Top/bottom Ten Reasons For Sex

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1347081' date='Aug 2 2007, 09:42 AM']you do know that God himself created Adam and Eve in their birthday suits, right?[/quote]

When I was a kid, my art teacher had us paint scenes from the Bible. Well, for some odd reason I picked Adam and Eve in the Garden. Well, the teacher told me to put some clothes on them, but then she told me to paint them, but to not show anything. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the rest of the thread, but your post made me think of it.

[curtins]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1346266' date='Aug 1 2007, 06:19 PM']this story was on the "today show" this morning, and when they asked the question, i said to myself "that's easy - unitive & procreative" [/quote]


I heard it on rush the other day. I was thinking the same thing lilred.

Great (catholic) minds think alike

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='traichuoi' post='1347350' date='Aug 2 2007, 02:05 PM']I understand that the act of sex requires a giving of self but the gift is only a gift if it is received. Thus, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to want or desire the gift. After all, God creates us with the desires.[/quote]

It isn't wrong to mutually desire a gift. But These were people's top reasons for it. No one is perfect, nor are their motives, but it's just really sad to me that the main motive people have is that WANT. It degrades the gift that the conjugal act is... they aren't going to experience what God intended them to if they just waaaaant, and don't desire to give to the other.

[Faith 1st]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1346273' date='Aug 1 2007, 05:30 PM']This is the list for married men, aka my list:

1. It's my marital duty!
2. Babies
3. It's better than watching "What Not to Wear"
4. Because I have to use up this "coupon book" I got on father's day last year, which, oddly enough, can only be used at very specific times under very specific conditions not stipulated on the coupon
5. Because I mowed the lawn this morning
6. It's non-fertile time!!!
7. So I will get the oil changed on the car tomorrow
8. Because that 10 minute window between her "feeling tipsy" and sleeping is about to close
9. The kids are asleep
10. The kids are awake but the door is locked and there's no way they can get in, dang it, why not, c'mon please, I'll do the dishes... really!? awesome, okay cool.[/quote]


[font="Comic Sans MS"]Have you been talking to my husband....because he was laughing through the whole thing...which made me want to read this and after 10 yrs WE can not argue any of these reasons. Thanks for the laugh.[/font][size="4"][/size]

[knightec]

[quote name='Faith 1st' post='1347868' date='Aug 2 2007, 07:34 PM'][font="Comic Sans MS"]Have you been talking to my husband....because he was laughing through the whole thing...which made me want to read this and after 10 yrs WE can not argue any of these reasons. Thanks for the laugh.[/font][size="4"][/size] [/quote]


So my coupon book is still good after 10 years?

[asAlilyAmongThorns]

This makes me thing of an awful assignment we had to do in high school sex-ed where we split into groups and made similar lists. The boy's reasons for not having sex? Cuddling, the girl expects a "connection", and pregnancy were the ones I remembered. [i]Cuddling[/i], people. While everyone was laughing I couldn't help but roll my eyes and think how sad this whole thing was and where their minds were at.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1346273' date='Aug 1 2007, 06:30 PM']This is the list for married men, aka my list:

1. It's my marital duty!
2. Babies
3. It's better than watching "What Not to Wear"
4. Because I have to use up this "coupon book" I got on father's day last year, which, oddly enough, can only be used at very specific times under very specific conditions not stipulated on the coupon
5. Because I mowed the lawn this morning
6. It's non-fertile time!!!
7. So I will get the oil changed on the car tomorrow
8. Because that 10 minute window between her "feeling tipsy" and sleeping is about to close
9. The kids are asleep
10. The kids are awake but the door is locked and there's no way they can get in, dang it, why not, c'mon please, I'll do the dishes... really!? awesome, okay cool.[/quote]

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1347220' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:28 PM']anyways, that's why I'm more than excited to wait for my wedding night...[/quote]

I thought you were in the seminary? Or are you Eastern rite?

[Didymus]

no, sorry for any confusion. I've been out of the seminary for a year and a half now. I was in for two years before that though...

Edited August 3, 2007 by Didymus

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1348638' date='Aug 3 2007, 02:42 PM']no, sorry for any confusion. I've been out of the seminary for a year and a half now. I was in for two years before that though...[/quote]

Cool I was in a monastery last year so a couple of people have gotten confused about me, too

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/3 - Seventeenth Friday

It does seem foolish to dislike with the Theology of the Body because it's immodest. We need better reasons than that.

We have them.

If you're interested in what I think about TOTB (and it's EXTREMELY controversial, which is why I'm not posting it), PM me and we'll have a chat.

What I will say is that TOTB is something very new in the life of the Church and in her theology. Never before has something like this been attempted. In the past, we have (rightly) been suspicious of new things instead of automatically endorsing them. We need to let history be the judge of whether TOTB is a need for the life of the Church. The jury is still out, and it will bring its verdict long after you and I are dead.

[b]Every well-informed man who wishes to disagree with TOTB is free to do so. [/b] It is NOT fair to question his orthodoxy based on what he thinks with regard to TOTB.

[kateri05]

pio, you said that :[quote]Every well-informed man who wishes to disagree with TOTB is free to do so.[/quote]

if the pope taught this during his wednesday audiences, why are we allowed to disagree?

does this not apply as an act of the ordinary magisterium?

