/objects/body parts have innate uses. You throw that away to the detriment of your argument. Your genitalia have a purpose, an end, just as you, a human person, have a purpose. When you misuse an object, you defy the created order, you commit a sin.We’ll table that discussion for another day.
I did. At least one of us is amused.
Well, when the rules are as crazy as the one that Catholicism inflicts on its members… Unfortunately, even though I can be circumspect with language, a frank and realistic discussion of some of the craziness would be at the very least “R” rated, and quite possible “X” rated.
For example - according to the NFP experts a women is completely infertile at certain times during the month. During those times, it is okay for a couple to engage in sexual activity, to the point of climax and it is perfectly okay for a man to spend himself in this infertile orifice. (See how hard this is to do politely!)
However, it is not “okay” for a man to spend himself in other infertile orifices? Doesn’t make sense to me.
Regarding barrier methods - the Church says that these negate the “unitive” portion of the sexual act. But think about it - unless you’re doing something really odd, the genitals are not the only place a couple is touching. The priests have boiled intercourse down to the penetrative act only. In my opinion, that is as degrading to good sex as some of the weird practices that go on.
I apologize to the moderators. I really tried to keep my language as clinical and non-salicious as possible.
You also misunderstand the fact that the two purposes, procreative and unitive, have an ontological ordering in which procreative is prior to unitive. You can have an act that is procreative but not unitive, yet you cannot have an act that is unitive without also being procreative.
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
Not really. There are many parts of our body that we have that serve no purpose. A man’s nipples, is a comic example. But the tailbone, wisdom teeth, and other organs once served us well, but we evolved past the need for them.
The purely biological use of genitalia is reproduction. However, we all know that in human beings, there is another function.
I don’t agree that I have a divine ordained purpose.
My purpose in life is what I determine it to be.Disagree. In humans, I would argue that the unitative function is before the procreative.
Proof: Humans mate for pleasure, and can mate far more often than necessary for procreation. In fact, we are rewarded for engaging in as much sex as possible (orgasm) as a basic function of the sexual act.
If you want to argue from ontology, the unitive function seems more important than the reproductive.
A
ac_claire
Guest
Oh thank you, that’s very nice to say.I personally found that to be refreshingly clear (as well as well-reasoned and kindly-said).
Oh ok, my apologies I thought you were a faithful Catholic. I didn’t notice your “cheesian” religious affiliation in the profile until today lol.
It’s ironic to me that you find the hairsplitting in this thread ridiculous, because in fact you are the only one who’s splitting hairs.
There is actually no"gray area" when it comes to the morality of ABC for Christians. The Church has always taught that it’s intrinsically evil. Even if you reject the Church, reason alone has led many other people to the same conclusion (which is what happened with me before I reverted). The only long-winded debates and “hairsplitting” and tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth, etc. come from disobedience and rejection; ie when people (usually those who have chosen to sin) try to twist and poke holes in the issue, looking for some kind of loophole that isn’t there so they can assauge their own conscience.
But thanks for clarifying, I understand now why you’ve been saying the things you’ve said here.
- Status