Authority on Married Sex

[Bookcat]

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.

lol not so. wow you can read the minds of Popes of the past…cool trick.

NOT

 

[Just_Lurking]

lol not so. wow you can read the minds of Popes of the past…cool trick.

NOT

If you want to learn more about this, read Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission by Robert McClory.

And if you want to find about about how Pope Pius IX was a megalomaniac with an obsession to be declared infallible, read McClory’s Power and the Papacy: The People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Infallibility.

 

[Bookcat]

If you want to learn more about this, read Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission by Robert McClory.

And if you want to find about about how Pope Pius IX was a megalomaniac with an obsession to be declared infallible, read McClory’s Power and the Papacy: The People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Infallibility.

no thank you…I have studied the issues already…(with my degee in Theology…including a whole course medical sexual ethics where we went into depth on this)

…have better things to do right now than read such things!

Cheers…

and do you not have something better to do with your time than lurk.

 

[Just_Lurking]

no thank you…I have studied the issues already…(with my degee in Theology…including a whole course medical sexual ethics where we went into depth on this)

Then I’m surprised that you didn’t know this already. It’s a relatively uncontroversial matter in the history of Catholic sexual doctrine. Modern Catholic theologians are actively scrambling to try to replace the broken medieval rationale for Humanae Vitae’s continued prohibition of contraception. The two main contenders are Theology of the Body, which makes a lot of sense but is unable to duplicate the precise prohibitions of Catholic teaching, and New Natural Law, which can exactly replicate Catholic sexual teaching but is unable to explain why other modern advances (e.g. artificial sweetener) aren’t likewise violations of natural law.

 

[Bookcat]

Then I’m surprised that you didn’t know this already. It’s a relatively uncontroversial matter in the history of Catholic sexual doctrine. Modern Catholic theologians are actively scrambling to try to replace the broken medieval rationale for Humanae Vitae’s continued prohibition of contraception. The two main contenders are Theology of the Body, which makes a lot of sense but is unable to duplicate the precise prohibitions of Catholic teaching, and New Natural Law, which can exactly replicate Catholic sexual teaching but is unable to explain why other modern advances (e.g. artificial sweetener) aren’t likewise violations of natural law.

Have a nice day…

(not going to even waste my time here with such notions…)

 

[kage_ar]

Have a nice day…

(not going to even waste my time here with such notions…)

 

[Squanto]

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.

Mr. Conte,

Bookcat, or someone, posted a link to the writings of Theologian Grisez. twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

That writing contains numerous footnoted references to Magisterial sources.

Have you read that, and do you disagree w/Grisez’ conclusions? If so, can you explain that? As far as I know, Grisez has a reputation of being educated, orthodox, and faithful to Church teachings, and he has explained his conclusions in detail, w/appropriate references.

Can you explain your disagreement w/him?

 

[baylee]

This was never doctrine or dogma.

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

I’m sorry, but where have I bashed “your” church?

 

[kage_ar]

I’m sorry, but where have I bashed “your” church?

By posting falsehood in an attempt to make Holy Mother Church look stupid. The Church has never taught as doctrine what you claim.

An honest poster would simply retract and apologize what they cannot substantiate.

 

[Rence]

If you want to learn more about this, read Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission by Robert McClory.

And if you want to find about about how Pope Pius IX was a megalomaniac with an obsession to be declared infallible, read McClory’s Power and the Papacy: The People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Thanks for the references JL

 

[Antrim]

Kage BR

Father Chad Ripperger does call it polution in his Audio on Chastity in what is and is not permitted in sex in Sacraamental Marriage and it is not hogwash.

Antrim

 

[kage_ar]

Kage BR

Father Chad Ripperger does call it polution in his Audio on Chastity in what is and is not permitted in sex in Sacraamental Marriage and it is not hogwash.

Antrim

Again, one Priest’s opinion is not a doctrinal statement. Heretical authors with an axe to grind don’t add to your argument.

Why not admit you are mistaken and that this has never been doctrine?

It is rude to intentionally misspell someone’s name.

 

[kage_ar]

If you want to learn more about this, read Turning Point: The Inside Story of the Papal Birth Control Commission by Robert McClory.

And if you want to find about about how Pope Pius IX was a megalomaniac with an obsession to be declared infallible, read McClory’s Power and the Papacy: The People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Infallibility.

Why would you line the pockets of anti-Christian authors?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Natural Law, which can exactly replicate Catholic sexual teaching but is unable to explain why other modern advances (e.g. artificial sweetener) aren’t likewise violations of natural law.

(not going to even waste my time here with such notions…)

Bookcat,

I’d be interested if you did respond, because I detect in Just Lurking’s post above somewhat of a similar criticism of Natural Law theory as put forth – evidently – by Grisez in his book Fulfillment in Christ.

