The Pauline recommendations are the area where I feel most comfortable and BrianE has really done a good job there. Paul is one of the most misunderstood and (perhaps purposely) misconstrued of N.T. authors. In fairness, even Peter said that he wrote things that were difficult to understand.

I also noticed that most of the material in Tiresias’ post dealt with contraception – and the Church’s condemnation of contraception isn’t at issue. The condemnation results from the understanding that an essential part of accepting God’s will in our lives is not to frustrate the natural end of the Marriage Act, in order to enjoy only those parts that suit us. Again, not being Catholic, I’m not convinced that this is Biblically required, but I can’t see it as irrational, or perverse, or illogical, or aimed at damaging women, or any of the other canards thrown at the Church over it. Obviously, other people see it differently, but I haven’t seen a defense of other views that seem adequate to the task of convincing me.

I’m going back to making cranberry sauce for next week’s trip to my Mom’s – I’ve got five different recipes we’ll be trying. Yum.

In all of your quotes, most fall into the category of condemnation of use of birth control of some sort. The two which do not, are the two German cases. In the case of the sterile but potent individual, I suspect that would not be the holding today. That is, I think that usually if a person does not deliberately choose an operation of sterilization for the purpose of not having children, but is open to having children if such a thing should occur, they would not be prohibited from marriage. The critical issue is the _motive_ for the sterilization. For example, one reason to invalidate a marriage is proof that one partner or the other intended before marriage that s/he would not have children.

In the second case which was inability to consummate the marriage – that has always been a reason to invalidate a marriage. I’m not sure just how the case arose, by the way, but the outcome would be that the couple could not have a religious marriage, and since they could not consummate the marriage anyway, there would hardly be any sin possible. The same is true of older couples. If the couple were both in their 70s, for example, it’s virtually impossible for children to result from their marriage, but if they are still open to the possibility, then there is no barrier.

As for the >>impotence makes a marriage invalid>>, that’s only if impotence exists before the marriage is consummated. If the marriage is consummated, then later impotence is irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.

In all cases, the Church’s position is that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children and it is sinful to deliberately frustrate that purpose. If a couple doesn’t agree with this doctrine, they shouldn’t marry in the Catholic Church. That’s pretty simple. Civil law certainly doesn’t hold to the same ideals (except I think that inability to consummate the marriage is legal grounds for invalidation of the marriage), so if someone wants to marry, they just need to find another church that agrees with them or just have a civil ceremony. Nobody is _required_ to be Catholic. But if you claim to be Catholic, then _be_ Catholic.

It’s pretty stupid to claim to be a member of a religion one doesn’t agree with…or to expect that religion to change positions held over the centuries to ones that are _personally_ acceptable. If a person really believes that disobeying the rules of the religion they say they believe will result in their going to hell in the afterlife, then I can understand wanting the rules to be changed to meet their desires, but if same person also believes that the rules of their chosen religion are the result of God’s commandments, then how can the _religion_ change the rules? That’s pretty brazen. Or if the person believes that the rules are just man made…what value does the religion have?

1Cr 7:6 This is only my suggestion. It’s not meant to be an absolute rule.
1Cr 7:7 I wish everyone could get along without marrying, just as I do. But we are not all the same. God gives some the gift of marriage, and to others he gives the gift of singleness.
1Cr 7:8 Now I say to those who aren’t married and to widows–it’s better to stay unmarried, just as I am.
1Cr 7:9 But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.

Paul later reinforces the idea that because of the crisis (the persecution of Christians) it would be better to remain single.

1Cr 7:26 Because of the present crisis, [fn] I think it is best to remain just as you are.
1Cr 7:27 If you have a wife, do not end the marriage. If you do not have a wife, do not get married.
1Cr 7:28 But if you do get married, it is not a sin. And if a young woman gets married, it is not a sin. However, I am trying to spare you the extra problems that come with marriage.
1Cr 7:29 Now let me say this, dear brothers and sisters: The time that remains is very short, so husbands should not let marriage be their major concern.

It’s pretty obvious that none of this has anything to do with sex and procreation, and it also very obvious that Paul recognized the need and benefit of sexual relations for married couples.
The image of the marriage relationship is used elsewhere to highlight the relationship God desires with us. Paul talks about the body of believers being Christ’s bride. God desires the sort of intimate relationship with us as is available to couples in the marriage relationship.

Wow! And they say Catholics are obsessed with sex.

You really have a jones on for the Catholic take on what the sex act should entail. I am trying to fathom your preoccupation with the ban on contraception, which to be truthful, seems (<–isn’t that one of your favorite words?) to approach a fixation.

That fixation would be the need to prove that sex could not possibly be sacred, or special or anything other than a desire to rut until the cows come home.

Several of your citations are suspect. Origen is hardly regarded as a mainstream source of Church theology, and Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a feminist crank who ranks with Mary Daly as a despiser — and distorter — of Church doctrine on sexuality.

