Marriage

[Eran of Arcadia]

I can accept the reality of federally sanctioned gay marriage. Actually, that is why I voted in favor of abolishing a legal definition of marriage entirely. Because of my religious views I cannot act in favor of bringing government recognition to same sex marriages but I can see no reason at all why there can't be any. It is a bit strange position to be in but there you go. I don't consider myself a homophobe, I don't think I can be called one, and I don't believe in forcing others to follow my morality, although I do support teaching it to them and inviting them to accept it.

 

[Pyrite]

"So I am not only one that is in the same boat? I mean everytime I use my religious beliefs as my reasons for opposing same-gender marrages, someone at the other side who is pro-gay marrage would say that I am intolerant towards homosexuals and a bigoted homophobe. And that I am "imposing my morals/beliefs onto others""

I get that all the time. Whenever I throw rocks at a women who has lain with a man outside wedlock and not cried out (if she was within the city), they say that I am "Imposing my morals onto others"

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I get that all the time. Whenever I throw rocks at a women who has lain with a man outside wedlock and not cried out (if she was within the city), they say that I am "Imposing my morals onto others"

I prefer stoning animals involved in bestiality, myself.

Really, though, disapproving of an action on moral grounds and imposing your belief on them are two different things. If they were the same, one could never consider anything a sin or one would somehow be forcing one's morals on those who practiced it.

 

[Pyrite]

"I prefer stoning animals involved in bestiality, myself."

Aren't all animals involved in beastiality? Sorry I'm vegan I can't say i'm down.

"Really, though, disapproving of an action on moral grounds and imposing your belief on them are two different things. If they were the same, one could never consider anything a sin or one would somehow be forcing one's morals on those who practiced it."

Snubbing one's nose and writing legislation are two different things I agree. Snub away heretic! I follow the lord's command to get people stoned!

 

[YNCS]

Eventhough the Catholic Church always keeps saying to ensure that homosexuals are treated with dignaty and respect and to avoid any unjust discrimination against them. However their sexual behavior cannot be approved and the reasoning behind the Catholic Church's opposition against stame gender marrages is that Marrage is a sacrate tradition as well as a sacrament and should be between a man and a woman. If same-gender marrages are approved it would mean that society as a whole is accepting an immoral sex act. I am just summarizing the best I can on the Church's opposition against same gender marriages.

I have a real problem with a bunch of professional virgins dictating anything about marriage and sexuality.

What's wrong with the Church teaching is that it starts with the view of the Roman stoics and pagan Gnostics that the body is evil, and pleasure is to be mistrusted. This view was promulgated by people like Augustine of Hippo, whose own experience of sex was through having illicit love affairs. Augustine thought that he knew what sex was about, but his views were undoubtedly colored by his own experience -- and he actually had not a clue as to the proper function of sex in a marriage. This view led him to say that sexual relations, except for the express purpose of procreation, were at least venially sinful. In his De Bono Conjugali he says

Marital intercourse for procreation is sinless; but if it is used for satisfying lust, even with one's spouse, it is venially sinful because of "the faithfulness of the bed"; but adultery or fornication is mortally sinful. Indeed, abstinence from all sexual intercourse is better than marital intercourse, even if it takes place for the sake of procreation.​

In other words, if you have intercouse with your spouse for any other reason than procreation, you sin. And it would be better if you were to abstain altogether.

Augustine was one of the most significant voices in formulating Catholic teachings on marriage. Unfortunately, he picked up his ideas on marriage (and particularly on sex in marriage) on a couple of long-term relationships he had. Having a mistress is not the same as being married.

Gregory the Great supported Augustine's stand, saying in a letter to Augustine of Canterbury that "even lawful intercourse cannot take place without desire of the flesh ... which can by no means be without sin."

The Council of Trent's Roman Catechism said that there are three lawful uses of intercourse in marriage: (1) to procreate, (2) to "render the debt", and (3) to avoid fornication. Note that nothing is said here of the mutual love of husband and wife. Also note that procreation is first in importance. BTW, "render the debt" comes from the Church's legal view of marriage, which is based in Roman contract law.

The first piece of Church teaching which said that mutual love was an acceptable reason for a married couple to have intercourse was Pope Pius XI's encyclical on marriage, Casti Connubii:

For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation 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.​

Earlier, Pius quotes from the 1918 Code of Canon Law "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children." Mutual love was very much secondary to this.

Please note that, without exception, these views were taught by unmarried, supposedly celebate men.

 

[GenMarshall]

Snubbing one's nose and writing legislation are two different things I agree. Snub away heretic! I follow the lord's command to get people stoned!

