Dave,
I don't understand you and Philip Blosser connecting Sola Scriptura with liberal sexual morality, because most Conservative Evangelicals do not fall into those liberal trends that you cite.
You say "big wow" to your spin on low numbers, but the fact is that the culture that still has the most conservative views on sexual morality is still the USA. (out of the European western traditions) (for now, I don't know about South and Central American, and Africa has lots of problems with the men having lots of sexual liaisons and that contribution to the spread of aids, etc.
The Magisterium being in Vatican City, close to Rome, has not caused Italy, Spain, and France to be great champions of sexual morality either. Pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortions, pornography, adulteries, only one or two children of married couples are also very prevalent in those countries, societies who have the "infallible" human authority in their churches, but their societies are not better than the liberal Protestants ones that have compromised on clear Biblical morality.
There is not a necessary connection with Sola Scriptura and liberal morality in sexual issues.
Dobson's view on Masturbation is not held by most conservative Evangelicals -- and even he makes the caveat that it is only OK if not accompanied by sexual sinful lust (Matthew 5:28.); which seems to me, to be impossible. So, I think that masturbation is sin, because it is almost always accompanied with sinful lust. But in marriage, this gets to the whole roots of Augustine and Jerome's dilemma of affirming marriage in one sentence, (only for children), but condemning sex in marriage in every other way. Their emphasis gave rise to the un-biblical views that sex is dirty and contributed to much of the rebellion and overreaction of Kinsey and Hugh Heffner and the sexual revolution. So it(Dobson's view) basically agrees with you, for it is relieves one of the guilt of "wet dreams", etc.
The view that some contraception might be not be sinful is not necessarily connected to Dobson's view that masturbation being OK or other liberal sexual morality.
You have not proved that Sola Scriptura is the root cause of these problems, because your Infallible Magisterium has not solved the problems of France, Spain, and Italy nor the pedophiles, and homosexuals in the priesthood.
Churches with a strong doctrinal stance of Sola Scriptura AND healthy church doctrine and church discipline and sanctification do not compromise on Biblical sexual morality and still are the more effective lights on changing society.
I like Sean Hannity, the conservative Roman Catholic political and cultural radio and TV talk show host.
I heard him 2 nights ago --
He agreed with capital punishment (in reference to the Saddam Hossein execution; although the taunting of the Shiite guards is an example of why the modern RCC has been mostly against capital punishment, because it is difficult to carry it out consistently and justly, even though it has not been ruled upon, ex cathedrally, right?);
Hannity also said, against your magisterium; and he said that priests ought to be able to get married. (one man, one woman) Good for him.
Conservative Evangelicals usually like the Conservative Roman Catholic political/cultural commentators like Hannity, Laura Ingram, and Bill Bennett. (but the gambling, that was bad.)
So, there is not a necessary connection between low sexual morality and Sola Scriptura. Depends on who consistently each group lives up to its principles and applies them in discipleship and teaching on sanctification and church community and discipline.
"Depends on who consistently . . . "
OOOPs --
Should have been:
Depends on how consistently . . .
Is Onan's sin a "one time sin" in Genesis 38:9
Or was it an ongoing and continual spilling of his seed (more than one time) for refusing to have any children ? (Because the text says, "But Onan knew the offspring would not be his . . . "
NIV says, "so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother."
the "whenever" seems to indicate that is was more than a "one time act" and the emphasis is on refusing to have any children at all.
But this levirate law seems to fly in the face of the quotes from the Catechism you provided, that each child needs to feel the love from both parents. The child of Onan would not be his, but his brother's. How would that work, since Er was dead?
when did this law become abrogated? (Deut. 25:5-6, Ruth 4:5, 10, 17) Under Hebrews? How is it abrogated under ceremonial or civil law, yet not an abiding moral law? Any thoughts?
How does NT and Christianity deal with this strange law in Israel?
Dave:
The sin of onanism and separating the unitive and procreative act has led to the highest degree of sin against all of humanity. Please check my blog and post or email this clinic in Texas to protest.
God bless, sorry bout the spam like nature of this
www.crossed-the-tiber.blogspot.com
Hi TJ,
You can advertise such important material here, anytime. It's not spam; it''s necessary information that as many as possible should know about.
I don't understand you and Philip Blosser connecting Sola Scriptura with liberal sexual morality, because most Conservative Evangelicals do not fall into those liberal trends that you cite.
But the definition of a conservative evangelical has become much more liberal. There was a time when they were all against contraception. Now they don't just accept it they have even forgotten it was ever an issue. There is a whole spectrum of opinion within protestantism but every place you look the trend is to water down the gospel. Every decade truth gets lost.
You cannot equate sin with the loss of truth. Lots of Catholics practice contraception but the church has not lost the truth about contraception. That is the key. We need a church we can trust to teach the truth to our children and grandchildren. I have seen every protestant church I am familiar with become much more liberal in my lifetime (except for the few who have split and become an orthodox rump).
Many Catholics have bought into the sexual revolution and all sorts of other strange ideas but they haven't been able to take the church with them. They do things in defiance of the church. Protestant churches not only go with the flow of the culture but they even lack the authority to say for sure when the culture is wrong. Even when the church stands against a certain behavior a pew sitter can in good conscience engage in it if he convinces himself it is not against scripture. The church's official stand can be pretty much ignored.