Edited August 4, 2007 by kateri05

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/3 - Seventeenth Friday

And to correct another view that seems dangerous because it is a misnomer...

Christopher West does what he does very well. He knows the "what" of what the Pope has said and can explain it rather fully (I own all of West's books and have been to three of his conferences, including "Naked Without Shame II", as well as JP II's TOTB).

However, Christopher West is a theologian/philosopher in the sense that a streetcorner preacher is a Biblical scholar. He's not a professional academician and his words shouldn't be treated as such. He might have great things to say, but he's not trained in it.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
8/3 - Seventeenth Friday
[quote name='kateri05' post='1348981' date='Aug 3 2007, 08:04 PM']does this not apply as an act of the ordinary magisterium? [/quote]

From the Code of Canon Law:

[quote]Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

I am only bound to accept those things proposed definitively by (a) the extraordinary and universal magisterium and (b) the ordinary and universal magisterium. A man's ordinary magisterium can be flawed, but I must subscribe to it with religious assent so long as it is binding.

What is not clear in my mind is whether the ordinary magisterium of John Paul II is still binding.

What is also not clear is whether the Theology of the Body falls within the ordinary magisterium of John Paul II.

It probably says in TOTB, but unfortunately, my copy is north of Chicago (while I am considerably farther south).

[Luthien]

[quote name='dUSt' post='1346273' date='Aug 1 2007, 07:30 PM']This is the list for married men, aka my list:

1. It's my marital duty!
2. Babies
3. It's better than watching "What Not to Wear"
4. Because I have to use up this "coupon book" I got on father's day last year, which, oddly enough, can only be used at very specific times under very specific conditions not stipulated on the coupon
5. Because I mowed the lawn this morning
6. It's non-fertile time!!!
7. So I will get the oil changed on the car tomorrow
8. Because that 10 minute window between her "feeling tipsy" and sleeping is about to close
9. The kids are asleep
10. The kids are awake but the door is locked and there's no way they can get in, dang it, why not, c'mon please, I'll do the dishes... really!? awesome, okay cool.[/quote]

Haha, right on.

[kateri05]

oh i keep forgetting to comment on that... #6 used to be our fav , but i think #9 and #10 are soon to take its place

[Justin86]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1346770' date='Aug 2 2007, 12:46 PM']That's probably true, but as the current Vicar of Christ said in the preface of [i]Jesus of Nazareth[/i] when he speaks not as pastor and teacher of all Christians, but merely as a private theologian, we need not agree with him.[/quote]
Ahem, I am currently reading that excellent work by the Holy Father and he said that in reference to that particular book of his. All legitimately elected Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI have the authority to speak with the whole Church and be infallible on matters of faith and morals. To question such authority for any reason is heresy, and makes you out of communion with the Catholic Church.

For the salvation of your soul I suggest you fix yourself and get back in.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1349151' date='Aug 3 2007, 10:35 PM']All legitimately elected Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI have the authority to speak with the whole Church and be infallible on matters of faith and morals.[/quote]


But StThomasMore wasn't contradicting that

I, too, am reading Jesus of Nazareth. Though I don't think its introduction/preface is a good source for this particular subject, the Holy Father was writing the work as a theologian and not as infallible on Faith and Morals. That's what Pio Nono pointed out earlier, too.

Edited August 4, 2007 by Totus Tuus

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1349151' date='Aug 3 2007, 09:35 PM']Ahem, I am currently reading that excellent work by the Holy Father and he said that in reference to that particular book of his. All legitimately elected Popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI have the authority to speak with the whole Church and be infallible on matters of faith and morals. To question such authority for any reason is heresy, and makes you out of communion with the Catholic Church.

For the salvation of your soul I suggest you fix yourself and get back in.[/quote]

I wasn't denying Papal Infallibility. But every word the Pope says is not infallible. The following is the definition of Papal Infallibility (Denzinger No. 1839), my emphasis added:

[quote name='D 1839']1839 And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: that [b]the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, [color="#FF0000"]when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church[/color], through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals[/b]; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.[/quote]

From that you can see that the Pope is only in fallible when "carring out the duty of the pastor and teacher of All Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority he defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church".

Theology of the Body does not fall under that category.

The definitions of the Immaculate Conception (Denzinger No. 1641), of the Assumption (Denzinger No. 2333), of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Denzinger No. 469) are.

If the theology of the body were to be infallible, it would have to be in an authoritative magisterial document (e. g. a dogmatic constitition, an encyclical, etc.); it would have to be in the solemn format, which the following is an example of: By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that [i]x[/i]; and it would have to be on faith and morals.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Pio Nono' post='1348972' date='Aug 3 2007, 08:56 PM']JMJ
8/3 - Seventeenth Friday

It does seem foolish to dislike with the Theology of the Body because it's immodest. We need better reasons than that.

.....

[b]Every well-informed man who wishes to disagree with TOTB is free to do so. [/b] It is NOT fair to question his orthodoxy based on what he thinks with regard to TOTB.[/quote]


Emphasis on "well-informed." If you're going to disagree at least have good reasons to back up your claims. I don't see whats so bad or disagreeable about TOTB, but I certainly am not in disagreement with the statements I have quoted.