Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Peter15and1 on July 13, 2016, 01:20:28 PM
-
I read the following argument today. I had never heard of this before. Is it accurate Church teaching?
It would seem to me that a husband and wife performing the marital act during pregnancy is sinful. As is well known, the marital act is primarily for procreation, and only secondarily as a remedy for concupiscence. The secondary end can never be displace the first. Contraception is sinful because it eliminates the primary end of the marital act.
During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.
Some may reply that the Church has taught that it is not sinful to engage in the marital act during the so-called "infertile" time of a woman's monthly cycle, but this argument fails. While it is less likely, it is not impossible for the woman to become pregnant during the so-called "infertile" time, while it is indeed impossible for a woman to became pregnant if she is already pregnant.
Some may reply that the Church has taught that it is not sinful to engage in the marital act after the woman's change of life, but this argument fails. Again, it is not impossible for a woman to become pregnant after the change of life, and there are explicit examples of such in the Bible (e.g. Sarah and Elizabeth). There has never been an example, even a miraculous one, of a woman becoming pregnant while already pregnant.
-
No, that is not Church teaching. Whoever teaches that is, objectively speaking, tainted with the heresy of Puritanism. Whether he is a formal heretic I have no idea. But that is not Church teaching.
Church teaching is that you cannot deliberately frustrate the procreative act, so that it will not result in a pregnancy. You cannot willfully separate the act from its natural consequences.
This includes all methods of birth control -- which includes actions the man/woman might take, as well as any substances or devices the man or woman might use, to prevent a conception from taking place.
Beyond that, all normal sex within the bonds of marriage is licit.
Even if a woman happens to be sterile, or can't become "more pregnant", it doesn't thereby mean you are splitting the act down the middle (I want the pleasure, I don't want the consequences) so it is still licit. The act has to be a package deal: the act/pleasure, and any consequences that will result.
There are three ends of marriage: begetting of children, mutual love of the spouses, and the allaying of concupiscence -- in that order. They are all legitimate ends. You just can't FRUSTRATE the primary end and jump to the secondary or tertiary ends. If the primary end is "N/A", it doesn't mean you can't have the secondary and/or tertiary ends of marriage as a legitimate intention.
The evil of birth control consists of "splitting" what is a cohesive act into 2 distinct elements, and welcoming one while rejecting the other. Similar to the evil of bulimia.
The act of nourishment isn't sinful. But even if you have severe diarrhea and there's no chance you're going to absorb some of that delicious food doesn't mean you're intentionally gagging yourself so that you can enjoy the taste without absorbing any of the nutrients (and calories).
Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer was trained by the best, he was and is a very holy and learned priest, and he was the priest who handled our marriage preparation. He never once said anything about "As soon as she's pregnant, it's hands off, man!" Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer is no liberal.
This is the same priest who mentioned in the wedding sermon that marriage is for life, and that if you ever find yourself divorced, you need to get back with your true wife (right in front of my wife's divorced father, who divorced his wife and married another!) And I guarantee you he didn't make any friends in that quarter. So Fr. Tim Pfeiffer is also no slave to human respect. He takes his responsibility before God very seriously. If something needed to be said, he said it. To the point of being outspoken and socially awkward.
(N.B., for those who don't know, I am referring to Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer, the older brother of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer. Fr. Joe Pfeiffer gets all the press around here. Fr. Tim Pfeiffer is currently living an austere missionary life in Asia. I recently heard that Father has lost weight and he looks quite gaunt. What an edifying priest!)
-
Yep. Incorrect interpretation of Church teaching. Casti Conubii teaches that the secondary and primary ends of the marital act cannot be inverted and the secondary sought to the EXCLUSION of the primary. But the secondary ends can be sought even when the possibility of the primary isn't there. Marital Act can be engaged in during periods of infertility or even if the couple are infertile completely or past the age of fertility ... or in any other such circuмstances where the couple do not deliberately try to exclude the possibility of procreation. In fact, a totally infertile older couple (provided there's no impotence) can get married and legitimately exercise their marital rights.
In addition to influences from a Puritanical mentality where pleasure is evil in and of itself, there were indeed some Church Fathers who considered it wrong to have marital relations when there was no possibility of conception, but most of these considered that a venial sin. But that's not what ultimately became Church teaching, and Church teaching is ultimately all that matters.
-
During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.
Here's the logical problem, where this position "fails", to use the person's own term. It involve the equivocal use of the term "eliminated". During pregnancy the possibility of conception is eliminated materially (physically not possible) by the pregnancy but is not eliminated formally (due to intent), and the formal intent is what defines the morality of the action. This is where a little knowledge and no understanding of theological principles and scholastic logic can be a dangerous thing.
-
So let's hear it from the Church:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
-
During pregnancy, further procreation from the marital act is impossible. Therefore, the primary end of the marital act is necessarily eliminated during pregnancy. As the primary end of the marital act is eliminated, engaging the marital act during pregnancy is sinful.
Here's the logical problem, where this position "fails", to use the person's own term. It involve the equivocal use of the term "eliminated". During pregnancy the possibility of conception is eliminated materially (physically not possible) by the pregnancy but is not eliminated formally (due to intent), and the formal intent is what defines the morality of the action. This is where a little knowledge and no understanding of theological principles and scholastic logic can be a dangerous thing.
I heartily second this!
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Going with what "seems" to be true, or what you "feel" to be correct doesn't count for much.
And with respect to the rational sedevacantists on here, who arrived at their position after much thought and prayer, I have certainly met and heard many Trads whose embracing of sedevacantism amounted to:
"He don' look lahk no pope to me! He ain't the pope."
I mean, such rash conclusions are usually uttered by someone who has been a Trad for all of about 20 minutes.
Even if such a person turned out to be materially correct, he would only be correct thanks to blind luck. Because he didn't use reason at all -- just emotion and gut feeling. So I would still criticize him :)
If I bet my entire net worth on 13, black on the roulette table based on a "hunch", and won a million dollars, would my actions be laudable? Of course not. Reason would dictate that usually a person would ruin his family financially by being so reckless. The fact that he happened to strike it rich in a given case would be irrelevant.
-
St. Alphonsus di Liguori discusses this in his Theologia Moralis lib. 6 n. 924 (https://books.google.com/books?id=AyJQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA322) "An liceat coire Conjugibus tempore prægnationis?" ("Whether it is licit to come together (copulate) during the time of pregnancy?"). The common opinion, he says, is that it is not a mortal sin, provided there is no risk of causing an abortion. There appear to be various opinions regarding whether it is a venial sin. St. Alphonsus seems to think it isn't a venial sin if it is done for an honest reason, such as if there's danger of incontinency, à la
Defraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, vthat you may give yourself 'to prayer': and return again together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
-
Yep. Incorrect interpretation of Church teaching. Casti Conubii teaches that the secondary and primary ends of the marital act cannot be inverted and the secondary sought to the EXCLUSION of the primary. But the secondary ends can be sought even when the possibility of the primary isn't there. Marital Act can be engaged in during periods of infertility or even if the couple are infertile completely or past the age of fertility ... or in any other such circuмstances where the couple do not deliberately try to exclude the possibility of procreation. In fact, a totally infertile older couple (provided there's no impotence) can get married and legitimately exercise their marital rights.