But Jesus told us not to cast a stone . John 8:2-11 is one example of if "one is without sin, cast the first stone" But no one can cast the first stone because they are not free from sin and thus cannot chuck the first stone .

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. (John 8:2-11)

 

[Pyrite]

"But Jesus told us not to cast a stone . John 8:2-11 is one example of if "one is without sin, cast the first stone" But no one can cast the first stone because they are not free from sin and thus cannot chuck the first stone ."

That referred to the people at that present assembly who were undoubtedly all sinners, thankfully I am a born again christian who never sins.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have a real problem with a bunch of professional virgins dictating anything about marriage and sexuality.

What's wrong with the Church teaching is that it starts with the view of the Roman stoics and pagan Gnostics that the body is evil, and pleasure is to be mistrusted. This view was promulgated by people like Augustine of Hippo, whose own experience of sex was through having illicit love affairs. Augustine thought that he knew what sex was about, but his views were undoubtedly colored by his own experience -- and he actually had not a clue as to the proper function of sex in a marriage. This view led him to say that sexual relations, except for the express purpose of procreation, were at least venially sinful. In his De Bono Conjugali he says

Marital intercourse for procreation is sinless; but if it is used for satisfying lust, even with one's spouse, it is venially sinful because of "the faithfulness of the bed"; but adultery or fornication is mortally sinful. Indeed, abstinence from all sexual intercourse is better than marital intercourse, even if it takes place for the sake of procreation.​

In other words, if you have intercouse with your spouse for any other reason than procreation, you sin. And it would be better if you were to abstain altogether.

Marital intercourse that leads to the possibility to the creation of life is sinless. People can have intercourse with one's spouse other than procreation if they follow the Natural family planning (NFP) method to avoid having children because 1. they are not ready for a child 2. To space out burths 3. Too old to have children, especaily empty nesters. However, the use of artifical contraception for intercourse is a sin because it leaves God's creative tallent out and becomes more mechanical and less person to person. However NFP invites God's creative tallen and the wife and husband can communicate between them on a more personal and emotional basis.

Catholic doctrine holds that God created sexual intercourse to be both unitive and procreative. Deliberately altering fertility or the marital act with the intention of preventing procreation is considered to be a grave sin. Thus, artificial birth control methods and orgasmic acts outside of full marital intercourse are forbidden, while not having sex at all (abstinence) is considered moral. Having sex at an infertile time in a woman's life (such as pregnancy or menopause) can also be moral since the infertile condition is considered to be created by God, rather than as an act by the couple intended to frustrate fertility.

Thus, it is considered morally acceptable to abstain during the fertile part of the woman's menstrual cycle. Increasing the infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices — the Lactational Amenorrhea Method — is also considered a moral way to space a family's children.

The benefits of spacing children are recognized by the Catholic Church, and use of Natural Family Planning for this reason is encouraged. Humanae Vitae cites "physical, economic, psychological and social conditions" as possibly compelling reasons to avoid pregnancy. Couples are warned, however, against using NFP for frivolous, selfish, or materialistic reasons. Many Catholic sources extol the benefits children bring to their parents, their siblings, and society in general, and couples are encouraged to have as many children as their circumstances make practical.

 

[sanabas]

That referred to the people at that present assembly who were undoubtedly all sinners, thankfully I am a born again christian who never sins.

Does your religion have a command saying "thou shalt not use

tags? If not, please use them when you're quoting.

And civgeneral, if you're telling homosexuals they're immoral, they're wrong, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, how is that different from those in the crowd throwing stones? It's not a physical attack sure, but isn't the chief message of that story you just related that how other people happen to sin is none of your business? That unless you're completely free from sin, you should be worrying about your sins before you start worrying about anybody else's sins that don't affect you?

 

[GenMarshall]

That referred to the people at that present assembly who were undoubtedly all sinners, thankfully I am a born again christian who never sins.

Christian who never sins? Believe it or not Christians do sin .

Jesus was sinless and could have cast the first stone but did'nt. Do I go around chucking stones at abortionists? To your mind, I should. But I dont because were not in the ancent stone chuckin' times. The passage still refers not casting stones at people and forgive their sins.

 

[Pyrite]

"Marital intercourse that leads to the possibility to the creation of life is sinless. People can have intercourse with one's spouse other than procreation if they follow the Natural family planning (NFP) method to avoid having children because 1. they are not ready for a child 2. To space out burths 3. Too old to have children, especaily empty nesters. However, the use of artifical contraception for intercourse is a sin because it leaves God's creative tallent out and becomes more mechanical and less person to person. However NFP invites God's creative tallen and the wife and husband can communicate between them on a more personal and emotional basis. "

NFP if done correctly is a pretty accurate method of birth control. Condoms, and the birth control pill are also. Each birth control method leaves a chance of a pregnancy happening. How are they different? Both try to prevent pregnancy, neither does it 100 %. The line the church has drawn is arbitrary. Using birth control, or NFP is the same exact thing without the rubber.