I don’t have the text with me but I found a supposed quote from it, speaking of Natural Law theory:

Why is contraception wrong? Because, the theory replies, it perverts the faculty which is naturally oriented toward procreation. If that is a good argument, then it is also a good argument to say that chewing gum after the sugar is gone is wrong because it perverts the faculty which is naturally oriented toward nutrition or that holding your nose in the presence of a bad odor is wrong because it perverts the faculty which is naturally oriented toward smelling or that using ear plugs is wrong because it perverts the faculty which is naturally oriented toward hearing. Contraception really is always wrong, but chewing gum and holding your nose and using ear plugs are not, and a theory incapable of explaining the difference cannot show that contraception is wrong.

Do you have Fulfillment in Christ handy such that you can verify this quote from an early chapter entitled “Some Mistaken Theories of Moral Principles”?

Since you quoted Grisez favorably earlier, I thought you might want to tackle the above in relation to Just Lurking’s allegations.

VC

 

[dusza]

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.

Is it possible that you’re mistaking “each and every marital act” for “each and every TYPE of act within the marital act” as having to be procreative? Kissing is not procreative.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Why would you line the pockets of anti-Christian authors?

Why would you engage in an ad hominem attack against a Catholic author who has a degree from St. Mary of the Lake Seminary? What’s wrong with presenting an accurate history of various Catholic doctrines?

For example, Pope Pius IX had nothing to learn from President Nixon as far as keeping an enemy list was concerned. Are quote-unquote “true Catholics” supposed to keep that information hidden at all costs?

 

[fms]

Thank you. If this is, in fact, what the Church teaches, then I have a hard time agreeing with it…the first time I have disagreed with the Church since converting years ago (of course, I was single at the time). Now the question is what do I do now…the situation I find myself in is quite complex.

Christopher West is not the Church nor the Church’s mouth piece no matter how many Nihil Obstat’s or Imprimatur’s he accumulates.

What the Church teaches belongs to the deposit of faith and what the Pope teaches when he speaks ex-Cathedra and when the bishops speak in communion with the Pope.

The Summary of Catholic Teaching is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and on the actual permissible acts, the Church is rather silent.

As regards oral sex, I find it insidious they way he claims it has been approved by the Church. He starts off by saying the Church has not defined any part of the body as ‘un-kissable’…How many things can we justify by using this line of argument.

The Letter of Barnabas

“Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’” (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

I have pulled this right from this website.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Mr. Conte,

Bookcat, or someone, posted a link to the writings of Theologian Grisez. twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

That writing contains numerous footnoted references to Magisterial sources.

Have you read that, and do you disagree w/Grisez’ conclusions? If so, can you explain that? As far as I know, Grisez has a reputation of being educated, orthodox, and faithful to Church teachings, and he has explained his conclusions in detail, w/appropriate references.

Can you explain your disagreement w/him?

Grisez offers no magisterial source for the particular point in question. He does not cite any Saints, Fathers, Doctors of the Church, or Scripture, or the Magisterium, so his argument is weak. Ad hominem and pro hominem arguments are not valid. Grisez has a good reputation, but this does not imply that he is correct. Grisez’ moral theology was developed mostly prior to Veritatis Splendor. As a result, he does not emphasize the three fonts of morality and intrinsic evil.

My position is that the Magisterium has definitively taught that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative, and has explicitly rejected the idea that a set of sexual acts can be grouped together for the purposes of moral evaluation, so that only one act need be unitive and procreative.

Each and every sexual act must have a threefold moral object that is marital and unitive and procreative, otherwise, the act is intrinsically evil due to a deprivation in the moral object. The lack of sexual climax does not cause the moral object of the sexual act to become good.

It is NEVER the case in moral theology that an act which is intrinsically evil when done by itself becomes moral when done shortly before or after another act, one that is good. This idea is absurd when applied to any area of human life. The fact that this ‘principle’ is applied in the realm of sexuality makes it all the more clear that this is a false idea.

See these articles for a more complete explanation:
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

 

[Ron_Conte]

Is it possible that you’re mistaking “each and every marital act” for “each and every TYPE of act within the marital act” as having to be procreative? Kissing is not procreative.

Only sexual acts need be marital, unitive, and procreative.
A sexual act is any use of the genital sexual faculty.

It is always the case in moral theology, in every area of life, that each and every knowingly chosen act is evaluated as to its morality based on the three fonts, as they spring up from, and apply to, that particular act. It is never the case that one act takes its morality from another act.

The claim that all the many sexual acts committed during a period of time are one act is absurd. The couple can decide to commit one act, and not another, therefore, each is a choice that falls under the moral law. The idea that a set of acts would be justified if at least one act in the set is procreative was explicitly rejected by the Magisterium.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral. For example, a lie is intrinsically evil and always immoral. A lie done for a good purpose is still immoral. A lie preceded or followed by a good act is still immoral. One cannot group together a set of assertions, some of which are lies, and justify them by one true statement within the set.

 

[FiberZilla]

Here we have celibate men wrapping the pleasures of the marriage bed up in a tangle of unbilical legalism that it’s a miracle is anyone can come out of the sexual encounter and actually enjoyed it as God intended. Perhaps without fully realizing it, this is their goal?
Since I cannot have it, you won’t either.