In addition to influences from a Puritanical mentality where pleasure is evil in and of itself, there were indeed some Church Fathers who considered it wrong to have marital relations when there was no possibility of conception, but most of these considered that a venial sin. But that's not what ultimately became Church teaching, and Church teaching is ultimately all that matters.
Then it must follow that a couple who assumes to be infertile could still sin by refusing the marriage debt without good cause. For instance, if one assumes the other to be infertile because of poor health or age and refuses or regulates the marriage debt because the other is attempting a pregnancy that is considered nearly impossible and requires too much frequency to achieve?
Of if one is participating solely for the purpose of conception and the other dislikes like the approach the debt cannot be refused or regulated can it because of the manner of how the act is performed?
One cannot refuse the other on the grounds of "lack of inspiration" or dullness? To quote Dr. Laura "not enough jam"... :facepalm:
-
I think it all depends on what constitutes "good cause". But, indeed, absent a good cause, the marriage debt must still be rendered even if the possibility of procreation is absent (negatively, that is, rather than positively excluded). After that, however, one can quibble I suppose about what constitutes good cause. I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife or a wife who was nursing, whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.
-
I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife
See my post on St. Alphonsus above.or a wife who was nursing,
Why would that be?whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.
Perhaps you're thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica article "Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A3THEP1)" He argues that it is not moral because "of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse." It was thought that defective children were conceived during the menses because the menstrual blood was too old. I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence for this today. The woman's cycle wasn't really understood until Dr. Billings, circa mid-20th century.
-
St. Alphonsus di Liguori discusses this in his Theologia Moralis lib. 6 n. 924 (https://books.google.com/books?id=AyJQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA322) "An liceat coire Conjugibus tempore prægnationis?" ("Whether it is licit to come together (copulate) during the time of pregnancy?"). The common opinion, he says, is that it is not a mortal sin, provided there is no risk of causing an abortion. There appear to be various opinions regarding whether it is a venial sin. St. Alphonsus seems to think it isn't a venial sin if it is done for an honest reason, such as if there's danger of incontinency, à laDefraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, vthat you may give yourself 'to prayer': and return again together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
Yeah, some Church Fathers considered it a venial sin, but that was before there had been a clear theological elaboration regarding the different ends of marriage. I agree with St. Alphonsus that it's inherently not even a venial sin so long as it's done with a view towards the secondary ends of marriage (vs. sheer lust). I think that most people conveniently think of the allaying of concupiscence as a euphemism for lust, but it's not that at all. It's an intention in the faculty of reason to keep your soul from harm. So, for instance, a husband and wife could say that they don't feel as close to one another if they're not having relations during pregnancy. Or a husband and/or wife might say that they're struggling more with temptations against purity due to the lack of relations. Obviously, excessive lust can become a venial sin, especially when those other ends aren't even entertained in the higher faculties, or else it can just be an imperfection. But that can be true even in cases where the primary end isn't missing. By way of analogy with the sin of gluttony, it's not a sin to enjoy the taste of a good meal and really enjoy a dessert. At some point it can be an "imperfection" (short of venial sin), and then at another point it can cross over into venial sin (let's say I stuff gorge myself on an entire cake composed of 10 servings). But the line can be a little bit fuzzy.
-
I remember once reading from a private revelation and one of the things revealed was that one of the main reasons a man was saved was because he listened to his priest's advice and did not have marital relations with his wife when she was pregnant. It didn't say it was a sin to have relations while pregnant but that it pleases God when you don't kind of like fasting. I wish I could remember the source I read this from so I could provide a link.
-
I think I read somewhere that the husband couldn't legitimately require the marriage debt of a pregnant wife
See my post on St. Alphonsus above.
There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).
or a wife who was nursing,
Why would that be?
Not sure. There was some thread on this a while back. Based on what some theologians said.
whereas a woman can't require the debt of her husband when she's menstruating.
Perhaps you're thinking of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica article "Whether it is allowable for a menstruous wife to ask for the marriage debt? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A3THEP1)" He argues that it is not moral because "of the harm that frequently resulted to the offspring from such intercourse." It was thought that defective children were conceived during the menses because the menstrual blood was too old. I'm not sure if there is any scientific evidence for this today. The woman's cycle wasn't really understood until Dr. Billings, circa mid-20th century.
Again, there's a difference between whether it's permitted and whether one or the other party can "call in the debt" as it were and make it obligatory for the other party.
-
There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).
The husband and wife "are equal in paying and demanding the debt (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A5THEP1)," as St. Thomas Aquinas says.
-
I remember once reading from a private revelation and one of the things revealed was that one of the main reasons a man was saved was because he listened to his priest's advice and did not have marital relations with his wife when she was pregnant. It didn't say it was a sin to have relations while pregnant but that it pleases God when you don't kind of like fasting. I wish I could remember the source I read this from so I could provide a link.
Sure, abstinence can certainly please God and be meritorious ... unless it doesn't please God. So much of this depends on the circuмstances. So, for instance, you often find the "pious" type who becomes reluctant to render the debt in the interests of a higher purity and spiritual pursuits. But this leaves the other party feeling put out, based on one or another of the secondary ends that they feel the need to have satisfied. In that case, it would be blameworthy rather than meritorious. Out of charity, the more pleasing thing to God would be to NOT abstain in that case. So many people have been tainted with this idea that there's something inherently incompatible with sanctity in pleasure. God would not have associated pleasure with physical relations if that were the case.
Reminds me of a story about St. Francis of Assisi. He had been abstaining from meat for several years. At one point he was invited to eat at someone's home as a guest, where the person served meat. St. Francis ate the meat without a second thought. One of his fellow monks asked him whether or not it made him feel bad to have eaten meat after so long. He said that he hadn't even given it a second thought because not eating would have been rude to his host. That's true humility and true charity ... not the person who wants to abstain from physical relations with a spouse even against that other person's wishes.
Sin ultimately resides in the will and not in the flesh. People need to remember that.
It's also why a lot of people get so worked up about sins of the flesh vs. other types of sins ... because they're ashamed of the physical acts. But those same acts are NOT sinful within the context of marriage. It's not the act itself that's sinful or shameful but the fact that one decided in his WILL to do something against the law of God. That is the essence of sin. In fact, sometimes sins of the flesh come from mere weakness, and there are many other forms of sin against the laws of God that entail greater malice or lack of charity but for which people have little shame.
