Catholics have access to the graces necessary to overcome the sɛҳuąƖ urge (2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee."), so why do married Catholics have so many children? Why do they take on such responsibilities for more souls, bringing more sinners into the world, and why are they willing to account for a share in their entire descendants' sins at the Last Judgment? Aren't children a hindrance to Catholics' spiritual life (cf. 1 Cor. 7 (http://drbo.org/drl/chapter/53007.htm):33: "But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.")? Are parents of large Catholic families ashamed that they were not able to control themselves and spend more time on prayer (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29: "…the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none.")?
Add: Sycophant
You seem to have an unhealthy fascination with sex, not unlike a certain "Heitanen" who started a whole website to preach his heresy. He is a single man, a recent convert (he was a protestant just a few years ago) and his new doctrine is that sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is forbidden even to the lawfully married. He teaches that "what must be done" must be done as quickly and efficiently as possible, with no undue incitement of the passions in the process. In the dark, completely utilitarian, etc. In a word: Puritan. But we all know that Puritanism is a condemned heresy.I have noticed over the years that this has been a consistent position of yours when someone takes a more rigorist view of sɛҳuąƖity you post about it opposing it. I sympathize with such people. I remember it was recently claimed on another forum that the Church used to teach that married people should not receive the Blessed Sacrament after having marital relations so married people were not supposed to be daily communicants and this was also one of the reasons the Eastern Churches with married priests did not have daily Divine Liturgies.
You can always recognize it by the primary idea: that sex is something bad, something dirty, something to be avoided for its own sake. On the contrary, sex in itself is something GOOD, having been created by a perfect God. He designed it. It is good and beautiful. It is only the devil's warping of marital love into selfish lust, promiscuity, and other degradations (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc.) that is evil.
. . .
Anyhow, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Heitanen's heresy and what you are spouting in this thread.
A few observations:.
First of all, the OP seems to have the unspoken premise that marital relations are a temptation to be avoided, and that failing to do so indicates a rejection of grace and embrace of concupiscence.
But that's not right at all. Catholic theology (based on St. Paul) on marriage, also reflected in the Church's own canon laws, is the giving up of the body to one's spouse. Refusing the marital debt without a grave and sufficient reason is actually a mortal sin. St. Augustine, in his commentary on St. Paul, shows how St. Paul's permission to marry and engage in marital relations can hardly be sinful, for how could the Apostle approve of sin?
A distinct question is whether or not it is possible to sin against chastity within marriage, and it certainly is possible. When the motive of lust is exclusive, at least venial sin is committed. Or, as St. Thomas puts it (when discussing the husband), one is to treat his wife as his wife, not as any woman. I know that some traditional Catholics have taken this (possibility of sinfulness in principle for the relations between husband and wife) to essentially mean that married couples should have relations maybe half a dozen times in their life, once every year and a half or so, and never after the age of forty (that's hyperbole on my part, mind you).
Next, the OP sounds like a Manichean! The Manicheans argued exactly as the OP did, claiming the flesh evil, and therefore the marital union to be a great evil, enslaving souls to the destitution of the flesh. But this is an error that was overcome nearly two thousand years ago by St. Augustine.
As to children being a hindrance to the spiritual life, the world is a hindrance to the spiritual life. That's kind of the point of it. This life is preparation for the next. Surely the great missionary priests had their spiritual lives hindered by constantly being exposed to abominable pagan orgies and cannibalism. We are tested very frequently in this life.
Next, the OP sounds like a Manichean! The Manicheans argued exactly as the OP did, claiming the flesh evil, and therefore the marital union to be a great evil, enslaving souls to the destitution of the flesh. But this is an error that was overcome nearly two thousand years ago by St. Augustine.
Catholics have access to the graces necessary to overcome the sɛҳuąƖ urge (2 Cor. 12:9: "My grace is sufficient for thee."), so why do married Catholics have so many children? ... Are parents of large Catholic families ashamed that they were not able to control themselves and spend more time on prayer (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29: "…the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none.")?
Again, this is Puritanism with a Catholic veneer. You can always recognize it by the primary idea: that sex is something bad, something dirty, something to be avoided for its own sake. On the contrary, sex in itself is something GOOD, having been created by a perfect God. He designed it. It is good and beautiful. It is only the devil's warping of marital love into selfish lust, promiscuity, and other degradations (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc.) that is evil.
