Sex and the Early Church

[LilyLamb]

Someone posted this at another message board - it's part of a sermon on lovemaking within the marriage ... I thought I'd check with you all on the accuracy of the history mentioned in this particular section ...

Because of rampant sexual sin and Greek dualism (separating the physical from the spiritual) the early church set a course of dishonoring the body and sexual pleasure.

Tertullian (155 AD – 220 AD) and Ambrose (340 AD – 397 AD) were said to prefer extinction of the human race to continued sexual intercourse. Origen (185 AD – 254 AD) was so convinced of the evils of sexual pleasure that he not only allegorized the Song of Songs but also took a knife and castrated himself. Gregory of Nyssa (335 AD – 394 AD) taught that Adam and Eve were created without sexual desire and if the fall had not occurred the race would have reproduced itself by some harmless mode of vegetation. Chrysostom (347 AD – 407 AD) said that Adam and Eve could not have had sexual relations prior to the fall. Jerome (347 AD – 420 AD) often threw himself into thorny brambles to overwhelm himself with pain when he began to desire a woman sexually. Augustine (354 AD – 430 AD) was sexually active prior to his conversion and later decided that sex within marriage was not sinful, though the lust and passion associated with it was sinful. The view of the Catholic Church through the Middle Ages was that sexual love, both in and out of marriage, was evil. By the fifth century priests were forbidden to marry. The church eventually began to limit the days on which sex was permissible and continued adding days until half of the year or more was prohibited. Thomas Aquinas (1225 AD -1274 AD) taught that sex was only permissible for purposes of procreation.Martin Luther (1438 AD – 1546 AD) said that, “Intercourse is never without sin; but God excuses it by his grace because the estate of marriage is his work, and he preserves in and through the sin all that good which he has implanted and blessed in marriage.”

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Priests weren't forbidden to marry until the 1200s, IIRC, so with that glaring mistake alone I'd take the rest with a grain of salt.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Dave Ulchers
Priests weren't forbidden to marry until the 1200s, IIRC, so with that glaring mistake alone I'd take the rest with a grain of salt.

Where do you get your information? And priests aren't forbidden to marry, they voluntarily take a vow of chastity. The Catholic Church does have married priests, and even priests that break their vow of chastity and marry are still called [and are] priests (the Sacrament of Holy Orders is irreversible), it is just that the Catholic Church removes them from a position of authority.

 

[LilyLamb]

nyj - are you asking me or Dave where we get our information??? If it's me, I don't know where this preacher got his information, sorry ....

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by LilyLamb
nyj - are you asking me or Dave where we get our information??? If it's me, I don't know where this preacher got his information, sorry ....

I had quoted Dave, so predominantly I was speaking to him. Of course, since there is not a single quote (or a reference to any particular writing) from any of the Church Fathers in that piece that you posted, I would take that piece with a grain of salt as well.

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Originally posted by nyj
Where do you get your information?

Satellites, mostly.

And priests aren't forbidden to marry

Mea culpa. I didn't mean it that way!

it is just that the Catholic Church removes them from a position of authority.

Now it is you are the one confusing me! A priest, consecrated in celibacy, can go on to have a valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-Church marriage? And remain in communion with the Church?

Also, I'm not certain that a married Catholic can be come a priest. I think you have to become a Protestant minister first....

 

[VOW]

To Dave:

A priest, consecrated in celibacy, can go on to have a valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-Church marriage? And remain in communion with the Church?

First, he's not "consecrated in celibacy," he's consecrated to GOD. Second, Holy Orders is considered to be a sacrament, and in that, it puts an indelible mark upon the Soul. Like Baptism. You can't be "unbaptized."
He is released from his priesthood duties, and he can marry. He hasn't committed any sin by being released from these duties, so he does remain in full communion with the Church.

Also, I'm not certain that a married Catholic can be come a priest. I think you have to become a Protestant minister first....

It's my understanding that yes, you must be a Protestant minister and married, when you convert to Catholicism. I'm not sure what the dispensation is, regarding chapter and page, but I'm sure it has something to do with celibacy being a discipline of the Church. And Discipline is not written in stone.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Avila]

Now it is you are the one confusing me! A priest, consecrated in celibacy, can go on to have a valid-in-the-eyes-of-the-Church marriage? And remain in communion with the Church?

I don't know that that is necessarily the case. Once a priest, always a priest. However, most priests that choose to get married, break communion with Rome. DH has a former friend who is a "legitimate priest". He was ordained by a "legitimate" priest (who was declared a bishop by another bishop who had left the RCC). There's only one problem with this. The priest left the Church and started his own version of the Catholic church (I think because he wanted to marry one of his parishioners and he couldn't do that and still be the pastor of a parish). The new "denomination" that he started is sort of a combination of SSPX, Orthodox, and Episcopalian. It's waaay to complicated to explain in a forum such as this. Anyway, this ex-friend left the Catholic Church because he couldn't get ordained at 18 years old and he wanted to. He found this "bishop" with valid orders, and was ordained at the tender age of 18. So, he is, technically, a valid priest - just not in communion with Rome. If he were to return to Rome, go to college and get his bachelor's and M.Div., he could become the pastor of a local parish!

