Authority on Married Sex

[Bookcat]

T

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’.

Yes …each marital act must be unitive and open to life. Such acts of foreplay etc are part of the very martial act.

 

[Bookcat]

It is equally absurd to claim that the principle of totality, rejected by the Magisterium, becomes true by renaming it ‘moral unity’.

To say that the Magisterium has rejected the idea of “moral unity” (which is a very fine and old concept) is incorrect and you will not find anywhere that it has.

It is also incorrect to say that the Magisterium has rejected the principle of totality!!! It certainly has not. What the Magisterium rejected was the misuse of the this term to try and defend contraceptive martial acts.

The principle of totality itself is not rejected…but rather is used in the Church…in its correct understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

“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)
.

This again just demonstrates that you are not reading things correctly.

What was proposed is that a married couple has only ‘some use of contraception’ and thus only a few contraceptive marital acts --used a condom 3 times during fertile times but the rest of the acts --say the other 15 --were open to life --therefore one could look at the “totality” of these acts together…that on the whole …they were open to life…the marriage is open to life.

The Pope is saying no – each martial act (each act of marital intercourse) must open to life…and thus the use of a condom for even only one such act is a grave moral evil.

IT HAS NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH THE MORAL UNITY OF A SINGLE MARITAL ACT WITH THE FOREPLAY THAT PRECEDES OR DIRECTLY FOLLOWS THE ACTUAL INTERCOURSE

and you will not be able to produce one document that says such.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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

"You shall not speak false testimony against your neighbor." (Ex 20:16)

In one section of my article, May the Marriage Bed be Immaculate,
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-bed.htm#11
I explain that certain ideas in moral theology are heretical.
But I do not accuse any person of heresy.

This section of my article argues, on the basis of the teachings of Pope John Paul II, and of the Catechism, and of other sources, that certain ideas are heretical. Ideas are condemned; persons are not. Only certain ideas are condemned as heretical. For example, it is heresy to claim that the end justifies the means, and it is heresy to claim that intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral. I do not state or imply that disagreement with any point at all in the entire article is heresy.

Speaking in general now:
I argue against certain theologians who have claimed that unnatural sexual acts become moral when done in the context of an act of natural marital relations. My argument is based based, in part, on the teaching of Pope John Paul II that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. Pope John Paul II, even in his private theology, never taught that unnatural sexual acts become moral by being used as a type of foreplay, or by being done in the context of an act of natural marital relations. Nor did he ever teach that all the sexual acts of the spouses are morally to be considered one act. He wrote extensively on the subject of marital sexual ethics and he never made any such assertions.

I have noticed that certain theologians teach sexual ethics, but they have renamed it ‘theology of the body’ (after a term used by JP2). They attribute everything that they teach to the late holy Father. But I find that his teachings on the subject are vastly different from their teachings. They claim that they are merely presenting the Pope’s theology, but this is a false claim. So when I argue against their work, on one point or another, I am not arguing against Pope John Paul II’s work. His work, especially in Veritatis Splendor, is to a great extent the basis for my work in moral theology.

 

[Bookcat]

This again just demonstrates that you are not reading things correctly.

What was proposed is that a married couple has only ‘some use of contraception’ and thus only a few contraceptive marital acts --used a condom 3 times during fertile times but the rest of the acts --say the other 15 --were open to life --therefore one could look at the “totality” of these acts together…that on the whole …they were open to life…the marriage is open to life.

The Pope is saying no – each martial act (each act of marital intercourse) must open to life…and thus the use of a condom for even only one such act is a grave moral evil.

IT HAS NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH THE MORAL UNITY OF A SINGLE MARITAL ACT WITH THE FOREPLAY THAT PRECEDES OR DIRECTLY FOLLOWS THE ACTUAL INTERCOURSE

and you will not be able to produce one document that says that the Church does not accept this .

 

[Bookcat]

"You shall not speak false testimony against your neighbor." (Ex 20:16).

I did not. Your article say that such is heresy. And say that some in the Church are teaching or have taught such heresy.

He taught one of the things that you said is heresy.

therefore …what I wrote is the case…go read the actual words I wrote.

 

[Bookcat]

You call such “a heresy against the true Catholic Faith” under “Common Heretical Teachings”

you write

"Any act of bringing the woman to sexual climax outside of natural intercourse is a sexual act that is not open to life. Also, since this is accomplished with an unnatural sexual act and such acts are always gravely immoral, regardless of circumstance or intention, the act cannot be justified. Moreover, the woman’s climax is not unrelated to procreation, since God created the human body so that a husband and wife would be able to share enjoyment while procreating.

