Sex, Marriage and Biblical Prohibition

[Faithfulservant]

Thank you JJM that was a beautiful post.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

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 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.

for the sake of sexual pleasure without wanting to be united to the partner

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?

(By the way, I'm not trolling - my intended tone of voice is one of polite and genuine interest.)

 

[bananabrain]

my two penn'orth:

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.

i'd like to know how you can claim it's idolatrous. do you have a source? 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.

underlying purpose of sex. That underlying purpose is to have children.

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'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?

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.

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.

we'd agree with this - except we'd disagree over what G!D wants sex to be for humans.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[lunamoth]

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?

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

 

[JJM]

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal

Neither not all Catholic beliefs come from the Bible. That is a Protestant ideal.

 

[JJM]

i'd like to know how you can claim it's idolatrous. do you have a source?

Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

If you are serving Sexual pleasure or yourself you can't be serving God. And that Sexual Pleasure or yourself becomes a god to you.

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.

My statement about Natural design was in reference to the man and womans Natural fertility.

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.

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.

 

[JJM]

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 with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.

I personally disagree very strongly with the idea that this is what homosexuality is about, but that's another discussion.

I agree but it removes a child from the equation which makes it immoral.

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.)

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]

I agree with all of the Churches teachings. If I didn't I wouldn't be christian.

Guess that's why I'm not Christian anymore then...

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.

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?

I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question, but I think I'll go with lunamoth's explanation. It seems more consistent with a loving and giving God to me.

 

[Quahom1]

I'm wondering : does the bible really speaks of the point of sexual pleasure or is that an interpretation?
___
Kal

Consider the Songs of Solomon. What an explicit story of sex and love between two people.

v/r

Q

 

[Quahom1]

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

Oh, I think I'm going to leave that one alone kiddo...

v/r

Q

 

[JonMarc]

just ran across this thread... i know it's older but i thought i'd toss in my spare change, as a reply to another post drew me to genesis, and plenty of knowing takes place in genesis... this is in response to many little pieces of many little posts that i've read, so i won't quote each one.

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?


that said...God created us in His image. He then looked upon His creation and saw that it was good, yes? He created parts of our bodies that cause an involuntary physical stimulation. During sex, these are the parts we use. i don't think this is an accident. sex *can* be pleasurable for a reason, just as sex *can* lead to the birth of a new life for a reason. to ignore either side of the equation when engaging in sex would be wrong in my opinion. likewise, neither side of the equation should be interpreted as the whole thing, or more important than the other... in my opinion...


in regards to the original post...

Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. - Colossians 3:5 NKJV

here paul is talking about casting off those parts of us that are worldly, for when we die and go to heaven those things will not be of us.

i agree with jjm in that paul's writings provide a sufficient basis for pre-marital sex=bad

although the roots of the word fornicate lie in prostition, the definition is consentual sex between two partners who are not married. however, i realize the bible wasn't translated yesterday. i quote this verse mostly because there was a discussion in the thread on the death penalty of sin.

 

[Bandit]

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?

i have wondered the same thing JonMarc, like a different dimension. 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.

then there is the one part where he mentions multiplying the sorrow in child birth, but i think it is all in predestination & free will. i dont see any other way it could be either, but it is a good question.

i dont know if I said welcome to you yet, but welcome to CR. I have enjoyed your postings.

 

[JonMarc]

...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....

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....(?)
as in everything we needed was in the garden of eden, yet after original sin we were cast from that place and thus had to 'fend for ourselves' so to speak. just another of the many many examples of god knowing what we would chose and planning a contingency, of sorts.

and thank you for the welcome bandit! likewise with you and your posts!