You cite the Church’s conditions for what constitutes a licit marriage and make some snarky little comments about them, assuming that the rest of us will see the light like you and view them as self-evidently wrong. No need for Tiresias to show why or how!

My God, man, do you ever do actual work and say why you oppose something or why you think it’s wrong?

So, the pregnant question: Just what are your sexual ethics? What is the enlightened state of sexual being that, while it liberates you, holds you in thrall to this need to beat the Catholic horse over, and over and over?

I don’t think I’ve ever run into anybody more preoccupied with sex than you, and with such a compulsive need to assault any philosophy that tries to make it more than the casual bonobo romp you make it out to be.

Wait a minute, I take that back. Hefner and Snoop Dog come to mind.

1Cr 7:1 Now about the questions you asked in your letter. Yes, it is good to live a celibate life.
1Cr 7:2 But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband.
1Cr 7:3 The husband should not deprive his wife of sexual intimacy, which is her right as a married woman, nor should the wife deprive her husband.
1Cr 7:4 The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband also gives authority over his body to his wife.
1Cr 7:5 So do not deprive each other of sexual relations. The only exception to this rule would be the agreement of both husband and wife to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time, so they can give themselves more completely to prayer. Afterward they should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt them because of their lack of self-control.

Can’t add much about Catholic doctrine, but Paul was certainly NOT suggesting anything along the lines you are suggesting. Paul was suggesting that people refrain from marriage because of the persecution of Christians by the Romans. He describes later in the chapter that celibacy would allow the individual to concentrate on serving God, since their loyalties wouldn’t be divided between God and family.

If you don’t recall the church ever saying so, then some of #55 will apply to you as well.

I don’t characterize any of it as anything, I simply note it. And I think it’s pretty widely accepted that JP II was very conservative and traditionally oriented theologically, as is Ratzinger. Whether you find that negative or positive is of no concern to them, or me; and is entirely up to you.

As for the pre-Mediaeval and Mediaeval church, I don’t think there’s much mystery. And several hundred citations in the database. I won’t bury Bookworm’s page in that. However, as you like citations (me, too), herewith a few you can pretty easily lay hands on:

Pre-Mediaeval sources, early church fathers

1. Paul (Saul of Tarsus), Letters to the Cornithians; I Cor, 7:1 [he's really arguing for staying away from women altogether, but he supplied a lot of ammunition to Aquinas - who supplied a lot of ammunition to John Paul II.]
1. Jerome, Against Jovinian; I, 49
2. Seneca, Letter 88, 29 [not strictly a "father," but more than one of those who are so regarded read in his thoughts on Stoicism - he is often quoted by them.]
3. Musonius, Reliquae, 1st century, date uncertain. Can’t give you a page number: no idea what translation you’ll use. Will paraphrase: “Any act of intercourse not serving procreation is immoral. Only marital sex, and only when it’s aimed at procreation is keeping with good order. ["good order" is rather freely translated, but I like it because it fits and works for context.] Anyone intent simply on pleasure, even if he keep within the bounds of marriage, is reprehensible.”
4. Philo of Alexandria, On Joseph; 9, 43
5. Josephus, The Jewish War II; 8, 2-13 [Also not a church father, but observed the Essene and Gnostic sects that are supposed to have contributed to Christian thought.]
6. Philo of Alexandria, On The Individual Laws; 3, 2, 9
7. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus II; 10, 102, I
8. Ibid, 10, 99, 3
9. Origen, Commentary On Matthew; 15:3
10. Origen, In genesium homilaie; 5, n. 4
11. John Chrysostom, De virginitate; 14
12. John Chrysostom, In genesim homilaie; 18. I
13. Ambrose, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke; I, 44
14. Augustine, Enchiridion; 13, 41 – page depends on your translation
15. Augustine, Confessions IV; 2 – Rex Warner translation, NAL, 1963 – what page it is depends on your translation
16. Augustine, The Morality of the Manicheans; 18, 65 – can’t cite a page, depends on your translation
17. Augustine, The City Of God; XIV, 24 the whole chapter, so don’t need to cite a page
18. Augustine, Against Julian; 5, 46
19. Ibid, 4, 29
20. Augustine, face it: everything he wrote.
21. Gregory I (Pope), Responsum Gregorii 8th century letter to Bishop Augustine in England (not St. Augustine)

Let’s draw a line somewhere in the sand, and move from pre-Mediaeval:

