Authority on Married Sex

[Bookcat]

I refer readers to the documents of the Magisterium on sexual ethics:

Humanae Vitae rejects the idea that a set of sexual acts can be morally considered as one act (HV, n. 3 and following).

Humanae Vitae teaches that each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative (HV, n. 11-12).

The unnatural sexual acts in question are not procreative acts, and so they are not moral.

This encyclical is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, and required belief by all the faithful. The sources cited by other posters are not magisterial sources.

Yes by all means follow Humanae Vitae!

but one must understand what it teaches…

The particular acts in question (see Grisez link above etc) are part of the martial act. That marital act is open to life. They form a moral unity with the intercourse and thus are part of the one marital act. Hence they are fully within the teaching of HV. For it does not reject this understanding. This post misunderstands then what is being said in the document. (and throwing in a word like “unnatural sexual acts” is a misleading word…for we are talking about acts of foreplay which are good within the marital act…all of course must be chaste…not what one would term unnatural acts…)

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

Those who read my posts know I am very much a man of the Church. We must follow Jesus Christ! We must think with Church! We must be faithful to the Teachings of the Church! No if’s ands or buts as they say…

 

[centurionguard]

The faithful are required by faith to adhere to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on this point, even in contradition to the theological opinion of Grisez and other theologians.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11.)

The sexual acts in question are not procreative sexual acts, therefore, they are not moral.

And notice that the Pope uses the expression “each and every marital act”. Such a phrasing cannot honestly be interpreted as referring to a set of any number of sexual acts, of any type, as long as one good act of natural marital relations is included.

Everyone admits that these unnatural acts are intrinsically evil and gravely immoral to commit as single acts. Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being combined with other acts, even acts that are good.

The claim that a set of sexual acts can be considered as if they were one act was rejected by Humanae Vitae, which says “each and every marital act”.

I notice that those posters who approve of unnatural sexual acts within marriage do not base their claims on teachings of the Magisterium, nor on Scripture, nor on the teachings of Saints and Doctors of the Church, but only on the opinions of a few particular theologians.

There is no magisterial document approving of these unnatural sexual acts. There are magisterial documents requiring every sexual act to be marital and unitive and procreative, and specifically rejecting the idea that a set of acts can be morally considered as if it were one act.

Which is why I find some of what Christopher West teaches against the Magisterium.

(“Questionable Teachings About Sexual Ethics By Christopher West Theology Of The Body”) forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=355969&page=2

 

[Just_Lurking]

Although humorous, Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred (see here) has the basic idea of Catholic teaching:
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
The term in Catholic moral theology for wasted sperm is “pollution”, and it was considered a sin based on the medieval notion that the sperm contained a complete new human being, and the woman’s womb only provided a location for the sperm to grow. It is still considered a sin based on the notion that the Catholic Church never makes mistakes in moral teaching.

The book Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe by James Brundage (see here) goes into detail about how the Catholic Church’s view on sex developed from medieval notions.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The particular acts in questionare part of the martial act. That marital act is open to life. They form a moral unity with the intercourse and thus are part of the one marital act.

The above claim is made by ‘Bookcat,’ not by Pope Paul VI, and not by the Magisterium. There is no magisterial document making any such claim about a set of acts forming a ‘moral unity’. In fact, this idea is rejected by the Magisterium in Humanae Vitae, with the words 'each and every marital act.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church … teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

The various sources cited by Bookcat are not magisterial sources.

 

[Bookcat]

The above claim is made by ‘Bookcat,’ not by Pope Paul VI, and not by the Magisterium. There is no magisterial document making any such claim about a set of acts forming a ‘moral unity’. In fact, this idea is rejected by the Magisterium in Humanae Vitae, with the words 'each and every marital act.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church … teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

The various sources cited by Bookcat are not magisterial sources.

Again the poster simply misconstrues Pope Paul VI etc.

And defacto putting forth his personal opinion as the teaching of the Church by quoting documents from the Church and saying --“there see this is the teaching of the Church…you must follow this and the others who disagree with me are teaching against the Church”…but when one goes to these documents one finds no mention of what he is referring too…and one finds in orthodox moral theologians in complete conformity with the Church (and known for this) that they would not agree with his personal reading…and there is no magisterial document that teaches what he is teaching in this regard.

But I leave my readers to read the documents…they will find that his understanding is not reflected there. Now I do not doubt his sincerity…but he is misunderstanding and misapplying the teachings here.

I refer readers to Dr. Germain Grisez twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html
among other good sources. And if they wish …they may even contact the Catholic Answers apologists I am sure they can also point them to other very faithful sources.

Of course one can not separate the unitive from the procreative. Of course every marital act must be open to life! Of course follow Humanae Vitae…and the Catechism…and in fact ALL the Teachings of the Catholic Church…follow Jesus Christ!

Amen.

 

[Bookcat]

The above claim is made by ‘Bookcat,’ not by Pope Paul VI, and not by the Magisterium. There is no magisterial document making any such claim about a set of acts forming a ‘moral unity’. In fact, this idea is rejected by the Magisterium in Humanae Vitae, with the words 'each and every marital act.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church … teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”
Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

The various sources cited by Bookcat are not magisterial sources.

Again the poster simply misconstrues Pope Paul VI etc.

And defacto putting forth his personal opinion as the teaching of the Church by quoting documents from the Church and saying --“there see this is the teaching of the Church…you must follow this and the others who disagree with me are teaching against the Church”…but when one goes to these documents one finds no mention of what he is referring too…and one finds in orthodox moral theologians in complete conformity with the Church (and known for this) that they would not agree with his personal reading…and there is no magisterial document that teaches what he is teaching in this regard.

But I leave my readers to read the documents…they will find that his understanding is not reflected there. Now I do not doubt his sincerity…but he is misunderstanding and misapplying the teachings here.

I refer readers to Dr. Germain Grisez twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

particularly section h in regards to certain assertions

among other good sources. And if they wish …they may even contact the Catholic Answers apologists I am sure they can also point them to other very faithful sources.

Of course one can not separate the unitive from the procreative. Of course every marital act must be open to life! Of course follow Humanae Vitae…and the Catechism…and in fact ALL the Teachings of the Catholic Church…follow Jesus Christ!

Amen.

 

[ForwardProgress]

Ron Conte, are you married?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron Conte, are you married?

I am single; never married.
More about my background is here:
catholicplanet.com/

 

[Christopher68]

Among the negative stereotypes of Catholics is that they think sex is dirty and evil, which of course is not the case at all. However, in reading this thread and the back-and-forth micro-analysis of “good sex” and “bad sex” - within the confines of a loving marriage - is doing nothing to mitigate this stereotype.

 

[kage_ar]

The term in Catholic moral theology for wasted sperm is “pollution”, and it was considered a sin based on the medieval notion that the sperm contained a complete new human being, and the woman’s womb only provided a location for the sperm to grow. It is still considered a sin based on the notion that the Catholic Church never makes mistakes in moral teaching.

Provide a link to one single place where this was ever an official teaching of the Church. If you cannot, retract this hogwash.

 

[Bookcat]

Among the negative stereotypes of Catholics is that they think sex is dirty and evil, which of course is not the case at all. However, in reading this thread and the back-and-forth micro-analysis of “good sex” and “bad sex” - within the confines of a loving marriage - is doing nothing to mitigate this stereotype.

Which is why we need to stick with the Teachings of the Church on the beauty of Marriage and of the goodness of the marital act…

 

[Mattapoisett64]

Among the negative stereotypes of Catholics is that they think sex is dirty and evil, which of course is not the case at all. However, in reading this thread and the back-and-forth micro-analysis of “good sex” and “bad sex” - within the confines of a loving marriage - is doing nothing to mitigate this stereotype.

Of course, the thing about stereotypes is that they have some small basis in fact, else they wouldn’t have the “staying power” that they do. As at least one poster in this thread well demonstrates.

 

[Rence]

Although humorous, Monty Python’s Every Sperm is Sacred (see here) has the basic idea of Catholic teaching:
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
The term in Catholic moral theology for wasted sperm is “pollution”, and it was considered a sin based on the medieval notion that the sperm contained a complete new human being, and the woman’s womb only provided a location for the sperm to grow. It is still considered a sin based on the notion that the Catholic Church never makes mistakes in moral teaching.

The book Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe by James Brundage (see here) goes into detail about how the Catholic Church’s view on sex developed from medieval notions.

LOL, I find this funny because I was taught this in school too! Though not many people here on CAF know of this teaching. I only know one other poster besides you who acknowledges that the church (or it’s representatives, whether sanctioned or not) used to teach this. Just Lurking, was it YOU who was involved in the same post as I was, in which we talked about this? I can’t remember who it was

 

[Just_Lurking]

Provide a link to one single place where this was ever an official teaching of the Church. If you cannot, retract this hogwash.

