1906 writing on marraige and sex by Pietro Pacati

  • Thread starter Thread starter LittleFlower378
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The first is that they are impelled to have intercourse for a good purpose. This will be the case if their intention is to keep faith with themselves, to perfect the meaning of the sacrament of marriage, to avoid fornication, and to produce children for the glory of God. ** It is a venial sin if they intend to produce children purely out of a desire for heirs and to propagate their family.**

Very direct, strong, rigid, unfair to say like that.
 
The second condition is that they show respect for the times of solemn feasts, Lent, days of fasting and days of public prayer. This is in accordance with these words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7): “Do not defraud each other, unless you do so by consent, with a view to the time, so that you might be free for prayer”. Although this condition regarding time is, according to the common opinion of theologians, a matter of advice and not of requirement, nonetheless spouses must abstain from sex on a day on which they are to receive Holy Communion. **This is because they cannot be excused of venial sin if they have sex on such a day due to excessive carnal lust or in order to derive pleasure from it, for the outcome that arises is great distraction and dullness of the mind. The same is true of sex after Communion on such a day, **unless there is a serious and pressing reason which excuses them from such irreverence. Confessors should take note of the distinction between a spouse who requires the martial debt on the day of Communion and one who pays it. The latter is always free from blame, but not the former.

Very old fashion. I am happy to be in XXIst century.
 
Hello.

I run the blog which this thread links to.

Just one correction. The previous poster is quoting from a text from the 18th century, not from 1906. It’s an easy mistake to make because I have a collection of similar pages on my blog which can easily be mistaken for each other. The text from 1906 is linked from the OP.

There is a short index of all my blog pages relating to these issues here:

religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/gender-and-sexuality.html

Best wishes.
 
I am so glad you are here. I was looking for a e-mail or some way to find you but could not find one. Is it okay we use your blog for our discussion? Thank you for the clarification on the time of the text. Would you be able to comment as well?
 
For sum up, there is a venial sin or at least a presumption of a venial sin if the couple practices the marital act:

Before Sunday Mass and before Holy Communion:
After Sunday Mass and after Holy Communion:
After Mass and after Holy Communion:
Before Mass and after Holy Communion:
On Ash Wednesday:
The Lent:
The Holy Week:
On Easter:
The Holy Days:
Advent:
On Christmas

This type of moral theology on the marriage act is very sad, very negative, not in favor of sexual love within the couple. For me, behind there are a lot of theological mentalities very weird.

The Conjugal manichaeism or the conjugal manicheism, the conjugal pessimism, the conjugal rigorism, the conjugal moralism, the conjugal puritanism, the conjugal victorianism, the conjugal sexism, the conjugal masculinism, the conjugal negativism, the conjugal prudentialism, the conjugal alarmism, the conjugal machism, the conjugal absurdism, the conjugal simplism, the conjugal reductionism, the conjugal antipersonalism.

In the past ,the points of view of some theologians on the marital act were so special, strict, uptight. Now i understand why some husbands had disagreements with the priests, thus with their faithful catholic wifes (false devotions) on the time, the frequency, the why and the what for, the how of marital act.

The couple is not a monk, a nun, a priest, a bishop, a friar, a sister, a catholic clerc. I am so happy that during the XX century and the XXI century the popes were working on this topic for improving the understanding of the moral natural law of the marital act.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
I am so glad you are here. I was looking for a e-mail or some way to find you but could not find one. Is it okay we use your blog for our discussion? Thank you for the clarification on the time of the text. Would you be able to comment as well?
Click to expand...
Yes, certainly. I’m glad that my material was of some interest. My blog is primarily historical in focus, so I can’t claim that I’ve taken account of post-Vatican II developments. You would need to incorporate (e.g.) John Paul II’s teachings to get a fully rounded picture of modern Catholicism as opposed to simply a historical picture.
 
fpt said:
For sum up, there is a venial sin or at least a presumption of a venial sin if the couple practices the marital act:

Before Sunday Mass and before Holy Communion:
After Sunday Mass and after Holy Communion:
After Mass and after Holy Communion:
Before Mass and after Holy Communion:
On Ash Wednesday:
The Lent:
The Holy Week:
On Easter:
The Holy Days:
Advent:
On Christmas

This type of moral theology on the marriage act is very sad, very negative, not in favor of sexual love within the couple. For me, behind there are a lot of theological mentalities very weird.

The Conjugal manichaeism or the conjugal manicheism, the conjugal pessimism, the conjugal rigorism, the conjugal moralism, the conjugal puritanism, the conjugal victorianism, the conjugal sexism, the conjugal masculinism, the conjugal negativism, the conjugal prudentialism, the conjugal alarmism, the conjugal machism, the conjugal absurdism, the conjugal simplism, the conjugal reductionism, the conjugal antipersonalism.

In the past ,the points of view of some theologians on the marital act were so special, strict, uptight. Now i understand why some husbands had disagreements with the priests, thus with their faithful catholic wifes (false devotions) on the time, the frequency, the why and the what for, the how of marital act.