Mediaeval, moving towards modernity, modernity

1.- Gratian, Liber viarum Dei; chapter 13, page numbers vary with translations
2. – Abelard, Peter – I won’t cite one; several of his letters to Heloise.
3.- Sixtus V (Pope), Effraenatam 1588; bull in which he threatened with excommunication and the death penalty(!) people who gave others or took themselves “contraceptive potions.”
4.- Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae II; II, q. 54, a. 8 ["The man who loves his wife too passionately contravenes the good of marriage and can be labeled an adulterer."]
5. – Alexander of Hales (d. 1241), Summa Theologiae; 2/2, 3, 5
6. – Catherine of Siena (St. – d. 1380), quoted in Contraception, John T. Noonan, 1965
7. Bernardine of Siena (d. 1444), Seraphic Sermons; 19, 1
8. – Innocent XI (Pope) in 1679 announced that marital relations “for pleasure alone” were not sinless. He did it from the balcony, not via encyclical, so there’s no specific citation except to reports.
9.- Pius XI (Pope) Casti connubii encyclical of 1930, translates literally as: “chaste marriage.” EARL! Do I need to tell you what it’s about? Okay, okay – two sentences: “… there is only one motive for contraception: It is practiced by those who lead a loose life (this is married folks, remember, these loose livers)… so as to have greater enjoyment in the sexual act. Some individuals lay claim to such criminal freedom because out of aversion for the blessings of chuildren they want to avoid the burden but enjoy the bliss.”
10.- Vatican II, Gaudium et spes – Pastoral Constitution on the Church in Today’s World; 51. [Often enough fidelity runs into danger when the number of children - at least, for the time being - cannot be increased" and no "immoral solutions" {that would be birth control} may be employed. The danger of infidelity is the first thing, evidently, that occurred to the council on the subject of contraception. The other danger the council sees is that: "the brave readiness to have more children will be endangered." Enjoyment? That didn't come up...]
11. – Paul VI, (Pope) Humanae Vitae; 1968
12.- John Paul II took up the notion of Aquinas’ about committing adultery with your own wife in the pursuit of something other than procreation in the general audience of October 8, 1980, and agreed with Aquinas. (reported in Der Spiegel; n. 47, 1980, p.9) [Just a guess, but I'd say supporting Aquinas on this one {Thomas died in the 13th century} could fairly be seen as conservative.]

Pre birth control pill era stuff: in 1853 Rome delivered a response (for the first time) about condom use. The question was: May a woman passively surrender to this sort of intercourse?” Answer? “No.” On June 3, 1916 Rome declared that if her husband approached her with a condom, the wife must resist her husband, “as she would a rapist.” (Quoted in Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Christ, Uta Ranke-Heinemann)

Interesting case from Aachen, Germany. In 1935, a man had been forcibly sterilized. Later he wanted to get married. On January 22, 1944, the Roman Rota forbade him to marry, quoting an address given by Pope Pius XII on October 3, 1941, an address which harked back into history. Because the man couldn’t produce viable sperm (a requirement that goes back to Sixtus V in 1587!) he therefore had no right to marry, because obviously all he could do was enjoy sex, but not reproduce. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Regrettably, this happened again in 1982 (not 1382; 1982) , as can be seen from reports that appeared in almost every newspaper in Germany (what is it with Germany?) The Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung for December 3, 1982 reported that the Catholic church in Munich wouldn’t marry a young man and hius girlfriend. The young man suffered from muscular atrophy – and the priest declined to marry him unless he could produce a “certificate of potency.” (Don’t ask – I don’t know, either.) As reported, the reason cited by the priest was the husband’s “procreative incapacity.”

This has been enshrined, by the way. Look at the New Code of Canon Law (1983, canon 1084) which states that impotence makes a marriage invalid – because of course there can be no procreation – and not only says that, but narrows it by the addition of the little word coeundi, meaning that only the inability to engage in intercourse invalidates a marriage. In other words, pure fun leading to orgasm – disallowed. No intercourse – which can lead to reproduction – then no marriage.

I don’t know, Earl. I can drown you in this stuff if you really want me to. Bookworm probably wouldn’t thank me – but I’ll stick with my original statement, with one amendment: it evidently wasn’t just our “ancestors” who were of the opinion that sex had one purpose and one purpose only – and it wasn’t enjoyment. We can pull out samples a hell of a lot more recently than the ancestral.

I’m always intrigued when critics of the Church use political terminology. So, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are “conservatives,” eh?

Here I thought they were orthodox. But I guess when it comes to matters sexual, it’s necessary to pigeon-hole them so that we can =wink= =wink= more quickly discard their thoughts on the topic.

Now, on to your strawman:

“On the other hand, if you engage with your wife and you both hate it, and it does nothing to unify or strengthen your relationship and may even tend to drive you apart, but you don’t use birth control – that’s fine. Everything’s peachy. No sin.”

The Church would consider such a cirumstance an occasion of sin, even though you and your wife are open to conception. Why? Because it violates the unitive aspect of marriage by rendering the Marriage Act something unpleasant and alienating — certainly not what God intends.

“The ultimate purpose is self-evidently and obviously reproduction. I would simply assert that as far as the church is concerned, it seems to be the only genuinely permissible reason.”

It may “seem” to be such, but I don’t recall the Church ever saying so. I don’t understand how you can translate the Church’s desire that a couple be open to God’s will — the possibility of conception — to a demand that the couple must have sex with only that in mind for the act to be licit.

It’s like when I go a lecture. I know I have an intellectual obligation to be open to the possibility that my mind might be changed. But I am under no obligation to attend solely because it might be changed.

And returned equally!

I also appreciate your sense of humor…it’s very welcome along with the good thinking!