In the book HOLY ABANDONMENT by Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. we read: ""The signified will comprises a fourfold object: the commandments of God and of His Church, the evangelical counsels, Divine inspirations, our particular rules and constitutions." and "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely. Hence we do not forfeit His friendship by failing in courage to undertake the practice of the counsels, provided we do not treat them with contempt. We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " https://www.catholictradition.org/Classics/abandonment2.htm The evangelical counsels are poverty, chastity and obedience. A Carmelite website has the following text: "They are called the ‘evangelical’ counsels because we find them lived and therefore recommended (counselled) by Jesus in the four accounts of the Gospel (‘evangelium’ in Latin). Jesus Christ was poor in spirit, chaste in heart, and obedient in love to the will of his Father." https://carmelite.org/spirituality/evangelical-counsels/ That text seems to say that chastity and obiendience is not something that is required for a good life. For some unchastity and disobedience are ok. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "With regard to the counsels, He certainly would like us to observe them also, yet He rather desires this than wills it absolutely." He also seems to say the exact thing. The Catechism (CCC 2349) states "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life." This text seems to say that chastity is for everyone and even required for a good life. Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey, O.C.R. says: "We are not even permitted to take upon us the observance of them all, but of such of them only as are conformable to our state of life, some of the counsels being opposed to others. . . . " He seems to say that the evangelical counsels can be opposed to each other. What is he actually saying? Does he use "counsels" to refer to something else than the evangelical counsels? Why do some Catholic writers say, or seem to say, that chastity and obedience are not for required for a good life?

According to [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_divorce) , many Christian denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy and various Protestant churches around the world, permit remarriage after divorce. This appears to directly contradict several Bible verses such as Luke 16:18 (NRSVA): > Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. On what grounds do these denominations permit remarriage, despite this?

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

According to Catholic theologians, when does sexual attraction become lust? By "sexual attraction", I mean the pleasure those of the opposite sex feel in one another's presence. By "lust", I mean "seeking venereal pleasure (*delectatione venerea*) not in accordance with right reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 154 a. 1 co.).

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

### The Catholic position. *There are many other sources, I just picked one at random* > "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, **without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure**: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." **Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.** > > Summa Theologica - Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? **Basically, if you are married the venereal act must always be unprotected and end inside.** They will often also point out this particular situation in Genesis 38, quoted from the NKJV to reflect the catholic preference for the MT Old Testament. > NKJV: 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also. Right, so Onan pulled out and the average catholic person suggests that this was the problem. (I humbly disagree, but that's off-topic here) I think this side of the issue is well understood so let me show the Jewish side of it. ### The Jewish position (Talmud) The ancient Jewish views come from rabbinic interpretations like the Talmud and later writings. As Christians and Jews understand, sexual acts are supposed to be within marriage. And focus on procreation. A focus is not the same as the outright demand of the catholic position. Here are some quotes of the English from the Talmud in Nedarim 20b. > However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, **whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes**, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. (Nedarim 20b:4 ) > The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?** (Nedarim 20b:6 ) I'm sure we are adult enough to understand the euphemism of a "turned-over table" here in the context of a woman who is upset about it. But I'm going to quote the Talmud again because I really don't want this euphemism to be misunderstood. > The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there **Er and Onan**, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin. (Yevamot 34b:1 ) The verse about Onan has mixed opinions but from what I can tell primary objectionable act is that Onan was disobeying God by blatantly disregarding his levirate marriage obligation. Not even putting it in the wrong hole itself. Looking through other things on Sefaria I found all kinds of instructions like... > Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first. - Iggeret Hakodesh, 13th C. (found in this article ) Also, I looked in Mi Yodeya (J:SE) - What are reasons of מצוות עונה marital sex? 3. Wife is longing for Husband & 4. Husband simply does not want to be tempted to sexual sin. (Additionally the answer starts with wives have a right to sexual pleasure just as they do clothing and food... so yeah) ### Quick side by side | **Aspect** | **Catholic Position** | **Ancient Jewish Position** | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | **Core Principle** | Sex must always unite procreation and unity; no exceptions. | Sex should prioritize procreation but allow marital freedom for pleasure or preventing sin. | | **Scriptural Basis** | Genesis 38 (Onan), natural law theology (Aquinas). | Genesis 38 (Onan), Leviticus 15, Talmudic interpretations. | | **Flexibility** | Rigid; universal rules apply to every act. | More flexible; depends on intent, context, and rabbinic opinion. | Ancient Jewish regulations are pragmatic and interpretive, shaped by rabbinic debate, and don’t enforce a universal procreative mandate for every act. Catholicism, with its rigid systematic theology (Augustine, Aquinas, etc), insists on procreation as mandatory in every instance. ### Things I've checked already... I've looked at these aspects so far... but I'm giving up and asking you guys now. - Jesus did not abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) - Flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) does not contradict the previous Jewish understanding in any way. - Galatians 3 // Acts 15 Both of these passages do not suggest that any previous sexual laws or understandings of immorality had changed. - The marriage as an icon of Jesus and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-33 doesn't retroactively change the previous understandings either, if anything it strengthens them. - And of course, we have the entire book of Song of Songs which urges us to Love God with the same passion as two people in passion. (This is mentioned here as well ) ### Question On what basis do the Catholics change the original ancient understandings on this subject? No traps here... honestly curious as, to why the Catholics made this rigid universal rule when none existed previously. Edit: Talmud is way too late to be valid in the format I presented. Making my question a frame issue. I'm not deleting this though as the answers are insightful.