Hannity also said, against your magisterium; and he said that priests ought to be able to get married. (one man, one woman) Good for him.
Mr. Temple, priestly celibacy is not a matter of doctrine, but of discipline. So, Mr. Hannity is NOT going against the teaching magisterium by expressing disagreement with the custom priestly celibacy in the Latin Church.
You got yet another non-answer from Hays. He evidently still doesn't understand Geach's argument for the legitimate use of ad hominem, and at this point, I suspect he is either too lazy or too blinded with hatred and bigotry to care. In any event, he's raving incoherently.
Oddly enough, on the only logical goof you committed, he agreed with you:
[DA:] “Every lawyer learns these tricks, because every lawyer will occasionally have to argue a lost cause and will have to come up with nonsense that is ‘believable’ enough to hoodwink and fool twelve human beings on a jury with illogical and fallacious gibberish.”
[SH:]I’m glad to see you share the same opinion of Karl Keating and Jonathan Prejean that Svendsen, White, Engwer, and I do.
You left out the ethical component of this equation; ethical lawyers tell their clients when they have no case and refuse to argue "nonsense" in front of a court. All lawyers are certainly taught to look for these tactics in their unethical opponents, solely to exploit the weaknesses they create. Good lawyers know that credibility with the judge and jury is invaluable and if the ethical lawyer is skilled enough to point out unethical conduct, the unethical lawyer usually ends up losing, if not at the trial level then on appeal. The best defense for one's client is always to give the honest defense. Lawyers who get cute and try to get away with this sort of thing don't last very long, at least among those clients who are actually looking for quality legal services.
Hi Jonathan,
Indeed, I should have clarified by adding "bad" or "unscrupulous" to "lawyer." Often when I use this analogy, I use the phrase "bad lawyer," so it is not, by any means, my opinion that all lawyers do this.
I apologize to you personally (and any other Christian, ethical lawyers reading this) for leaving the impression that I did, and I will go change it now. The old language is preserved here (lest someone accuse me of revising after the fact and not "fessing up").
The revised wording is:
"Every lawyer who is unethical or unscrupulous (not all lawyers, by any means!) uses these kinds of tricks, when they (unethically) choose to argue a lost cause and have to come up with nonsense that is 'believable' enough to hoodwink and fool twelve human beings on a jury with illogical and fallacious gibberish."
This was a pretty dumb mistake on my part. Again, apologies to attorneys and to Jonathan in particular. I just wasn't thinking properly when I wrote what I did before. If it were taken literally, it would mean that no lawyer can possibly be consistently ethical or principled, and that is, of course, hogwash. I count many wonderfully Christian lawyers as my friends, and I do admire the profession and the legal sort of mind and approach to argumentation.
In fact, recently I received a letter from an attorney who thought my own style and method in dispute was rather "legal" in nature, and he said he would hire me in a second to do para-legal work.
Greg wrote:
Mr. Temple, priestly celibacy is not a matter of doctrine, but of discipline. So, Mr. Hannity is NOT going against the teaching magisterium by expressing disagreement with the custom priestly celibacy in the Latin Church."
Greg,
Yes, you are right, in that sense, (and I knew and understand the distinction between dogma and discipline); but in another sense, he is going against the "regular" or "ordinary function" of the Magisterium", right?
(I will have to find the quotes from the Catechism and Vatican II or some official document on that issue later. I have it somewhere.)
What about his view that Capital punishment is just and right? Romans chapter 13
Randy,
Yes, many conservative Protestants have moved more "left", but you still cannot show a necessary connection between allowing for some contraception and compromise on all the other moral issues that Dave listed.
It is clear that God judged Onan for not having any children at all, if the NIV is right on translating it, "whenever" -- so at the least we can agree that an attitude of "no children" and selfishness of wanting sex and marriage only for pleasure is definitely wrong and Evangelical conservatives will agree with that, and many are having more chidlren now.
You also cannot prove a necessary connection between Sola Scriptura and compromise on any of the other moral issues Dave listed.
Steve Hays gave another "answer" on his blog. As it was mostly more sophistry and irrelevant minutiae, I decided not to answer it point-by-point. But I did provide several short, pithy refutations of some of the more glaring and outrageous of his factual whoppers. See the paper and the comments following (including mine) here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
2...y.html#comments
Hi Ken,
>I don't understand you and Philip Blosser connecting Sola Scriptura with liberal sexual morality, because most Conservative Evangelicals do not fall into those liberal trends that you cite.
This is untrue. Almost all Protestants contracept. Many now accept a more liberal view on divorce. Who knows how many accept masturbation, if someone like James Dobson does? It's probably a mixed bag, but I see many evangelicals defending it.
>You say "big wow" to your spin on low numbers, but the fact is that the culture that still has the most conservative views on sexual morality is still the USA. (out of the European western traditions)
There is some truth to this, but since we continue to legally butcher 4000 babies a day, we can in no sense say that we are either "conservative" morally or any sort of Christian culture.
