FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Refuting St. Augustine's Views on Sex
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Perhaps I should not be reading this tripe, but again, these sedvantist websites are giving me a lot of food for thought, and I want to know how to refute their arguments. They strongly believe that sex is intrinsically evil (even between married couples) and that the only good that comes out of sex is children, which is (barely) enough good to justify the evil pleasures of begetting children in the first place. They also state that ANY sexual activity that does not end in intercourse is a mortal sin, and that having sex when a woman is not naturally fertile is also a mortal sin because you are able to enjoy the very evil and very bad pleasures of sex without the only one good that can come out of it (a child).

They extensively quote St. Augustine:

The sexual pleasure is always an evil pleasure to experience in itself since it is a shameful and intoxicating pleasure that is very similar to the evil pleasure people experience when they abuse alcohol or drugs, and that is why it is always an evil pleasure to experience even for married couples, even though married spouses do not sin during their normal, natural and procreative marital acts since “those who use the shameful sex appetite licitly are making good use of evil.” (St. Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings) St. Augustine in his book On Marriage and Concupiscence, explains this evil thus: “Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty [through original sin] who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence [lust], which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame.” (Book 1, Chapter 27)

St. Augustine’s reference to the lawful use of “the shameful sex appetite” means that spouses are only allowed to engage in marital intercourse as long as they perform the act for the sake of conceiving a child. Spouses who perform the marital act without excusing it with the motive or purpose of procreation are thus “making evil use of evil” according to St. Augustine. “I do not say that the activity in which married persons engage for the purpose of begetting children is evil. As a matter of fact, I assert that it is good, because it makes good use of the evil of lust, and through this good use, human beings, a good work of God, are generated. But the action is not performed without evil [that is, intoxicating and shameful lust], and this is why the children must be regenerated in order to be delivered from evil.” (St. Augustine, Against Julian, 3.7.15) It is thus obvious that the cause of the shame that is inherent in the sexual act, as we have seen, is “the evil of the sex appetite.” (St. Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings)

The third reason for why all non-procreative and unnecessary forms of sexual acts are mortally sinful is that the Natural Law teaches that “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54) and that even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral Matters Condemned in Decree (# 8), March 4, 1679).

They also condemn foreplay and say that you should use lubricant to avoid having to engage in it (I laughed out loud):

Are the “beastly excess” of sensual kisses and touches of two married spouses “necessary for the procreation of children”? Of course not. Therefore, it is clear that the “beastly excess” of any kind of foreplay, such as sensual kisses and touches, “exceed the measure necessary for the procreation of children” in marriage, and that is also the reason for why these acts are totally condemned by the Church and Her Saints. In truth, it is totally clear that the Saints, such as St. Augustine, not only condemns non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts as a sin, but that they condemn these acts with a specific detestation and horror, since they are “against nature and flagitious”, that is, atrociously wicked, vicious and outrageous.
Neither can one argue that these kinds of non-procreative sexual acts can be used if necessity requires it for the sexual act to be performed or if there is a problem with performing the marital act without them, for acts that are gravely immoral can never be justified in any circumstance. “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54)
Those who have a problem in performing the marital act should use a lubricant in order to be able to complete the normal, natural and procreative marital act, for this is a lawful and honorable solution to use if there is a problem to perform the marital act. “May marriage be honorable in all, and may the bed be undefiled. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13:4)

How would one refute this without dissing one of the greatest doctors of the Church?

Here is the entire blowhard article:
Your very first sentence is the key. Wink

I’m not a theologian, but Acts 10 seems like a good start. Even though it refers to food, if God created the sexual act, is it bad when used properly between husband and wife? A powerful expression of love with the potential to bring new Catholics to the world.
You don't have to argue for or against Doctors of the Church; you have to follow Church teaching. And Church teaching is not what these sedes apparently, for whatever sex-hating reason they have, want it to be.

My two cents: just walk away from that sort of madness. Don't visit such sites.
The theology of sex and marriage has kind of evolved over the years. I think Aquinas was more of the idea that if one had sex with their spouse out of pure lust they would be committing a venial sin. In any case, I don't think he ever considered having sex with your spouse a mortal sin under any situation. In more recent times the idea of sex within marriage without the express intent of having a child has gained more acceptance as long as the sexual act is at least open to life. This is especially so with our modern knowledge of how to track a woman's ovulation and such. I can't imagine that back in the 4th/5th century when St. Augustine lived there was all too much thought of having actual sex where a male would finish inside of his wife while avoiding pregnancy due to specific conditions which existed within his wife's body due to her menstrual cycle. If such a thing was to occur people would use some sort of contraceptive (which people had various methods of accomplishing even back then) or the withdrawal method which was therefore sinful and remains so today.
(11-08-2017, 09:15 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote: [ -> ]You don't have to argue for or against Doctors of the Church; you have to follow Church teaching. And Church teaching is not what these sedes apparently, for whatever sex-hating reason they have, want it to be.

My two cents: just walk away from that sort of madness. Don't visit such sites.

Some of those sites are good for a laugh now and then, like most "fringe of the fringe" websites. I'll be the first to admit I've fallen down many an internet rabbit hole and ended up in some pretty odd places. Then reality sets in, as I realize some people actually believe whatever bizarre site I've run across.

I do have to thank the sedevacantists, though, as without running across one of their forums a while ago I never would have found FishEaters. Sure, there were some less than charitable things being said, but I figured "Hmm, if so many people on this board are talking about a particular site, I'll check it out and decide for myself." That doesn't always work out too well, but it did in this case. So, thanks to everyone here for the intelligent discussions.
Man, the internet is great, ain't it!  I looked at the website, these guys are hilariously insane.  I would think this is some kind of joke if they hadn't written so much.

Here, I suggest that you spend your time more wisely and look at these cute animals,

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLULxz82Wh1Qu6UPb7tbx...7KY6vp5yjg][Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRsX7Xm6qUOXXhGas2TLa1..._TqxY6vtmJ][Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7sSUeeJ_bctICO1pghS6...wr6kzX_0tg]
Half of the internet is cat pictures anyway. Yes, a cat is missing from that lineup, because cats are too smart to get caught and always blame it on the dog.
According to the Bible, the first thing God told Adam and Eve to do was "be fruitful and multiply". No further explanation needed.
Quote:The sexual pleasure is always an evil pleasure to experience in itself since it is a shameful and intoxicating pleasure that is very similar to the evil pleasure people experience when they abuse alcohol or drugs,

Sexual pleasure is perceived because of erogenous nerve endings.  Erogenous nerve endings serve no other purpose than to produce sexual pleasure.  Erogenous nerve endings exist because God designed them, created them, and placed them exactly in their place.  If sexual pleasure is always an evil pleasure, then God is necessarily the author of evil.  Check and mate.
Avoid those sedevacantist sites. They’re full of people who don’t seem to live in the real world.  Whoever wrote that one appears to have some odd self-loathing due to, I suspect, a sexual addiction.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5