So let's say that someone in a moment of weakness slips up and briefly consents to an impure thought. Now, another person decides he doesn't feel like going to Mass on Sunday for no other reason than he doesn't feel like it or would prefer to watch football. Which is the greater sin? Obviously the latter. Yet people are more ashamed of the prior than of the latter ... whereas it should be the other way around.
-
There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).
The husband and wife "are equal in paying and demanding the debt (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A5THEP1)," as St. Thomas Aquinas says.
You're still not getting the difference. Yes they are equal to one another.
Here are the two scenarios.
1) Both husband and wife want to have relations during pregnancy. Permitted. No issues.
2) Husband wants to have relations but wife does not during pregnancy. Can the wife refuse without sin?
These are the two questions. I frankly do not know the answer to the latter (#2). I know that #1 is perfectly OK.
-
There's a difference between it being permitted and whether or not either party can call in the debt (i.e. whether it could be obligatory).
The husband and wife "are equal in paying and demanding the debt (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A5THEP1)," as St. Thomas Aquinas says.
You're still not getting the difference.
Are you saying a husband or wife cannot demand the debt in all cases when one can licitly pay the debt? Why would that be?Yes they are equal to one another.
Here are the two scenarios.
1) Both husband and wife want to have relations during pregnancy. Permitted. No issues.
2) Husband wants to have relations but wife does not during pregnancy. Can the wife refuse without sin?
She can refuse if there is risk of it causing abortion. This is what St. Alphonsus discussed in what I posted above.
-
for instance, you often find the "pious" type who becomes reluctant to render the debt in the interests of a higher purity and spiritual pursuits. But this leaves the other party feeling put out,
Are you describingDefraud not one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that you may give yourself to prayer: and return again together, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
?based on one or another of the secondary ends that they feel the need to have satisfied.
What do you mean by this?
-
Yeah, some Church Fathers considered it a venial sin, but that was before there had been a clear theological elaboration regarding the different ends of marriage. I agree with St. Alphonsus that it's inherently not even a venial sin so long as it's done with a view towards the secondary ends of marriage (vs. sheer lust).
Yes, and it's certainly a mortal sin if pleasure is the primary end, with no regard to the marriage goods (Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP049.html#XPQ49A6THEP1)).
-
Ladislaus is trying to make multiple points, but one of them is that 'things of the body' are not evil. The devil tempts some souls to excessive piety, which can cause a detestation of the physical world. We are physical AND spiritual beings. We are not angels. The body should be subordinate to the spiritual but not replaced by the spiritual. The balance is to use the body in the service of God, which entails both natural and spiritual duties.
-
Are you saying a husband or wife cannot demand the debt in all cases when one can licitly pay the debt? Why would that be?
Yes. Being licit and being required are two different things. So, for instance, if the wife feels ill, she doesn't have a strict obligation to render the debt. But she could still do so if she wished.
-
She can refuse if there is risk of it causing abortion. This is what St. Alphonsus discussed in what I posted above.
No, St. Alphonsus says that in that case it's not even licit, i.e., she MUST refuse.
-
Yes, and it's certainly a mortal sin if pleasure is the primary end, with no regard to the marriage goods
That's actually a bit tricky. Let's say a husband and wife just get caught up in the moment and neither one of them are thinking about either the primary or the secondary ends of marriage (not consciously). Just because they were focused on the pleasure doesn't mean they committed a mortal sin. If they have a virtual intention in their marriage to keep the proper ordering of the ends, then this particular incident need not have involved any sin and certainly not mortal sin.
It's analogous to the intention of a priest offering Mass. He needn't think, while he's performing the consecration at Mass ("I now intend to consecrate.")
Similarly, a husband and wife needn't think, every time they have relations, "I intend first and foremost to conceive children." Again, the key is that the primary end must never be subverted in the interests of the secondary, and must never be subverted by seeking pleasure. By subversion we mean being positively and formally and intentionally excluded.
In general, a husband and wife who do not intend to rule out procreation or, in the case where procreation isn't possible, the secondary ends of marriage ... in the interests of serving their lust, do not commit a mortal sin.
-
if the wife feels ill, she doesn't have a strict obligation to render the debt
She doesn't?
A wife must even render the debt to her leprous husband (suppl. q. 64 a. 1 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A1THEP1) ad 4)
-
if the wife feels ill, she doesn't have a strict obligation to render the debt
She doesn't?
A wife must even render the debt to her leprous husband (suppl. q. 64 a. 1 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A1THEP1) ad 4)
No, there are specific circuмstances during which a spouse can fail to meet a request to satisfy the debt without sin. This is an extremely broad topic for this thread. There was another thread on this some time ago.
-
Yes, and it's certainly a mortal sin if pleasure is the primary end, with no regard to the marriage goods
That's actually a bit tricky.
St. Thomas, in his question on the contraceptive mentality, "Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP049.html#XPQ49A4THEP1)," denies the opinionthat whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it.
He then says:if pleasure be sought in such a way as to exclude the honesty of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that he is ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife, it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage. If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin.
-
Again, please read what I posted about virtual intention.
As for St. Thomas' opinion that anything short of detesting the pleasure involved with the marital act entails venial sin, that was the opinion of some Church Fathers, but that has been almost entirely abandoned by modern theologians. St. Thomas doesn't have a category for imperfection that most moral theologians added between venial sin and perfection. God created the pleasure. Consequently, it's not detestable ... as if it were some evil. It's that the pleasure must be subordinated to all the other ends in order to attain perfection. That's very difficult to do given our fallen natures. But it's not to be "despised". In our fallen state, perhaps the only way to force it into the proper subordination would be to despise it (and in that way mortify it), but it's not inherently to be despised.
-
As for St. Thomas' opinion that anything short of detesting the pleasure involved with the marital act entails venial sin, that was the opinion of some Church Fathers, but that has been almost entirely abandoned by modern theologians.
Modernist theologians have abandoned St. Thomas, too. St. Alphonsus thinks it's a venial sin, too.
-
Is the Bible promoting sin in the 'canticle of canticles'? Of course not. Moderation in all things! We Catholics are not followers of stoicism, Manichaeism, or Albigensianism.
-
Is the Bible promoting sin in the 'canticle of canticles'? Of course not. Moderation in all things! We Catholics are not followers of stoicism, Manichaeism, or Albigensianism.
Pleasure in the marital act is not to be shunned; nor should it be sought. It's analogous to food: eating for pleasure is gluttony.
-
Is eating an ice cream cone for desert gluttony? I eat ice cream purely for pleasure as in I can eat 100 other things for nutrition.
