Crickets.

 

I think that just as He did with the adultress who was to be stoned, Jesus would rebuke those doing the stoning and would then tell the person to go and sin no more.

^ Perhaps you're correct. I was just wondering what he actually said per the Bible. He wasn't shy about other topics.

I've never been a big advocate of "Well the Bible says so, so it's true."

 

The Bible is not meant for our interpretation. I, for example, leave interpretation to a group much smarter than me. Catholic priests and scholars have dedicated their entire life to theology. So just as I would trust a rocket scientist's opinion on interpreting an astronomical publication about the Moon, I will trust a priest/representative from the Vatican's opinion on interpreting the Bible.

There are a few responses that come to mind: one would open up a debate about the objective purpose(s) of sexual intercourse; the other would open up a debate about free will, the devil, and temptation. While over the next few weeks I simply do not have enough time to debate with B-Ball-Fan and Science Friction about the topics, I can leave the Church's stance for anyone who is interested.

 

Sparknotes versions of the Catholic Church's stance on the purpose of sex:

 

1) Sexual intercourse is an act intended for a married man and woman.

2) All instances of intercourse are to be open to pro-creating - since marriage is a contract in which a man and woman become "one flesh."

3) It is absolutely okay and permitted to simply get pleasure out of sexual intercourse - as long as the act itself is open to life and fertility is not suppressed.

Meaning (according to the Church), it would be immoral for a gay couple to have sexual intercourse even when they are 'married' (married in the eyes of the state), because no matter how hard they try they do not have the ability to create a new life.

 

Sparknotes version of the Catholic Church's view on free will, the devil, and temptations:

(Note: A lot of CS Lewis quotes/analogies here)

1) Every act we commit either brings us closer to God, or pushes us away from Him.

2) God gave us free will - the choice to either love Him or to not love Him (since if we had no choice, we would live in a world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- a world that would hardly be worth creating).

3) God giving us free will is what has allowed for evil to exist, because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

4) Temptations and immoral inclinations (eg: A straight male's inclination to have sex before marriage) are ways in which the devil is attempting to bring us closer to him and further away from God.

5) God allows these temptations from the devil to occur in order for us to have an opportunity to practice free will and show whether we do love and become closer to God, or if we reject God and push ourselves further away by sinning and giving into the temptations.

 

 

I hope what I have explained is comprehendable, gives you at least a little bit clearer view of why the Church teaches what it does, and I hope it is relevant information in the context of B-Ball-Fan's response to post #15.

 

 

Despite our disagreements, I want to make it clear than I am not saying that you (B-Ball-Fan) are wrong for your thoughts. I have not ever been in your shoes, so it would be unfair for me to judge your response to the Church. Just know that if you ever do have a change of heart with the Catholic Church, God has open arms and will always be there to accept you no matter what, and that the Catholic Church teaches that both of you can still get to heaven.

 

A question on the bold part - let's say a woman has a hysterectomy, due to cancer. Can she and her husband no longer engage in sex, as there is no longer a chance to be "open to pro-creating" just as there wouldn't be for a homosexual couple?

A question on the bold part - let's say a woman has a hysterectomy, due to cancer. Can she and her husband no longer engage in sex, as there is no longer a chance to be "open to pro-creating" just as there wouldn't be for a homosexual couple?

 

Great question. Here's what I've obtained looking at various Catholic resources online:

 

- A married couple can engage in marital intimacy during the naturally infertile times in a woman’s cycle, or after child-bearing years, without violating the meaning of marital intercourse in any way. This is the principle behind natural family planning (NFP). Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it.

 

-Sexual intercourse between a male and female, even if the female is infertile (for natural or health reasons) is not immoral. The reason is that the sexual act itself does not constitute an interference in the normal procreation process, like what occurs in the case of contraception where the procreative process is deliberately interrupted by artificial devices like pills and condoms, but rather, the act itself, though done in the menopausal stage, is still ordered toward the procreative process, only that no conception will occur simply because the woman can no longer bear children by natural causes.

 

-The last point I'll include is an exccerpt from St John Paul II's address on Humanae Vitae on 11 July 1984.

