/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>4226

>Why is it that some non-Catholic anons view the Catholic position on proper sex as being excessive or prudish?

Because it is not hedonistic.

>What is the rationale against it?

We just want sexuality to be like it is intended.

One man and one woman loving each other and marrying. Then they can express their love through procreating and bearing children.

Everything else like anti-contraception is essentially anti lust a sin enslaving humans and distancing them from God or obviously correct like anti-abortion.

>Additionally, what is the Official Catholic position on proper sexual relations?

I'll take a look on the Catechism.

>Do the Orthodox share this definition or do they believe something different?

I believe it's about the same, but afaik they have a strange attitude to the human body, no idea if it reflects here.

>>4231

> Chastity, the marriage for procreation.

Meant to say Chastity, *then* marriage for procreation.

>>4231

>LDS church has the same attitude. Chastity, the marriage for procreation.

Unfortunately most of our Church members do not take it seriously anymore. It is still the official position however and not following it has still the same consequences.

>Thank you. Do you think that the criticism, from the Protestant perspective, is an issue of Sola Scriptura?

Most likely, the bible was written 2000 years ago and does not really concern itself with condoms or abortion after all ;^)

So if you go sola scriptura you'd have to say that there is nothing against it really and have to say everyone can do what they want.

And if people have free choice they choose the most tempting and easy way, which is promiscuity and immorality here.

>I'd be very interested in this. Their priests marry and have children though, correct?

Yes, but I believe bishops are not married there too. But I don't really know that much about them, hopefully our new friend can answer this.

>>4235

>Unfortunately most of our Church members do not take it seriously anymore.

What could be done to remedy this.

>So if you go sola scriptura you'd have to say that there is nothing against it really and have to say everyone can do what they want.

Sola Scriptura is so freaking retarded. Just to be on the safe side (which one would if one's actually interested in their spiritual well being) I'd avoid things that aren't mentioned in the Bible. How people can say "oh, nothing about it here, I'll do it and it will be fine" with such ironclad confidence and lack of concern is very telling.

>And if people have free choice they choose the most tempting and easy way, which is promiscuity and immorality here.

Yes, unfortunately.

> But I don't really know that much about them, hopefully our new friend can answer this.

I would like this as well.

>>4230

>I'll take a look on the Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Wow. The catechism is really great. You should read the whole thing if you wanna, I'll quote some interesting passages though.

On marriage

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.144

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

On contraception

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."161

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.

Children

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.163

On sterility and research on it

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

On homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

>>4237

>What could be done to remedy this.

People need to take their faith seriously again. The second Vaticanum and modernism has harmed the Church a lot. If people woud honestly believe in hell and fear God it would help much.

>Sola Scriptura is so freaking retarded. Just to be on the safe side (which one would if one's actually interested in their spiritual well being) I'd avoid things that aren't mentioned in the Bible. How people can say "oh, nothing about it here, I'll do it and it will be fine" with such ironclad confidence and lack of concern is very telling.

I will never ever be able to take protties seriously.

>>4241

> The second Vaticanum and modernism has harmed the Church a lot.

I'll abstain from commenting on this thread's issue, for now at least, but I wanted to comment on this part.

My Catholic friend, the theologian and all, told me that people like JP2 and the rest were too conservative (whereas I always heard the opposite around here on 8chan) and that this had had two results:

1. instant popularity in many places, with more radical people

2. loss of popularity in the long run

In other words, the more radical side of the Catholic Church had a boost of popularity with being stricter, but in the long run they lost everyone else.

As to my opinion about sex and Catholicism, not touching it for now, it's one of the few things I can't agree with in Catholicism, for a variety of reasons.

>>4243

>My Catholic friend, the theologian and all, told me that people like JP2 and the rest were too conservative (whereas I always heard the opposite around here on 8chan) and that this had had two results:

>

>1. instant popularity in many places, with more radical people

>

>2. loss of popularity in the long run

How where they conservative? Paul VI, was he conservative too?

Ok, Benedict, he was conservative and brought us back on track again but the other post concilium popes?

Also I do not consider this loss of popularity of conservatives really a thing. The only ones for that this is true is liberals that hate the Church anyway or harm her.

We should have a thread on Vat II, but I'd first research some input before I'd open it.

>>4244

I'm not sure. I suspect you'd think my Catholic guy is a harmful person for the Church, and he probably thinks you're an extremist. I don't know.

Are you familiar with "Lefebvrism" or something like that? I'm spelling it by ear, but he mentioned it at some point. Maybe it's some sort of radicalisation of the Catholics?

>>4276

>"Lefebvrism"

Oh heck, that's the "no salvation outside of the church" guy. He's pretty all right but he had some pretty serious brushes with the Catholic Church, got excommunicated. SSPX is in communion again nowadays though iirc.

adventists have the same view. i thought that momons did too, know that i thin of it i think most do, at least theologically.

>>4276

> I suspect you'd think my Catholic guy is a harmful person for the Church

I don't know him, but from what you tell, sure.

> and he probably thinks you're an extremist.

Kek. How this sounds.

The people that got crucified by the Romans because they refused to worship Caesar were extremists. Or those that got caught by the Saracens and refused to deny the divinity of Christ and were murdered. Or the ones that denied to bent to the state in the French revolution and were executed for "fanaticism", all of them have been "extremists"

I do not really understand how this would belittle me if it were true, that is.

>Are you familiar with "Lefebvrism" or something like that?

SSPX? Is a valid part of the Church and a force of Good.

>Maybe it's some sort of radicalisation of the Catholics?

No, there were the ones who refused to bent to the pope because what he has done was bad. SSPX are just standard Catholics like the have been pre Vaticanum II.

>>4281

Nulla salus extra ecclesiam is dogma.