"Does your religion have a command saying "thou shalt not use

tags? If not, please use them when you're quoting."

And if it does?

"Christian who never sins? Believe it or not Christians do sin ." I believe it, but I don't.

"Jesus was sinless and could have cast the first stone but did'nt. Do I go around chucking stones at abortionists? To your mind, I should. But I dont because were not in the ancent stone chuckin' times. The passage still refers not casting stones at people and forgive their sins."
No, you don't do it because the church tells you not to.

 

[sanabas]

Deliberately altering fertility ... with the intention of preventing procreation is considered to be a grave sin.

Increasing the infertile period through particular breastfeeding practices ... is also considered a moral way to space a family's children.

Spot the contradiction here?

 

[GenMarshall]

And civgeneral, if you're telling homosexuals they're immoral, they're wrong, they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, how is that different from those in the crowd throwing stones? It's not a physical attack sure, but isn't the chief message of that story you just related that how other people happen to sin is none of your business? That unless you're completely free from sin, you should be worrying about your sins before you start worrying about anybody else's sins that don't affect you?

Its different because we should counsel the person (Hense why Jesus said "Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."). Christians should counsel the person and tell them that they have broken the commandments and have sinned.

For me, telling homosexuals that they are commiting a sinfull and immoral act is different than thoes in the crowd thowing the stones because I am councling the person the person that he or she should not sin no more and repent. There is a phrase, "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". Basicly I accept the homosexual as he or she is, but at the same time hate the sin of the homosexual sex acts.

 

[YNCS]

Marital intercourse that leads to the possibility to the creation of life is sinless. People can have intercourse with one's spouse other than procreation if they follow the Natural family planning (NFP) method to avoid having children because 1. they are not ready for a child 2. To space out burths 3. Too old to have children, especaily empty nesters. However, the use of artifical contraception for intercourse is a sin because it leaves God's creative tallent out and becomes more mechanical and less person to person. However NFP invites God's creative tallen and the wife and husband can communicate between them on a more personal and emotional basis.

Thank you for proving my point. The Church fathers don't have a clue about sex and marriage. As a group of professional virgins, their ignorance of the place of sex in marriage allows them to make completely idiotic rulings on marriage.

The main problem is that the Church's policies on sex have been formulated in their entirely by celibates. No input has come from married couples. (The one time this was tried, the input from the married couples was rejected in toto.)

Moreover, these unmarried men are not actually concerned with marriage, they're concerned with authority, specifically, papal authority. (The Vatican bureaucracy has said that they share in this authority. Indeed, they considerably overstate things, and would have us believe that they can issue statements that are de facto, if not de jure infallible. They are wrong to do so.)

They feel that they cannot change any teaching because they are afraid that this will weaken their authority. The line from Blazing Saddles, "We've got to keep our phoney-baloney jobs, gentlemen" comes to mind.

Consider, for example, Pope Paul VI and his encyclical on birth control, Humanae Vitae. He had set up a commission to look into the teaching on contraception. This commission was stacked with people who were unlikely to suggest changing the teaching. However, after hearing input from the people it would affect, married laity, the commission voted overwhelmingly to accept contraception as morally permissible.

This was completely unacceptable to Cardinal Ottaviani, the archconservative head of the Holy Office (formerly called the Inquisition, now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith). He appealed to Pope Paul that any change would be seen as diminishing papal authority. This was a telling argument as far as Paul was concerned. As F X Murphy ["Xavier Rynne"] wrote in his book Vatican Council II (p 429):

The Pope was a man obviously torn by doubts, tormented by scruples, haunted by thoughts of perfection, and above all dominated by an exaggerated concern -- some called it an obsession -- about the prestige of his office as Pope. His remarks on this score at times displayed an almost messianic fervor, a note missing in the more sedate utterances of his predecessors. His innumerable statements on the subject were made on almost every occasion, from casual week-day audiences or Sunday sermons from the window of his apartment to the most solemn gatherings in season and out of season. Since it was part of the strategy of the [conciliar] minority to accuse the majority of disloyalty toward the Holy Father, Paul's constant harping inevitably caused the majority to think that he perhaps did share these misgivings, at least to a certain extent. It was noticed by students of Paul's remarks that while he showed an open-mindedness about almost any other subject, on the single theme of the papacy his mind remained strangely closed to argument.​

The crux of the matter was not the married laity, but papal authority. The arguments against contraception are actually remarkably weak.