-
Pleasure in the marital act is not to be shunned; nor should it be sought. It's analogous to food: eating for pleasure is gluttony.
It's called appetite. One is for the survival of the body, and the later is for the survival of the human race.
This is the way it was presented to me on a Marriage retreat years ago.
-
It's called appetite. One is for the survival of the body, and the later is for the survival of the human race.
This is the way it was presented to me on a Marriage retreat years ago.
Appetites are good as long as they are subjected to and ordered by reason.
-
Is eating an ice cream cone for desert gluttony?
Ice cream has nutritional value, but if you eat it solely for pleasure, then, yes, eating ice cream would be gluttony.
Summa Theologica II-II q. 148 a. 1 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS148.html#SSQ148A1THEP1) ("Whether gluttony is a sin?):Gluttony denotes, not any desire of eating and drinking, but an inordinate desire. Now desire is said to be inordinate through leaving the order of reason, wherein the good of moral virtue consists: and a thing is said to be a sin through being contrary to virtue. Wherefore it is evident that gluttony is a sin.
Also:the vice of gluttony does not regard the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated by reason. Wherefore if a man exceed in quantity of food, not from desire of food, but through deeming it necessary to him, this pertains, not to gluttony, but to some kind of inexperience. It is a case of gluttony only when a man knowingly exceeds the measure in eating, from a desire for the pleasures of the palate.
-
Could you argue that ice cream should not be sold because eating it would probably be gluttonous in 99 percent of cases. Thier really is no other point to it than pleasure.
-
It's all about order.
Ice Cream Tastes Good
Good Taste Makes Me Happy and Satisfies Me
Being Happy and Satisfied Lifts My Spirits
Lifted Spirits Can Bring Me Closer to God
-
Could you argue that ice cream should not be sold because eating it would probably be gluttonous in 99 percent of cases. Thier really is no other point to it than pleasure.
Ice cream in itself is always good; every creature is good (Gen. 1:31, pace the Manicheans and Albigensians). As St. Thomas wrote, "the vice of gluttony does not regard the substance of food, but in the desire thereof not being regulated by reason."
-
Have you honestly eaten ice cream for any other reason than the pleasure it gave you?
-
We can use the example of candy. The sole purpose of candy is to give pleasure to the palate as it had no nutritional value.
-
The sole purpose of candy is to give pleasure to the palate as it had no nutritional value.
Chewing gum has very little, if any, nutritional value, much less than candy. At least candy has calories (which is important for those trying to gain weight).
-
Have you honestly eaten ice cream for any other reason than the pleasure it gave you?
Yes, to gain weight or to finish it off before it gets old, so it doesn't go to waste.
-
This is for the overly scrupulous fool on this thread:
-
It's all about order.
Ice Cream Tastes Good
Good Taste Makes Me Happy and Satisfies Me
Being Happy and Satisfied Lifts My Spirits
Lifted Spirits Can Bring Me Closer to God
Based on this, I eat ice cream for my spiritual well being.
So, for instance, if we are rejoicing on a Holy Day (say, Christmas), we actually should NOT be fasting. And the pleasure of a nice dessert helps lift our spirits. Joy is a gift from God to lift us up towards Him. It can give us renewed energy to seek Him more. God doesn't will that the pursuit of Him be always filled with vinegar and gall.
-
Theologians and moralists teach that sɛҳuąƖity during pregnancy or after menopause is a venial sin.
Maybe so but modern women go into menopause earlier (some in their 30's). Does this mean that the wife's menopause at age 38 binds the husband as well? Oh boy....that's ball of wax.
-
If a couple found out they were sterile, then relations would be a venial sin every time, since conception can't take place, right? Of course not.
There are various theological viewpoints, but what matters is the final decision of the Church. There were theologians who thought Our Lady wasn't immaculately conceived but they were wrong.
-
... sɛҳuąƖity ... after menopause is a venial sin. ...
St. Elizabeth conceived in old age, presumably after menopause. Was St. John the Baptist conceived from a sin?
-
It appears that Jansenism is alive and well
Theologians and moralists teach that sɛҳuąƖity during pregnancy or after menopause is a venial sin. Thus, what our modern priests say is utterly false: it is false to claim that it is not a sin at all.
Provide a list of sources.
Provide any direct teachings of the Church that support your claim.
IF relations during pregnancy or after menopause is a "venial sin", then explain why the Church blesses marriages of older couples who are beyond the childbearing years?
Also, explain the marriage vows themselves "to have and to hold from this day forth... till death do us part." Nowhere does it indicate "till menopause do us part".
Note that the Jews were forbidden to have sɛҳuąƖ intercourse during the woman's menstruation of during the infertile periods, under pain of death:
"The woman, who at the return of the month, hath her issue of blood, shall be separated seven days.” (Leviticus 15:19) Haydock Commentary explains: “Days, not only out of the camp, but from the company of men.” As soon as a woman showed signs of infertility (menstruation), intercourse would cease until the cessation of the flow of blood and she became fertile again: “Thou shalt not approach to a woman having her flowers: neither shalt thou uncover her nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:19) Haydock Commentary adds: “Saint Augustine believes that this law is still in force. [On Lev. 20:18] This intemperance was by a positive law declared a mortal offense of the Jews.” This clearly shows us that God does not want spouses to perform the marital act during this time."
The Jєωιѕн law also said we shouldn't eat pork and that women in adultery should be stoned to death. Thankfully, we live in the NEW law, not the old. St. Paul teaches very clearly that we are free from the OT rules, regulations and laws.
What St. Augustine held is his opinion. Now when you can demonstrate where the CHURCH has accepted his opinion on this and made it her own come back and let us know.
sɛҳuąƖity during pregnancy is harmful both to your own soul and to the soul and body of your child.
Nonsense.
We see in the revelations of Anna Catherine Emmerich that Christ told the crowds to abstrain from sɛҳuąƖ intercourse as soon as the woman was pregnant. There are very profound teachings on this subject in these revelations.
Private revelations are not valid sources of Catholic teaching, moral or dogmatic. Show where the Church herself teaches that we in the new law are bound by this.
The crowds (Jews) were under the mosaic law, and thus bound by the OT laws. It was therefore fitting and proper that Christ insist on them following the mosaic law. When you can show where Christ tells US to do this, let us know.
-
there is a sin for the spouse who asks it while the woman is in an infertile period.
No, because even then the possibility of conception is not zero, just as it isn't zero after menopause. God opens and closes the womb.