>The Magisterium being in Vatican City, close to Rome, has not caused Italy, Spain, and France to be great champions of sexual morality either.
People have a free will. If the US is so profoundly Christian, why do we have massive crime problems, surpassing most other countries, a huge pornography industry, filthy movies and TV shows and pop music, rampant divorce, broken homes, absurd, alarming illegitimacy rates, abortion, etc.?
>Pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortions, pornography, adulteries, only one or two children of married couples are also very prevalent in those countries, societies who have the "infallible" human authority in their churches, but their societies are not better than the liberal Protestants ones that have compromised on clear Biblical morality.
If you want to talk about countries, that's one thing. There are many factors involved, causing the entire west to become more secular and pagan. I always try to keep this discussion on the plane of actual doctrinal teachings of various Christian groups.
>There is not a necessary connection with Sola Scriptura and liberal morality in sexual issues.
You have to explain somehow why whole denominations in Protestantism compromise and get worse and worse over time. Obviously there is something internal to Protestantism that causes this. All the mainline denominations are pro-abortion (Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcoalians, Lutherans, United Church of Christ, etc.).
The Episcopalians now ordain practicing homosexuals. This is the denomination of C.S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers!
>Dobson's view on Masturbation is not held by most conservative Evangelicals
I'd love to see survey data on that. I might do some searching myself, out of curiosity.
>-- and even he makes the caveat that it is only OK if not accompanied by sexual sinful lust (Matthew 5:28.); which seems to me, to be impossible.
Probably so; yes. But in our view it is wrong even if lust is not present. It's intrinsically wrong and sinful, by its very nature, even apart from the thoughts involved.
>So, I think that masturbation is sin, because it is a
(cont.)
. . . almost always accompanied with sinful lust. But in marriage, this gets to the whole roots of Augustine and Jerome's dilemma of affirming marriage in one sentence, (only for children), but condemning sex in marriage in every other way. Their emphasis gave rise to the un-biblical views that sex is dirty and contributed to much of the rebellion and overreaction of Kinsey and Hugh Heffner and the sexual revolution.
Everyone pretty much agrees that some of the Fathers went too far in that direction, yes.
>So it(Dobson's view) basically agrees with you, for it is relieves one of the guilt of "wet dreams", etc.
Nonsense . . .
>The view that some contraception might be not be sinful is not necessarily connected to Dobson's view that masturbation being OK or other liberal sexual morality.
You have not proved that Sola Scriptura is the root cause of these problems,
Fine, then tell me what it is in Protestantism that keeps denominations in a constant process of becoming more liberal? Even very conservative groups like the Southern Baptists have to fight hard about every ten years to ward off liberal trends in their midst.
Hi Ken,
>Is Onan's sin a "one time sin" in Genesis 38:9
Or was it an ongoing and continual spilling of his seed (more than one time) for refusing to have any children ? (Because the text says, "But Onan knew the offspring would not be his . . . "
Dunno; but this doesn't change the wickedness of what we do know about his acts.
>NIV says, "so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother."
the "whenever" seems to indicate that is was more than a "one time act" and the emphasis is on refusing to have any children at all.
This is a fascinating tidbit of information. I was unaware that some translations were like this (since I use the RSV and it reads prima facie as if it is a one-time act). I looked up some others:
REB (same as NIV): whenever he lay with his brother's wife
NEB: whenever he slept with his brother's wife
NRSV: whenever he went in to his brother's wife
NAB and Confraternity: whenever he had relations
Moffatt: whenever he went in to his brother's widow
Goodspeed: whenever he had intercourse
Amplified: When he cohabited with his brother's widow, he prevented conception
I'm not sure if this changes the argument on either side or not. It seems to me that it would provide more evidence, however, that his sin was not just failure to keep the levirate law, but contraception as well.
>But this levirate law seems to fly in the face of the quotes from the Catechism you provided, that each child needs to feel the love from both parents. The child of Onan would not be his, but his brother's. How would that work, since Er was dead?
It's not a biological crieria there, but a "family line" one, acc. to Jewish and ancient near east custom.
>when did this law become abrogated? (Deut. 25:5-6, Ruth 4:5, 10, 17) Under Hebrews? How is it abrogated under ceremonial or civil law, yet not an abiding moral law? Any thoughts?
I understand that it was not technically part of the Mosaic law.
>How does NT and Christianity deal with this strange law in Israel?
The same way it does with polygamy and concubinage: the ideal was now one wife for one man and no divorce.
I don't understand you and Philip Blosser connecting Sola Scriptura with liberal sexual morality, because most Conservative Evangelicals do not fall into those liberal trends that you cite.
Dave wrote:
This is untrue. Almost all Protestants contracept.
Ken responds:
I meant all of the other issues that are clearly sin. (that you mentioned in the opening paragraph -- pornography, pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, stem-cell research, etc. (cannot remember all of them if I forgot any.) I understand you and the RCC and history before 1930 (all the Protestants at the time) viewed all contraception as sin. Putting that one aside, for the sake of the argument, there is not a necessary connection between Sola Scriptura and the other sexual sins you listed; that is, that it causes liberal views on the other issues.
Dave wrote:
Many now accept a more liberal view on divorce.