 

 

 

Morality of Marriage Act Determined by Nature of the Act and of the Subjects

Pope John Paul II

GENERAL AUDIENCE OF 11 JULY [1984]

 

On Wednesday morning, 11 July, Pope John Paul II dedicated his audience address in St Peter's Square to reflections on Paul VI's "Humanae Vitae" as an application of the catechesis he had been presenting on the theology of human love in God's plan. Following is our translation of the Holy Father's address.

 

1. The reflections we have thus far made on human love in the divine plan would be in some way incomplete if we did not try to see their concrete application in the sphere of marital and family morality. We want to take this further step that will bring us to the conclusion of our now long journey, under the guidance of an important recent pronouncement of the Magisterium, Humanae Vitae, which Pope Paul VI published in July 1968. We will reread this significant document in the light of the conclusions we have reached in examining the initial divine plan and the words of Christ which refer to it.

 

2. "The Church teaches as absolutely required that in any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life" (Humanae Vitae 11). "This particular doctrine, often expounded by the Magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act" (Humane Vitae 12).

 

3. The considerations I am about to make concern especially the passage of Humanae Vitae that deals with the "two significances of the marriage act" and their "inseparable connection." I do not intend to present a commentary on the whole encyclical, but rather to illustrate and examine one of its passages. From the point of view of the doctrine contained in the quoted document, that passage has a central significance. At the same time, that passage is closely connected with our previous reflections on marriage in its dimension as a (sacramental) sign.

 

As I said, since this is a central passage of the encyclical, it is obvious that it constitutes a very important part of its whole structure. Therefore, its analysis must direct us toward the various components of that structure, even if it is not our intention to comment on the entire text.

 

A promised fidelity

 

4. In the reflections on the sacramental sign, it has already been said several times that it is based on the language of the body reread in truth. It concerns a truth once affirmed at the beginning of the marriage when the newlyweds, promising each other "to be always faithful...and to love and honor each other all the days of their life," become ministers of marriage as a sacrament of the Church.

 

It concerns, then, a truth that is always newly affirmed. In fact, the man and the woman, living in the marriage "until death," re-propose uninterruptedly, in a certain sense, that sign that they made—through the liturgy of the sacrament—on their wedding day.

 

The aforementioned words of Pope Paul VI's encyclical concern that moment in the common life of the spouses when both, joining each other in the marriage act, become, according to the biblical expression, "one flesh" (Gn 2:24). Precisely at such a moment so rich in significance, it is also especially important that the language of the body be reread in truth. This reading becomes the indispensable condition for acting in truth, that is, for behaving in accordance with the value and the moral norm.

 

Adequate foundation

 

5. The encyclical not only recalls this norm, but also seeks to give it adequate foundation. In order to clarify more completely that "inseparable connection, established by God...between the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marriage act," Paul VI writes in the next sentence: "The reason is that the marriage act, because of its fundamental structure, while it unites husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also brings into operation laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman for the generation of new life" (Humanae Vitae 12).

 

We note that in the previous sentence, the text just quoted deals above all with the significance of marital relations. In the following sentence, it deals with the fundamental structure (that is, the nature) of marital relations. Defining that fundamental structure, the text refers to "laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman."

 

The passage from the sentence expressing the moral norm, to the sentence which explains and justifies it, is especially significant. The encyclical leads one to seek the foundation for the norm which determines the morality of the acts of the man and the woman in the marriage act, in the nature of this very act, and more deeply still, in the nature of the subjects themselves who are performing the act.

 

Two significances

 

6. In this way, the fundamental structure (that is, the nature) of the marriage act constitutes the necessary basis for an adequate reading and discovery of the two significances that must be carried over into the conscience and the decisions of the acting parties. It also constitutes the necessary basis for establishing the adequate relationship of these significances, that is, their inseparable connection. Since "the marriage act..."—at the same time—"unites husband and wife in the closest intimacy" and together "makes them capable of generating new life," and both the one and the other happen "through the fundamental structure," then it follows that the human person (with the necessity proper to reason, logical necessity) must read at the same time the "twofold significance of the marriage act" and also the "inseparable connection between the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marriage act."

 

Here we are dealing with nothing other than reading the language of the body in truth, as has been said many times in our previous biblical analyses. The moral norm, constantly taught by the Church in this sphere, and recalled and reconfirmed by Paul VI in his encyclical, arises from the reading of the language of the body in truth.

