Continution - of Intimacy Peak

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bookcat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bookcat

Guest
From other thread:

1Lord1Faith: “A priest has told the OP it’s okay, in whatever terms it was presented to the priest. It’s up to the couple to discern.”

No it really is not. A Priest who tells them that or that contraception is ok and moral - is simply incorrect or misunderstood the question. Such is not just up to the couple. They are yes free to do such which is gravely sinful - since they have free will - but one really is not to use ones will to choose grave evil. Such ia abuse of ones freedom. We are to instead choose only the good.

If a Priest gives advice contrary to the Church and orthodox Catholic Moral Theology - one is not really to follow such.

But again - not going round and round with you on this.
 
To which I reply (in addition to the rest on that thread)
Bookcat said:
From other thread:

1Lord1Faith: “A priest has told the OP it’s okay, in whatever terms it was presented to the priest. It’s up to the couple to discern.”

Bookcat: No it really is not. A Priest who tells them that or that contraception is ok and moral - is simply incorrect or misunderstood the question. Such is not just up to the couple. They are yes free to do such which is gravely sinful - since they have free will - but one really is not to use ones will to choose grave evil. Such ia abuse of ones freedom. We are to instead choose only the good.

If a Priest gives advice contrary to the Church and orthodox Catholic Moral Theology - one is not really to follow such.

But again - not going round and round with you on this.
Click to expand...
I bid you a good day.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
CCC
Click to expand...
So you think that since that sort of detailed question is not in the CCC that means that the Church would be ok with it?

No the CCC does not get into all these more detailed moral questions.

(The Catechism does not get into if one can *poison *someone or not either…)

Rather such detailed questions are treated by Catholic Moral Theologians

Examples of such were already given.

One will not find any Catholic Theologian who is faithful to the Church who will agree with you on this. Period.
 
Bookcat said:
Catholic Answers Apologist Priest answers that question (read closely the question and the answer):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=946189

Same as the Catholic Moral Theologians.
Click to expand...
It would be hard to find a more confused answer than this one. Based on this answer, one could say that lawful intercourse intends “to accomplish what masturbation accomplishes.”

If a man has the “misery,” and uses his wife as a release in intercourse, is that not the same thing? He isn’t doing it for love of spouse but for his own desire.

There has been many a child conceived because mom and dad had a little too much to drink and started feeling “randy.” Is this, too, not an abuse of sexual intimacy?
 
Tim_D said:
It would be hard to find a more confused answer than this one. Based on this answer, one could say that lawful intercourse intends “to accomplish what masturbation accomplishes.”

If a man has the “misery,” and uses his wife as a release in intercourse, is that not the same thing? He isn’t doing it for love of spouse but for his own desire.
Click to expand...
Other quotes were provided before. That was just the short cap answer from the CA Apologist (not meant to be a long academic answer.)

As to the later -if he “uses” his wife as an object - that would not be right. Not the same sin here though.

If he though seeks rightly the “remedy of concupiscence” within the marital act - that is part of marriage and is marital. Such is not using the other person whom he loves and who loves him.
 
Tim_D said:
It would be hard to find a more confused answer than this one. Based on this answer, one could say that lawful intercourse intends “to accomplish what masturbation accomplishes.”

If a man has the “misery,” and uses his wife as a release in intercourse, is that not the same thing? He isn’t doing it for love of spouse but for his own desire.

There has been many a child conceived because mom and dad had a little too much to drink and started feeling “randy.” Is this, too, not an abuse of sexual intimacy?
Click to expand...
Your argument only makes some sense if “intention” and the actual deed chosen had no internal linkage beyond conscious intent.

Church moral philosophy assumes the deed itself anchors or reveals intent over and above what one may or may not consciously intend.

Therefore we would be mistaken to believe that the intention behind remedying concupiscence by means of intercourse is just as ignoble as mutual masturbation.
 
Rau said:
So now this orphan stub of a thread makes no sense.
Click to expand...
It’s about the alleged acceptability of “unauthorised orgasms” between married couples and how the Church allegedly leaves it to couples to decide what is objectively good or bad in the privacy of their bedroom…at least according to 1Lord :o.
 
How about when a couple decides to postpone having more children for legitimate reasons; become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze. They will most likely end up in the situation “honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory”. That would be so frustrating. Yes we can offer up the sacrifice but sometimes it becomes overwhelming.

What does one do in that situation?
 
Augustine3 said:
How about when a couple decides to postpone having more children for legitimate reasons; become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze. They will most likely end up in the situation “honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory”. That would be so frustrating. Yes we can offer up the sacrifice but sometimes it becomes overwhelming.

