Posted on 04/08/2002 5:52:41 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Why can't people see the big picture? Christian sexuality is simple...if you're not married, man and woman, in the eyes of God, and/or you can't get pregnant doing it, its wrong. That's Natural Law in a nutshell re sex. That's what God made it for.
Here's a little illustration. If you eat something just for the pleasure of the taste and the texture, then vomit it up, that is called an eating disorder, namely bulimia. It is a disorder because the reason God gave us food is twofold, 1) for our pleasure, and more importantly 2) for the nourishment of our bodies.
If you partake of sex, then vomit forth the natural consequences of that act, it is a disorder, like sexual bulimia. Yes, God made it for pleasure. Equally important, God made it for babies.
The Creation of God serves ONE primary purpose:
the creation of the body and eternal soul of men. Man's last end is God. It was God's first and foremost desire in Creating the universe that men should live forever with Him in Heaven.
And what is scripture's first commandment? It ain't in the Decalogue. It comes much earlier, and it says, "Be Fruitful and Multiply."
If that's what Creation was for, the populating of Heaven with Eternal Souls of men, why can't Christians comprehend what a rebellion and revolt non-procreative sex is?
What do all the sexual sins in the Old Testament have in common?
They are all non-procreative, and/or outside of a covenantal man-woman relationship. They are all a fundamental violation of Natural Law, a violation of the reason God gave us our sexuality, i.e., for the creation of Eternal Souls to populate Heaven.
Only Catholicism still sees this foundational Truth, this family covenantal model. We are here to get THERE, to Heaven. And to bring as many there as possible.
And until 1930, all of Christianity understood this, all of Christianity embraced this, and all of Christianity taught this, universally (see below), protestant, orthodox, Catholic, as well as orthodox judaism and islam.
But if you start teaching that one form of non-procreative sex is OK, while others are not, you introduce schizophrenia into Christian sexual morality.
If you accept one, you no longer have any grounds to condemn the rest.
And no one can contest the relationship between the acceptance of contraception by Christians in this once Christian country, and the legalization of abortion (see below).
Today, equal numbers of RCC and NC Christians contracept.
But there is one vital distinction.
Scripture says that in the end there will be a general falling away, so it should surprise no one that there is gross sin in all churches.
But Christ promised one Church, His Church, would not teach error, and that the gates would not prevail.
Absolute Orthodoxy in moral theology can only come from Absolute Orthodoxy in Salvific Theology. Heterodoxy in Moral Theology will always, eventually, arise from Heterodoxy in Salvific Theology.
If Catholics will reclaim the traditional teaching of Christianity on contraception, a teaching their Church has NEVER apostacized on, and evangelize the culture regarding WHY the Church still teaches it, then we have at our disposal the single greatest evangelization tool in the history of the war between Christian sects. Why? Because Catholicism has never fallen into heterodoxy on moral theology issues. ALL other Christian churches now have.
It is so easy to prove from history that Christianity always uninanimously taught contraception to be inherently evil (see below, Appendix 2). Then it is such a short step to understand that heterodoxy in moral theology completely undermines the validity of the sola scriptura/personal interpretation of scripture manntra that hatched that heterodoxy. This is the foregone conclusion when men reject the authority Christ gave His Church, and replces it with the doctrines of men.
This is the number one reason given why over a thousand protestant ministers have become Catholic over the last ten years. When you examine the culture of death, and the roots of abortion, and the inability to effectively fight the homosexual juggernaut, you realize very quickly there is only one Church that will both bring folks closest to Christ and cure the ills of the culture.
I'm not willing to avoid the contraception issue because its unpopular, taboo, or for fear of offending both Catholic and protestant alike, when this is the single greatest evangelization/apologetics tool ever handed to us on a silver platter by the Holy Spirit.
Plus the obvious...folks who live in sodomitic sin glass houses, where the same type of sin is not only tolerated but taught to be acceptable, better stop to think before they criticize the sodomitic sin in our Catholic ranks, especially when we are the only ones condemning both on the world stage.
Yes, there are sodomites in the Catholic priesthood, and bishops hid them and protected them. They violate the very foundations of sexual morality that the Church STILL TEACHES today.
But the remainder of Christianity has embraced the sodomitic sin of contraception, teaches it as acceptable, and refuses to turn back.
In the end, many on both sides have sinned, are sinning, and will sin. But only one Church perseveres in Truth, both in Salvation Theology and Moral Theology.
Aside from that though, I know he doesn't see anything morally illicit about contraception. I think your work here will go a long way towards opening his eyes to it.
However, to be fair, I fully expect the moderators will be pulling any theological discussion against Catholics on news forum threads, since we are not permitted threads to defend ourselves from these attacks on the news forum, apparently.
This is grossly unjust, and very disappointing.
I guess religion has indeed been banished to the Religion Forum ghetto here on Free Republic.
Very disappointing indeed, on "Free Republic."
Ask them that, and they look at you as if you're from another planet.
If it were up to me, I'd require that they live apart for six months or so before they married.
But, it's not up to me. My wife and I do this to try to share some of what's made our marriage as wonderful as it is with these couples. Most of them are in their mid-twenties, some have been married once before.
We try to talk them through why they ought to take intense sex out of the equation during engagement because the sex won't always be that intense and what will they do after the intense sex? In addition, another good reason to put the sex on the shelf is to make sure it's not the sex that's keeping them together.
We had one couple do that, and break up before the wedding date.
If I had slammed them with "mortal sin" and "hell", the guy would have gotten defensive and gone through with the wedding just to prove something.
