Her priest told him that they should therefore never have sex again, as if procreation was impossible it would be sinful... People I have told this to have been shocked and told me that no Catholic priest would say such a thing.
I believe that it was said, but it does cast a depressing light on the theological/ pastoral education of parish clergy of the day, because it's bollocks, even from a hard line Augustinian perspective. But unfortunately stories of stupid, badly educated people with authority doing untold damage to others are not at all hard to believe....
ETA: I found it bizarre that, when I went to a civil wedding recently (the first time I've been to one), the preamble started off "Marriage is defined in English law as a contract between a man and a woman..." Even the Prayerbook isn't that obnoxious!
I agree with you regarding gay marriage - I have gay partnered Christian friends who I would consider to be married in the sight of God, whatever the law of church or state has to say about it - but even the conservative traditional position is that procreation is not the _only_ good of marriage, the other two being mutual comfort and friendship, and the avoidance of fornication. There is a pragmatic acceptance in the tradition that you can be married and having sex even if you aren't likely to conceive - this is why there is a prayer for children in the old BCP liturgy which can be omitted 'if the woman is past childbearing'.
Now, I'd agree that if you accept that you can be married without the realistic possibility of children, then you have no reason not to extend it to homosexual couples, but the traditional answer would be that there is always the possibility that God will bless you with a miracle, and while it might be _better_ if you weren't having sex, it is not a mortal sin, as long as you're not taking steps to make extra sure you won't have a child (which is why your great-uncle's priest was wrong, even in his own terms.).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-19 03:31 pm (UTC)I believe that it was said, but it does cast a depressing light on the theological/ pastoral education of parish clergy of the day, because it's bollocks, even from a hard line Augustinian perspective. But unfortunately stories of stupid, badly educated people with authority doing untold damage to others are not at all hard to believe....
ETA: I found it bizarre that, when I went to a civil wedding recently (the first time I've been to one), the preamble started off "Marriage is defined in English law as a contract between a man and a woman..." Even the Prayerbook isn't that obnoxious!
I agree with you regarding gay marriage - I have gay partnered Christian friends who I would consider to be married in the sight of God, whatever the law of church or state has to say about it - but even the conservative traditional position is that procreation is not the _only_ good of marriage, the other two being mutual comfort and friendship, and the avoidance of fornication. There is a pragmatic acceptance in the tradition that you can be married and having sex even if you aren't likely to conceive - this is why there is a prayer for children in the old BCP liturgy which can be omitted 'if the woman is past childbearing'.
Now, I'd agree that if you accept that you can be married without the realistic possibility of children, then you have no reason not to extend it to homosexual couples, but the traditional answer would be that there is always the possibility that God will bless you with a miracle, and while it might be _better_ if you weren't having sex, it is not a mortal sin, as long as you're not taking steps to make extra sure you won't have a child (which is why your great-uncle's priest was wrong, even in his own terms.).