-
Amakusa,
I think the issue I have with your statements is the way you casually assume "lust." Lust is not the same thing as mere carnal desire. Carnal desire, within the bounds of marriage, is within the command to chastity -- ordered sɛҳuąƖity according to state in life. And chastity is not the same thing as continence. It is inordinate and/or illicit forms and objects of carnal desire which determine lust, and which are all forbidden by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
-
(http://lukecorbin.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Wash.jpg)
From the scrupulous.....deliver us O Lord
-
Even the Mohammedans forbide sɛҳuąƖ intercourse during pregnancy. It is dangerous both for the body and the soul of the child. It gives him lustful impulses that prepare his soul to voluptuous desires in his life.
This is probably true.
Perhaps the question comes down to: Is it sinful to have intercourse in front of other people (incl. people in utero)? St. Alphonsus discusses having intercourse in public (as well as secretly in a church, which, interestingly, he says would not desecrate the church), which is such a detestable sin that St. Thomas thought it would be physically impossible to commit.Judaism was the true religion and the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God of the New Testament. The Jews who dared to have sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with their wives during menstruation were sentenced to death if their sin was discovered. This sin is even more dangerous than sex during pregnancy, since the womb can still be impregnated, while the uterus is not prepared to welcome the child.
This is St. Thomas's reasoning I quoted above.
He also mentioned how if there is danger of abortion, one mustn't have intercourse.Moreover, there should be three years between each birth, as was done by the patriarchs, since the body of the woman is not fully regenerated when it is fertilized again immediately. But our Catholics fellows are not able to restrain from sex, and thus many of them give birth to a trisomic among the youngest. I have seen that in several chapels.
That seems to be along the same lines as the reasoning St. Thomas gives for why it's unjust to have intercourse during the menses. If it's known that not allowing the woman's body the recuperate sufficiently long time after she gives birth cases trisomic or other birth defects, then it certainly is unjust to have intercourse then, and the wife would be justified denying paying the husband's debt.St. Thomas of Aquinas teaches that sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is either mortal or venial when the only purpose is lust, with no hope of begetting a child. If the integrity of the act is preserved, it is venial; and if not, mortal. That's simple. Our priests who claim that there is no sin at all are wrong: there is at least a venial sin.
This ¶ is all correct.In France, the Mohammedans have stronger children that all those White idiots who do not spare the wombs of their spouses. You will never have strong boys, and in good health, if you have such life of sinful delight and effeminacy. Men become weaker and weaker because of sin. In olden times, my ancestors were able to fight in Middle East with heavy armors, suffering from hunger and thirst. There was one Christian crusader for ten enraged pagans. Today, how many men would still have such strength and courage?
This must explain the Mohammedans higher fertility rate.
-
From the scrupulous.....deliver us O Lord
Scrupulosity is thinking there is a sin when there is no sin. As mentioned above, having intercourse for the sake of pleasure, even if one is open to life, is at least a venial sin.
-
Amakusa,
I think the issue I have with your statements is the way you casually assume "lust." Lust is not the same thing as mere carnal desire. Carnal desire, within the bounds of marriage, is within the command to chastity -- ordered sɛҳuąƖity according to state in life. And chastity is not the same thing as continence. It is inordinate and/or illicit forms and objects of carnal desire which determine lust, and which are all forbidden by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Yes, lust is inordinate carnal desire, but I think Amakusa's point is that the marital act incites lust in others (even those in utero) who might witness it.
-
I am an ignorant layman so I do not understand these issues well, but my common sense leads me to fall on the more rigorous side of these arguments. If I voiced my opinions fully on these sɛҳuąƖ issues Matthew would probably say I was "tainted with the heresy of puritanism." Maybe it is because I am reacting to my sinful past when I committed many sɛҳuąƖ sins before I converted to traditional Catholicism.
-
my ancestors were able to fight in Middle East with heavy armors, suffering from hunger and thirst. There was one Christian crusader for ten enraged pagans.
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh2:
you mean the Vikings who conquered the Holy Land during the !st crusade
"Specially marked by cunning, despising their own inheritance in the hope of winning a greater, eager after both gain and dominion, given to imitation of all kinds, holding a certain mean between lavishness and greediness, that is, perhaps uniting, as they certainly did, these two seemingly opposite qualities. Their chief men were specially lavish through their desire of good report. They were, moreover, a race skillful in flattery, given to the study of eloquence, so that the very boys were orators, a race altogether unbridled unless held firmly down by the yoke of justice[/i]. They were enduring of toil, hunger, and cold whenever fortune laid it on them, given to hunting and hawking, delighting in the pleasure of horses, and of all the weapons and garb of war"
-
Occasionally, a woman can go through a whole pregnancy without even knowing she's pregnant. And most don't know for a few weeks anyway, varying. Some might not know for months.
-
Theologians and moralists teach that sɛҳuąƖity during pregnancy or after menopause is a venial sin.
False. While some theologians may have said this in the past (e.g., some Church Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc.), the actual Magisterium of the Church (Pius XI's Casti Conubii) teaches that intercourse may legitimately be had with a view towards the secondary ends of marital relations even during infertile periods.
Stop spreading around falsehoods against the Magisterium of the Church.
-
Thus, what our modern priests say is utterly false: it is false to claim that it is not a sin at all.
Please stop spewing your ignorance and attempting to infect people with your own scrupulosity. What matters is the Church's Magisterium. Casti Conubii is the highest word on the matter, and these priests are simply following that teaching.
Note that the Jews were forbidden to have sɛҳuąƖ intercourse during the woman's menstruation of during the infertile periods, under pain of death:
Who gives a rat's behind about Jєωιѕн ritual law? Are you a Judaizer? If you are, then you fall under the Church's anathema. This was because women were considered unclean due to the bleeding. Stop appealing to Old Testament law, which according to the Church's solemn teaching has been abrogated. Are you next going to tell us that it's sinful to eat pork?
sɛҳuąƖity during pregnancy is harmful both to your own soul and to the soul and body of your child.
Nonsense.
We see in the revelations of Anna Catherine Emmerich that Christ told the crowds to abstrain from sɛҳuąƖ intercourse as soon as the woman was pregnant. There are very profound teachings on this subject in these revelations.
Who cares? Pius XI trumps any private revelation. While this may be IDEAL, the Church teaches that there's no sin in having sɛҳuąƖ relations with a view to the secondary ends of marriage even during infertile periods.
-
Tthere is a sin for the spouse who asks it while the woman is in an infertile period
Stop spreading these falsehoods immediately. This may be where Matthew has to intervene.
-
There is much difference between the case of spouses who have sex after menopause merely for lust and the case of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who received a revelation from God assuring them that they would have a child.
You make a false dichotomy between procreation and lust. According to you, if sɛҳuąƖ intercourse isn't for procreation, then it's for lust. You completely ignore the secondary ends of marriage as taught by the Church.
