The Glory of Marriage
...what was your take on this?

In the first four minutes he denied that religious life is a higher calling, which it is, and that the sexual union must be open to life, which it must.

I'm not interested in what else he had to say.
Pope Pius XII, Sacra Virginitas Wrote:This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
What is the video? I am posting from a phone.
Trouble with his comments are that he is essentially saying people did not understand how things worked in the past so the Church's teaching and dogmas and guidance was off.

If this is the case then the guidance of the Holy Spirit is worthless, God is aloof and we might as well not bother about the teachings of the Church today since these are also products of the superstitions of the time, liberty, democracy, freedom of conscience.

If the western economoy collapses then in 100 years when some radical new form of government and human politick is in command then the teachings of the Church today will look stupid.

Imagine a massive war, for example, where 9 out of 10 men globablly were killed.  Or a disease which affected men and killed billions.  Polygamy would certainly be tolerated if not promoted as good and holy by the Church.

What this guy is saying is that Bishops and Popes have no real guidance from the Holy Spirit which transcends their understanding of how the world works.
I don't necessarily disagree with his main point about marriage, but his claim that the Fathers were influenced by Gnostic ideas bothered me a bit. Obviously, this was true in some cases, but many of the Fathers have a very holistic, non-Cartesian--of course--view the relationship between body and soul while still promoting asceticism and so forth. I think part of the problem that we run into today is that we say that Christianity affirms the goodness of embodied existence, which is true, but we conceive of this very simplistically as being only about a more positive view of pleasure. But really it seems to me that what the Fathers realized and what we miss is that a holistic view of man also includes an entirely different view of suffering and pain. Once you come to an overly dualistic view that identifies the person only with the disembodied soul, you begin to think of pain as basically something horrible and meaningless to be avoided at all costs. I think what many of the Fathers saw is that a more positive view of the body also leads us to view suffering as much more meaningful, even on the spiritual level. I don't mean to say that suffering is inherently salutary or that those who attempt a more affirmative view of the body are wrong, but I think we should also remember that this endorsement of bodily existence brings along with it a renewed emphasis on asceticism as well.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)