Each of the above four claims are false and heretical."

"3. Is producing sexual climax in one’s wife permissible before or after natural intercourse?

No. Producing a sexual climax in the husband or wife, by any means other than acts of natural marital intercourse open to life, is immoral."

Since Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) taught that the wife could climax even right after the physical act of intercourse… in Love and Responsibility --he was according to you teaching heresy!!!
.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Since Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) taught that the wife could climax even right after the physical act of intercourse… in Love and Responsibility
.

Bookcat,

Could you quote for us where he says the husband can permissibly cause the wife to climax after the completion of intercourse?

Thank you,
VC

 

[Ron_Conte]

Since Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) taught that the wife could climax even right after the physical act of intercourse… in Love and Responsibility --he was according to you teaching heresy!!!
.

You are referring to this article:
Sexual Sins within Marriage
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm
In section B: Common Heretical Teachings
I list four **heresies **on the subject of marital sexual ethics, in bold as follows.

**1. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be used as foreplay or stimulation, as long as this is combined with, followed by, or completed with an act of natural marital relations.

1. The claim that unnatural sexual acts (such as manual or oral stimulation) can be performed on the woman after natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax.
2. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be performed on the woman before natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax prior to natural marital relations.
3. The claim that only the man’s climax is inherently related to procreation, so that the woman’s climax can be achieved outside of natural marital relations without sin.**

Pope John Paul II did not teach any of the above four heresies.

The part quoted by Bookcat:
“3. Is producing sexual climax in one’s wife permissible before or after natural intercourse? No. Producing a sexual climax in the husband or wife, by any means other than acts of natural marital intercourse open to life, is immoral.”
**is not from the section of the article on heresy. **
It is from a Q and A section (section C) later in the article.

Notice that the answer that I give to this question allows climax due to natural marital relations at any time, and disallows climax due to unnatural sexual acts at any time.

Even so, Pope John Paul II did not teach in contradiction to my above quoted assertion. He never states or implies that the husband or wife may perform any unnatural sexual acts at all, at any time, for any reason.

Also, note that my article: Can a Pope Ever Be a Heretic?
catholicplanet.com/RCC/heresy-papacy.htm
concludes that no Pope can ever fall into heresy, not even in his mind and heart, because the Pope is the seat of the Magisterium.

 

[Christopher68]

Ron,

With all due respect, you seem to be taking an extremely narrow and rigid view of marital relations. My guess is that even those who consider themselves as rather conservative Catholics would summarily dismiss your analysis as being incorrect. Seriously, what is next? A checklist for each and every possible “do” and “don’t” within the marital embrace? If I’m thinking about all of the do’s and don’ts instead of focusing on my partner, there is no way I’m going to be able to ‘perform’ at all, and the marital act will have no conclusion.

 

[Bookcat]

I will have to withdraw for now my assertion that Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) wrote such in Love and Responsibility…for thus far I have not found the quote…and thus that Mr. Conte says he taught heresy.

perhaps my memory has failed me here …

 

[Bookcat]

You are referring to this article:
Sexual Sins within Marriage
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm
In section B: Common Heretical Teachings
I list four **heresies **on the subject of marital sexual ethics, in bold as follows.

**1. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be used as foreplay or stimulation, as long as this is combined with, followed by, or completed with an act of natural marital relatio

1. The claim that unnatural sexual acts (such as manual or oral stimulation) can be performed on the woman after natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax.
2. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be performed on the woman before natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax prior to natural marital relations.
3. The claim that only the man’s climax is inherently related to procreation, so that the woman’s climax can be achieved outside of natural marital relations without sin.**

Pope John Paul II did not teach any of the above four heresies.

The part quoted by Bookcat:
“3. Is producing sexual climax in one’s wife permissible before or after natural intercourse? No. Producing a sexual climax in the husband or wife, by any means other than acts of natural marital intercourse open to life, is immoral.”
**is not from the section of the article on heresy. **
It is from a Q and A section (section C) later in the article.

Notice that the answer that I give to this question allows climax due to natural marital relations at any time, and disallows climax due to unnatural sexual acts at any time.

Even so, Pope John Paul II did not teach in contradiction to my above quoted assertion. He never states or implies that the husband or wife may perform any unnatural sexual acts at all, at any time, for any reason.

