why is sex outside of marriage necessarily sinful?
#51
Alright, before this gets out of control, sigh, let's just back up.

Marriage is a Sacrament.  Pro-creation is sanctified and given licitness by marriage.
Reply
#52
Zackly
Reply
#53
(02-17-2011, 09:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Alright, before this gets out of control, sigh, let's just back up.

Marriage is a Sacrament.  Pro-creation is sanctified and given licitness by marriage.

No , Technically its Holy Matrimony that is the Sacrament , not marriage.
Reply
#54
(02-18-2011, 06:44 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote:
(02-17-2011, 09:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Alright, before this gets out of control, sigh, let's just back up.

Marriage is a Sacrament.  Pro-creation is sanctified and given licitness by marriage.

No , Technically its Holy Matrimony that is the Sacrament , not marriage.
Well thats what I meant an anyone who isnt a hopelessly pedantic busybodie would understand that.
Reply
#55
(02-19-2011, 11:47 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 06:44 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote:
(02-17-2011, 09:32 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Alright, before this gets out of control, sigh, let's just back up.

Marriage is a Sacrament.  Pro-creation is sanctified and given licitness by marriage.

No , Technically its Holy Matrimony that is the Sacrament , not marriage.
Well thats what I meant an anyone who isnt a hopelessly pedantic busybodie would understand that.

Well what you "meant" and what you "wrote" appear to not be the same thing. A Protestant can get "Married" just as a Buddhist just as a Hindu just as a Jew just as a Pagan - can all get "Married" and in the State of Iowa even same sex couples can get "Married" but in none of those examples is it considered the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.    And it doesnt take a  "hopelessly pedantic busybodie " so see the great distinction between the Catholic Sacrament established by Jesus and "Marriage" as they most certainly are NOT the same.
Reply
#56
Hello when your in a coffee house do you need people to constantly point out what the hot black stuff in the pot is?????
THIS IS A CATHOLIC forum I presumed you could safely assume that when I say marriage I mean in the Catholic sense, and again your being hyper critical not to get that......oyvey! ::)
Reply
#57
(02-21-2011, 07:06 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Hello when your in a coffee house do you need people to constantly point out what the hot black stuff in the pot is?????
THIS IS A CATHOLIC forum I presumed you could safely assume that when I say marriage I mean in the Catholic sense, and again your being hyper critical not to get that......oyvey! ::)

And since I am in a CATHOLIC forum - I would have expected the Catholics here to use Catholic terminology hense my consternation.  I Dont call baptism  a bath just because this is a catholic forum.
Reply
#58
(02-21-2011, 07:10 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:06 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Hello when your in a coffee house do you need people to constantly point out what the hot black stuff in the pot is?????
THIS IS A CATHOLIC forum I presumed you could safely assume that when I say marriage I mean in the Catholic sense, and again your being hyper critical not to get that......oyvey! ::)

And since I am in a CATHOLIC forum - I would have expected the Catholics here to use Catholic terminology hense my consternation.   I Dont call baptism  a bath just because this is a catholic forum.
Ok felix unger
Reply
#59
(02-07-2011, 11:18 AM)Melkite Wrote: I was thinking about this on the way to liturgy yesterday and it's something that kind of baffles me.  Many things are sinful because they are contrary to natural law, but if natural law is obeyed, they are generally ok, right?  For example, eating in excess is sinful, eating only junk and nothing but junk that can't sustain you is at least unwise and possibly sinful, but eating a healthy, balanced diet is morally neutral.  It's the default.  So, if we use all our natural functions the way they were intended, those are all acceptable and we don't need to receive a sacrament before we can eat or drink or exercise.  Why so with sex?  Is it just because sex is so frequently coupled with lust and specifically more desired for the pleasure that can be derived from the other person at the expense of recognizing their personhood that makes it sinful?  I don't understand why, if two people decided to have sex in order to procreate, if that was their only purpose and weren't just doing it for pleasure, why would that be sinful, since it is fulfilling the natural law for them?  Why is a sacrament necessary in this instance for a person to fulfill a natural function?