The couple is not a monk, a nun, a priest, a bishop, a friar, a sister, a catholic clerc. I am so happy that during the XX century and the XXI century the popes were working on this topic for improving the understanding of the moral natural law of the marital act.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean about this, but I think that the theologians would have seen it differently. They would have thought that they were just trying to find the appropriate place for sex in God’s order. For example, as to the issue of timings, the argument would have been that there are certain times when a person’s mind should be on prayer and the things of God rather than on sleeping with one’s wife or husband. True, it may seem a bit rigorist to us, but you can perhaps see where they were coming from.

I’d also note that even the 18th century theologian concluded that sex is essentially good, so we’re not dealing with an unhealthy anti-sex mentality. The theologians were just trying to figure out, as best they could, how to harmonise our sexuality with God’s law.
 
While reading the post, I thought of the old Greg Khin song, “They Don’t Write 'em Like That Anymore”!
I understand the pastoral reasons for couching such teaching in contemporary idioms; however, I feel that sometimes, the ‘updating’ amounts to a watering down…
 
I know that in the past there were , like today, many debates between the theologians. In the details, on the hours, the positions, the frequencies, and where, they were not in the same line.

At this time, the unity of documents coming from the Holy See was not. It is only since Vatican I that there is an unitary thinking in the details on this topic. The papacy has taken the power in order to centralize the catholic doctrine on this topic by official documents, from Vatican I until now (Pie IX to Benedict XVI)
 
FPT I would like to know what documents that can help us understand more on this topic that you are talking about.

First of all these document do not trump current Magesterial teaching, correct? Also, although the teaching of the Church in the subject has been reavealed more generously since Vatican I, does not some of these teachings hold truth? I find my faith being deepened by some of these teachings by these theologians Like I said in a previous post, in a world where the nasty “Shades of Grey” is topping the best seller list, it is good to know what acts are contrary to nature and such. Some believe God should be out of the bedroom, but I think we need to put God at the front and center of the bedroom. I think we can go too far as well and some of this I got from Christopher West writings which to my knowledge says, almost anything is o.k. as long as we finish the marital act properly. Well I am not sure that is so true.

One more point is that even in St.Thomas Aquinas summa, sorry I cant find the link, he states that there are times when one of the spouses can reject intimacy due to a certain solemnity or feast and I believe he does say that the Lords day is not the best day to have conjugal relations.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
First of all these document do not trump current Magesterial teaching, correct?
Click to expand...
That’s right. What theologians teach has no magisterial authority in itself, though theologians are traditionally regarded as authoritative witnesses to Catholic teaching and worthy of being obeyed on that account. However, Fr. Pacati certainly doesn’t trump John Paul II.
 
Incidentally, if you’re interested in papal-level teachings from the pre-Vatican II period, the best documents on the subject of marriage and sexuality are Leo XIII’s Arcanum and Pius XI’s Casti conubii*.*
 
Today like in the past, there are many questions from catholics (couples, wifes, husbands, singles, engaged persons) on what is morally natural and normal, even fair and charitable, to do on the body of the other, in the context of marital act (before, during after the total and complete union of bodies).

There are a lot of books from catholic theologians, from catholic philosophers, from catholic thinkers, from catholic doctors — , lay persons, priests, bishops, nuns, monks, friars —, but the unity of the thought,on this intimate acts for leading the union of bodies, is not. Why? Why? Why? I am so tired by the points of view or the very personal opinions that are very strange, very wierd, not charitable, very prudish, not human, not lovable, not sexed and not sexual, not sensual, not herotic, or bestial, animalistic, liberal, selfish, in fact not in link with the human nature.

The solution is to understand what means " the fact of making make one flesh " with " sexual cooperation " , " in the human fashion ".

The theology of body of wife, the theology of body of husband, the theology of the fact of making one flesh, Thus the theology of marital act (intellectual elements and material elements).

**Do you think that it is useful the do a black list and a white list in the details on the intimate acts that are okay, per se, and are wrong, per se, with the reasons, the causes and with explanation for each one of them?
**

**The theology of foreplay, the theology of sexed and sexual acts in the context of marital **act without words in “ism”. Not be prudish, not be prude, not be puritan, not be puritanist, not be victorian, not be…etc. the fact of saying the things.
 
Truth does not change, and what was sin is still sin.

The Church cannot have been in error about teaching morality back in “old unenlightened” days and now suddenly in our supposedly enlightened age has rejected these old ways of thinking. If the Church changes when teaching on matters of morality, She would not be indefectible, which we know She in fact is.

I’d be much more cautious about subjecting the careful, thorough moral principles (intended by the way, as a practical confessional guide for priests) enunciated in these manuals to derision and mockery.
 
Truth does not change, and what was sin is still sin. **.

The Church cannot have been in error about teaching morality back in “old unenlightened” days and now suddenly in our supposedly enlightened age has rejected these old ways of thinking. If the Church changes when teaching on matters of morality, She would not be indefectible, which we know She in fact is. .

I’d be much more cautious about subjecting the careful, thorough moral principles (intended by the way, as a practical confessional guide for priests) enunciated in these manuals to derision and mockery.

My humble comments:

By definition, the intellectual critic of old books (theological and philosophical analysis) is not, per se, a derision and a mockery.

Only, the Holy See fixes the true conjugal moral concerning the marital act: official teaching from Popes, from Councils, from the catholic institutions from Holy See.

The theologians have only as function to explain, to improve the understanding of the official teaching in the details without to be more liberal or rigid. Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less.

The fact of putting more is wrong and the fact putting less is wrong.**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top