Ask A Catholic II

[Jehoshua]

Heh, I do disagree about the solidity of this foundation when I look at how it has changed historically, the rock comparison I find apt though, since that too is subject to natural erosion.
(if you read this before the edit on previous post, feel free to ignore previous post)

You are confusing disciplines with dogma. In the Catholic Church dogma has not changed since its foundation by Christ through the apostles. It has been developed (As Christ did promise he would send the Holy Spirit to reveal All truth) and further defined yes, but never actually changed.

Discipline however has changed, so you have had married priests in the past before the celibacy discipline was put in, and you have had different practices and rituals observed and altered over time (although never to the extent of divorcing those rituals from the doctrine and theology it expresses).

But Doctrine within the Catholic Church has never been changed. The only place where doctrine changes is when people divorce themselves from the Church founded by Christ and preserved from error, and are thus left to drift into error thus changeing doctrines..

I challenge you to present to me one doctrine of the Church which has changed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I also declined continuing because I feel the spirit if this thread is not "challenge a Christian denomination" but rather "inform about Christian denomination". So I felt I was out of line.

 

[Jehoshua]

No problem.

I suppose though that through questions one can hear and thus understand the view of the Church. (We do not consider ourselves a denomination as we are the original Church). But naturally when that questioning develops into an argument it can become taxing and counter-productive to the spirit of this thread.

But I do not think you were out of line. (that would be if you brought up a jack chick tract )

-

Random Catholic Music : Gothic Chant, Kyrie Eleison : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhY_N7lp0jE

 

[civ_king]

The Church is pre-denominational

 

[Perfection]

Anal intercourse is as immoral as contraceptives as it likewise denies the procreative purpose of the sexual act. thus immoral

Why presume the sexual act's purpose is solely procreative?

What is your stance on post-menopausal women having sex?

 

[timtofly]

Indeed, unfortunately in this day and age people seem oddly averse to educating themselves on matters of linguistic convention. Either way calling God "she" is contrary to scripture not to mention the teaching of the Church as it leads to a false understanding of the relationship of God within himself and with his creation irrespective of the fact that God is not male in the biological sense. (excepting Christ, God the Son, second person of the singular triune God was made incarnate as a male)

As an apologist:

God the father is figurative and was never to be taken as a literal father. God has no sex, and we did not "spring" from God. God originally created Adam as one sex. Adam was created in the image of God and his DNA was different from the animals in that it was able to contain a soul (God). It was only after the fact, that God seperated the "sexes". Before Adam disobeyed there was no masculine nor feminine issue. As part of human's "sin", the "man" would rule the "woman". It was a curse. The masculine form is the form used as LORD. There is no gender created, but authority "respected".

The NT viewpoint is no longer male dominance, but both submitting to each other. There is equality. The only exception was not letting a woman be the Spiritual leader over man. Woman have great intuition and can "guide" a relationship. Man is who has to answer to God though. Treating woman as property and not equal goes against the Bible, and whoever teaches otherwise is in error. The "gender" issues we have today is God letting man be his own guide and following his own vain imaginations. We are free to do as we please, but God is not liable for the consequences. Personally, I would not want God to give up on me.

 

[Takhisis]

Why presume the sexual act's purpose is solely procreative?

What is your stance on post-menopausal women having sex?

Not sure about 'solely' but it's meant to be 'mainly' about procreation. As I've never read anything about 'you must NOT enjoy sex, suffer through it' etc. etc. I think that if one -or both- people having sex are incapable of conceiving children it's still no problem. They're married after all.
If God wanted us to have no pleasure from sex He'd simply have made it unpleasant, or at least dull, I guess.

That said, I'm not much of a Scriptures scholar.

As an apologist:

God the father is figurative and was never to be taken as a literal father. God has no sex, and we did not "spring" from God. God originally created Adam as one sex. Adam was created in the image of God and his DNA was different from the animals in that it was able to contain a soul (God). It was only after the fact, that God seperated the "sexes". Before Adam disobeyed there was no masculine nor feminine issue. As part of human's "sin", the "man" would rule the "woman". It was a curse. The masculine form is the form used as LORD. There is no gender created, but authority "respected".

