Authority on Married Sex

[Ron_Conte]

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”?

That quote is accurate; it is from p. 46 of the paperback edition of Fulfillment in Christ.

Grisez’ approach to moral theology is not scholastic; he is criticizing scholastic theology’s interpretation and application of natural law. Of course, he is against contraception, but his approach is different.

However, if the morality of contraception is considered according to the moral object of the sexual act, it becomes clear that the scholastic approach is basically correct. Sexual acts must be inherently ordered toward a moral object that is procreative (and marital and unitive); otherwise, the act is intrinsically evil. This explains why contraception is immoral. It also explains why a married couple may continue to engage in natural marital relations open to life in the elder years, when they are not fertile – the act itself remains inherently ordered toward procreation.

 

[baylee]

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.

Excuse me, but I haven’t claimed ANYTHING. I am questioning, but not claiming. It seems to me that you are the one who needs to retract and apologize…that is if you are an “honest poster”.

 

[baylee]

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.

And how do you know that he intentionally misspelled your name?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sexual acts must be inherently ordered toward a moral object that is procreative (and marital and unitive); otherwise, the act is intrinsically evil.

Once you accept this, the rest is easy. The real question is where this rule comes from. Historically, it can be traced to a mistaken biological belief that the sperm contains the full substance of a potential human being. In light of correct biological information, the rule must now be given another rationale.

You could just as easily claim that chewing acts must be inherently ordered to a moral object that seeks to provide nutrition for the body. Otherwise, this is a misuse of how God intended the mouth to be used.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Except for with youself…for your article says in effect that he is teaching heresy.

So perhaps you should alert the Holy See…

But of course he is not…nor would they listen you your arguments…for his teaching is in line with the Magisterium

 

[Bookcat]

Grisez’ moral theology was developed mostly prior to Veritatis Splendor.

As if such a man…would not revise his works if need be …after the major Moral Theology document of the 20th century is released!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Except for with youself…for your article says in effect that he is teaching heresy.

So perhaps you should alert the Holy See…

I’m not sure why you think the Holy See would care what Dr. Grisez teaches. You might as well alert the Vatican that Jack Chick may have a few things wrong in his comics! Neither Grisez nor Chick have any authority whatsoever to speak for the Catholic Church.

 

[Bookcat]

The above site makes assertions which are do not in fact represent the teachings of the Church in the area of Marital relations. They misunderstand certain aspects of moral theology and the Church’s teachings on the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act and its marital nature as well as certain other aspects. And they do not understand what is chastely permitted within the marital act …and that certain marital acts prior too and directly after the actual act of intercourse form a moral unity with that intercourse and thus are part of the one chaste martial act. Some perhaps is in the order of opinion but still are not to be confused with being the Teachings of the Church. (I have not read everything…I imagine there is things that are on target or just opinion…but I have read enough to urge readers to turn rather to the source below)

I would refer readers instead to this site by the well established and Orthodox Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

Section h

He explains the requirements of a chaste marital act in these regards and what is evil …and not permitted and what is good within the martial act. So a disciple of Jesus may live a chaste married life of love.

Also Christopher west and others have good material on these…one can find his book promoted here on the Catholic Answers site…and is prob. sold by Catholic Answers as well.

also this addresses one aspect.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=climax&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=25&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Bookcat]

I’m not sure why you think the Holy See would care what Dr. Grisez teaches. You might as well alert the Vatican that Jack Chick may have a few things wrong in his comics! Neither Grisez nor Chick have any authority whatsoever to speak for the Catholic Church.

Jack Chick is an anti-Catholic …

Dr. Grisez is a major professor of Catholic Moral Theology at a major seminary.

Big difference.

 

[Bookcat]

For myself…I recognize Dr. Grisez as a well established Catholic Moral Theologian who teaches in line with the Magisterium…and thus does not teach heresy.

However I will add that while I used his works extensively in years past …I currently use his works mostly as references now and then…and here for this purpose since they are available to link online.

His is not my preferred approach to Orthodox Mortal Theology. But his is certainly orthodox and recognized as such.

I also do not agree with him on all things…but certainly he is orthodox.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Jack Chick is an anti-Catholic …

Dr. Grisez is a major professor of Catholic Moral Theology at a major seminary.

Big difference.

Dr. Grisez has a secular doctorate from the University of Chicago, not an S.T.D. from an ecclesiastical faculty. So for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this puts Grisez in the same category as Chick as far as Vatican oversight is concerned.

 

[Bookcat]

Dr. Grisez has a secular doctorate from the University of Chicago, not an S.T.D. from an ecclesiastical faculty. So for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, this puts Grisez in the same category as Chick as far as Vatican oversight is concerned.

Such does not represent a correct understand of the CDF. In any case there is no reason to go on about this. It is beside my point. This is just lurking.

 

[Ron_Conte]

And they do not understand what is chastely permitted within the marital act …and that certain marital acts prior too and directly after the actual act of intercourse form a moral unity with that intercourse and thus are part of the one chaste martial act.

Bookcat:
In your many posts on this subject, you are unable to provide any quotes from any magisterial document to support this claim about ‘a moral unity’.

In fact, the Magisterium explicitly rejects this idea of considering a set of acts to be morally one act. Some persons used this ‘set of acts’ approach to try to justify non-procreative contraceptive acts under the ‘principle of totality’ – Humanae Vitae (n. 3 and following) considers this approach and then rejects it, explicitly requiring each and every marital act to be unitive and procreative – not just procreative, but unitive and procreative, thereby teaching a principle which does not allow for any non-unitive or any non-procreative acts of any kind, whether unnatural sexual acts or contracepted natural intercourse.

Can provide a theological argument to support your position? Repeatedly posting the same link to Grisez’ website over and over again is not a theological argument.