You seem to have an unhealthy fascination with sex, not unlike a certain "Heitanen" who started a whole website to preach his heresy. He is a single man, a recent convert (he was a protestant just a few years ago) and his new doctrine is that sɛҳuąƖ pleasure is forbidden even to the lawfully married. He teaches that "what must be done" must be done as quickly and efficiently as possible, with no undue incitement of the passions in the process. In the dark, completely utilitarian, etc. In a word: Puritan. But we all know that Puritanism is a condemned heresy.
11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)
[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man's dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.
Yes, Traditional Catholics need to be reminded of this. What happened in Trad circles is that, because many in the Novus Ordo have taken this Catholic notion that sex is good and have extended it as justification for sɛҳuąƖ immorality, some Traditional Catholics push back on it ... but, by doing so, end up sliding more to the Puritan end of the spectrum.
But even within marriage, the Christian fathers’ acceptance of sex was grudging. Influenced by the Stoics, they looked to nature to determine the purpose and moral limits of bodily functions like sex. Therefore, sex within marriage was only moral if it was used for its “natural” purpose of procreation. They taught that Christians were not to have sex for pleasure or when pregnancy was impossible, such as when a woman was already pregnant. [SOURCE (http://religiondispatches.org/the-story-behind-the-catholic-churchs-stunning-reversal/)]The author quoted here, Patricia Miller, is a member of the pro-abortion organization "Catholics for Choice". She is a former editor of their official publication. I do not consider her an unbiased, trustworthy, or credible source of information about Catholic teaching.
It's not even right to say that the Fathers taught that sex should not be "had" for pleasure.This is me. Forgot the box.
The typical texts used by liberals and by people like Heitanen (such as St. Augustine's) say that sɛҳuąƖ activity that is motivated exclusively by lust is at least venially sinful. And theologians still taught that, up until Vatican II. But this is not the same as saying that sɛҳuąƖ activity that one takes pleasure in or even anticipates is sinful, nor is it the same thing as saying that sɛҳuąƖ activity must be accompanied by some continual and persistent internal recitation of "I want to have children I want to have children I want to have children", etc.
I was aware that the first excerpt came from a dodgy source (vice often renders homage to virtue), but it accurately sums up the mind of the Church Fathers on this matter. My point stands: adherents of '50s-ist porno-theology like Matthew and the Puritans of yesteryear are on the same side here, in opposition to genuine Catholic tradition.I think that Pius XI is a better judge of the mind of the Church Fathers than you or your abortion proponent source are.
Wasn't aware that Pius XI said anything along these lines:Casti Connubii was very clear that there are secondary ends of the marriage act "such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence" as well as the primary end of having children. It does indeed follow from this that sex is not something bad, dirty or to be avoided.
Again, this is Puritanism with a Catholic veneer. You can always recognize it by the primary idea: that sex is something bad, something dirty, something to be avoided for its own sake. On the contrary, sex in itself is something GOOD, having been created by a perfect God. He designed it. It is good and beautiful. It is only the devil's warping of marital love into selfish lust, promiscuity, and other degradations (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc.) that is evil.
Casti Connubii was very clear that there are secondary ends of the marriage act "such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence" as well as the primary end of having children. It does indeed follow from this that sex is not something bad, dirty or to be avoided.Forgot to click box. :facepalm:
Matthew may have used the word "puritan" in a figurative rather than literal way, but what he wrote is consistent with Casti Connubii (unlike the OP of the this thread). Matthew's statement is practically a paraphrase of this sentence in CC : "No one can fail to admire the divine Wisdom, Holiness and Goodness which, while respecting the dignity and happiness of husband and wife, has provided so bountifully for the conservation and propagation of the human race by a single chaste and sacred fellowship of nuptial union."
St. Catherine of Siena was part of a HUGE family. Were her parents wicked?Not wicked, but her mother was vain, obsessed with making St. Catherine dye her hair and attract a mate, and she even encouraged St. Catherine's married sister, who died shortly thereafter, to inspire vanity in St. Catherine.
this is Puritanism with a Catholic veneer. You can always recognize it by the primary idea: that sex is something bad, something dirty, something to be avoided for its own sake.However, coitus "for its own sake" is lust and a sign of the contraceptive mentality; within marriage, such coitus is at least a venial sin.
