Replies

Saint Augustine of Hippo, an important early Christian Church figure, wrote that thought of child must be first and foremost in the mind of the couple or it is sin. It is, in fact original sin, and the explanation for how every child is born in sin and imperfect, short of a family unity that should have been his by birthright.

Thanks for posting this. It's very interesting.

I'm not sure if I agree with this...does this mean that there is no justfication for sex between a married couple without the goal of creating a child?

This would be true, and Augustine addresses it, saying that a man that does otherwise reduces his wife to the role of a prostitute, and he argues that when a child does come of it there will be resentment, creating conflict in the marriage. A reasonable person might ask why simply obtaining a (marriage) license will authenticate a behavior, and the logical answer is that it will not. The behavior must be authentic. A marriage license is for security of the children and protection of the mother, not for "having sex" (not a purchasing of a life long prostitute). Children are the important element. They are lasting and are eternal. We should focus on those things that are lasting and shun the desire for earthly physical pleasures that neither see nor hear nor walk, or here today and gone tomorrow.

Present logic is contradictory. One should love his brother yet love has been redefined to be the sex act. It's no wonder that homosexuality is rampant. The sex act is the beginning process of birth. Those wishing to abuse it will have to live with the consequence, and see a soceity full of broken and problem children.

People typically will not agree with an things which affects themselves. We find no problem in criticizing homosexuality or adultry, and homosexuals haven't a problem condemning our contrary (and seeming hypocritcal) values, and impatient youth reject parental attitudes of waiting until marriage. Each one knows that just the other is wrong. Religion requires us to look within and change ourselves, and this corrects the shortcoming of others.

Nope.

Quotations from St. Augustine litter the landscape in the internecine wars between Catholics over the question of regulation of birth. Generally, those who quote St.A. do so to 'stick it to' the current Pope and his predecessor, Paul VI. Be careful when you read this stuff.

The properly-formed Catholic couple understands that contraceptive utilization is a grave moral evil because by their very nature, contraceptives thwart nature for the purpose of preventing conception. (Newer 'contraceptives' prevent implantation, which is equivalent to abortion--obviously ALSO a grave moral evil.)

However, those couples who do NOT thwart nature and are open to the possibility of procreation with every act of intercourse are not sinners.

Further, there is ample moral justification for use of sympto-thermal (best) or rhythm (better.) For example, in the case that should a woman be subject to grave physical harm or death due to pregnancy, avoiding relations at the fertile time is perfectly acceptable. It's a little more murky when using economic considerations to "justify" avoidance of conception, and a couple should seek solid spiritual guidance on this.

HOWEVER, John Paul II got into 'hot water' with some by working out a natural-law approach to sexual relations. In his approach (briefly and not-TOO-accurately,) one begins by observing nature in the act of intercourse. This act produces BOTH marital satisfaction AND (sometimes) children. JPII went on to state that since both these effects were inseparable, it is wrong to think that the act is limited to either one or the other effect.

Thus, he effectively moved the "effects" of intercourse from a heirarchical order (first children, then marital satisfaction) to a co-equal: both at once.

This drives some people nuts, but seems obvious to me. All he did was propose that nature (as created by God) was right.

The nerve of him....