It is NEVER the case in moral theology that an entire set of acts is justified merely by including one act in that set that is moral. Each and every knowingly chosen act is evaluated on its own merits.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, in his moral treatise ‘On the Good of Marriage,’ writes on the subject of sexual intercourse within marriage:

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

Unnatural sexual acts are not justified by being done within marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

Of course unnatural sexual acts are not to be done in marriage. I agree with St. Augustine. (though would add that the Church further explains that each marital act needs to be open to life…even if no conception can happen (infertile period) or does happen)

However your arguments as to foreplay or against the moral unity of foreplay with the intercourse of a marital act have no support from the Magisterium. The documents put forward do not actually support your conclusions. But rather are a misconstruing and a reading things that are not there.

Foreplay is not un-natural but is part of the marital act.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Of course unnatural sexual acts are not to be done in marriage. I agree with St. Augustine.

However your arguments as to foreplay or against the moral unity of foreplay with the intercourse of a marital act have no support from the Magisterium. The documents put forward do not actually support your conclusions. But rather are a misconstruing and a reading things that are not there.

Foreplay is not un-natural but is part of the marital act.

You have re-defined the meaning of what is natural and unnatural, so as to approve of unnatural acts by calling them ‘natural’ and ‘foreplay’. These are the same types of acts condemned by St. Augustine. What is your position on the claim that a husband can perform a completed unnatural sexual act on his wife after natural marital relations? Are you claiming that such an act is ‘natural’?

Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. The Magisterium teaches that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, the only acts of foreplay that are moral are those that stand on their own as moral acts.

Renaming an act ‘foreplay’ and making an unsupported claim that the acts are ‘not un-natural’ does not justify the act. The Magisterium teaches that “each and every marital act” must be unitive and procreative.

Non-unitive sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the unitive meaning. Non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the procreative meaning. The Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts are never justified, not by intention and not by circumstances. Therefore, non-unitive or non-procreative sexual acts are not justified by the intention to commit a subsequent natural act, nor by the circumstance that the wife did not reach climax during the natural act.

Your repeated use of the term “moral unity” has no basis in any magisterial document.

 

[kage_ar]

Excuse me, but I haven’t claimed ANYTHING. I am questioning, but not claiming. It seems to me that you are the one who needs to retract and apologize…that is if you are an “honest poster”.

Please, show me one thing I have posted that is a detraction or falsehood about Holy Mother Church. I will retract and go to Confession before the day is over if I have spoken against the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. The Magisterium teaches that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, the only acts of foreplay that are moral are those that stand on their own as moral acts.

Renaming an act ‘foreplay’ and making an unsupported claim that the acts are ‘not un-natural’ does not justify the act. The Magisterium teaches that “each and every marital act” must be unitive and procreative.

Non-unitive sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the unitive meaning. Non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the procreative meaning. The Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts are never justified, not by intention and not by circumstances. Therefore, non-unitive or non-procreative sexual acts are not justified by the intention to commit a subsequent natural act, nor by the circumstance that the wife did not reach climax during the natural act.

Your repeated use of the term “moral unity” has no basis in any magisterial document.

Your rejection of “moral unity” has no basis in any magisterial document.

Nor has the Church taught that such acts of foreplay (as explained by such as Dr. Grisez) are evil. Nowhere.

In fact your argument would in the end be saying too that kissing in an arousing way…before actual intercourse …say even for a good 15 minutes prior …is a non-unitive- non-procreative sexual act and thus is evil.

 

[Bookcat]

Ron,

But your writings are also saying in effect that Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) was teaching heresy!!!

hummm…you had better contact those in charge of his cause in Rome don’t you think?

So you can stop the process quickly!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Your rejection of “moral unity” has no basis in any magisterial document.

Nor has the Church taught that such acts of foreplay (as explained by such as Dr. Grisez) are evil. Nowhere.

In fact your argument would in the end be saying too that kissing in an arousing way…before actual intercourse …say even for a good 15 minutes prior …is a non-unitive- non-procreative sexual act and thus is evil.

The term ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as ‘the principle of totality’; both terms attempt to group a set of acts together, and to justify one act by the fonts of morality of a different act. Humanae Vitae rejects this approach.

Pope Paul VI as the question as to whether a set of sexual acts within marriage can be justified if only some of the acts are unitive and procreative:

“Moreover, if one were to apply here the so called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth? Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act? A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their own bodies.” (HV, n. 3)

Pope Paul VI then answers the question, rejecting this idea of grouping sets of acts together:

“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. 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.” (HV n. 11-12).

Therefore, sexual acts which lack the unitive or procreative meanings are not moral. They are not justified by being followed by, or preceded by, a natural marital act, because each and every marital act, each single sexual act, must be procreative and unitive, as well as marital.

Kissing and hugging and other acts which are arousing, but which are not a use of the sexual faculty, need not be unitive and procreative, because these are not sexual acts.

The Magisterium teaches in the above quoted text, that each single sexual act must be unitive and procreative. It is absurd to claim that a non-unitive or a non-procreative act, condemned by the Church, becomes moral by being renamed ‘foreplay’. It is equally absurd to claim that the principle of totality, rejected by the Magisterium, becomes true by renaming it ‘moral unity’.

 

[Bookcat]

The term ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as ‘the principle of totality’. Humanae Vitae rejects this approach.

Actually it is not. And you will not be able to produce any documents of the Church that say it does.

And HV does not reject the understanding of ‘Moral unity’ of the chaste acts that precede or directly follow the act of intercourse…with that act of intercourse.

HV rejects the idea that one can have most marital acts within a marriage be open to life…with some being contraceptive…and thus be ok. Such of course is not the case.

You misread the document.

And you will not be able to produce any documents that show that the Church rejects such moral unity or that Dr. Grisez etc or…Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) were teaching heresy!