Casti Connubii


#1

How do we reconcile both of these from Casti Connubbi

  1. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place.

  2. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

Can anyone quote the Catechism of Trent on this?

According to #24, one should have greater concern for the welfare of his spouse than of one’s children. Is that right?

I think the Church has got it wrong when it says that sexual intercourse has two purposes. I think it has one purpose, just like the tongue (eating), although it has other enjoyments (kissing). Probably because they are single, the Church leaders don’t have a great understanding of this. It is somewhat against natural law to have sex when one of the people are infertile, as the Church of the early Fathers would have said. On that note, when people first have sex, are they sharing skills they learned in sin? Sharing sin? Well, what if a sex is painful for a women. Could they not have sex, with the intention in their souls of doing it right at the end, but in action just pleasing each other without penetration. If so, could not somebody masturbate before his wedding, in order to “check it out” so to speak, even though he has the intention of using it just with his wife. Premature? But it would be preparation to the wedding night, his soul’s intention being to place the seed in his wife, although she simply could not be their for the first attempts… Just some thoughts that were going through my head.


#2

There is nothing to reconcile. “11” is about blessings and “24” is about purpose. Blessings and purpose are different things.

Can anyone quote the Catechism of Trent on this?

No. Have no ready access to it.

According to #24, one should have greater concern for the welfare of his spouse than of one’s children. Is that right?

Not from my reading of it.

I think the Church has got it wrong when it says that sexual intercourse has two purposes. I think it has one purpose, just like the tongue (eating), although it has other enjoyments (kissing). Probably because they are single, the Church leaders don’t have a great understanding of this. It is somewhat against natural law to have sex when one of the people are infertile, as the Church of the early Fathers would have said. On that note, when people first have sex, are they sharing skills they learned in sin? Sharing sin? Well, what if a sex is painful for a women. Could they not have sex, with the intention in their souls of doing it right at the end, but in action just pleasing each other without penetration. If so, could not somebody masturbate before his wedding, in order to “check it out” so to speak, even though he has the intention of using it just with his wife. Premature? But it would be preparation to the wedding night, his soul’s intention being to place the seed in his wife, although she simply could not be their for the first attempts… Just some thoughts that were going through my head.

Nothing in the above provides any meaningful rebutal of the Church’s teaching on the purpose of marriage. It is mixture of logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies.

How can you dismiss centuries of studies by some of the most brilliant minds and say the Church does not understand?


#3

What makes you think they would have said that? It seems to me they would have said that an infertile person can have sex with their spouse, because it is not sinful for a married couple to have sex, and infertility doesn’t invalidate a marriage.


#4

and people older than childbearing age.:wink:


#5

That doesn’t seem right: the purpose of marriage has to do with one’s spouse; but this doesn’t imply what you’re trying to say about the welfare of one’s spouse, vis-a-vis the welfare of one’s children.

I think the Church has got it wrong… Probably because they are single, the Church leaders don’t have a great understanding of this.

when people first have sex, are they sharing skills they learned in sin?
what if a sex is painful for a women. Could they … just pleas[e] each other without penetration. If so, could not somebody masturbate before his wedding, in order to “check it out”

:rotfl: And it’s the ‘Church’ that has it wrong? Because of celibacy? Oh, please…! :wink:

Here’s the thing: the ‘Church’ isn’t single – the members of the hierarchy are single. Or, are you suggesting that God hasn’t sent the Holy Spirit in order to protect the teachings of the Church? In other words, are you saying either that the hierarchy of the Church just ‘does its own thing’ when it decides on teachings? Or that the Holy Spirit is wrong in the inspiration of these teachings? :hmmm:


#6

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.