he commits a most grievous sin, who seeks only carnal pleasure in it. Hence Onan

[Gondalus]

Because we are.  Catholics must not accept every opinion of every Saint.  We must only assent to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church.  As near as I can tell, St. Robert Bellarmine was not issuing a papal decree defining an issue of dogma.  Thus a Catholic need not mindlessly assent to his opinion.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bellarmine's opinion to which I give "mindless" assent is echoed by other saints.  The fact also remains that all of these saints are in Heaven right now, and neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum can make the same claim.  Ergo, since it is not some obscure opinion held by Bellarmine alone, but by many other saints, all of whom are in Paradise, it is not "mindless" to give assent to it.  If someone's goal in life is salvation, I would think they would not be so quick to dismiss the opinion of a Doctor of the Church, especially when it is echoed by other saints.

[SouthernCatholic]

Because we are.  Catholics must not accept every opinion of every Saint.  We must only assent to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church.  As near as I can tell, St. Robert Bellarmine was not issuing a papal decree defining an issue of dogma.  Thus a Catholic need not mindlessly assent to his opinion.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bellarmine's opinion to which I give "mindless" assent is echoed by other saints.  The fact also remains that all of these saints are in Heaven right now, and neither you nor I nor anyone on this forum can make the same claim.  Ergo, since it is not some obscure opinion held by Bellarmine alone, but by many other saints, all of whom are in Paradise, it is not "mindless" to give assent to it.  If someone's goal in life is salvation, I would think they would not be so quick to dismiss the opinion of a Doctor of the Church, especially when it is echoed by other saints.

Whatever.  As usual it is the same old song and dance around here leading to the same exceedingly tired arguments.  YAWN!

[luigi]

The quotes are saying a lot more than that.  They say that the couple must have an express desire for children at that moment, and not do it just for fun.

The first is by St. Robert Bellarmine, who, if I am not mistaken, is a Doctor of the Church.  Why do you write it off as something you are free to disagree with?

My statement is just clarifying the quote for Credo.  I did not anywhere voice my personal disagreement.

The original poster of the quotes is a so called "Feeneyite" (ugh I hate that term, can someone please come up with something better that is also quick to type?), and I wanted to know if he is getting at what I think he is.

No I'm not a follower of Fr. Feeney. I am not sure about BoD but as for the fact that God will bring conscientious non-Catholics into the Church by either natural or miraculous means, that I am sure of.

[HMiS]

You must be open to children, if they should be begotten by the intercourse, but there are more purposes to marriage than children of course. And surely to marital intercourse. Of course the first purpose is children, but there are more.

Of course only carnal pleasure is to use one's wife like a whore. But to seek mutual expression of love, reduction of physical sexual temptations, while being open to children, is also a valid reason and not sinful at all.

And I think knowing one's partner in marriage for reasons of lust only, is still a venial sin, and not yet a mortal sin - as long as openness for life is cared for and life is not artificially prevented.

St. Robert Bellarmine clearly intended to point out to Onan's sin of retraction as sex for carnal pleasure only. Every couple following the natural way of marital intercourse is not committing a mortal sin, if they have intercourse with mutual consent and the openness for life.

That is the consequence from the condemnation of the Church which was cited. And only for carnal pleasure is indeed a grievous sin, but normal marital acts are motivated by mutual love and to increase the bond, and to increase love, and to reduce physical sexual temptations. 

The marital intercourse is also permitted by the Church during pregnancy because of its secondary and tertiary purposes. Of course in a later state of pregnancy, "heavy" marital intercourse seems possibly risky to me, but it is allowed.

[StrictCatholicGirl]

Of course, the primary concern is one of being open to children, which is the primary purpose for marriage, thus these discussions are mostly geared toward young couples (who nevertheless probably do engage in sexual activity during infertile times of the month, or even during pregnancy). 

 

The Church's teaching is also geared toward young people in their reproductive years. But the Church doesn't even address (as far as I know) the issue of older married couples having sex for intimacy and unity (of which pleasure is a natural result!). It's like after the reproductive years are over, who cares? 

 

In fact, older people are most open to life because no form of "birth control" or natural family planning need ever be used. The probability of pregnancy is nil, outside of a miracle. Yet the desire for intimacy (while lessened to a degree) is still present. Recently we attended the Catholic wedding of a 60 year old widow and widower. Perhaps they'll live as brother and sister... Or perhaps not.

 

- Lisa

[Belloc]

CC of Pius XI notes marital act is first reproductive, but secondly actof love. Have friend that went..maybe still is..in mindsetof "OT states it is for children only"  and hence, his conclusions, sex is for reproduction only..but next week, his mindset would be opposite (A touch of Right Brainedness coupled with symptoms of Schizophrenia)

[Belloc]

. Recently we attended the Catholic wedding of a 60 year old widow and widower. Perhaps they'll live as brother and sister... Or perhaps not.

 

- Lisa

Good points, why are older people allowed, both pre and post-V2 to marry if child bearing is likely  out.....Would not the priests, some becoming bishop and Popes, likely sinning then, if only for reproduction?

[HMiS]

. Recently we attended the Catholic wedding of a 60 year old widow and widower. Perhaps they'll live as brother and sister... Or perhaps not.

 

- Lisa

Good points, why are older people allowed, both pre and post-V2 to marry if child bearing is likely  out.....Would not the priests, some becoming bishop and Popes, likely sinning then, if only for reproduction?

And why is marital intercourse allowed during pregnancy?

I know the answer, but some people like to use Doctors of the Church to foster their own puberile absolute opinions.

[Satori]

I hope one of the Eastern Catholics will come on here to correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Eastern Church emphasize Christian marriage primarily as a sign of Christ's love for the Church? I have read that the primary purpose of natural marriage is children, but that for Christians the primary purpose is the sacramental one, and that children, rather than being the main reason for the bond, are emphasized as the natural fruit and crowning glory of the bond. This is why marriages between older people are still good.

HMiS, did you mean "puerile"?

[StrictCatholicGirl]

I think you stated that well, Rebecca. Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament.

 

Sacramental marriage and the bond between a husband and a wife is a sign of Christ's unity with the Church. It points to the heavenly union, which is symbolized often in parables and in Revelations as a Bridegroom (Christ) and bride (the Church). As Jesus said in Matthew 23: 30: "For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." Yet the intimate bond between the Creator and creature will last eternally. 

 

- Lisa