 

[ironduck]

However NFP invites God's creative tallen and the wife and husband can communicate between them on a more personal and emotional basis.

And of course the catholic church knows what is best for everyone, right?

If the choice is between not making love to your spouse or making love with contraception I think you will have a hard time finding someone who thinks they are not closer to their spouse on a personal as well as emotional basis with the latter choice.

Further, if two people make love and do not wish a child they will feel considerable more at ease and therefore more emotionally intimate if they can use contraception instead of having to worry about something as archaic as the NFP.

Btw, good post YNCS

 

[ironduck]

Basicly I accept the homosexual as he or she is, but at the same time hate the sin of the homosexual sex acts.

If you hate the fact that someone makes love to their spouse you don't exactly have high thoughts of that person because that is such a fundamental part of a human being. I don't see how you can separate the two.

 

[sanabas]

Its different because we should counsel the person (Hense why Jesus said "Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."). Christians should counsel the person and tell them that they have broken the commandments and have sinned.

For me, telling homosexuals that they are commiting a sinfull and immoral act is different than thoes in the crowd thowing the stones because I am councling the person the person that he or she should not sin no more and repent. There is a phrase, "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". Basicly I accept the homosexual as he or she is, but at the same time hate the sin of the homosexual sex acts.

Jesus is counselling the person, but Jesus is without sin, yeah? You're not without sin, so why do you get to do it? Whether someone throws a stone at me or just tells me I'm sinning, I'm wrong and I should repent, that's still an attack on me. And as I said, isn't the point of that story to encourage people to worry about their own sins first before worrying about what other people do?

 

[GenMarshall]

Thank you for proving my point. The Church fathers don't have a clue about sex and marriage. As a group of professional virgins, their ignorance of the place of sex in marriage allows them to make completely idiotic rulings on marriage.

Actualy, the Church fathers through the guide of the Holy Spirit made a wise ruiling in regards to marriage. The Fathers of the Church recognized that in natural law, the purpouse of sexual intercourse is procreation; contraceptive sex, which in no doubts deliberately and oviously blocks that natural purpouse, it is therefore in violation of natural law.

And of course the catholic church knows what is best for everyone, right?

That is correct, The Catholic Church knows what is best for everyone.
"Truth is absolute. There is not my truth and your truth. There is just truth.
Morality is absolute. There is not my morality and your morality. There is morality and immorality.
If something is true, it is true whether I want it to be or not.
If something is wrong, it is wrong whether I want it to be or not." - Annonomous Catholic

If the choice is between not making love to your spouse or making love with contraception I think you will have a hard time finding someone who thinks they are not closer to their spouse on a personal as well as emotional basis with the latter choice.

Personaly, I view the use of condoms as a sin. I fail to see how I would have a hard time finding someone who thinks that the use of condoms or birthcontrol is a sin.

Further, if two people make love and do not wish a child they will feel considerable more at ease and therefore more emotionally intimate if they can use contraception instead of having to worry about something as archaic as the NFP.

They sould realy eather use NFP or abstain from sex (Abstanance is the only 100% effective measure of birth control)

 

[YNCS]

Actualy, the Church fathers through the guide of the Holy Spirit made a wise ruiling in regards to marriage. The Fathers of the Church recognized that in natural law, the purpouse of sexual intercourse is procreation; contraceptive sex, which in no doubts deliberately and oviously blocks that natural purpouse, it is therefore in violation of natural law.

You don't want me to get started on "natural law." If you want me to get started on the subject, be prepared for a long discussion about Thomas Aquinas.

 

[ironduck]

That is correct, The Catholic Church knows what is best for everyone.
"Truth is absolute. There is not my truth and your truth. There is just truth.
Morality is absolute. There is not my morality and your morality. There is morality and immorality.
If something is true, it is true whether I want it to be or not.
If something is wrong, it is wrong whether I want it to be or not." - Annonomous Catholic

Morality has nothing to do with needs! My needs and your needs are very different. You don't know what I need and I don't know what you need. I will let you do what you need to do for you and I expect you to allow me what I need to do for me. It is the height of arrogance to think that you or your church know what my needs are and thus what is best for me! Good riddance!

Personaly, I view the use of condoms as a sin. I fail to see how I would have a hard time finding someone who thinks that the use of condoms or birthcontrol is a sin.

The point is that you specifically said that people are not close if they use contraceptive. I speak from experience - yes, they are very much close. Much closer than without sex due to denial of contraceptive.

To think that closeness to another human being is sinful is just sad, but that is your problem.

They sould realy eather use NFP or abstain from sex (Abstanance is the only 100% effective measure of birth control)

Why? If people want to make love who are you to tell them it is wrong? They are not hurting you and it makes them happier. Who are you to deny people their happiness?