Next, the OP sounds like a Manichean! The Manicheans argued exactly as the OP did, claiming the flesh evil, and therefore the marital union to be a great evil, enslaving souls to the destitution of the flesh. But this is an error that was overcome nearly two thousand years ago by St. Augustine.St. Augustine wrote about concupiscence in coitus (quotes from here (http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2006/2006%20October/2006%20Oct%20A%20Burke%20.htm)):
So let good spouses use the evil of concupiscence well, just as a wise man uses an imprudent servant for good tasks.
I hold that to use lust is not always a sin, because to use evil well is not a sin.
As for the warfare experienced by chaste persons, whether celibate or married, we assert that there could have been no such thing [as lust] in paradise before sin. Marriage is still the same, but in begetting children nothing evil would then have been used; now the evil of concupiscence is used well.
This evil is used well by faithful spouses.
As to children being a hindrance to the spiritual life, the world is a hindrance to the spiritual life.And marriage is a tie to the world; therefore, it is a hindrance to the spiritual life. St. Thomas writes (Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the commandments or of the counsels? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS184.html#SSQ184A3THEP1)):
the counsels are directed to the removal of things that hinder the act of charity, and yet are not contrary to charity, such as marriage, the occupation of worldly business, and so forth.How do you understand 1 Cor. 7:33: "he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided."?
God also taught, "Be fruitful and multiply."But that is no longer binding under the New Law; cf. St. Thomas: "Whether matrimony still comes under a precept? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html#XPQ41A2THEP1)" Nowhere do you see in the New Testament God saying that people should have children; He concedes that they may marry lest they fall into greater evils (1 Cor. 7:9: "For it is better to marry than to be burnt.").
Who's being a Puritan here? :confused:The Puritans are called that because they thought they were pure from papolatry.
False teachers such as Paul Ehrlich beginning in the 1960's encouraged Americans to reduce their births because of the danger of over population.St. Thomas argued that the earth today is sufficiently populated (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 41 a. 2 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html#XPQ41A2THEP1) ad 1):
[The precept to be fruitful and multiply] is not binding on each individual…except at that [Old Testament] time when the paucity of men required each one to betake himself to the begetting of children.(cf. Gen. 6:13: "…the earth is filled…")
St. Thomas argued that the earth today is sufficiently populated
>> Prophecy? Regardless, how does it stay that way?
St. Thomas argued that the earth today is sufficiently populated (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 41 a. 2 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html#XPQ41A2THEP1) ad 1):(cf. Gen. 6:13: "…the earth is filled…")13 He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.
13 He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.Suffice it to say, this OP and thread is pushing up daisies, either from simple reasoning or, as that quoted is pointing out, from brute fact.
Nothing here about "sufficiently populated".
St. Thomas argued that the earth today is sufficiently populated (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 41 a. 2 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP041.html#XPQ41A2THEP1) ad 1):(cf. Gen. 6:13: "…the earth is filled…")
One of my favorite things taught in a private revelation comes from Anne Catherine Emmerich. I was told about this and did not read it from the source myself. But she claimed that the Blessed Mother's parents did not have normal relations when Our Lady was conceived but that they only hugged and embraced and that was all but somehow Our Lady was conceived and her mother became pregnant in this way. Then it was said that before the fall this was how all children were supposed to be conceived and that what we now see as normal intercourse was only a corruption that was a curse of Adam's sin and was not the original intention of God in his creation.Is this a standard Catholic belief? I've never heard that one before.
Of course the reaction to this was that Anne Catherine Emmerich's idea was crazy and perhaps it was not from her but from her ghostwriter who they say changed her revelations when he wrote them down, but nevertheless I was intrigued.
Is this a standard Catholic belief? I've never heard that one before.No. Unless you use an odd definition for "standard", it's not a standard Catholic belief.
Interesting thread here.Exactly God made marriage and he calls us to welcome every child he blesses us with.
The answer seems pretty simple and straightforward to me: Because God told us to.
Exactly God made marriage and he calls us to welcome every child he blesses us with.Exactly what I was going to say! :applause:
We sin and should feel shame when we do not accept his planning of our family.
Again, this is Puritanism with a Catholic veneer. You can always recognize it by the primary idea: that sex is something bad, something dirty, something to be avoided for its own sake. On the contrary, sex in itself is something GOOD, having been created by a perfect God. He designed it. It is good and beautiful. It is only the devil's warping of marital love into selfish lust, promiscuity, and other degradations (ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, etc.) that is evil.Puritanism with a Catholic veneer is a specialty of sicko Atila over at TIA: