Marriage Debate

Meadmaker said:
I'll look up a more definitive answer, but here's an off the cuff response. Catholic doctrine holds that the purpose of human sexuality is primarily the production of offspring. This purpose should only be pursued within the context of marriage. God established marriage as between a man and a woman. Support for this view is found in scripture, such as in Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned, and possibly in the writings of Saint Paul. (Among those condemned are something that my Bible translates as "effeminates".)...
Click to expand...

Super close. The only digression is that sex between a husband and wife is not just for the production of offspring (and I believe you understand that, because you included the word "primarily"). Sex should always be open to the possibility of procreation, and that's why most means of birth control are prohibited.

Sex between a husband and wife is also always an expression of complete love thorough a physical, human act:

Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

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

"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." 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.

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.
Click to expand...
Source
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, the common misconception that the Bible, it's interpretation, Catholic Doctrine, Christian morality and other religious tenets are from a perfect God so must be infallible and as such couldn't evolve and change.

Do you support slavery, Mead? God apparently did. Lot had an incestual relation with his daughters and the story goes it was their fault.

Assuming this guy's citations are correct:
Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which informs catechumins that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

"1258. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)
Click to expand...
Of course I can't resist pointing out the web site producer claims to know the truth as well.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24) Ye Must Be Born Again
Click to expand...

Change artists - conference focuses on how doctrine has changed over time; National Catholic Reporter, July 2, 1999 by Pamela Schaeffer
church historian and federal judge John T. Noonan Jr. traced shifts in teaching from outright condemnation of lending money at interest to acceptance of the practice; from support of slavery and the death penalty in the recent past to even more recent condemnations of both...

...For example, church teaching condemning usury -- lending for interest -- was officially declared sinful in the 12th century and condemned in successive papal bulls. By the 19th century, though, Noonan said, the teaching was gone, buried mainly by "the customs of the market and public finance." Previously condemned "innovations" of theologians in support of lenders had prevailed.

Death penalty opposition recent

The death penalty has only in very recent. times, under Pope John Paul II, begun to be condemned by church leaders. Although bishops even in the patristic era sometimes urged mercy in particular cases, no "established, coherent fundamental opposition" was in place, Noonan said. By the Middle Ages, death became the punishment for heretics, a practice supported even by St. Thomas Aquinas. At first the church turned heretics over to the state to be killed, but later punished heretics on its own.

"There was now not even a fiction," Noonan said. "It was the church that punished capitally. In the papal states, the death penalty was an ordinary part of criminal law enforcement, used against brigands and heretics alike.

"It was only at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) that the church would affirm religious liberty. It was well after World War II, when most European states turned against capital punishment, that a pope would finally declare that the death penalty was wrong.

In 1995, Pope John Paul II asserted in Evangelium Vitae that those instances where society's defense required the death penalty were "very rare, if in fact they occur at all." As recently as January of this year, Noonan said, the pope described the death penalty as "both cruel and unnecessary."

As to slavery, the practice had the support of church leaders and theologians into the 19th century, well after many Protestant leaders had begun to denounce it. The practice earned official condemnation only in 1839, by Pope Gregory XVI. "As late as 1866, the Holy Office ruled that buying and selling of slaves was not contrary to natural law," Noonan said. "It was only as part of a general European revulsion against slave trading in Africa that Leo XIII issued an unequivocal moral condemnation of human bondage."

Discovering evil of slavery

Finally, in John Paul II's encyclical Splendor Veritatis, he described slavery as "intrinsically evil." Noonan noted dryly that the pope reversed this moral teaching while "expending no effort on explaining how this universal precept had been allowed to sleep for centuries."

In looking at "whose experience counted" in forming moral judgments in the church, Noonan said, "two broad levels of experience may be distinguished: that of persons subject to or affected by the rules and that of the persons enunciating them"
Click to expand...
And who could forget the day the Pope finally admitted the church was wrong about Galileo and issued A ROMAN CATHOLIC APOLOGY FOR THE PAST SINS OF ITS MEMBERS (caps theirs)

But let's not just pick on Catholics. The Mormons when faced with a fight against the rest of society over polygamy changed doctrine as well changing doctrine allowing the previously excluded blacks into the priesthood. MORMON DOCTRINE ALTERED

Of course since the Bible itself is full of contradictions and who even knows what the original texts said given all the subsequent translations and translations of translations and evolution of word meaning even if one had the correct text. Not to mention the choice of which books to include and the addition of whole sections added by Christians and then by Mormons.

Christians are not often well informed of the history of their own religion.
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Super close. The only digression is that sex between a husband and wife is not just for the production of offspring (and I believe you understand that, because you included the word "primarily"). Sex should always be open to the possibility of procreation, and that's why most means of birth control are prohibited.
Click to expand...

So once pregnant no sex for you?
 
Huntster said:
Super close. The only digression is that sex between a husband and wife is not just for the production of offspring (and I believe you understand that, because you included the word "primarily"). Sex should always be open to the possibility of procreation, and that's why most means of birth control are prohibited.

Sex between a husband and wife is also always an expression of complete love thorough a physical, human act:


Source
Click to expand...


So according to your views, it's wrong for post menopausal women to ever have sex?
 
Pregnancy, post menopausal, don't forget infertile and how about infertile men, don't just make it women who can't have fun.
 
skeptigirl said:
....Christians are not often well informed of the history of their own religion.
Click to expand...

We are very aware of the history of our own religion. We also recognize that the history of our religion is a history of humanity (ie: a history of sin), complete with all it's human weaknesses.

Many of us are also aware of the propensity of others to try to use the history of religion as a tool to promote and or justify evil.

Nice try. It doesn't wash.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Super close. The only digression is that sex between a husband and wife is not just for the production of offspring (and I believe you understand that, because you included the word "primarily"). Sex should always be open to the possibility of procreation, and that's why most means of birth control are prohibited.
Click to expand...

So once pregnant no sex for you?
Click to expand...

Are you serious, or are you just an idiot?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Originally Posted by Huntster :
Super close. The only digression is that sex between a husband and wife is not just for the production of offspring (and I believe you understand that, because you included the word "primarily"). Sex should always be open to the possibility of procreation, and that's why most means of birth control are prohibited.

Sex between a husband and wife is also always an expression of complete love thorough a physical, human act:


Source
Click to expand...
So according to your views, it's wrong for post menopausal women to ever have sex?
Click to expand...

Oh, another one. This one, unlike the previous idiot who boasts a single post, has a long history of this type of foolishness.

Grow up, little boy..............
 
Meadmaker said:
Take Huntster. He's not a bigot. He's a Catholic. If you can't tell the difference between the two, it's because you're a bigot. Huntster will never support gay marriage, it's true, but I'll bet that if you would stop insulting him and listen to what he's saying, you might get him to civil unions that are nearly identical to marriage, and you would certainly get him to the point of allowing gay people to live their lives as they wish without government interference, which would be darned near as good.
.
Click to expand...

When would membership in an oganization that suports bigotry make someone who supports that stance a bigot?

The Nazi party?
The KKK?
The Westboro Baptist church?

I would call all of them bigots and their members bigots. What makes the catholic church different? If it is in the advocation of violence, well that is not part of the commonly accepted definition of bigotry that I am farmilier with.
 
Huntster said:
Oh, another one. This one, unlike the previous idiot who boasts a single post, has a long history of this type of foolishness.

Grow up, little boy..............
Click to expand...
That does not constitute clarfication on your stance against infertile people having sex.
 
Huntster said:
We are very aware of the history of our own religion. We also recognize that the history of our religion is a history of humanity (ie: a history of sin), complete with all it's human weaknesses.

Many of us are also aware of the propensity of others to try to use the history of religion as a tool to promote and or justify evil.

Nice try. It doesn't wash.
Click to expand...
Huntster, regardless of your views and knowledge, Christians are not only often aware of the history of their religion, they are often unaware of what is even in the Bible. Why would your view be that of all Christians when they can't even agree on the big things like abortion, slavery and the death penalty?
 
Rather than getting angry when confronted with contradiction in what one believes and what evidence one is presented with, I would choose to reconsider my view. It has resulted in my being very wise and knowledgeable and getting more so as time passes. To be wrong is to learn something new. (Maybe I'll put that as a sig.)
 
Huntster said:
Are you serious, or are you just an idiot?
Click to expand...

No I am wondering to what extent the all sex must have a chance at procreation is actualy followed, and how much of the the churchs stances can actualy be supported by it. There are many conditions that preclude pregnancy from being a possibile outcome of sex. So if sex must have that as a possibility to not be sinful, how can you support sex that you classify as sinful?

This made even more complicated by the churchs rejection of any medical assistence in procreation.

It seems to me that there is a logical mistake in the reasoning supporting the statements drawn from "all sex must have the possibility of procreation" when you do not denounce forms of sex that do not have that possibility. And really any use of contraceptives does not illiminate it just reduce it or they would have have failure rates.
 
skeptigirl said:
Huntster, regardless of your views and knowledge, Christians are not only often aware of the history of their religion, they are often unaware of what is even in the Bible. Why would your view be that of all Christians when they can't even agree on the big things like abortion, slavery and the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Ya' know, I should answer these decent questions. However, in light of the recent fools who have arrived to play games, I'm going to leave this thread for a while.

I have no desire to play games with such children or fools, and doing so would simply derail the thread.
 
Huntster said:
Ya' know, I should answer these decent questions. However, in light of the recent fools who have arrived to play games, I'm going to leave this thread for a while.

I have no desire to play games with such children or fools, and doing so would simply derail the thread.
Click to expand...
The only "game" anyone is asking you to play is "Defend your position with facts and reason."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom