toldailytopic: Pedophile priests. Why does the the Catholic Church have such a wide-s
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Actually, they claim the proper purpose of sex is procreation and to foster a sense of closeness and intimacy within the marriage.
I think that's right. But if you differ, it's your right, so long as only consenting adults are involved.
Cruciform
New member
In one way or another, all presumed Christian denominations and sects have certain moral principles that they mandate (require or forbid). Most forbid things like adultery, child molestation, rape, etc. The Catholic Church, over its two millennia of existence, has developed a well-established system of moral teachings, which includes an absolute prohibition of artificial contraception.
It opposes God's command to procreate in the sense that it throws up a barrier to life in the midst of the marital act (sex). Essentially, the Church's moral theology recognizes two related purposes for the sexual act:
[1] Procreative (the creation of children)
[2] Unitive (marital intimacy)
In other words, the purpose of sex is two-fold. It is for babies and bonding. If one or both of these goals is willingly excluded from the marital act, then sex becomes naturally distorted and morally disordered. Contraception, by definition, excludes the procreative purpose of the sexual act, and is therfore seen to be morally disruptive and illicit.[2] Unitive (marital intimacy)
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Procreation is not the only purpose of the sexual act, according to the Church. (See Post #84 above.)
For one thing, it assumes that you are the highest moral authority in existence. Of course, if that is not in fact the case (as it certainly isn't, since there exists a universal natural law which informs all human laws), then your assumption merely goes begging.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well from a moral standpoint I'd expect all church denominations to condemn what you describe. It's clear cut whereas this, not so much.
Even if the couple fully intend to raise a family but rather control the number of offspring? Effectively they have no other option than to possibly have dozens of children or completely abstain from sex altogether. Or would the latter actually be regarded as morally disrupt as well? Would they be simply expected to trust that they'd have enough to provide for a large family?
Cruciform
New member
Hopefully, my subsequent explanation made things a bit clearer.
Not at all. It is artificial contraception that is forbidden, not the spacing of offspring itself. It's the method, not the responsible spacing of children. For example, the Church fully supports the method known as Natural Family Planning, since it does not involve creating a barrier to life during the sexual act itself:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
I am pretty sure it was the catholic leader Augustine to declare sex immoral unless it was for proceation. Which is in contention with God's Bible. I guess he never read why Paul was abstaining. And ignored the part about the Bishop having a wife.
Problem is, Natural Family Planning doesn't really work very well (there's a reason that only Catholics use it). And the Church can't really explain very well why a condom is bad. Sure, they can say what you posted above about it being morally illicit because it supposedly removes one of the purposes of sex (a vague justification in the first place, lacking any specific negative consequence), but who are they to dictate the purpose of sex? It seems that they've appointed themselves to an office that no one offered them, that of micromanagers of bedroom antics.
Cruciform
New member
Already answered in Post #84 above.
Yes, bishops were permitted to be married only once. In other words, no polygamy, and no divorce and remarriage.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Where did you get that idea? (Do you have a source you can cite?) On the contrary:
Simply incorrect:
In fact, it's been explained in detail in the Church's moral teaching for quite some time. I recommend a careful reading of two ecclesial documents:
If she is what she has always claimed to be, the Catholic Church is God's authoritative agent for doctrine and morals in the world. God guides and teaches the faithful in and through his Church. Thus, the Catholic Church---as a valid moral authority---is uniquely equipped to teach the proper principles of sexual ethics and to apply them to any and all situations within human culture.
No, rather God himself has appointed his Church to authoritatively teach doctrine and morals in a manner which is binding upon all human beings in all cultural circumstances.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Can you find a credible non-Catholic source that agrees?
Ok, I exaggerate slightly. But only very slightly. It is virtually impossible to find non-Catholics who believe in NFP, because lacking a doctrinal reason to use NFP, most couples will choose birth control that works reliably. In fact, despite their claim that NFP isn't just for Catholics, if you click on the about link, you'll find that the people who run that web site are themselves Catholic.
Sorry, I really can't stomach Catholic Church writing in any significant quantity, as it tends to veil its rather authoritarian agenda in the most patronizing tone imaginable. I've seen enough Catholics try to justify the prohibition to know that it rests on a theory about the purpose of sex, without specifying a harm which is any more than theoretical.
If "she" (how does an organization run by a bunch of celibate old men get away with using that pronoun) were what "she" says "she" is, why would there be such a problem with Church officials actively working to conceal the abuse of children by their own clergy? No, the claims of any sort of moral authority cannot be taken seriously.
No, it does not: you are making an assumption about me because your nose is out of joint. That's all. I'm the highest moral authority when it comes to me, and my wife and I share ultimate moral authority over our marriage and our bed. You seem positively mortified by the idea that "Nobody gets to tell Granite what he should or shouldn't be doing in the bedroom," but guess what--that's exactly the way things are right now. I wouldn't presume to tell you what or who to do or how to do it, either. All I ask is for people to return the favor. Not too hard to do, or to figure out.
Cruciform
New member
Sure:
In any case, why insist on a non-Catholic source, as though that source itself would somehow be un-biased?
Thanks for being honest here about your own bias. Now you can go ahead and dispense with the obvious mere pretense of being genuinely interested in actually understanding the Catholic moral position, and can now be totally up-front with your gut-level, knee-jerk negative reaction to what you at least believe to be "the Cathlic faith."
Thanks for asking. It comes from the New Testament's metaphorical description of the Church as Christ's "bride."
The fact that certain members of the Church commit personal sins in no way disqualifies the historic Church herself from being what she has always been.
Nonsense. Answered just above.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Like I said... :doh:
Of course, unlike the historic Catholic Church, you are not a valid and binding moral authority.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Then you're deliberately missing the point.
Is that supposed to impress me, or something? You made some idiotic comments about me based on your assumptions that turned out to be incorrect. Now you're presenting a church that aids and abets child rape as something admirable.
Cruciform
New member
...or not.
Another non sequitur on your part, since the fact that certain members of the Church have committed personal sins in no way equates to "the Church" itself doing those things. Nice try, though. :doh:
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
So you dismiss the idea that an institutional and international coverup has occurred where abuse has come to the attention of the church? These are not isolated incidents we're talking about: there is a repeated, consistent, systematic conspiracy to suppress the reality of the abuse.
Sorry to interrupt.
When Cruciform is finished defending homosexual child rapists, could he please also address this institutional, international cover-up?
Thanks, carry on. :mario:
Last edited:
- Status