The NT viewpoint is no longer male dominance, but both submitting to each other. There is equality. The only exception was not letting a woman be the Spiritual leader over man. Woman have great intuition and can "guide" a relationship. Man is who has to answer to God though. Treating woman as property and not equal goes against the Bible, and whoever teaches otherwise is in error. The "gender" issues we have today is God letting man be his own guide and following his own vain imaginations. We are free to do as we please, but God is not liable for the consequences. Personally, I would not want God to give up on me.

Mmmmwhat? A soul isn't in one's DNA, otherwise I couldn't donate blood or organs because I'd be giving someone else a piece of my soul.

 

[timtofly]

Not sure about 'solely' but it's meant to be 'mainly' about procreation. As I've never read anything about 'you must NOT enjoy sex, suffer through it' etc. etc. I think that if one -or both- people having sex are incapable of conceiving children it's still no problem. They're married after all.
If God wanted us to have no pleasure from sex He'd simply have made it unpleasant, or at least dull, I guess.

That said, I'm not much of a Scriptures scholar.

Mmmmwhat? A soul isn't in one's DNA, otherwise I couldn't donate blood or organs because I'd be giving someone else a piece of my soul.

Are you afraid to share God with others?

 

[Takhisis]

What? Where do you get that our souls are God from?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

God does not have biological or societal construct gender, only grammatical gender. There are names and descriptions of God used in the old testament that are grammatically feminine. He is described as being like a mother hen, and the name often translated as "God Almighty" likely really means "God My Teat." In Hebrew, every noun has gender, there is no neuter. In Greek there is a neuter gender, but not much connection between grammatical and natural gender. For example, the word for woman is grammatically masculine, so the Virgin Mary is also referred to as "he." Father and Son in Greek are grammatically masculine, but Spirit is neuter (in Hebrew it is feminine, in Latin it is masculine), so at least one person of the trinity is not referenced as if male.


The reason to prefer He over She is simply that the masculine gender has traditionally been considered more neutral, the one to be used for groups of mixed genders or persons whose gender is unknown. (In Latin the rule is for animate objects use the masculine for mixed groups even if they contain only feminine and neuter, and use the neuter for mixed groups of inanimate objects even if they are all masculine or feminine.) Neuter would probably be better, but people tend to think that It implies being inanimate, or nor a person.

 

[Takhisis]

So, we'd better all learn Hebrew and Greek to save ourselves the trouble of dealing with these silly translations.

 

[Jehoshua]

As an apologist:

God the father is figurative and was never to be taken as a literal father. God has no sex, and we did not "spring" from God. God originally created Adam as one sex. Adam was created in the image of God and his DNA was different from the animals in that it was able to contain a soul (God). It was only after the fact, that God seperated the "sexes". Before Adam disobeyed there was no masculine nor feminine issue. As part of human's "sin", the "man" would rule the "woman". It was a curse. The masculine form is the form used as LORD. There is no gender created, but authority "respected".

The NT viewpoint is no longer male dominance, but both submitting to each other. There is equality. The only exception was not letting a woman be the Spiritual leader over man. Woman have great intuition and can "guide" a relationship. Man is who has to answer to God though. Treating woman as property and not equal goes against the Bible, and whoever teaches otherwise is in error. The "gender" issues we have today is God letting man be his own guide and following his own vain imaginations. We are free to do as we please, but God is not liable for the consequences. Personally, I would not want God to give up on me.

I think you might like to read my posts, God is called "HE" due to the nature of the relationship of God the Father to God the Son (a filial relationship with the son being eternally begotten of the Father), and due to his relationship with creation which comes into being ex nihilo from God (compared to being sprung "from God" or nurtured "within" God.) MagisterCultuum is correct in regards to the Holy Spirit incidentally.