 

It is a question here of the truth first in the ontological dimension ("fundamental structure") and then—as a result—in the subjective and psychological dimension ("significance"). The text of the encyclical stresses that in the case in question we are dealing with a norm of the natural law.

 

So basically to sum the above passage up, every sexual act of marriage has 1)procreative significance and 2) unitive significance. These two significances of the marriage act have an inseparable connection, a connection only found between males and females. Hope this sorda/kinda answers your question.

Great question. Here's what I've obtained looking at various Catholic resources online:

 

- A married couple can engage in marital intimacy during the naturally infertile times in a woman’s cycle, or after child-bearing years, without violating the meaning of marital intercourse in any way. This is the principle behind natural family planning (NFP). Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it.

 

-Sexual intercourse between a male and female, even if the female is infertile (for natural or health reasons) is not immoral. The reason is that the sexual act itself does not constitute an interference in the normal procreation process, like what occurs in the case of contraception where the procreative process is deliberately interrupted by artificial devices like pills and condoms, but rather, the act itself, though done in the menopausal stage, is still ordered toward the procreative process, only that no conception will occur simply because the woman can no longer bear children by natural causes.

 

-The last point I'll include is an exccerpt from St John Paul II's address on Humanae Vitae on 11 July 1984.

 

 

 

So basically to sum the above passage up, every sexual act of marriage has 1)procreative significance and 2) unitive significance. These two significances of the marriage act have an inseparable connection, a connection only found between males and females. Hope this sorda/kinda answers your question.

 

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anything about male infertility. Does that make a difference?

 

On a related issue, help me with this...somewhat of a connection. I believe that masturbation is a sin according to Catholic doctrine. Is that also due to interfering with nature? I will have a follow up question, if this is correct, but I wanted to be sure first.

Unless I missed it, I didn't see anything about male infertility. Does that make a difference?

 

On a related issue, help me with this...somewhat of a connection. I believe that masturbation is a sin according to Catholic doctrine. Is that also due to interfering with nature? I will have a follow up question, if this is correct, but I wanted to be sure first.

 

To answer your first question, it does not make a difference. As long as the couple remains open to the life during the act, then the act and marriage are still valid. Even if situations arise such as menopause or male infertility for health reasons, the couple should remain open to life in the act, even if they already know or suspect that they will/cannot have any children. Catechism 1654 says " Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."

 

Regarding your question about masturbation. I believe you are correct. From the Catechism again:

 

" By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

 

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability "

To answer your first question, it does not make a difference. As long as the couple remains open to the life during the act, then the act and marriage are still valid. Even if situations arise such as menopause or male infertility for health reasons, the couple should remain open to life in the act, even if they already know or suspect that they will/cannot have any children. Catechism 1654 says " Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice."

 

Regarding your question about masturbation. I believe you are correct. From the Catechism again:

 

" By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

 

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability "

 

Thank you.

 

What does "open to life" mean, in this sense? A woman that doesn't have a uterus cannot give birth to a child.

 

I can't quite wrap my head around the "sex is for procreation" if those that cannot procreate can still have sex. If they can, I can't see that as being a reason against homosexuality or masturbation, for that matter.

Thank you.

 

What does "open to life" mean, in this sense? A woman that doesn't have a uterus cannot give birth to a child.

 

I can't quite wrap my head around the "sex is for procreation" if those that cannot procreate can still have sex. If they can, I can't see that as being a reason against homosexuality or masturbation, for that matter.

 

I will give you my thoughts, but please remember I am no theologian by any means.

 

Open to life IMO means having intercourse without the use of contraception, that is, anything that suppresses either party's fertility, and not doing what Onan did in the Old Testament. Not sure if you are familiar with the story, but in short:

 

Onan's brother Er was slain, and by Levirate marriage customs it was Onan's job to give his own offspring to Tamar, Er's wife (Onan's sister in law). Onan had sex with Tamar and (my apologies for the graphicness) withdrew before he climaxed - he tried to put the procreation aspect of sex in his control instead of God's - kind of like modern contraceptive, asserting control over one's ability to create a new life, which is wrong because the Church teaches that ultimately God has control over new life's creation.