Ken responds:
This one is harder for the RCC to really come down hard on since it has that special thing called "annulment", and in Western countries, it is rampant. Where in the Scripture is such a thing? Do you even have "material sufficiency" for such a practice?
Most Bible Believing Evangelicals believe that either:
1. Divorce is always wrong.
2. If one person goes through with divorce and the other is innocent, then there cannot be re-marriage unless there is death.
3. Divorce is only acceptable if an innocent party is the victim of hard-hearted continuous adultery (based on Matthew 5 and 19), (notice this is not saying that an innocent spouse should immediately divorce after the other spouse has a one-time fling and then repents and has genuine remorse and repentance. Pastoral counseling and church discipline is always assumed in this process.)
and 2. When an unbeliever leaves and wants a divorce and the reason is because of their faith in Jesus Christ. ( I Corinthians 7:15) By the way, what is the RCC understanding of that passage?
Dave writes:
Who knows how many accept masturbation, if someone like James Dobson does?
Ken responds:
Most teachers/pastors/elders and church leaders I know have condemned this aspect of James' Dobson's teaching. (He is not an elder of a local church and has no Spiritual authority to speak in a dogmatic way to other Christians and churches, although he is very good on most other moral issues. As I said, it is very difficult to conceive of masturbation without sexual lust and fantasies.
Dave wrote:
It's probably a mixed bag, but I see many evangelicals defending it.
Ken responds:
But this, and others becoming more liberal are using their free will (as you put it as to why so many Roman Catholics do not follow their regular magisterium in submission and obedience), so you still have not proven a necessary and/or causal relationship between Sola Scriptura and liberal views of homosexuality, abortion, etc.
>when did this law become abrogated? (Deut. 25:5-6, Ruth 4:5, 10, 17) Under Hebrews? How is it abrogated under ceremonial or civil law, yet not an abiding moral law? Any thoughts?
Dave wrote:
I understand that it was not technically part of the Mosaic law.
Ken writes:
Huh?? Deuteronomy 25:5-6 is not technically part of the Mosaic law??
>So it(Dobson's view) basically agrees with you, for it is relieves one of the guilt of "wet dreams", etc.
Dave wrote:
Nonsense . . .
Ken writes:
Your lack of argumentation here indicates maybe you did not see this before?
If you wrote that wet-dreams as OK and a young person should not feel guilty about that (if it was a purely biological "release" during sleep in puberty from the God-given attraction to opposite sex, and not fed by lustful fantasies), and Dobson said it was wrong and sinful if not accompanied by sexual lust, (Matthew 5:28.), then that is pretty much the same thing, don't you think? what is the difference?
Fine, then tell me what it is in Protestantism that keeps denominations in a constant process of becoming more liberal? Even very conservative groups like the Southern Baptists have to fight hard about every ten years to ward off liberal trends in their midst.
The same reason that you gave as to why Roman Catholic societies and countries are even more liberal than the USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia are more liberal that the USA as a whole. You said, something like, people have free will and violate it. Same with the problems with Protestants.
Those liberal denominations that you listed -- Anglican, Episcopal, United Church of Christ, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran -- there are two issues to distinquish here:
1. Each of those denominations have separate conservative denominations that broke away from the Liberal group because of thier liberal views of Scripture, which leads to the liberal morality.
(except the United Church of Christ, as I understand it, it is a thoroughly liberal denomination that ordains homosexuals, etc.
But there are conservative Anglicans/episcopals who are breaking away from the top Archbishop of Cantebury group because of its liberal stance.
There are conservative Weslyans, Methodists, - conservative Presbyterians: PCA, RPC, broke off from the PCUSA and evangelical Lutherans also that don't follow the liberal Lutherans.'
2. Those groups are liberal in morality because they don't even believe the Scriptures as "God breathed" not because they Do believe in Sola Scriptura, it is because they do not believe in Sola Scriptura that they become liberal.
Dave,
Thanks for this discussion; I appreciate your answers. The "whenever" in Genesis 38:9 , showing that it was more of an ongoing sinful attitude is even more strengthened by all the other translations you include.
Is not the NAB a Roman Catholic version?
At the least, we can definitely agree and say that a refusal to have any children at all; all the time and a selfish attitude against having and raising children in marriage, and a selfish attitude towards one's wife as a "masturbation tool" for pleasure alone is sinful; and this is definitely sinful and part of the reason why God judged Onan.
To me, it is unclear that all non-abortive kinds of contraception are always sin; but the sinful selfish attitude of Onan against children and family definitely was.
NAB and Confraternity: whenever he had relations
What is "Confraternity" ?
people have free will and violate it. Same with the problems with Protestants.
should have been worded better -- something like, "people have free will to disobey and rebel against the Lord and His word in the Scriptures".
Free will here means the freedom to act according to one's desires and nature, that there is no external coercion from outside the self.
But the true sheep hear His voice and follow the Shepherd -- John 10:27
RCs rebel against the Magisterium and Protestants rebel against the Scriptures -- but we don't claim an infallible church that is supposed to be a help and guide to people -- when there is both rebellion against the "infallible authority" of the RC church (the hierarchical, visible institution), and there is rebellion against Sola Scriptura, your problem is no different that ours.