Melkite:  From my reading, you seem to be, in a certain way, on a certain level, equating natural acts with the natural law.  Natural acts are tempered, moderated, and regulated by law (natural, divine, human, ecclesiastical, etc...).  Because acts are regulated by law (law which is an expression of God's will), we are bound to obey them, filially and dutifully.  Now, to cut to the bottom of your issue, the "sexual act," which is a natural function of the body indeed, is called by the church "the marriage act," because it is only licitly exercised within marriage.  Any venereal pleasure had outside not only marriage itself, but the marriage act itself, is illicit and sinful, even if it were only accessory to the procreation of children.

It comes down to this: the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children in the Faith.  Specifically, any procreation of children outside marriage is a mortal sin.  Why?  Because it is God's will.  Why is that specifically God's will?  Because he has made man and women for each other, and they become as one flesh in marriage, through consumation through the "marriage act," and if those who, in a certain sense, become as one flesh outside of marriage, pain will ensue on both creatures, because we are not made for that level of intimacy with just anybody, but rather, husband and wife forever, under a certain pact.  But why can't people be "sex buddies" even if it were for the ends of procreating children alone, and even educating them in the Faith?  Well, because you couldn't educate them in the Faith if you believed that you could procreate licitly outside of marriage, because you wouldn't believe as the Church does.

Bottom line: God created man and women to be in marriage, forever, until death do them part, for the education and procreation of children.

There are also other great reasons, like how the family is a perfect society, with a conspicuous head, just like the Church, which is why it is often called a "little church."  Also, we can not live alone, at least to start out in life, because we needs depend on others for our growth, both spiritually, and bodily, and the family unit provides what is necessary for the healthy development of men.

And on and on...
Reply
#60
(02-07-2011, 11:18 AM)Melkite Wrote: I was thinking about this on the way to liturgy yesterday and it's something that kind of baffles me.  Many things are sinful because they are contrary to natural law, but if natural law is obeyed, they are generally ok, right?  For example, eating in excess is sinful, eating only junk and nothing but junk that can't sustain you is at least unwise and possibly sinful, but eating a healthy, balanced diet is morally neutral.  It's the default.  So, if we use all our natural functions the way they were intended, those are all acceptable and we don't need to receive a sacrament before we can eat or drink or exercise.  Why so with sex?  Is it just because sex is so frequently coupled with lust and specifically more desired for the pleasure that can be derived from the other person at the expense of recognizing their personhood that makes it sinful?  I don't understand why, if two people decided to have sex in order to procreate, if that was their only purpose and weren't just doing it for pleasure, why would that be sinful, since it is fulfilling the natural law for them?  Why is a sacrament necessary in this instance for a person to fulfill a natural function?

I don't know if any of the following will help, but here it is.

First, the Church literally teaches that the Sacrament of Marriage is given by the man to the woman and by the woman to the man and that the Church, via the presiding priest, officiates, or witnesses the exchange of this sacrament between the man and woman.  Sexual intimacy is the logical consequence of the exchange of this bond.

The reason the bond cannot be exchanged without the Church's presence is that the Church is the body of Christ and Christ has all authority in Heaven and Earth.  Without His approval, the union cannot exist.  He is the architect of the Cosmos, the architect of the human body, of human sexuality, of all that is involved in authentic sexual intimacy between a man and woman.

In other words, sexual intimacy only makes sense in the context of the fact that the man and the woman have given one another the sacrament which has, to be valid, approval from Christ through His Church.

It is a complete mistake to consider sexual intimacy between a man and woman only as something "natural."  We are not just a construction of Democritus's atoms.  Human beings, everything for that matter, is hugely more complex and subtle than that.  There is far more involved, which is why the Church must be involved.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)