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

The Bible does not strike me as welcoming to transgenderism: > The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. -- Deuteronomy 22:5 And it is not hard to find knowledgeable Christian leaders (of various denominations) denouncing transgenderism via a web search. Incompatibility between transgenderism and Christianity seems like the norm. AthanasiusOfAlex , 2015, writes "transgenderism is deeply problematic" explaining that: - God created man and women (Genesis 1:27 ), and that - "[a person's] body is just as much a part of his being as his soul". However, Wikipedia explains that (liberal) Protestantism accepts transgender people: > Within mainline, or more specifically liberal, Protestantism, several denominations or regional bodies within denominations have grown increasingly accepting and supportive of transgender members and rights. This leads me to my question: **Question**: How does liberal Protestantism reconcile supporting transgenderism with what the Bible teaches? I'm not well-informed about Christian denominations, so I don't know precisely which Protestant subset has a "transgenderism is okay" stance. I'm interested in how they come to the conclusion that "transgenderism is okay" while others do not.

What is the Catholic interpretation of a married couple's need to be living sexually if they don't feel the need for it? Let's say both of them don't feel the need to live romantically. They got to the point they are ok to live together like brother and sister. They love each other and they don't need sex. It's not an act of sacrifice or any kind of mortification, basically, they lost a desire to have sex and both are ok with it. They are both still fruitful though. Are they still required to perform sex within marriage so they can keep procreating or this is accepted as ok by the Church's teaching?

Many Christians say that a couple shouldn't live together before they get married, even if they are not having sex with each other. What is the Biblical basis for this position? Are there certain passages of Scripture that speak against it? Or are there aspects of Church tradition that speaks against it? Or is there something else that has prompted Christians to view this as wrong?

The "quieting of concupiscence" (*remedium concupiscentiae*) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. *Casti Connubii* §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

Fr. Ludovic-Marie Barrielle, *Do I Have a Vocation?* , ch. 5, claims: >“A long period of chastity” says Saint Bernard, “is a second virginity.” Where does St. Bernard say this?

I found very good information on this site where the author logically and according to the **Catholic teaching** explains certain parts of sexual behavior. I agree and practice what is written, just in case if someone wonders if it's even possible. But I don't want to discuss whether the site or the author is correct on the subject so please avoid any comments on the authenticity of the site. There is a statement: > Now the emotion of sexual passion is a result of the fallen state, and > so neither Jesus nor Mary experienced sexual passion or sexual > arousal. What is the source of this knowledge or where does the author bases this information from?

**Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation** Peter Turner has an excellent [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5316/was-onan-really-struck-dead-by-god-for-masturbating) to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God. When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing. I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex. Now, my question then, could be *mis*-read as antagonstic, but its not. I really do want to understand how these go together. Here's my conundrum - **Premise #2: The canonical *Song of Solomon* celebrates the passion of sex** The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other. I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these: >SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have washed my feet— must I soil them again? 4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. 5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt. I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?) The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain). Clearly here the focus is on that passion. But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all. **Question: How do these fit together?** So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon? How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction? Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The [Puritans were no prudes either](http://www.challies.com/quotes/the-puritans-and-sex) , and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."

The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past. Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either. There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?

Recently a lesbian couple who are both priestesses in the Church of England received the first formal ***blessing of a same-sex partnership in a C of E service.*** Upon reading this, I thought to myself, at least the Catholic Church has resisted the pressure to bless same-sex partnerships. Apparently that is no longer the case. [Catholic priests can now bless same-sex couples](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8) >19 December 2023: ROME (AP) — Pope Francis formally approved letting Catholic priests bless same-sex couples, the Vatican announced Monday, a radical shift in policy that aimed at making the church more inclusive while maintaining its strict ban on gay marriage. >But while the Vatican statement was heralded by some as a step toward breaking down discrimination in the Catholic Church, some LGBTQ+ advocates warned it underscored the church’s idea that gay couples remain inferior to heterosexual partnerships. >The document from the Vatican’s doctrine office elaborates on a letter Francis sent to two conservative cardinals that was published in October. In that preliminary response, Francis suggested such blessings could be offered under some circumstances if the blessings weren’t confused with the ritual of marriage. Up until this point I thought the Catholic Church viewed homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” i.e., that such a union is not as God structured creation. Perhaps I am mistaken? I have no desire to be contentious (although this is a contentious issue for many Christians) but I really want to know ***the official Roman Catholic position on the blessing of same-sex partnerships.*** and where does the Roman Catholic Church go from here? P.S. I asked this question on same-sex marriage in October 2020: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/79466/what-is-the-official-catholic-position-on-same-sex-marriage-and-same-sex-civil-p P.P.S. I was unable to find a tag about same-sex partnerships so I have created one.

I was listening to Pints With Aquinas July 29th episode with Trent Horn , he mentioned that a practice of gamete inter-fallopian transfer is an open question in the Catholic Church. What are the arguments for and against GIFT and what does that have to do with the use of a porous condom within marriage? (where does one even get a porous condom?)

Is there an online edition or English translation of: - Hildebrand, Dietrich von. “Die Bedeutung von Mann und Frau füreinander ausserhalb der Ehe.” In *Zeitliches Im Lichte Des Ewigen *, 143–44. Regensburg, 1932. ? It was cited in *Pastoral Psychology in Practice* by Willibald Demal, OSB, ch. 8 "The Psychology of Celibacy" .

St. Alphonsus Liguori writes in *Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva* p. 112 : > St. Bernard said that incontinence in ecclesiastics was one of the greatest persecutions that the Church could suffer. > >🇮🇹 original, [*Selva di materie predicabili* ch. 6 "Del peccato d'incontinenza" :]
*Dice s. Bernardo che l'incontinenza degli ecclesiastici è la maggior persecuzione che oggidì patisce la chiesa.* Where may I find the actual quote of St. Bernard to which St. Alphonsus alludes?