"Christ did not stress that it is ‘another man’s wife, . . . Even if [a man] looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart" (JPII, The Theology of the Body, 159).
This does seem like John Paul II went overboard and started going back to Clement of Alexandria and Augustine and Jerome, who taught that sex in marriage was always tainted with sinful lust unless it was for the express purpose of pro-creation. Where does John Paul II actually define it and explain it as "using one's wife in a perverted way"; because 1. Jesus is clearly talking about lusting after another man's wife or a single woman, not one's own wife, and 2. the word, Lust, epithumia is also used in a good positive sense, in Luke 22:14, "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you . . . "
Even you agree that everyone pretty much agrees that the early church fathers were wrong in this, so, do you think John Paul II is wrong and went overboard?
Where in his book and in that same context does he explain that he means, "in a perverted way, like using pornography, or thinking of another woman with making love to his own wife, etc."
Where doe he make it clear? Any quotes?
Where does John Paul II explain that he means what the RCC apologists defend him as meaning? Does he explain it before or later?
seems unclear and seems that it is not a "clear, living voice" that can help us and guide us into clarity, clear up the difficult Scriptures and many interpretations of the abomination of "private interpretation", etc.
Hi Ken,
>I meant all of the other issues that are clearly sin. (that you mentioned in the opening paragraph -- pornography, pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality, divorce, euthanasia, stem-cell research, etc. (cannot remember all of them if I forgot any.)
I didn't mention pornography, premarital sex, euthanasia or stem cell research in this regard, so obviously you are fighting against assertions here which were not my own (perhaps Dr. Blosser mentioned those things).
ME: "It's probably a mixed bag, but I see many evangelicals defending it."
>But this, and others becoming more liberal are using their free will (as you put it as to why so many Roman Catholics do not follow their regular magisterium in submission and obedience), so you still have not proven a necessary and/or causal relationship between Sola Scriptura and liberal views of homosexuality, abortion, etc.
So you are contending that Steve Hays is a liberal? Or that he doesn't truly accept sola Scriptura, and that isn't why he holds this view (he says the Bible says nothing against the sin), or both?
Does James White defend masturbation, too? If not, maybe he should be made aware that one of his big buddies condones serious sin, huh? It's bad for anti-Catholic evangelical PR.
I was talking about the way you seem to be saying that Sola Scriptura principles and contraception among many Protestants necessarily will lead to liberal views on abortion and homosexuality and divorce, etc.
I am a little confused at Steve's stance on that -- but I do not wish to speak for him; and cannot, but no, he is not liberal, obviously. I would disagree with him on this issue, as I said, it is pretty difficult to imagine anyone masturbating without sexual fantasies and committing the sins of Matthew 5:28 and Colossians 3:5.
I think Steve would agree that lustful fantasies and pornography are sin -- Matthew 5:28, Colossians 3:5.
And he would surely agree that what Pee Wee Herman did was sin, especially because it was in public at a pornographic movie. ( I am recalling from memory the story when it came out in the news about 20 years ago??) So, it was unfair to imply that Steve H. or James Dobson was agreeing with that.
So, I sort of agreed with them that putting Pee Wee Herman's picture there with the discussion was in bad taste. (But I am sure, it was funny from your point of view). It is in poor taste, because what he did was clearly wrong and sin and neither Steve Hayes nor James Dobson would approve of that.
You both have too many personal jabs at each other, and I am sincerely trying to calmly discuss the issues with you.
"Does James White defend masturbation, too? If not, maybe he should be made aware that one of his big buddies condones serious sin, huh? It's bad for anti-Catholic evangelical PR."
I seriously doubt it, but you seem to be playing a "guilt by association game" and that is also in bad taste and a kind of ad hominem style.
Here's the reference about the regular or normal and ordinary function of the Magisterium that demands submission in mind on everything, not just ex cathedra dogmas.
Interesting.
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
CHAPTER III
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)
And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)
But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)
Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme Magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.
On the Hierachical Structure of the Church and In Particular on the Episcopate, Chapter III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, Pope Paul VI, Nov. 21, 1964
sorry, I left out the key word, "NOT" in a sentence above. should have been:
Dobson said it was NOT wrong and sinful if not accompanied by sexual lust, (Matthew 5:28.), then that is pretty much the same thing, don't you think? what is the difference?
> Deuteronomy 25:5-6 is not technically part of the Mosaic law??
Genesis 38 was before the Law was given to Moses, anyway, so it is a moot point.
>If you wrote that wet-dreams as OK and a young person should not feel guilty about that (if it was a purely biological "release" during sleep in puberty from the God-given attraction to opposite sex, and not fed by lustful fantasies),
I didn't say it was "OK"; what I said was that a sleeping person is not responsible for what they do while asleep and that this kind of dream can arguably stem from prior lustful thoughts and habits.
> and Dobson said it was wrong and sinful if not accompanied by sexual lust, (Matthew 5:28.), then that is pretty much the same thing, don't you think? what is the difference?
Dopbson is saying that you can deliberately indulge in what is intrinsically disordered and wrong and part of the contraceptive mentality. It's 100% different.