You seem to be veering onto a tangent as to the interrelationships between the women and men in the human sphere which is hardly the point of the earlier argument. I am not going to veer from the point when you do not seem to have actually read what I have written. The reason God is referred to as a "he" generally (irrespective of his many other attributes and attitudes) is due to the relationships between God the Father and God the Son, and towards the action of creation ex nihilo. To thus call God "she" dilutes the theological understanding of this relationship and is heterodox. This does not however mean that God does not appear feminine in other regards: God is God not bound by human normalities. (as the mother hen reference by Magistercutuum shows)

As to your assertion as to the difference of DNA and the containing of a soul (being God in your assertion). You are sadly mistaken. The Human person is made in the image of God in terms of his soul, the soul is not God nor is it a piece of God, it is entirely distinct from the Godhead (you seem to have adopted some sorto f new-age eastern mentality in this area). However the soul reflects God's glory in its attributes as does the totality of the person in its echoing of the trinitarian nature in body, soul and spirit.

 

[Jehoshua]

Why presume the sexual act's purpose is solely procreative?

The sexual act is procreative and unitative to deny one or the other purpose is gravely sinful. Thus contraception and homosexual acts are violations of the procreative and unitative purposes. Fornication when it does not deny the procreative purpose denies the unitative purpose because this purpose is only fulfilled in marriage. (which is between a man and a woman)

What is your stance on post-menopausal women having sex?

If they still remain open to the exceedingly negligible possibility of life it is permissable. Likewise if it is within marriage it remains unitative and is not sinful. Thus Takhisis is correct in saying that enjoyment of sex is not a sin, but it must not deny these fundamental purposes in the process.

 

[Leoreth]

What makes you think our soul is contained in our DNA (and not elsewhere? Or why does it need a biologistic explanation at all?). Is this official church doctrine?

 

[Jehoshua]

What makes you think our soul is contained in our DNA (and not elsewhere? Or why does it need a biologistic explanation at all?). Is this official church doctrine?

The soul is not a biological phenomenon: Timtofly's hypothesis is not the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[Leoreth]

Good, else the Catholic Church would've lost a lot credit in my eyes.

 

[Takhisis]

I think it's the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe that the soul is in a person's blood.

To the Church, the soul is an immaterial part of a human person.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd really appreciate more information about the "sex is only for procreation" argument, as well.

Is that the only argument against premarital, contraceptive-using sex?

What's the biblical support on this? Or does this belong to the "tradition" part?

And repeating a previous question, is that to mean that infertile people or post-menopausal women shouldn't have sex?

 

[Jehoshua]

Why presume the sexual act's purpose is solely procreative?

The sexual act is procreative and unitative to deny one or the other purpose is gravely sinful. Thus contraception and homosexual acts are violations of the procreative and unitative purposes. Fornication when it does not deny the procreative purpose denies the unitative purpose because this purpose is only fulfilled in marriage. (which is between a man and a woman)

What is your stance on post-menopausal women having sex?

If they still remain open to the exceedingly negligible possibility of life it is permissable. Likewise if it is within marriage it remains unitative and is not sinful. Thus Takhisis is correct in saying that enjoyment of sex is not a sin, but it must not deny these fundamental purposes in the process.

---

That answers part I

---

Part two, biblical support. Needless to say the condemnations of fornication, adultery, homosexual acts and all other manner of immorality indicate that sex within marriage is the only valid use of the sexual faculty. The ban on contraception is based on the reason that these things are wrong because they deny the purpose of the sexual act. Thus the specific theology behind the prohibition is of course tradition, the basis is biblical.

As to infetile/post-menopausal, within marriage they can have sex if they still remain open to the possibility of life, however exceedingly small that is. Since I answered this before I don;t really see why you repeated the question.

 

[kochman]

The sexual act is procreative and unitative to deny one or the other purpose is gravely sinful. Thus contraception and homosexual acts are violations of the procreative and unitative purposes. Fornication when it does not deny the procreative purpose denies the unitative purpose because this purpose is only fulfilled in marriage. (which is between a man and a woman)

So, where does this leave "pulling out?"
Or using the calendar to lower the chances of pregnancy?
Seems like two ways to avoid the procreation.

Doesn't it seem like a technique simply used to manipulate people into creating more people, who will be subject to the Church, thereby increasing its power?

What is the scriptural basis for no birth control?