It's ridiculous how much Puritanism has in fact entered into the minds of many Traditional Catholics. In my experience, the most Puritanical are in fact those who either have never been married or themselves struggle against concupiscence or are generally scrupulous.
-
there is a sin for the spouse who asks it while the woman is in an infertile period.
No, because even then the possibility of conception is not zero, just as it isn't zero after menopause. God opens and closes the womb.
Even if it IS ZERO, there's no sin per se to have sɛҳuąƖ relations during such a period.
That's Novus Ordo "open to life" theology, which is ridiculous.
-
So let's hear it from the Church:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
-
So let's hear it from the Church:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Based on this, I am not sure where you are disagreeing with what Ladislaus has said.
-
So let's hear it from the Church:
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
Are all acts that are not "against nature" not sins?
-
if sɛҳuąƖ intercourse isn't for procreation, then it's for lust.
Yes, because then pleasure would be what is primarily sought.
:facepalm:
For crying out loud, I just explained that you ignore the very existence of the secondary ends of marriage. These ends can be sought even if the primary ends aren't possible.
-
Are all acts that are not "against nature" not sins?
Please read the text. It says that it is not forbidden, i.e. not sinful.
Pius XII later backs this up.
-
Your interpretation of Pius XI and Pius XII would seem to justify contraception, then.
:facepalm:
Church teaching is that you cannot deliberately frustrate the procreative act, so that it will not result in a pregnancy. You cannot willfully separate the act from its natural consequences.
This includes all methods of birth control -- which includes actions the man/woman might take, as well as any substances or devices the man or woman might use, to prevent a conception from taking place.
Beyond that, all normal sex within the bonds of marriage is licit.
-
Contraception is ruled out by the following phrase in CC:
so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved
-
Ladislaus (et al.) are correct because they lean on Church teaching.
Others (specifically Amakusa, and to a lesser degree Geremia) are objectively wrong and/or ignorant about this.
Ladislaus, as well as myself, have had some seminary training, and we are not giving our opinion or our "2 cents worth" (which is worthless) in this particular case. We are giving you the objective Catholic Church teaching on the matter.
Take it and be Catholic, or leave it and be a heretic. The choice is yours.
America was founded by Puritans and many of its tenets are in the very air we breathe. Have you ever had a thought that a dirty filthy homeless man was headed for hell? Have you ever thought that "Cleanliness is next to godliness?" There are many Calvinist and Puritan ideas that are part of the American ethos, that are difficult to NOT absorb if you are born and raised here.
Geremia is probably a bit biased because of his own marital situation, which he has brought up on CathInfo on several occasions, though for reasons of decency I won't bring up the specifics here.
Amakusa sounds like a lot like "Heitanen" with his Puritanism and Manichaean/Albigensian view on the Material world and sex in particular.
I agree with Ladislaus that many of these types turn out to be scrupulous sorts, and/or unmarried. I guess they are frustrated/jealous of the married, and do everything they can to "ruin it" for them?
Well, one of my favorite saints is St. Dominic, and he knew how to deal with the Albigensian heretics!
-
Contraception is ruled out by the following phrase in CC:
so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved
Which it is with oral contraceptives
-
No, Geremia, it is not.
Any action, substance, or device using before, during, or after the marital act which thwarts the potential creative power of the act (conception) is INTRINSICALLY EVIL, called birth control, and condemned by the Catholic Church.
-
Despite Ladislaus's quoting Casti Connubii, which says "so long as they are subordinated to the primary end," it seems he's arguing for the "secondary means" without any consideration of the primary end (which he seems to think can cease to exist).
Being infertile, for example, does not annihilate the primary end of the act.
Actively contracepting, e.g., is to disregard the primary end.
It seems Ladislaus thinks the primary end ceases to exist, yet it is always there,* even for those contracepting. It's one's disregard or regard of that end that can make the act sinful or not.
(*although some here may argue it's not there during pregnancy; that's the whole controversy of this thread)
In "Whether it is a mortal sin for a man to have knowledge of his wife, with the intention not of a marriage good but merely of pleasure? (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/XP/XP049.html#XPQ49A6THEP1)," St. Thomas doesn't flat-out say "yes" but makes distinctions:Some say that whenever pleasure is the chief motive for the marriage act it is a mortal sin; that when it is an indirect motive it is a venial sin; and that when it spurns the pleasure altogether and is displeasing, it is wholly void of venial sin; so that it would be a mortal sin to seek pleasure in this act, a venial sin to take the pleasure when offered, but that perfection requires one to detest it.
This seems similar to Amakusa's view. St. Thomas condemns it:But this is impossible, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. x, 3,4) the same judgment applies to pleasure as to action, because pleasure in a good action is good, and in an evil action, evil; wherefore, as the marriage act is not evil in itself, neither will it be always a mortal sin to seek pleasure therein.
Then he shows, when "the goods of marriage" (e.g., the primary end) are disregarded, in what cases the act is a venial or mortal sin:Consequently the right answer to this question is that if pleasure be sought in such a way as to exclude the honesty of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that he is ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife, it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage. If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin.
St. Thomas does not contradict Casti Connubii here because St. Thomas is discussing the case when a good of marriage (e.g., the primary end) is disregarded, but Casti Connubii is only considering the case "so long as they are subordinated to the primary end" ("and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved"). Thus, St. Thomas implies it is sinful to disregard any end of marriage, the primary or secondary; e.g., Henry VIII sinned by disregarding the secondary ends, and contraceptors sin by disregarding the primary end.
St. Thomas says if pleasure is sought in marriage so as to avoid adultery, it is a venial sin. Amakusa argues it is always at least a venial sin, which is false.
St. Thomas's teaching is beautiful; it is very balanced and far from having any tint of puritanism or dualism. His distinction between a man treating his wife as a wife vs. as simply a woman is also excellent.
His answer also seems to answer the question of this thread: It would "exclude the honesty of marriage" to ask a pregnant wife, especially one advanced in pregnancy, to pay the debt. Hence, a husband would sin in doing so, esp. if there is risk of abortion.
-
Geremia,
So were some theologians from the first half of the twentieth century before Vatican II then off the mark concerning the topic of this thread? In other words, did some of them depart somewhat from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus de' Liguori concerning the marital act and pregnancy?
-
Contraception is ruled out by the following phrase in CC:
so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved
Which it is with oral contraceptives
No, you have no understanding of theological language. This isn't a reference to the mere "mechanical" part of the act, but a broader term that refers to the entire normal chain of events that would lead to conception. Even with contraceptives, the normal hormonal chain would be interfered with and therefore would violate the "intrinsic nature of the act". You're thinking in purely mechanical terms. Theologians commonly use this phrase, and Pius XII also used it later ... specifically to rule out any active interference in the normal course of the act, i.e. contraception, Onanism, etc.