>The same reason that you gave as to why Roman Catholic societies and countries are even more liberal than the USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia are more liberal that the USA as a whole. You said, something like, people have free will and violate it. Same with the problems with Protestants.
Once again, for the millionth time: I'm not talking about societies but about Christian groups and their doctrine.
Catholic moral teaching has NOT changed.
But Protestant groups are in a state of almost constant flux and watering-down of previous moral teaching (esp. sexual).
So I ask, "why the difference"? And you want to talk about Italy and what not, which is completely irrelevant to the question.
>
1. Each of those denominations have separate conservative denominations that broke away from the Liberal group because of thier liberal views of Scripture, which leads to the liberal morality.
Exactly! This is what I just talked about: why do Protestant denominations continually go liberal, and how is it that the Catholic Church never changes its doctrine and alone holds to traditional Christian morality? Why is that? I'd love to hear a Protestant actually give some explanation for this; just once.
>Is not the NAB a Roman Catholic version?
Correct.
>At the least, we can definitely agree and say that a refusal to have any children at all; all the time and a selfish attitude against having and raising children in marriage, and a selfish attitude towards one's wife as a "masturbation tool" for pleasure alone is sinful; and this is definitely sinful and part of the reason why God judged Onan.
Excellent.
>To me, it is unclear that all non-abortive kinds of contraception are always sin; but the sinful selfish attitude of Onan against children and family definitely was.
Well, you're on the right track there Ken!
>What is "Confraternity" ?
That's an earlier Catholic translation that was widely used.
>This does seem like John Paul II went overboard and started going back to C
(cont.)
. . . Clement of Alexandria and Augustine and Jerome, who taught that sex in marriage was always tainted with sinful lust unless it was for the express purpose of pro-creation.
This is sheer nonsense. Of course any man can lust towards his wife, because - again - lust, according to Jesus, is a matter not just of plumbing and having a marriage contract or not, but of the heart. So a man can treat his wife as purely an object, and selfishly, just as he could beat her. There can even be the moral (if not legal) equivalent of a rape in marriage (the wife merely has to be unwilling, and be forced to have sex).
Are we supposed to believe that marital sex can never be corrupted and perverted, just like everything else good can be? This is a no-brainer. Yet over at Trialsmog people are making fun of the pope as if this were the most ridiculous utterance in the history of mankind.
It is not only not ridiculous; it is self-evidently true (if only Protestants would get over their knee-jerk response to everything we say about sex, as if we are anti-sex, anti-marriage, and the whole nine yards.
>Even you agree that everyone pretty much agrees that the early church fathers were wrong in this, so, do you think John Paul II is wrong and went overboard?
Not at all; he spoke a truism. It's only stupid Protestant projection of mentalities that aren't present there, that makes the statement supposedly ridiculous. The only ridiculous thing here is the idiocy of the complaints and the usual misunderstandings. John Paul II had more wisdom about human sexuality than any three "conservative" Protestant denominations puit together.
>Where in his book and in that same context does he explain that he means, "in a perverted way, like using pornography, or thinking of another woman with making love to his own wife, etc."
Where doe he make it clear? Any quotes?
I'm sure he expands upon what he meant somewhere. You go look it up. I have enough to do. But you who want to comment negatively should have done that before you lashed out; this is the point.
Dave,
I don't have the book by John Paul II on the Body, so I cannot look it up, unless it is later at a library or something.
the bare statement itself seems like he is going overboard as Clement of Alexandria and Jerome and Augustine did. If you have the book, why don't you provide the proof that he explains it as "in a perverted way", "selfish", "fantancising", using the wife as a 'masturbatory tool".
I am agreeing with you that those are selfish and wrong, but I disagree that Matthew 5:28 is saying that "sexual desire" applies to marriage. "if anyone looks at a woman with lust (epithumia = desire)" -- he commits adultery with her in his heart" -- the issue is mental adultery with another woman that is not one's wife or with a single woman or pre-marital sex (pornea).
All I want is some documentation that John Paul II makes it clear. If he does not, then my point is, the living voice Magisterium of the RCC is no better than the clear verses of Scripture which we already have; because John Paul's statement is not clear; (But the Scriptures are on these issues); and it takes others to write whole explanations and books on how to interpret the "infallible", " clear" interpreter, the living voice.
No apology necessary, although I will take it in the kind spirit it was offered. I knew what you meant, and it's just like Hays to take an honest mistake and to try to make something of it.
Of course he owes you (and Karl Keating) an apology, but how likely is that?
Note that I have not accused Hays of dishonesty, only of sophistry. I think most sophists are hardly even aware of what they are doing (though in the worst cases they may be). It's always the same with anti-Catholics: they have so little respect for Catholicism that they can't even represent our views accurately before going on to sophistry and straw-man target practice.
>All I want is some documentation that John Paul II makes it clear.
Not from me, because I don't think it is necessary. If you knew anything of the profundity of JPII's teaching on sexuality, then you wouldn't make such an asinine charge in the first place.
If you are that much in the dark, you shouldn't be making the charge, because it is out of pure ignorance and predisposition to fall prey to the usual common prejudices against the Catholic Church. Therefore, YOU ought to do the work and discover what he taught and thought, in context, not give me more work to do because you were lax.
