Mandeville, LA – The assault on the Moral Authority of the Gospels and the Church’s Magisterial Authority continues as pseudo comedians try their hand at pronouncing Pope Francis as the George Carlin of The Faith viz FINALLY, “…some Catholic admits that there can be joy involved in sex, crikey!” To read Tim Egan of the New York Times tell it what has been missing all these years on our Catholic Road to Perdition is the joy, ecstasy, unfiltered carnal pleasure of casual sex which is different from the perfunctory pro-creation variety.
“Sex was dirty. Sex was shameful. Sex was unnatural. Thinking about it was wrong. Premeditation itself was a sin, and so was flirting. Sex had one purpose: procreation, the joyless act of breeding. “The sixth commandment forbids all impurity and immodesty in words, looks and actions,” was admonition No. 256 in the Baltimore Catechism…”
Coming from a man who cannot distinguish that there is nothing more obvious, even to the Apostles of Darwin, that procreation IS THE natural act to end all natural acts. Without it, there is no future to mammalian nature. Duh.
You see Mr. Egan, admonitions like the one you mock above are there because without Dogmatic boundaries, man becomes what is on display in the bathrooms of North Carolina and the mean streets of New Orleans. The penal code of Louisiana has no clause in its rape statutes that excuses one if their “pleasure” was satisfied. And it shouldn’t bear this clause because the granting of sexual intercourse privileges from woman to man is framed inside the marital act. Funny thing but I don’t recall Planned Parenthood asking any of its clients whether there was guiltless pleasure involved in the act they are about to diabolically terminate. Undoubtedly there was and the result is now about to become a pre-meditated murder. How’s that “guilt-less sex” working out for you now, Timothy Egan? Maybe the Church and here Creator, we know him as God, are onto something with sex being primarily a guilt-ridden act, with beautiful and existential exceptions.
St Augustine is usually blamed for the “guilt-driven” view on sex that the Catholic Church defends as Magisterial but if one were to actually read Augustine on the matter, one would find that Augustine counseled sex as something that Original Sin brought about because prior to the fall of Adam, humans were divinely created and there would have been no need for sexual intercourse. This only makes logical sense but one would have to have studied logic in order to admit of it. Then, considering The Fall, Augustine explains that marriage is not solely made Sacramental by its consummation but by what Our Lord said that “the two flesh shall be made one”. Read the following passage from St. Augustine’s “Of The Good of Marriage” and it becomes clear that far from the heretical claim that ALL Catholics must be taught that ALL sex is sinful and only, specifically permitted when making babies. That marriage yields the fruit of children can only be seen by persons who think children are fruitful beyond being the subject of a bumper sticker tacked on the back of their Subaru.
“This we now say, that, according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compact whereof divine Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead. Therefore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put away a wife, save because of fornication, but also in that He came by invitation to a marriage, there is good ground to inquire for what reason it be a good. And this seems not to me to be merely on account of the begetting of children, but also on account of the natural society itself in a difference of sex. Otherwise it would not any longer be called marriage in the case of old persons, especially if either they had lost sons, or had given birth to none. But now in good, although aged, marriage, albeit there has withered away the glow of full age between male and female, yet there lives in full vigor the order of charity between husband and wife: because, the better they are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to contain from sexual intercourse with each other: not that it should be matter of necessity afterwards not to have power to do what they would, but that it should be matter of praise to have been unwilling at the first, to do what they had power to do. If therefore there be kept good faith of honor, and of services mutually due from either sex, although the members of either be languishing and almost corpse-like, yet of souls duly joined together, the chastity continues, the purer by how much it is the more proved, the safer, by how much it is the calmer. Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, and rages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For there is interposed a certain gravity of glowing pleasure, when in that wherein husband and wife cleave to one another, they have in mind that they be father and mother.”
To read the Timothy Egan’s of the modern heretical age you would never know that there is a term for pleasurable sexual relations outside of pro-creation and it is contained in the Church’s teaching on concupiscence. Before proceeding there and concluding, I volley to Timothy Egan and the Francis Fornication Boosters 101 a Socratic query: WHAT precisely is wrong with viewing the act of intercourse, committed with body parts they were clearly designed for, in the manner that God Created it for: making babies?
1917 Canon Law 1013 states: 1) The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence. 2) The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which acquire a particular fitness in Christian marriage by reason of its sacramental character.
I wouldn’t expect the average Fornicator 101 Catholic to read the 7th book of Romans but were he to, Egan and the rest of the Fornicator’s 101st argument’s would become a sin inducing comedy that Danté himself could not have imagine, oh wait, he did.
“ What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet.
Quid ergo dicemus? lex peccatum est? Absit. Sed peccatum non cognovi, nisi per legem: nam concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi lex diceret: Non concupisces.
 But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Occasione autem accepta, peccatum per mandatum operatum est in me omnem concupiscentiam. Sine lege enim peccatum mortuum erat.
 And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came, sin revived,
Ego autem vivebam sine lege aliquando: sed cum venisset mandatum, peccatum revixit.
CONCLUSION: Yes, there is guilt attached to sexual acts when they performed outside of their God intended purpose, yet through Original Sin, God has beautifully bestowed relief for the sin of sexual lust, the love between Man and Wife and the children that they may create. The Fornicating 101st’s real point therefore is not that the Catholic Church is wrong but that God himself is wrong and they want that changed: Sex, it’s what’s for dinner. Oremus…