No comment. :)
My wife and I are NFP instructors, and I can assure you we are just as "pastoral" with the engaged couples who come to us. You are using wisdom in your approach. Its fine to mull theoretical distinctions regarding "mortal sin" but when they're standing there in front of you, you're just trying to keep them inside the door. I always thought being "pastoral" was an excuse for being liberal. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is just the reality of the situation, even for an "orthodox" priest or layperson.
Next time see if you can't get one of the "gosh I hate to appear to be Catholic bashing but isn't this latest unfounded allegation AWFUL?" types to post the thread for you. Given their genuine angst over the whole scandal, I'm certain they'd be more than thrilled to post something positive for a change.
And, in the meantime, let's face it ... FR has become a microcosm of society at large rather than the more extraordinary forum once it was. We should be thankful the thread wasn't outright pulled and see if we can't get away linking to and modestly excerpting from the Religion forum where we can in the Public Square.
I'll be darned ... you sound like dear Father White. (One of those crusty traditional types who wouldn't marry a couple if they still were living together at the time.)
Happy to hear that you and your wife are doing what you can to steer young men and women in the right direction.
Well if that's the case, shouldn't the people shepherding them through this process explains what it means to be Catholic, what their responsibilities as Catholics are, what the beliefs of Catholicism are. And if they still desire to desecrate the institution of Catholic marriage, kindly tell them to find some other parish that isn't willing to equivocate on Catholic teaching? I mean, in effect, by marrying such people, the diocese is a party to their mortal sin. As I see it, it's the Church's mission to evangelize, and part of that is revealing the truth to people.
Simply put, why not explain to them the beliefs and obligations of being Catholic? And if they don't like it, let them know that there are plenty of other Christian denominations out there to join that will not say a word about their mortal sin?
If it were up to me, I'd require that they live apart for six months or so before they married.
Since Catholic marriage preparation takes, at a normal minimum (as far as I'm aware) 6 months for most dioceses (some require a full year, I think), I would think that 6 months would be a bare minimum for evidence that the couple has shown a firm purpose of amendment to their mortal sin.
But, it's not up to me. My wife and I do this to try to share some of what's made our marriage as wonderful as it is with these couples. Most of them are in their mid-twenties, some have been married once before.
Since I don't know how orthodox your diocese is, I have to ask: Are these couples bothering to get anulments for previous marriages? Is the freedom to marry within the Catholic Church as a pre-requisite to prospective married couples still believed and practiced by your diocese?
We try to talk them through why they ought to take intense sex out of the equation during engagement because the sex won't always be that intense and what will they do after the intense sex? In addition, another good reason to put the sex on the shelf is to make sure it's not the sex that's keeping them together.
That's sound advice in my book. [...]
If I had slammed them with "mortal sin" and "hell", the guy would have gotten defensive and gone through with the wedding just to prove something.
I have never understood the fear in presenting the unabashed, unapolegetic truth of Catholicism to Catholics by modern Catholics in America. Mentioning the fact that a particular sin will send a person to hell for eternity is considered "slamming." It certainly doens't need to be a yelling match and finger pointing. It can be reasoned, articulate, loving and caring warning of the very real danger their souls are in. If a person were on a car hurtling towards a cliff, it wouldn't be considered "slamming" to let them know the repercussions of their actions if they don't hit the brakes. Why not tell the truth? Why hide the truth? What is the old addage: "Friends tell you the truth, even when you don't want to hear it."?
Hmmm. Strange that you seek apply this to we second-class citizens that you call "invincibly ignorant" or some other derogatory name, but for your "Queen of Heaven" that you pray to and venerate vociferously, it doesn't apply. To you it was OK for her to disobey God's commands and deprive her husband of his due and stay a virgin perpetually. I believe the term that applies to you would be hypocrite. I don't mean all RC's just those who seek to put us NC's under your man-made rules. Of course I don't believe Mary disobeyed God as your church does (by implication), so don't call me a Mary-hater.
Yea, and Dr. Laura, who rails against couples living together.
I'm also firmly against baptizing babies unless the couple is married in the Church. Even when I was a deacon, twenty-five years ago, I'd run into (mostly) Hispanics who were married by JP's and wanted their child baptized.
Since there was no guarantee that the child would be raised in the Church, we regularly postponed baptism until after the couples had a marriage case filed in the tribunal, or until they were married in the Church.
Sacraments aren't "magic," after all.
I believe the sacraments are real and the seal of baptism is forever ... even if the person baptized (or those who got him baptized) might themselves be misguided or remain misguided through their own or by virtue of another's will.
I thought we discussed the sort of thing when the subject of "improper" celebration of the Mass came up recently?
What do you mean by "JP"?
Absolutely.
. It can be reasoned, articulate, loving and caring warning of the very real danger their souls are in.
Have you ever explained hell to someone in a loving and caring way?
I try to use the "why buy the cow when you're getting all the milk you want for free" arguments. Lots of the younger couples are living together just because they can, or because one or the other wants to get the hell away from their parents.
They know they shouldn't be living together; I add my voice to the priests in the Parish (all of whom discourage it), and hope that they hear it.
Justice of the peace?
Justice of the Peace, who can marry people civilly here in Texas.
I believe the sacraments are real and the seal of baptism is forever ... even if the person baptized (or those who got him baptized) might themselves be misguided or remain misguided through their own or by virtue of another's will.
Well, we used baptism as leverage to get the parents back into the Church.
If the sacraments are, as you say, "real," then we killed two birds with one stone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.