But on the subject of sex, I think it's best to understand Augustine and Jerome in the context of the greater Patristic consensus, wherein they can be better understood. If the consensus on sex were distilled to two points, it would be:
1. Virginity is superior to the married state, and virginity is to be praised and encouraged.
2. Sex is to be confined to marriage, as an allowance for concupiscence and for the purpose of begetting children.
In this context, Augustine and Jerome were offering commentary on the aesthetic and spiritual value of sex. Their views don't contradict at all with the two overarching points of the consensus. If anything, they were essentially just reformulating the line, "it is good for a man not to touch a woman."
Agreed, but I don't think that was the argument. I think it was the view that sex was shameful, passions are foul and not fitting until after the Fall. That was my contention as I agree with what you said above. I don't think there is consensus for example passion was only after the fall.
As to that there is no Patristic consensus on my points of contention. As to what you said I don't disagree. The Latin fathers had that propensity to make those extreme arguments, but not as easily in the East. Most likely because of the married priesthood, and while there are a few quotes to the contrary to my claim, there is no vast consensus as to my points in the East. Most of the Eastern Fathers would have just repeated what you summarized above, and went no further.
A few examples would be the idea that sex didn't occur in the Garden. And the belief that sex must be shameful as one would not do that in public is ridiculous as birth is not done in public either. Almost all mammals naturally chose seclusion in the act of giving birth. Animals feel no shame but understand the intimacy given by God to protect their progeny.
Also, the logic doesn't follow that what shameful in public is shameful in private. I've spoken only of issues most intimately with my father only in private, I'm not ashamed. The public = good and private = shameful thingy doesn't work for me.
His view that sexual passion was only caused by the fall is not followed by most of his own time, and no theologian believes that for a millennia, namely, that sexual passion was only from the Fall and not an act of disorder.. Passions were made by God and are good, the disordered passion was from the Fall. This is an anomaly found only in certain Latin Patristics. Passion was to be controlled by reason, he asserts it didn't exist at all, that it's "foul". These are my points of contention, not your statements above, in which I'm in agreement.
I don't think Augustine or Jerome any other Father has a singular authority, but unless a Father's opinion on something contradicts established Church teaching, he can at least be appealed to in a discussion of an unresolved or controversial point—or he can be diverged from, if there is an alternative view. I fully concede, for this discussion, that there were later theologians who went against Augustine and Jerome. In terms of myself, I suppose that for a non-Catholic, things can be taken purely à la carte on the basis of nothing other than personal preference.
I admire honesty. Thank you for that.
