Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Yes, Homosexual People Already Had the Right to Marry · New blog on the kid: Has Introibo Discredited the Orthodoxy of Fr De Pauw? · Is Trent 24, canon 10 a warrant for arranging someone else's celibacy? · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: Will This be Answered?
- I
- Marriage as Vocation - pre-modern
- Marriage as Vocation - pre-modern
- From: Hans-Georg Lundahl
- To: info@stjosemaria.org
- 5/19/2023 at 6:31 PM
- On the one hand, for the position it is a vocation, one can cite the Greek commenter on Genesis who considered Noah had children so late as at age 500 because:
- he had prematurely tried monasticism
- he had very late been talked into the marriage which was his vocation for saving mankind on the Ark.
In this case, marriage would have been his vocation against his inclination.
I do not find many different patristic commenters saying this, but then, I haven't had the time to read Migne. St. Augustine, to the best of my memory, doesn't say so in City of God.
For the opposite position on Noah, I have nothing directly patristic, I don't think the Fathers looked often into it.
However, I have Biblical about the last days:
- Jesus said : "as in the days of Noah"
- St. Paul said "heeding doctrines of demons ... forbidding to marry"
So, if so, some in the days of Noah were forbidden to marry. Some people in Sweden for instance seem to think, from my experience, a man who has not slept with a woman cannot really know if he wants to marry her. Plus waiting with sex up to marriage to avoid mortal sin would be to them works salvation. I say seem, I am not intimately familiar with those persecuting me in Sweden. Ergo, the prophecy in 1 Tim 4:3 can refer to, among other things, blocking the righteous from marrying. If this happened in Noah's days, and Noah was righteous, this could also very well explain why he had his three sons at age 500.
On the other hand, Our Lord told St. Bridget about those damned, that they were ungrateful to Him, among other benefits, that of being able to "enjoy sex moderately" = in marriage, not before or beside, not unfruitful, probably not on nights to Sundays or Holidays of Obligation, as per the Church law back then, perhaps even divine law, even if Pius XII didn't seem to bother.
Hence, I would like sth going back further than Josemaria or Fr DePauw or anything after Vatican II.
Since, IF marriage were only licit as per vocation, that would argue the position I already have stamped as heretical elsewhere, that "homosexuals are called to chastity" (i e perfect chastity or celibacy), and also positions enumerated by the Introibo blogger, here:
Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Choosing A Marriage Partner In Today's World
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/05/choosing-marriage-partner-in-todays.html
Specifically, "Be honest with yourself-- if any of these reasons are your motivation for marriage, it is not your vocation: ... You want to experience sex without sinning" - which directly contradicts what Our Lord told St. Bridget.
Also specifically, "Do not seek marriage if: ... You have an unresolved serious vice, such as porn addiction, drinking too much, using recreational drugs, or gambling." This contradicts my dictum, for what it is worth, that homosexual people can marry (someone of the opposite sex, obviously).
Both of them also seems to involve a Lutheran idea or Calvinist idea, anyway Protestant idea, of marriage as vocation, making marriage available - not just as per the other party involved and his or her relatives, but as to the parish or congregation overall, even before getting started - only as the reward for virtuous living. This contradicts the Catholic doctrine of the three goods of marriage, one of which is "in remedium concupiscentiae" ...
Both of them also open up to what is already since long ongoing in the Protestant world, namely intrigues blocking certain people from marrying, this by exaggerating their faults and by painting "addictions" which don't* exist, at least not as abuse, and therefore fulfilling the prophecy of 1 Tim 4:3.
So, for the idea that marriage is only licit as vocation, and not at least also as the 30-fold fruit that St. Thomas mentioned (minimal level of virtue, below which one is damned), do you have a pre-modern source?
Hans Georg Lundahl
* The idea homosexuals cannot marry is obviously also open to this kind of abuse by calumny or by hysterically "seeing things as they are" when they aren't like that.