 

To be honest, I really do not have an answer to the question about "open to life" in the context of a woman with no uterus. I'd like to say that conception of a new life in a woman's womb is ultimately God's will and God's doing. An example that comes to mind is the story about Abraham and Sarah, who were able to conceive "past the childbearing years" according to Genesis. (Although scripture interpretation is for another thread - http://bluegrasspreps.com/religion-ethics-philosophy/what-your-view-317860.html )

I will give you my thoughts, but please remember I am no theologian by any means.

 

Open to life IMO means having intercourse without the use of contraception, that is, anything that suppresses either party's fertility, and not doing what Onan did in the Old Testament. Not sure if you are familiar with the story, but in short:

 

Onan's brother Er was slain, and by Levirate marriage customs it was Onan's job to give his own offspring to Tamar, Er's wife (Onan's sister in law). Onan had sex with Tamar and (my apologies for the graphicness) withdrew before he climaxed - he tried to put the procreation aspect of sex in his control instead of God's - kind of like modern contraceptive, asserting control over one's ability to create a new life, which is wrong because the Church teaches that ultimately God has control over new life's creation.

 

To be honest, I really do not have an answer to the question about "open to life" in the context of a woman with no uterus. I'd like to say that conception of a new life in a woman's womb is ultimately God's will and God's doing. An example that comes to mind is the story about Abraham and Sarah, who were able to conceive "past the childbearing years" according to Genesis. (Although scripture interpretation is for another thread - http://bluegrasspreps.com/religion-ethics-philosophy/what-your-view-317860.html )

 

Again, my thanks for your replies. I suppose I'll be left with those questions and a new one that just occurred to me. Do these teachings only apply to human procreation, in the sense that it would be wrong to neuter or spay a dog?

Again, my thanks for your replies. I suppose I'll be left with those questions and a new one that just occurred to me. Do these teachings only apply to human procreation, in the sense that it would be wrong to neuter or spay a dog?

 

They do only apply to human procreation, since humans are the species that A) Jesus became a part of and B) we were the ones created in God's image and likeness.

 

I may post an answer to your questions in a few weeks once finals are over and I have a little more free time to research and consult resources who would know the answers. I appreciate your patience and understanding with my answers. it is extremely refreshing to have a civil debate/discussion on topics that are generally taboo to speak about or mocked on these forums.

They do only apply to human procreation, since humans are the species that A) Jesus became a part of and B) we were the ones created in God's image and likeness.

 

I may post an answer to your questions in a few weeks once finals are over and I have a little more free time to research and consult resources who would know the answers. I appreciate your patience and understanding with my answers. it is extremely refreshing to have a civil debate/discussion on topics that are generally taboo to speak about or mocked on these forums.

 

I, too, really enjoy the civility. It's so rare now a days. Good luck on your finals! I look forward to discussion with you afterwards.

A question for those who know more about the Bible than me (and that's probably a majority of you).

 

What did Jesus have to say on the subject? I have heard different interpretations.

 

Crickets.

 

Well I believe what Peter says in 2 Peter 1:21 "For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

 

I also believe what 2 Timothy says "All Scripture is God-Breathed"

 

Since I also believe in the Trinity, I believe that wherever Homosexuality is addressed in the Bible, be it OT, NT, Corinthians, Romans, or etc. that is just like Jesus is saying it. I believe that all scripture comes from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit.

For me the subject of homosexuality can be very conflicting. While I believe that the basic purpose of males and females is for procreation, there are situations that are not black and white to me. Biologically speaking if a male is at one end of the spectrum and a female at the other, I'm guessing that a hermaphrodite would fall somewhere near the middle. If a person can be born with both male and female genitalia, why is it not rational biologically speaking, that a person can fall anywhere along the spectrum? I do seem to struggle with a person being bisexual.

 

As far as relating to Christianity, I am a member of a Baptist church who has a pastor and a large congregation. I also struggle at times with being to logical and wanting answers to all my questions. I don't think that anyone ever has all the answers, not the pastors, not us in the congregations. I seem to draw my strength from the positive lessons that Jesus taught. I will never be perfect, but these beliefs seem to help me be the best version of myself that I can be.

 

I do believe that as followers of Christ when a person asks a question regarding our beliefs that it is important to be honest and open with our answers, while directing them to seek their own answers in the bible. I truly believe that the lessons that Jesus has to offer can be hampered by us know it all Christians.