On the other hand, if you had done the proper background study before making the charge, you wouldn't (assuming fairmindedness, which I believe is true of you) have made the charge and we wouldn't be having this little exchange.
Either way, it isn't my burden to look something up. I know he wouldn't have taught something that dumb because I know how the man thought; it's simply not within the range of possibilities. I don't need particulars. It's like if your wife or mine said something a little hard to understand: we would give them the benefit of the doubt because we KNOW them, and know they wouldn't mean certain things.
Likewise, JPII was not "anti-sex"; he was "anti-corruption of moral sex" and lust is that, whether the one committing it is directing it towards any woman at all, or his own wife.
Because I'm such a nice guy, tho, I'll give you a little nudge in the right direction, regarding JPII and the nature of lust (because it was so easy to find):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPA...DOC/
jp2tb42.htm
You can do this, Ken. Learn to use Google and a few key words, and it is as easy as pie. All I did was type in:
"john paul II lust spouse wife"
and the very first entry in Google brought me to something that could provide plenty of background thought and context.
Now you may still interpret this as "anti-sex" because you may not understand the deep profundity of his teaching on marriage and theology of the body. But that's another problem: of understanding, as opposed to being a problem in the teaching itself.
Greg,
Yes, you are right, in that sense, (and I knew and understand the distinction between dogma and discipline); but in another sense, he is going against the "regular" or "ordinary function" of the Magisterium", right?
Since disagreeing with the prudence of whether or not the Latin Church should retain the discipline of priestly celibacy does not constitute a dissent from doctrine, one does not go against the Magisterium (which is the teaching part of the Church). I happen to be a huge advocate of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, though.
As far as the death penalty is concerned, the Church has always recognized (and still does recognize) the State's right to execute dangerous criminals commensurate with its duty to protect the common good.
JPII felt that modern penal systems are able to achieve that end without resorting to capital punishment. So he advocated doing away with the death penalty. That is simply a matter of prudential judgment, not doctrine, since determining the efficacy of penal systems is outside the competence of the Church to speak on authoritatively. A Catholic can either agree or disagree with that judgment. I for one disagree with it.
In Christ,
Thanks Dave for the link to the article, by John Paul II and it was very good.
I honestly did not know if parts of his book were on the web, etc., but your "nudge" helped me.
I did not mean to offend or pre-judge, I was only working with the facts as I already had them.
And I will go to a library and try to find his book and read for the context.
I think that John Paul II explains himself well in the article I read, and I think it is true that even a husband can violate his wife in a selfish and perverted way, but I don't think we call that "adultery" with one's own wife.
However, I think maybe I Thess. 4;1-8 would be better example of the Scriptural text that teaches what John Paul II was trying to get at, not Matthew 5:28. He explains perversions and selfishness rightly, but I Thess. 4:1-8 is the text for the concept of what he is getting at. I disagree with John Paul II in calling this selfishness and perversion "adultery" with one's own wife, therefore Matthew 5:28 is not talking about one's own wife, but I Thessalonians 4 is, "that each of you know how to handle your own vessel (own body or wife) in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the pagans who do not know God." (verses 4 and 5)
So, the Protestants would agree with the concepts that John Paul II was trying to get at, he was just using the wrong verses.
Greg,
Thanks for the interaction. Did you read the long post that I finally found from official Papal documents- is this not saying that a faithful RC must submit everything in mind and body to the magisterium even if it not ex cathedra dogma? (from Lumen Gentium, Pope Paul VI, 1964)
Why is the Latin rite required to be celibate, but the other cultures are not required to be celibate for priests?
Where in the Scriptures is this distinction made? Where is the material sufficiency for such a practice?
You can use I Cor. 7, but it does not say this is a discipline is for all ministers, for all time, and I Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and I Cor. 9:1-5 go against this.
At most, it was a discipline for some believers some times. To make it a discipline for all ministers in all the Latin right communities seems to go too far and create some of the problems that naturally occur with that kind of strict rule that seems to go against I Tim. 3, Titus 1, I Cor. 9:1-5, and I Timothy 4:3.
Steve Hays' latest response:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/
2...826635610725813
Including this gem of charity:
"It’s the laity which is most to blame for the Catholic sex scandal, because it’s laymen like Armstrong who downplay the extent of the scandal.
"If they voted with their feet, this wouldn’t be possible. They make it possible by their blind support for a corrupt institution.
"They literally sacrifice their own children to the Moloch of the papacy."
Of course, I didn't downplay anything: at the time or now. I had a lengthy list of articles about the scandal on my website, including many scathing ones by Rod Dreher, who left the Church and became Orthodox because of the scandal.
What I pointed out recently was that sexual abuse of children by Protestant pastors is disproportionately even higher than the incidence among Catholic priests.
And the data came from the Jewish commentator Michael Medved, and secular and Protestant sources (e.g., Christianity Today).
But Steve wants to blind himself to facts and reality. Human sin is a problem everywhere, not just in the Catholic Church. He can live in an infantile bubble of unreality if he wants and never see the sin under his own nose (and while he masturbates away and sanctions others doing the same so they won't be sexually-repressed like us weird Catholics), but that doesn't change facts.
