Refuting St. Augustine's Views on Sex
#11
(11-08-2017, 09:59 PM)BluegrassMTBer Wrote: 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.

Speaking of cats...

[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • BluegrassMTBer
Reply
#12
(11-08-2017, 09:52 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: Here, I suggest that you spend your time more wisely and look at these cute animals,

What about spiders?

[Image: original-9634-1406834323-10.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • Justin Alphonsus
Reply
#13
I'd also suggest that you avoid these folks, who have misquotes and mis-represented St. Augustine and others.

Still, in order to show how they are not to be trusted, I respond that ...

(11-08-2017, 07:04 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: 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)

Classic mis-quotation and mis-representation.

First, I note that the references themselves are pretty sloppy, and clearly not the work of anyone who has done scholarly work (thus probably shouldn't be trusted in their theology). The quotation is not from a work called "Anti-Pelagian Writings" but taken from one of several works Augustine wrote against Pelagian ideology, thus often grouped together. Specifically is is sourced from His De nupitiis et concupicientia(lib. 1, c. 27).

Secondly, the work is specifically against the Pelagians who denied Original Sin, thus Augustine is trying to explain how Original Sin is transmitted without the guilt being transmitted. St. Augustine himself did not like his explanation of things, and even hoped that the soul was somehow not directly created by God but through some causality of the father of the child so there could be a more clear link to Adam's sin, even though he knew that this was not true.

In his Trinity and God the Creator, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange explains this and takes issue with Augustine's theory, writing that :

"According to St. Augustine, original sin consists in the disordered habitual concupiscence found in the soul despoiled of grace because of Adams sin. According to him, this concupiscence has two things : the guilt of sin which is remitted by Baptism, and the penalty of sin which remains in those who are Baptized."

He particularly sees this concupiscence in matters sexual and a deviance in the sexual act, since original sin and the production of children are clearly tied together in some way and influence by this concupiscence.

That is plain to see in the text of Augustine, who says, essentially, that in a fallen man lust cannot be removed from a sexual union. And this is then how he explains how Christ was preserved from Original Sin, since Mary did not conceive by some sexual union.

A Thomist like Garrigou-Lagrange will say this is an exaggeration of the truth due to an unrefined theology in the realm of Original Sin. St. Thomas argues that the transmission of Original Sin is not through concupiscence but by Adam analogically "moving" every man in so far as it is his Human Nature that we receive transmitted to us by our fathers.

In short, St. Thomas (and later Theology) corrects St. Augustine on this point.

The quote, then, is not dealing with how sexual relations are sinful, but how Original Sin is transmitted, and, quite simply, St. Augustine is wrong on this point, and thus wrong that every sexual union is necessarily lustful. Such is an overstatement.

The Fathers are to be trusted and followed, but not slavishly, and especially not without reference to reputable theologians who take the Father, Magisterium, Scripture and the development of doctrines into consideration in building a consistent theological system.

(11-08-2017, 07:04 PM)SacraCor714 Wrote: 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).

Pius XI's context matters here. The relevant passage is §54 : "But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious."

Pius XI is speaking against contraception. Because the primary end (which implies there are secondary ends) is the begetting of children, it is a grave sin to frustrate that primary end. However, just because the primary end is not achieved (but not frustrated) does not mean there is sin.

What they suggest is somewhat like saying since the primary end of prayer is Adoration, not petition, praying to only ask something of God is inherently evil.

We can also quote Pius XII in his address to Midwives (29 Oct 1951), who does again assert the primacy of the procreative end of marriage but also that there are secondary ends which are legitimate, but subordinated :

Quote:Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

But there is a marriage where no offspring result, then it would seem that primary end was frustrated in the view of our "sex is evil" zealots. Hardly. As long as the primary end is not directly frustrated or one's intention is not against the primary end, the secondary ends are legitimate ends and subordinated to that primary end.

I may have to drive to the next town for Jury Duty, not really looking forward to it, begrudgingly doing my civil duty to avoid the warrant, and comforted only by the fact that my $10 stipend for the wasted day will subsidize a decent beer and burger my favorite restaurant next to the courthouse. The primary purpose is still achieved, even though all I really wanted was a beer and burger. Certainly not the highest motives, but not evil motives.

And that is precisely why Pius XII can then continue (n.b. by "personal values" he was describing the secondary ends of marriage in long paragraphs) :
Quote:Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values.

But he does not say that they are evil, merely that they are secondary. Just like my burger.

The decree of the Holy Office (Dz 1158/DS 2108) says nothing about sex, rather it says : "Eating and drinking even to satiety for pleasure only, are not sinful, provided this does not stand in the way of health, since any natural appetite can licitly enjoy its own actions."

If you understand how condemned propositions work, this means that the contradictory proposition is true. What is that, you ask?

Let's make a proposition in standard logical form : "All those who eat and drink for pleasure only (provided they do not do so to the detriment of their health), are those who are not committing sins". The contradictory is : "Some of those who eat and drink for pleasure only ... are those who are committing sins." Essentially that means that eating and drinking for pleasure only can sometimes be a sin.

That's all this condemned proposition says. It does not say that acting for pleasure alone is always a sin, but that it is not always not a sin (it can be a sin). That make sense in the case of the laxists who argued that any pleasure is legitimate if it does not harm self or another.

If they misquoted and were referring to proposition no. 9 then this does mention sexual relations, but not exactly as they suggest : "The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."

Again, if we translate to logical form : "All those who exercise the marital act for pleasure only are those who are free from all fault and venial defect." So the contradictory is that "Some of those who exercise the marital act for pleasure only are not those who are free from all fault and venial defect." IOO : There can be some venial fault if the marital act is done for pleasure only.