Also, note that my article: Can a Pope Ever Be a Heretic?
catholicplanet.com/RCC/heresy-papacy.htm
concludes that no Pope can ever fall into heresy, not even in his mind and heart, because the Pope is the seat of the Magisterium.

Chaste acts of foreplay are NOT unnatural acts. Period.

Unless you would like to produce documents that state this??

There are none of course to produce…

 

[Bookcat]

In sacramental theology…moral unity is used.

Also in confession.

To give you an example from confession.

If a person commits the sin of fornication.

Here is what happens:

There is foreplay…in this case as unmarried there are lustful touches and lustful kissing.

And then there is the sexual intercourse with no contraception.

The person repents though.

And goes to confession.

In confession he needs to confess what?

I accuse myself of fornication one time.

He does not need to confess the foreplay …the lustful touching and kissing…for they are considered part of that one act. They form a moral unity with the intercourse.

Now if he had committed lustful touching and kissing the day before in addition. Then he would need to confess Lustful touching and kissing …and fornication. For then it would not form a moral unity.

this is just standard stuff from the older moral manuals.

In marriage…

The marital act can consist of chaste foreplay including even the climax of the wife and the sexual intercourse with the climax of the husband in ordinary sexual intercourse with his wife. There is here a moral unity.

Now if there were touching with intentional climax of the wife the day before without the moral unity with an act of marital intercourse.–then there would be grave matter for mortal sin.

Of course this does not mean that there can not be a certain degree of other sexually arousing acts of husband and wife (even kissing that is moderately arousing) that does not lead directly into intercourse …for such without climax can be fine within marriage if they are not near occasions of sin or to vehement.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Bookcat,

If you have the Ignatius Press (1993) edition, were you thinking of pp. 271 and following?

But, I’m not sure I see in that portion an affirmation that a husband can permissibly cause climax in a wife, after completed intercourse. There is talk of trying to coordinate timing.

As far as your assertion – I’ve seen that same assertion attributed to JPII before. But, I’ve often wondered if it isn’t someone’s (Wests?) interpretation of what JPII said, and then subsequently attributed to JPII by others.

Let us know if you find anything.

VC

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

If you have the Ignatius Press (1993) edition, were you thinking of pp. 271 and following?

But, I’m not sure I see in that portion an affirmation that a husband can permissibly cause climax in a wife, after completed intercourse. There is talk of trying to coordinate timing.

As far as your assertion – I’ve seen that same assertion attributed to JPII before. But, I’ve often wondered if it isn’t someone’s (Wests?) interpretation of what JPII said, and then subsequently attributed to JPII by others.

Let us know if you find anything.

Yes I read that section…

My memory was not from West. Predates him.

In anycase …such still forms a mortal unity with intercourse. And Mr. Conte will not produce a document from the Magisterium that says that such is sinful.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Might want to edit your post above – your quote of me includes your response, and so it looks like I wrote something that I didn’t.

VC

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat,

If you have the Ignatius Press (1993) edition, were you thinking of pp. 271 and following?

But, I’m not sure I see in that portion an affirmation that a husband can permissibly cause climax in a wife, after completed intercourse. There is talk of trying to coordinate timing.

As far as your assertion – I’ve seen that same assertion attributed to JPII before. But, I’ve often wondered if it isn’t someone’s (Wests?) interpretation of what JPII said, and then subsequently attributed to JPII by others.

Let us know if you find anything.

VC

es I read that section…

My memory was not from West. Predates him.

In anycase …such still forms a mortal unity with intercourse. And Mr. Conte will not produce a document from the Magisterium that says that such is sinful.

 

[Antrim]

Kage AR
Sorry about the one wrong letter in your name. It was not intentional.

I dont think that it is just one priests name for it. I am quite sure it is common knoweledge throughout the church.
Thede priests learn from the higher authority.

Antrim

 

[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.

Originally Posted by baylee forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

My, you choose your words carefully, don’t you? You **accused **me of claiming the church taught something it never did. I said I never claimed anything…I was only questioning what the Church taught or did not teach.

My last post is not saying you have taught falsehood…my last post is saying that you have unjustly accused me and it is therefore YOU who “needs to retract and apologize”…if you are, as you put it, an “honest poster”.

Are you sure you misunderstood my post…or are you just trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong?

 

[Antrim]

Verbum Caro
Here are other sources who back up what you are asking about the wifes Climax after Intercourse.

Father Chad Ripperger under the title Sensus Traditionis, Jason Palermo and Father Jose’L Lavastida. under Notra Dame Seminary.

Antrim