Greg,
Thanks for the interaction
You're welcome.
Did you read the long post that I finally found from official Papal documents- is this not saying that a faithful RC must submit everything in mind and body to the magisterium even if it not ex cathedra dogma? (from Lumen Gentium, Pope Paul VI, 1964)
I am quite familiar with this passage yes. What it is talking about is what I was saying before, doctrinal teaching, not disclinary matters or prundential judgments that involve matters other than doctrine. Not all doctrinal teaching is solemnly defined in the highest order. In fact, most is not. The vast majority of Catholic doctrine is taught through what is called the universal ordinary Magisterium. And this is usually the vehicle popes use to "strengthen the brethren" (cf. Lk. 22:31-32).
Hence, as far the discipline of priestly celibacy is concerned, this citation from VCII would not apply. No one has to internally agree with that discipline. It only requires external obedience from those to whom it applies, mainly that bishops in the Latin Church must restrict their choice of priests to those who freely choose the celibate state.
Now you ask about scriptural support for this practice. Well, there's no one passage that suffices as the smoking gun. Celibacy for ordained ministers is not explicitly mentioned. But the charism of celibacy in and of itself is. Jesus speaks of those who choose celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. In 1 Cor. 7, Paul is more emphatic about the matter. He goes so far as to say that it is better for a man to remain unmarried (ie. celibate), for the unmarried man is better disposed to be "anxious for the affairs of the Lord". Now while this by no means speaks of a requirement that Church ministers (i.e. priests) be celibate, it does, by implication, allow for this discipline, given that there is an obvious wisdom in selecting full time ordained ministers from the ranks of such men who are "more anxious of the affairs of the Lord".
As you note, there is some diversity within the Catholic Church as a whole today regarding this practice. For example, many of the Eastern Rites permit the priestly ordination of married men, although only celibates can become bishops. Even within the Latin Rite, as I am sure you are aware, exceptions are made for certain married Protestant minsters who become Catholic to be ordained as priests.
So, if this were a matter that requires religious submission of mind and will, as per Lumen Gentium, allowing such diversity would be a self-contradiction, no?
I hope that helps.
In Christ,
Yes, but I don't see the document making those distinctions you are making. I will have to read it more carefully.
Where and when did this distinction between "latin rites" and other cultural rites come in?
How many rites are there?
Greek, eastern, Byzantine, etc.
Where is the official word on that stuff; where is it in Scripture?
Why are some cultures allowed to have married priests and others are not?
Why don't the Latin rites change and allow for both, as Peter himself and the rest of the apostles and the brothers of Jesus were all married? I Corinthians 9:5
Paul was the only one, it seems, who was not married.
Steve Hays came back by offering a reply from a Jewish commentator, Nahum Sarna:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2...-on-gen-
38.html
I replied:
---------------
Big wow. I'm on record repeatedly saying the text had to do with both the levirate law and contraception. I argued that other instances of failure to keep the levirate law did not result in death, so (by reasonable analogy) this one shouldn't have, either. Therefore, I contended that contraception was the likely (primary or immediate) cause.
So what does Sarna say?:
"The text does not make clear specifically why Onan incurs divine wrath."
This being the case, then obviously any speculation as to why he was killed is just that: more or less plausible according to supporting arguments given. But after his tentative admission above, he seems to contradict himself:
"The unusual emphasis given to the particular socio-legal background of the story clearly shows that the point at issue is the levirate obligation and not the general topic of birth control."
First it isn't clear, then it is. Which is it, then? At this point of open possibility, the exegete's prior bias will, no doubt, have an effect on his conclusions. My Catholic views will tend to make me see contraception as the cause, as a matter of natural bias. Those who have no problem with the practice will tend to not see it condemned.
Isn't that rather obvious? I gave my cross-referenced reasons why I take the view that I do, and he gave his. I have the history of both Christian and Jewish moral teaching and exegesis of the Onan passage on my side; he does not.
I think this is significant, but ahistorical types don't care about it. That's their problem, not mine. I happen to believe that the Holy Spirit has been active during all the centuries of the Church, not just presently, or from 1517 onwards.
Based on what you cited, the influence of "contemporary Jewish scholars" will almost certainly involve a liberal bias. This work you cite appears to be in the realm of Conservative Judaism. See:
http://www.answers.com/topic/rab...inic-
literature
According to a relevant Wikipedia article, "Jewish views on contraception":
"Conservative Judaism, while generally encouraging its members to follow the traditional Jewish views on birth control has been more willing to allow greater exceptions regarding its use to fit better within modern society."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jew...n_contraception
That will inevitably color the viewpoint of the commentator on the Onan passage. When the passage itself is not clear in specific meaning (admitted by Sarna on one hand and then taken back with the other), this will particularly be the case, as we all bring predispositions to the text (whether we admit it or not).
This isn't the equivalent of eisegesis: it is simply the nature of how everyone looks at data that is inconclusive in and of itself. We all extrapolate and ded
(cont.)
. . . deduce according to our worldview when it isn't possible to not do so, given the inconclusive vagueness of a biblical text.
Commenting by HaloScan