-
St. Thomas says if pleasure is sought in marriage so as to avoid adultery, it is a venial sin. Amakusa argues it is always at least a venial sin, which is false.
St. Thomas's teaching is beautiful; it is very balanced and far from having any tint of puritanism or dualism. His distinction between a man treating his wife as a wife vs. as simply a woman is also excellent.
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium. If pleasure is sought so as to avoid adultery, that's no sin because the pursuit of the pleasure is subordinated to one of the secondary ends of marriage. St. Thomas did not clearly articulate or understand this notion of the secondary ends of marriage, which Casti Conubii lays out quite clearly. And Papal Encyclicals trump St. Thomas.
-
St Thomas' argument is very dependent upon the definition of "the honesty of marriage" which wasn't mentioned. Either way, the Church's teaching is clear from C.C., so I don't have to worry about it.
As I was always taught, "just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be." This concerns imperfections, not sins. Geremia, if you want to argue that there is a greater 'perfection' in acting a certain way, in the situation of pregnancy, that is fine, but you can't ADD sin to a situation already decided upon by the Church. That's scrupulous.
-
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church. See: The Authority of St. Thomas Aquinas (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/3481) by Jacobus M. Ramírez, O.P.If pleasure is sought so as to avoid adultery, that's no sin because the pursuit of the pleasure is subordinated to one of the secondary ends of marriage.
Only "to one of the secondary ends", irrespective of any regard or disregard to the primary end?St. Thomas did not clearly articulate or understand this notion of the secondary ends of marriage
He describes the marriage goods.
-
If pleasure is sought so as to avoid adultery, that's no sin because the pursuit of the pleasure is subordinated to one of the secondary ends of marriage.
Only "to one of the secondary ends", irrespective of any regard or disregard to the primary end?
During the pregnacy the primary end cannot be achieved, and Pope Pius XI teaches that in such situation secondary ends can still be pursued. Honestly I don't quite get where you see the problem.
-
It seems Ladislaus thinks the primary end ceases to exist, yet it is always there,* even for those contracepting. It's one's disregard or regard of that end that can make the act sinful or not.
Again, your inability to make distinctions causes you problems.
Certainly the primary end can cease to exist materially (when it's not possible). Nevertheless, it must remain formally (in intention) ... to the extent that the couple would never do anything to thwart conception. This remains formally (in intention) so long as the couple does nothing to actively thwart conception ... even if it isn't there materially (due to physical impossibility). You on the other hand continue to claim, contrary to the teaching of the Church, that if there's NO possibility for conception physically or materially, then marital relations are at least venially sinful. You've stated that it's because then marital relations are being had for reasons of lust. But you completely ignore the secondary ends of marriage, creating a false dichotomy between lust or procreation. Everyone knows that physical relations, through the intimacy, and even through the bonding chemicals and hormones that are released, strengthen the emotional bond between a husband and a wife ... in addition to helping give relief towards any temptations that might arise from concupiscence. So long as the couple does not intend to do anything to thwart conception, there's no sin in having relations with those ends in mind ... as confirmed by the Magisterium. Without physical relations, the emotional relationship between husband and wife can grow cold.
-
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church.
This matters nothing. Magisterium trumps any Doctor of the Church. In fact, the Church anathematized similar thinking when devotion to St. Augustine was high, stating specifically that the Magisterium trumps any Doctor of the Church. So, are you free to hold St. Thomas' opinion on the Immaculate Conception because he was a great Doctor? If you believe that, then you incur the Church's anathema.
-
Only "to one of the secondary ends", irrespective of any regard or disregard to the primary end?
See my previous post with regard to the material vs. formal absence of the primary end.
-
So were some theologians from the first half of the twentieth century before Vatican II then off the mark concerning the topic of this thread? In other words, did some of them depart somewhat from St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Alphonsus de' Liguori concerning the marital act and pregnancy?
T. G. Wayne's 1936 Morals and Marriage: The Catholic Background to Sex (https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/4254) (with nihil obstat & imprimitur) is in accord with them. (Its title page quotes St. Thomas, in Latin, where he says that marriage is the highest form of friendship.)
In general, sex intercourse is good and holy when its manner is natural, when it expresses the marriage love of man and woman, and when it promotes their bodily and spiritual well-being. That is the first guiding principle.
With respect to the nature of the act, this is spoilt only when its character is vitiated by the sin of onanism, which is treated of in a later chapter. Intercourse is lawful between couples who are sterile, whether one or both, as is the case with a woman whose ovaries or womb have been removed by surgical operation: a child cannot be conceived, but the generative act can be performed. It is lawful at those periods of the month or at those times of life when conception is unlikely or even impossible: thus the incidence of the so-called “safe period” or of old age does not affect the essential character of the act. It is lawful during pregnancy, so long as it is not hurtful to the woman or to the child in her womb.
With respect to the motives, there is evil if they can be reduced to the mere desire of pleasure; if the action is merely sensual indulgence; if the attempt is to snatch as much satisfaction while at the same time evading the care and responsibility that is implicit in intercourse. Husband and wife will be quick to discern whether their actions be sub-human, selfish, unworthy of the love they should bear one another, as when a man uses his wife as a convenience without regard to her feelings; when, as St. Thomas says, he treats her just as a woman, not as his wife, his special and separate friend. The relationship is not merely between man and woman; this is included, but the dignity of friendship between equal persons is added. The action must be taken at this level. Sinful motives are also present in their state of mind if a couple who are in a position to have a child selfishly decide to the contrary and avoid intercourse without the virtue of virginity or deliberately restrict it to certain times in order to avoid conception.
Intercourse is good when it supports and expresses the blessings of marriage. In summary the motives may be one, or two, or three of the following: the making of a family by the birth and bringing up of children; the intense and intimate friendship of a man and woman; the healthy and human satisfaction of physical passion. The special happiness of marriage calls for the presence of the second, since the chief purpose of every marriage considered in the particular is the happiness of husband and wife themselves. Under this aspect its character as a sacramental companionship is more important than its social function of propagating the race or its hygienic function of remedying lust. Children should come from parents who are companions; a bodily passion should be satisfied not as a principal preoccupation, but as part of a wider and more human situation, the intimacy of the greatest human friendship.
-
With respect to the motives, there is evil if they can be reduced to the mere desire of pleasure; if the action is merely sensual indulgence; if the attempt is to snatch as much satisfaction while at the same time evading the care and responsibility that is implicit in intercourse.
You should quote the WHOLE sentence, to be honest. You bolded PART of the sentence. The underlined part finishes the thought, and it is referencing the "primary ends" of marriage. Ergo, as long as you are NOT evading the primary ends, then your motive is not JUST for pleasure.
