Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Thank you JJM that was a beautiful post.
I got a little warm under the collar until I reread your first sentence. I don't know whether you personally agree with this teaching, but that, for me, is beside the point. In any case, at least I now have a *much* better understanding of why the Catholic Church is so condemning of me and my ilk.JJM said:Alright I’m goona attempt to explain my understanding of the Church’s teaching on premarital sex, homosexuality, and contraception.
<snip>
Does all this make sense? If anyone needs any clarification just say something.
I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion. To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner
sex outside of marriage and out of the natural design of G!D in regards to the openness to children is selfish and in some sense idolatrous.
that may well be the church's view but it is not that of judaism. the jewish view of sex is that it is the closest relationship a human can have to another human and is an act of personal intimacy that gives an unparalleled insight into spiritual intimacy - which is why the two can be so unpleasantly confused. in other words, sex is the closest humans get to a direct experience of the Divine, which is why the word "knowledge" (da'ath) is used for it (as in "and adam knew his wife"). nothing is said about children. obviously children are part of a deal and, in that sense, not being mindful of that eventuality and factoring it in, either passively or actively, has practical consequences in the area of person-to-peron ethics, even more so than between person and G!D.underlying purpose of sex. That underlying purpose is to have children.
i will also add that, according to jewish law, women are not obliged to have children - that is a man's obligation only, from "be fruitful and multiply", which is addressed to the males only. consequently, the purpose of sex for women must be different and, looking further on, we see that "your desire shall be for your husband" - in other words, sex for women is not only not about children, but also about enjoyment. my personal take on this is that men and women are designed differently - in other words, men are going to want and enjoy sex come what may, so they have to be commanded to be mindful of the childbearing, whereas women are more likely to be the other way round, so they have to be made aware that they have a right to fulfilling sex too.I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
we'd agree with this - except we'd disagree over what G!D wants sex to be for humans.To have sex [...] simply for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner is to take what you want from sex rather than what G!D meant for sex to be and this is in essence selfish and is the worship of sexual pleasure and one's own wants and needs.
Scarlet Pimpernel said:I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion. To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?
Neither not all Catholic beliefs come from the Bible. That is a Protestant ideal.Kaldayen said:I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal
Matthew 6:24bananabrain said:i'd like to know how you can claim it's idolatrous. do you have a source?
My statement about Natural design was in reference to the man and womans Natural fertility.bananabrain said:don't forget that if you resort to the "natural design" argument instead of relying on Divine commandment, you are open to objections from the natural world, which is, these days, apparently full of homosexual bonobos, celibate pandas and polyamorous crabs. in short, one is far better off saying that monogamy is commanded for humans, marriage is commanded for the monotheists and that sex outside those parameters, while arguably both natural and understandable, is ideally to be minimised.
This is true, but with an understanding of the Trinity, (something obviously nonexistent in Judaism) you cannot know the Divine without the openness to the child. For the rejection of a child is the rejection of the Holy Spirit. However I would say that the above is more the purpose of Sexual Pleasure. Which I believe I stated in the Paragraph above.bananabrain said:that may well be the church's view but it is not that of judaism. the jewish view of sex is that it is the closest relationship a human can have to another human and is an act of personal intimacy that gives an unparalleled insight into spiritual intimacy - which is why the two can be so unpleasantly confused. in other words, sex is the closest humans get to a direct experience of the Divine, which is why the word "knowledge" (da'ath) is used for it (as in "and adam knew his wife"). nothing is said about children. obviously children are part of a deal and, in that sense, not being mindful of that eventuality and factoring it in, either passively or actively, has practical consequences in the area of person-to-peron ethics, even more so than between person and G!D.
I agree with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.Scarlet Pimpernel said:I got a little warm under the collar until I reread your first sentence. I don't know whether you personally agree with this teaching, but that, for me, is beside the point. In any case, at least I now have a *much* better understanding of why the Catholic Church is so condemning of me and my ilk.
I agree but it removes a child from the equation which makes it immoral.Scarlet Pimpernel said:I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion.
No because there can still be an openness for a child. There may be a miracle and that woman could conceive. However if a man has sex with a man that man isn't going to conceive a child because of that Sexual act. However a man or woman cannot make himself sterile because it removes the natural openness to the conception to a child. However if it seems a Man or woman is becoming sterile by natural means it doesn't change this persons natural openness to a child.Scarlet Pimpernel said:To get back to the point, what would the Church's teaching be, then, about married couples where either the man or the woman is infertile (especially where they didn't know about it before they got married)? Are they also "sacriligious and blasphemous"? Should they then never have sex again for the rest of their married life from the moment they find out about the infertility, since there's no chance of it resulting in a child?
(By the way, I'm not trolling - my intended tone of voice is one of polite and genuine interest.)
Guess that's why I'm not Christian anymore then...JJM said:I agree with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.
Hmm, that seems like a VERY big convenient grey area to me. Okay, two men together can't conceive (I guess no miracle is THAT big), but how about two women together? One of them could conceive, and that would be a miracle too! Hey, parthenogenesis has happened before - and lunamoth has a thread somewhere on this very message board indicating it may not be as scientifically far-fetched as has always been thought. Let's be consistent here - either my partner or I could miraculously conceive, and we should remain open to that. Guess that means we should keep at it, huh?JJM said:No because there can still be an openness for a child. There may be a miracle and that woman could conceive. However if a man has sex with a man that man isn't going to conceive a child because of that Sexual act. However a man or woman cannot make himself sterile because it removes the natural openness to the conception to a child. However if it seems a Man or woman is becoming sterile by natural means it doesn't change this persons natural openness to a child.
Consider the Songs of Solomon. What an explicit story of sex and love between two people.Kaldayen said:I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal
Oh, I think I'm going to leave that one alone kiddo...lunamoth said:Good point, Scarlet P. As one of those infertile couples I was wondering about this myself. The hairs on my neck stand up every time I read this particular "reason" against homosexual relationships (right Q?).
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that marriage is for the sake of children, who in the days before birth control (and even since) are bound to come along once a couple "knows" each other. But, while marriage (ideally) creates a stable family for raising children, sexual relations are about more than just creating babies. The word I always think of is intimacy, both spiritual and physical.
peace,
lunamoth
i have wondered the same thing JonMarc, like a different dimension. But I dont think anything really changed, procreation stayed right on track.JonMarc said:first off, just a little side note and pointless question...until eve ate of the tree of knowledge she was not cursed bye God to bring forth children in pain. yet given our anatomy i don't see any other way but pain that a woman could give birth, so was there initially a different means by which new human lives would have been created?
true... which i guess is why i said it was pointless. earlier in genesis, just before it begins discussing the specifics of adam's creation and just after telling us about how He rested, it does state that the earth was dry because it had not yet rained and man had not yet been made to till the earth. however, the implications of His curse on man make it seem as though without adam's sin all we needed would have been provided not through our hard work but through His....(?)Bandit said:...But I dont think anything really changed, procreation stayed right on track.
just that God knew in advance they would be disobedient, just like He knew in advance that He would make a way of escape for us, by Jesus who would be obedient, even unto the death of the cross....