Effectively, if marital relations are only for pleasure (i.e. excluding, but not frustrating every other end), then there is venial sin.

I'll leave it at that since it's pretty clear that these folks have no clue what they're talking about.

One of these days, though, I'd love to come across a Denziger reference for Innocent XXXVII's condemnation of the proposition: "Ignorant, untrained armchair theologians have the duty of instructing the Christian Faithful." Nothing yet, sadly, but don't worry, I'm still searching.

Until then, "Three twenty-two."

Oh. And :

[Image: happy-dolphin-square.jpg]
[-] The following 4 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Alphonsus, Sacred Heart lover, SaintSebastian
Reply
#14
Magister, whether one agrees with all of your arguments and positions or not, I have to say it is commendable the time and consideration you take to put out well researched posts. Thank you.
[-] The following 2 users Like BC's post:
  • In His Love, Justin Alphonsus
Reply
#15
Magister, thank you for your long and detailed reply. I think I understand now, and I will stay as far away as possible from that site. How sad to consider sex as something so evil and dirty. They even stress that you can't do any kind of touching or kissing other than what is necessary to complete the sexual act. So you can't even rejoice in and enjoy the beauty of each others' bodies because you just have to get in there and get out.

Isn't the body the reflection of the soul? I love touching, hugging, and kissing my fiance, and every time I touch his body or look at him, I thank God for having given me such a wonderful man with such a pure and kind heart. Even though we haven't had sex yet, we can still see the beauty of each other through the outward expression of our bodies. I know a lot of this comes from JPII's Theology of the Body (most of which is far too deep for me to grasp) and I know these fringe folks think he's another antichrist and thus don't put any stock in his writings.

I wonder how these fringe folks explain away the fact that if God wanted sex to be just about making babies and nothing more, why did he make it feel so good? Why did He design our sex organs and our nerve endings to work the way they do? If He wanted us to reproduce without pleasure, He could have made us ladies get pregnant by shaking hands with our husbands or something. If sex is so bad, why did God design it to feel so good?

Well, I'll stay away from these sites now. I guess my curiosity got the best of me, but we all know that curiosity killed the......

Speaking of Cats....I'm a dog person.

How do you upload pictures to posts??




Save
Save
Save
Save


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       


St. Mary of Egypt, Ora Pro Nobis!







Reply
#16
To post an image, go to the bar with the font settings.

In the forth grouping to the right, there will be several icons that say insert _____.  Click insert image, and past the URL into the box.  It should just pop up.

To get the URL from an image, right click on the image and select open image in new tab. 

And presto!

For example...



[Image: Corgis+images.jpg]
[Image: GermanShepherds-love-the-snow.jpg]
[Image: 1200px-Welchcorgipembroke.JPG]
[Image: 2da19a9be0e94107d63c9e693d8930c8.jpg]
Rejoice, O Virgin Theotokos, o Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee! Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, for thou hast borne the Saviour and the Redeemer of our souls!

                                                      [Image: hailmary.jpg]
Reply
#17
(11-09-2017, 11:35 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: To post an image, go to the bar with the font settings.

In the forth grouping to the right, there will be several icons that say insert _____.  Click insert image, and past the URL into the box.  It should just pop up.

To get the URL from an image, right click on the image and select open image in new tab. 

And presto!

For example...



[Image: Corgis+images.jpg]
[Image: GermanShepherds-love-the-snow.jpg]
[Image: 1200px-Welchcorgipembroke.JPG]
[Image: 2da19a9be0e94107d63c9e693d8930c8.jpg]

Such lovely dogs!

What if I want to upload a picture from my computer?

Save


St. Mary of Egypt, Ora Pro Nobis!







Reply
#18
Photo 
What a thread.  We started discussing sex, and now animals.  Kinda starting to sound like an ISIS strip joint

[Image: Sheep.jpg]


And if we're talking cute animals, how can we leave out the pangolin?

[Image: baby-pangolin-facts-1-580f447618528__700.jpg]
-sent by howitzer via the breech.

God's love is manifest in the landscape as in a face.  - John Muir

I want creation to penetrate you with so much admiration that wherever you go, the least plant may bring you clear remembrance of the Creator.  A single plant, a blade of grass, or one speck of dust is sufficient to occupy all your intelligence in beholding the art with which it has been made  - Saint Basil

Heaven is under our feet, as well as over our heads. - Thoreau, Walden
Reply
#19
(11-09-2017, 09:58 AM)SacraCor714 Wrote: If sex is so bad, why did God design it to feel so good?
ve
Save
Save


My hunch is that God did this to signify how important and how uniquely wonderful it is to be able to create new life.  I think it is ironically beautiful that the French refer to the pleasure connected with creating new life as "the little death."

Not to sidetrack too much, but this is a big part of why I think circumcision is as truly evil as I do.  God intended for people to experience intense, acute pleasure in connection with creating new life.  Circumcision prevents men (and women, just not so much in this country) from being able to experience those sensations the way that God intended them.  It essentially blinds men from the full breadth of creating new life, from a sensory perspective.
I have resigned myself to the reality that I shall have no peace or joy should I continue to exist for eternity.  The question of deism or Christianity no longer matters.  I hope that Christianity is a farce, and that when I die, my consciousness will cease to exist.  In the meantime, I ask the Theotokos to be at my side at my judgement and ask her to intercede to, as I beg, Christ to have mercy on me and to allow me to cease to exist when I die.
Reply
#20
(11-09-2017, 01:59 PM)Jeeter Wrote: And if we're talking cute animals, how can we leave out the pangolin?

Because that's not on the list of cute animals we're still allowed to eat on Fridays.

[Image: baby-alligator.jpg]
[-] The following 2 users Like Paul's post:
  • Jeeter, Justin Alphonsus
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)