-
Certainly the primary end can cease to exist materially (when it's not possible). Nevertheless, it must remain formally (in intention) ... to the extent that the couple would never do anything to thwart conception. This remains formally (in intention) so long as the couple does nothing to actively thwart conception ... even if it isn't there materially (due to physical impossibility).
I agree with this distinction.You on the other hand continue to claim, contrary to the teaching of the Church, that if there's NO possibility for conception physically or materially, then marital relations are at least venially sinful. You've stated that it's because then marital relations are being had for reasons of lust. But you completely ignore the secondary ends of marriage, creating a false dichotomy between lust or procreation.
I think you're confusing me with Amakusa, or perhaps I have not been clear. I am claiming that there can be sin in any type of intercourse, not that intercourse "if there's NO possibility for conception physically or materially" is intrinsically and always sinful.Everyone knows that physical relations, through the intimacy, and even through the bonding chemicals and hormones that are released, strengthen the emotional bond between a husband and a wife ... in addition to helping give relief towards any temptations that might arise from concupiscence. So long as the couple does not intend to do anything to thwart conception, there's no sin in having relations with those ends in mind ... as confirmed by the Magisterium.
Provided they
(1) regard the primary end (at least "formally" or "in intention", as you say)
and
(2) do not "exclude the honesty of marriage".
-
as long as you are NOT evading the primary ends, then your motive is not JUST for pleasure.
yes
-
Ergo, if your intentions/actions are "open" to the primary ends of marriage (i.e. children) then there is no sin. Even if there is already a pregnancy, or a biological reason where pregnancy is unattainable. This is the teaching of the Church.
-
Intercourse is good when it supports and expresses the blessings of marriage. In summary the motives may be one, or two, or three of the following: the making of a family by the birth and bringing up of children; the intense and intimate friendship of a man and woman; the healthy and human satisfaction of physical passion. ... a bodily passion should be satisfied not as a principal preoccupation, but as part of a wider and more human situation, the intimacy of the greatest human friendship.
Well put by this author.
-
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church.
Indeed, but he was not infallible. One needs only to look at his opinion of the Immaculate Conception to prove that. If there is a conflict between St. Thomas and the Magisterium, the Magisterium wins every time.
-
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church.
Indeed, but he was not infallible. One needs only to look at his opinion of the Immaculate Conception to prove that. If there is a conflict between St. Thomas and the Magisterium, the Magisterium wins every time.
Thank you. I'm glad that somebody gets it ... even if it isn't Geremia.
-
That is the way the encyclical must be understood.
Says you. Theologians do not understand it this way. I suppose you can interpret away anything you want.
The Book of Leviticus is from God Himself, and among the sins which are mentioned as calling the wrath of God upon the peoples such as the Cananeans, there is sɛҳuąƖity during menstruation: this sin is mentioned along with incest and such very great sins!
Judaizer!
As for pregnancy and sex:
Saint Hildegard, Scivias, book II, vision 3:
Irrelevant. Not the teaching of the Church. In no way is the "development of [a] little child" "polluted by excessive ... semen". Lack of medial understanding there.
You are accusing me to spread moral errors
Absolutely I am. And Matthew has agreed with me. Nice try with the "Feeney" play, but it's entirely irrelevant to this thread and is just another cheap ad hominem from someone who has little else to offer than his own Puritanical attitudes and quotations from Old Testament ritual law.
-
Look. God create sex, and He created it in such a way as to involve pleasure. God created food and associated pleasure with its consumption. There's nothing wrong with pleasure ... only if the pleasure becomes an end in itself and is not ordered properly. In fact, the greatest pleasure any human being will ever know will be in the vision of God.
-
Ladislaus, do you believe that the Old Testament is from God? And that the Jєωιѕн law was the law of God?
It's heresy to claim that the Old Testament law has not been abrogated. You do know this, right? Are you going to persist in this? Is it sinful to eat pork too?
-
OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!
This thread perfectly proves that theology, and more succinct, moral theology is not for un-trained minds.
Causa finalis est; primus in intentione ultimus in executione.
Marital debt adherents' in lawful marriage must intend in all their acts, including those preparatory acts, and those terminating acts to INTEND to not frustrate the final cause of the marital debt itself. PERIOD Their is but one primary end. For our sake, God has permitted his infallible magisterium to enumerate for our thick heads and for the purpose of eradicating the pestilence of moral heresies, other ancillary final causes of marriage.
The funny thing about the final cause is that it is the first intended, last executed. There are a great deal 'acts' in between. Because, omne agens agit propter finem, the agents of this act if they are to utilize (use) the act (that is to say intend its end, they must permit the primary final cause; children. God does not fault any human being because part of man has deteriorated due to age or physical nature or from some other natural congenital evil which makes the natural and primary end of the marital act less likely. INTENT IS IN THE WILL. It is not in the body, though of course man being complex, has a corporal element.
Human beings are composites; body and soul, partially in actu and in potentia. If anyone reading this does not know these distinctions, then you ought not talk about any philosophical or spiritual subjects because you can't possibly understand.
Either sex which does not intend by an act of the will to be open to the magnificence of God's creative hand in the marital embrace, either by employee means via res artificialis, or res naturalis, does not intend the end. This is by definition abuse, (ab usus; to take away the end). The final cause is thus frustrated. This is always mortally sinful.
A man or a wife in licit marriage does not sin by engaging in the debt insofar as they in their wills and thus in the direction of their corporeal parts permit the spontaneous hand of the Divine Will to work. If anyone says or believes something other than this, you need to talk to a priest because you are either incapable of understanding or unwilling--matters little the distinction. The willful or obstinate misuse of reason causes scandal and it can block man's final cause--and this is an abuse as well.
-
"It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circuмcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."
-
sɛҳuąƖ intercourse and lust come from the original sin; without the original sin human beings would have been multiplied without the use of sex.
:facepalm:
Sounds like you're an Albigensian.
That lust came from Original Sin, concedo. That pleasure came from Original Sin, nego. Pleasure itself is GOOD. Pleasure becomes lust when it is DISORDERED.
-
The old law is abrogated but if God said that a given action was a sin against natural law in the Old Testament, then it is a sin in both Testaments!
Simple resolution to this: Quote the encyclical, council, or other Church pronouncement that backs up your stupid claims that relations during "infertile" periods is sinful. Otherwise, shut up.
-
The old law is abrogated but if God said that a given action was a sin against natural law in the Old Testament, then it is a sin in both Testaments!
But the Church does NOT teach that it is against natural law. That's just your invalid spin on the Old Testament. In fact, Casti Conubii EXPLICITLY states that it is NOT "contrary to nature" to have intercourse with the secondary ends of marriage in mind even when the primary is not materially attainable.
-
I'm locking this thread.