Also, I'm not certain that a married Catholic can be come a priest. I think you have to become a Protestant minister first....

Yes and no. If you are in the Byzantine Rite in Eastern Europe, you can be married and a priest - provided you are married before you start seminary. For married Western RC men, I do not believe there is any way to become a priest, as of this time. Many dioceses, however, do have married men who are part of the permanent diaconate. By the time my DH reaches the age requirement for becoming a permanent deacon, we will probably have a new bishop, and hopefully he'll allow married deacons in our diocese. A married deacon can do several things that the priest can, but I really don't know much more about it. Perhaps one of the more "informed" persons on this board can help you.

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Originally posted by VOW
He is released from his priesthood duties, and he can marry. He hasn't committed any sin by being released from these duties, so he does remain in full communion with the Church.

Look in the Catechism, paragraph 1580:
"In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry."

Am I misunderstanding this?

It's my understanding that yes, you must be a Protestant minister and married, when you convert to Catholicism.

Isn't that kind of bizzare? I mean, if you reject the RCC as the one true Church of God, run off and preach the Protestant heresies for a few years, get married, then you can become a married priest. But if you are true to the Church the whole time, and get married, forget about it.

 

[StogusMaximus]

Protestant heresies?

 

[Avila]

Dave - I think the Church has some kind of protection against this. In choosing to become ordained, a man has to go through a very intense period of discernment. It is doubtful that anyone wanting to become a priest would deliberately leave his beloved church, just to become a married priest. Especially since there is a permanent married diaconate in place. I was under the understanding that the only case where married men (former Protestant ministers) were ordained into the Catholic priesthood was when the Episcopalian/Anglican church allowed women priests and many traditional members got upset and left the Episcopalian/Anglican church. Don't know where I got my info from, though. I think it was DH.

Stogus - remember, most of us are Catholics here, and feel that our Protestant brothers and sisters are separated and led astray. I personally wouldn't lump all Protestants together as heretics, but some are, and the fact is, in our minds, Protestants don't possess the full Truth.

 

[StogusMaximus]

Avila,

Remember this is a Christian Forum with Catholics and Protestants joined together in unity. There are rules in place to keep antiCatholic and antiProtestant posts off the board.

 

[LilyLamb]

ummm, can we get back to the topic - I think we already have a couple of priest/marriage threads LOL

I'd like this thread to concentrate more on how the early church viewed sex (within/without marriage).

thanks!

 

[Avila]

Good idea, LilyLamb!!!

I am also interested in seeing how they viewed it. I think we will have to wait on our resident historian, Wols. I can tell you a little bit about sex and society in Early Modern Europe, but that's not early, and it's not the Church!

 

[VOW]

To Stogus:

Huh? What did Avila say that might be construed as antiProtestant?

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that Protestants are not in full fellowship with the Church established by Christ. We are all members of the Body of Christ. This is by no means "antiProtestant." It's simply DEFINING what a "Protestant" IS. As in "Protest".

And this particular forum is labeled as "Discussion of Catholic Beliefs."


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[StogusMaximus]

Avila did not say anything that was antiProtestant, I was replying to her reply over a post made by Dave talking about "Protestant heresies?"

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Originally posted by StogusMaximus
Protestant heresies?

What about them? I only mention this in passing.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

Since Protestants, by definition, believe that faith without hope and charity is alive and not dead, or however they put it, any one holding to this belief who has also been baptised is a heretic. There are other heresies not particular to all Protestants -- OSAS, Calvin's TULIP, etc. -- which is why I used the plural.

Sorry this is off topic, but I gladly aid a moderator seeking information, especially regarding Catholic belief in the Catholic belief discussion forum.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Dave Ulchers
Since Protestants, by definition, believe that faith without hope and charity is alive and not dead, or however they put it, any one holding to this belief who has also been baptised is a heretic. There are other heresies not particular to all Protestants -- OSAS, Calvin's TULIP, etc. -- which is why I used the plural.

Sorry this is off topic, but I gladly aid a moderator seeking information, especially regarding Catholic belief in the Catholic belief discussion forum.

I wish you would move this to my thread! It seems more in keeping with the idea of comparing and contrasting the Catholic and Protestant traditions as they relate to church structure. Besides, it would make my thread longer and boost my ego!

 

[VOW]

Hey Shane:

Did you count Christmas presents under the tree when you were little, to make sure your sibs didn't get more than you did?

LOLOLOLOL!!


Peace and laughter,
~VOW

 

[Dave Ulchers]

Shane -- feel free to bring it up there. I really don't want to be accused of making anti-Protestant posts. Somedays, I wonder if the ceasefire from the 30-year war will last to dusk around here....