What does one do in that situation?
Click to expand...
I would think once they decide to “become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze” then "“honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory” is trying to close the door after the horse has already bolted :o.

If you are really saying that “becoming intimate” is now and then the overwhelming difficulty then I think God understands if you go racing for the condom packet hidden in the bathroom.

Is it immoral to wisely anticipate weakness (having condoms on standby) when one is trying to abide by the natural methods the Church allows? I personally do not think so.

It is still objectively grave matter of course, but under these circumstances the breach is most likely venial only. Still confessional matter of course, all grave matter seems to be is whether fully culpable or not :cool:.

Loss of sanctifying grace, I wouldn’t think so given everything else in your Catholic life is in order.
God isn’t the Enforcer.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I would think once they decide to “become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze” then "“honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory” is trying to close the door after the horse has already bolted :o.

If you are really saying that “becoming intimate” is now and then the overwhelming difficulty then I think God understands if you go racing for the condom packet hidden in the bathroom.

Is it immoral to wisely anticipate weakness (having condoms on standby) when one is trying to abide by the natural methods the Church allows? I personally do not think so.

It is still objectively grave matter of course, but under these circumstances the breach is most likely venial only. Still confessional matter of course, all grave matter seems to be is whether fully culpable or not :cool:.

Loss of sanctifying grace, I wouldn’t think so given everything else in your Catholic life is in order.
God isn’t the Enforcer.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh this post is going to bring up controversy 🍿
 
Blue_Horizon said:
…Is it immoral to wisely anticipate weakness (having condoms on standby) when one is trying to abide by the natural methods the Church allows? I personally do not think so.
Click to expand...
Just trying to unpack that.

By “wisely” - I think you are trying to capture simply that judging that one will fail is the more likely future event than perfect adherence to abstinence during fertile times? [Rather than to suggest that being able to avail oneself of a condom when desired is in some sense “wise”.]

Presumably you do hold it as a given that using the condom is an immoral act?

But you are saying that purchasing & stashing the condoms in order that they might be available for just the above purpose is not itself an immoral act. Is that right?
 
Rau said:
Just trying to unpack that.

By “wisely” - I think you are trying to capture simply that judging that one will fail is the more likely future event than perfect adherence to abstinence during fertile times? [Rather than to suggest that being able to avail oneself of a condom when desired is in some sense “wise”.]

Presumably you do hold it as a given that using the condom to avoid conception is an immoral act.

But you are saying that purchasing & stashing the condoms in order that they might be available for just the above purpose is not itself an immoral act. Is that right?
Click to expand...
By “weakness” I refer to a deed more the “act of a man” than a human act".
Mature, loyal Catholics are surely wise enough to know when such conditions may come about through no grave fault of their own.

The observation, at least to me, seems little different from Pope Francis observing that those in irregular situations do not by that reason alone lose sanctifying grace.

I believe it is time (in fact the discussion has already begun with Pope Francis and even Pope Benedict) that the Church develops a more public, systematic moral theology for reasonably predictable ongoing situations of human weakness rather than having little public to say beyond the usual objective “red lines”.

I believe the above observations are consistent with a valid Catholic approach to these problematics.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
By “weakness” I refer to a deed more the “act of a man” than a human act".
Mature, loyal Catholics are surely wise enough to know when such conditions may come about through no grave fault of their own.

The observation, at least to me, seems little different from Pope Francis observing that those in irregular situations do not by that reason alone lose sanctifying grace.

It believe is time (in fact the discussion has already begun with Pope Francis and even Pope Benedict) that the Church develops a more public and systematic moral theology for ongoing imperfect situations rather than having nothing public to say beyond the usual objective “red lines”.

I believe the above observations are consistent with a valid Catholic approach to these problematics.
Click to expand...
:hmmm: Seems to skirt around my questions…
 
Augustine3 said:
How about when a couple decides to postpone having more children for legitimate reasons; become intimate during the wife’s fertile faze. They will most likely end up in the situation “honey we better stop now, we are entering into illicit territory”. That would be so frustrating. Yes we can offer up the sacrifice but sometimes it becomes overwhelming.

What does one do in that situation?
Click to expand...
Anyone else have any suggestions?
 
Augustine3 said:
Anyone else have any suggestions?
Click to expand...
They have three options: they stop, as frustrating as that is; they proceed and have intercourse open to procreation taking their chances that no pregnancy will result; or they choose to commit a sin. Ultimately it’s their choice and they’re the ones who will have to answer to God for their choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top