See here for St. Thomas Aquinas’ answer to the question, “Is the semen, which is the principle of human generation, produced from the surplus food?” From the answer, he says, “it [semen] the whole, though potentially, having the power, derived from the soul of the begetter, to produce the whole body.”

 

[baylee]

LOL, I find this funny because I was taught this in school too! Though not many people here on CAF know of this teaching. I only know one other poster besides you who acknowledges that the church (or it’s representatives, whether sanctioned or not) used to teach this. Just Lurking, was it YOU who was involved in the same post as I was, in which we talked about this? I can’t remember who it was

I haven’t posted that it was in fact a teaching, but I have provided an opinion on this…how I could better understand current church teaching on spilling seed in the context of marriage IF this was the case (ie. spilling seed=abortion).

I would not be surprised if this was church teaching at one time. DIdn’t the Church also teach that the Earth was the center of the universe…that the Sun revolved around the Earth? It seems to me that teaching changed based on scientific discovery, no?

 

[ForwardProgress]

Actually, the Church has never come out and said that geocentrism was a mistake and that helio is true…if you do some googling…it’s kind of scary…almost like the Church won’t admit heliocentrism is true b/c of scripture writings that clearly state that the Earth is the center of the universe…there’s a lot of info out there that really makes it seem that the church ‘really’ holds to geocentrism because of scripture infalliability, but will allow its believers to hold to helio as its ‘just a theory’. Strange indeed.

I don’t have exact quotes or sources, but all you have to do is google ‘geocentrism catholic’ and start reading.

 

[Bookcat]

Actually, the Church has never come out and said that geocentrism was a mistake and that helio is true…if you do some googling…it’s kind of scary…almost like the Church won’t admit heliocentrism is true b/c of scripture writings that clearly state that the Earth is the center of the universe…there’s a lot of info out there that really makes it seem that the church ‘really’ holds to geocentrism because of scripture infalliability, but will allow its believers to hold to helio as its ‘just a theory’. Strange indeed.

I don’t have exact quotes or sources, but all you have to do is google ‘geocentrism catholic’ and start reading.

Not the Church’s approach…certainly a misreading.

Matters of science…such as is the earth the center of the solar system… or the sun. Are matters of science. It is quite understood that the sun is the center of the solar system…gee that is why it is called a solar system…and the Church has not problem with that. Hummm…the Vatican has an Observatory …come on. And just celebrated the year of astronomy.

vaticanobservatory.org/

zenit.org/article-27398?l=english

vaticanobservatory.org/IYA2009/

The fact of that the Scriptures are inerrant is not in question here…one must understand what this means…and how this relates to science. It is a question of what is actually being asserted by the secondary human author…for there are many genres, and ways of speech etc in Scripture …such as phenomenal speech…of the order of appearances etc…not intending to be an assertion of astronomy.

 

[kage_ar]

See here for St. Thomas Aquinas’ answer to the question, “Is the semen, which is the principle of human generation, produced from the surplus food?” From the answer, he says, “it [semen] the whole, though potentially, having the power, derived from the soul of the begetter, to produce the whole body.”

Not an offical Church teaching - try again.

 

[kage_ar]

I haven’t posted that it was in fact a teaching, but I have provided an opinion on this…how I could better understand current church teaching on spilling seed in the context of marriage IF this was the case (ie. spilling seed=abortion).

I would not be surprised if this was church teaching at one time. DIdn’t the Church also teach that the Earth was the center of the universe…that the Sun revolved around the Earth? It seems to me that teaching changed based on scientific discovery, no?

This was never doctrine or dogma.

If you cannot prove that this was a doctrinal teaching then please stop bashing my Church.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Not an offical Church teaching - try again.

You can hide behind the word “official” all you want. My point is that this mistaken biological belief contributed to the medieval rules as to what was moral and what was immoral sexually. Then, just after Vatican II, Pope Paul VI created a birth control commission to study whether those rules were still applicable in modern life. The commission came back and recommended that the rules were based on mistaken biology and should be changed to allow married couples use contraception as long as they were still open to children over the entire course of the marriage. However, Pope Paul VI was worried about this giving the impression that the Catholic Church had been wrong, and so rejected his commission’s recommendation and instead promulgated Humanae Vitae, which required that each and every marital act be open to children.