Lies! Lies! Help me fight this anti catholic's blog about sex and marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joclucsylv

Guest
I know you all will be all over this post. It affects me in a personal way, so I would appreciate all the ammunition you all have to offer. I need to seperate his writing, because one post will only take 6000 characters. Be patient and I will tell you when I am done posting. Thank you! The following is how it starts…

Resently someone close to me converted to the Roman Catholic religion for the sake of marriage. This sadden me on several levels. In this article I will give the RC’s teachings on sex within marriage.

This is the church that teaches family union between a man and woman to be only God’s second best. The first is celebacy. For this reason the preist, monks and nuns are forbiden to marry. To this bunch of heretics, the sexual act in marriage is a defilement of the persons involved. For the same reason this group also teaches that Mary was the “ever virgin:” meaning, she and Joseph never consummated their marriage with the sexual act.

To say nothing of their teaching that for a husband and wife to have sexual intercourse for any other reason than to produce children is a mortal sin which kills the grace of God in your life and damns one to hell unless stopped (see below). That may sound innocent until you consider the couple that has passed the childbearing years. Such a couple must be celibate or sin each time they have relations. To say nothing of the couple that has relations any other time of the month except for the few days of ovulation.

Moreover, what do preist and RC academics know about the family when they are forbidden to be apart of one. It is a matter of world record that they know more about pedophilia than the wholesome and God ordained relationships within the family unit. By their own admission their training centers (seminaries) tend toward a culture of homosexuality.
 
(continued) Below you will be able to see the teaching of the RC according to their catechsim. the obvious conclusion of this teaching makes clear that a married Roman Catholic couple can only have marital sex which is “open to life” about 3 to 4 days out of each month when the wife is ovulating; and each encounter outside of this window is a mortal (not venial) sin (see below).

Please see my closing comments at the end of this article.

catechism.cc/articles/marriage-sins.htm

C. Questions and Answers

1. Which kinds of sexual relations are allowed within marriage?

The only moral kind of sexual relations is natural marital intercourse open to life. The teaching of the Catholic Church permits no other type of sexual act, except natural (genital-to-genital) intercourse, which is open to life, which does not include any unnatural sexual acts, and which is within marriage. Sexual relations within marriage are a part of the Sacrament of Marriage, are even necessary to its validity, and therefore unnatural sexual acts within a Christian marriage are offenses against the Sacrament as well as offenses against the natural moral law. Do you really think that Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary would approve of unnatural sexual acts within the Sacrament of Marriage? Certainly not.

2. Is genital stimulation permissible before or after natural intercourse?

No. Stimulation of the genitals by any means other than natural marital intercourse is immoral. Stimulation of the genitals orally, anally, manually, or with objects or devices is immoral, even if such an act precedes, prepares for, accompanies, or follows an act of natural marital intercourse open to life.

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.

4. Is it true that sexual acts within marriage are moral as long as it is mutually agreeable to both partners?

No. The Church teaches that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even within marriage, even if both the husband and wife are comfortable with, and agreeable to, the acts.

5. Are unnatural sexual acts, such as oral, anal, or manual stimulation, permissible so long as the activity is within the overall context of an act of marital relations?

No. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to its morality. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral, and are inherently not open to life. One cannot group together and justify a series of sexual acts, even if some of these acts are only partial and are completed with sexual climax in an act of natural marital relations. Such immoral acts are not justified by being combined with one or more acts of natural marital relations.
 
continspan class=" fbUnderline"> No. Sexual acts are always a serious matter, so that the sin of an immoral sexual act is always objectively grave. An individual who is unaware of which acts are immoral might not be guilty of an actual mortal sin, but the sin is always an objectively serious sin.

7. Since the wife’s sexual climax is not specifically directed to the generation of life, may she climax before, during, or after intercourse, so long as the climax can be considered to be part of an act of marital relations?

The sexual climax of both husband and wife are each inherently and directly related to procreation (the generation of new life). The wife’s climax is not morally separate from natural marital relations. She may achieve sexual climax due to natural marital relations only. She may not achieve, nor attempt to achieve, sexual climax through any unnatural sexual act, neither before, during, or after natural marital relations.

8. Is oral, anal, or manual stimulation permissible as an act of foreplay, if it is completed with sexual climax during an act of natural marital relations open to life?

No. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to its morality. These sexual acts are unnatural, and not open to life, and intrinsically disordered, therefore they can never be justified, even if they are not completed with sexual climax, or even if they are completed with sexual climax during natural marital relations, regardless of whether they precede, coincide with, or follow an act of natural marital relations open to life.If an act is intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral when completed by itself, then it must still be intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral even when it is only partial or is combined with an act which is moral. The morality of the latter act does not change the morality of the former act. This applies regardless of whether the acts concern sexuality or some other area of morality.You have heard the expression: Two wrongs don’t make a right. But I tell you that half an evil deed does not make for a good deed, not even if you combine that half an evil deed with something good. When an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot become moral by being only done partially, nor can it become moral by combining that act, partial or whole, with an act which is good.Using unnatural sexual acts as foreplay prior to natural marital relations is sinful and offensive to God because natural marital relations is a part of the holy Sacrament of Marriage, whereas
 
9. Which acts are permissible between a husband and wife as foreplay preceding natural marital relations?

Expressions of physical affection (such as kissing, hugging, caressing), even if intended to arouse, are permissible between husband and wife as acts of foreplay preceding natural marital relations, only if such acts do not involve unnatural sexual acts (oral sex or stimulation, anal sex or stimulation, manual sex or stimulation, use of objects or devices for sex or stimulation). Unnatural sexual acts are never justified, even if used only to stimulate or to arouse prior to natural marital relations.

10. Do the teachings of Pope John Paul II, in his lecture series called the Theology of the Body, permit unnatural sexual acts as foreplay or as a component of natural marital relations?

No. There are no such statements or teachings in that lecture series, nor in any other talk or writings by Pope John Paul II, neither in his role as Pope, nor in any expressions of his personal theological opinions. Some misguided theologians and lay teachers have been using that lecture series as an excuse for their own false teachings, just as some persons have been using the documents of Vatican II as an excuse for certain false teachings which are actually nowhere to be found within the documents of Vatican II.
 
No. There are no such statements or teachings in that lecture series, nor in any other talk or writings by Pope John Paul II, neither in his role as Pope, nor in any expressions of his personal theological opinions. Some misguided theologians and lay teachers have been using that lecture series as an excuse for their own false teachings, just as some persons have been using the documents of Vatican II as an excuse for certain false teachings which are actually nowhere to be found within the documents of Vatican II.

11. Why do so many theologians, priests, and lay teachers say that unnatural sexual acts are moral as foreplay or are moral if combined with natural marital relations?

They have been influenced in this faulty understanding by sinful secular society, which lacks insight on sexual moral values. The claim that unnatural sexual acts are not intrinsically evil is a heresy against the Catholic faith. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be justified as foreplay or by being combined with a prior, concomitant, or subsequent act of natural marital relations is a heresy against the Catholic faith. The claim that the morality of sexual acts can be considered as a group, so that an act which would be immoral by itself becomes moral by combination with other acts, is a heresy against the Catholic faith. Any theologian, priest, or lay leader who publicly teaches these false claims is a notorious heretic. Any individual Catholic who believes such a teaching is a heretic also.
 
12. Is this teaching on sexual sins within marriage the definitive teaching of the Church, or is it merely a theological opinion?It is the definitive teaching of the Church.

Unnatural sexual acts are contrary to the precepts of the natural law. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically not open to life. Each and every sexual act must be natural, marital, and open to life.

Whenever the Church has always taught that something is intrinsically evil, such a teaching on morals necessarily falls under the infallible universal Magisterium. Any idea which contradicts or nullifies an infallible teaching on faith or morals is an heretical idea. The faithful are required to believe and follow all teachings that are definitive and irreformable. Unnatural sexual acts are inherently unfruitful. Since each and every sexual (marital) act must be moral on its own merits, an unnatural sexual act cannot be said to be fruitful by combination with an act of natural marital relations which is open to life.

Unnatural sexual acts are outside of normal conjugal relations. Such acts are non-procreative and so they contradict the finality of the marital act. Unnatural sexual acts are a deliberate exercise of sexuality, even if the sexual climax itself occurs within natural marital relations. Such acts outside of normal conjugal relations are intrinsically evil and therefore cannot be justified in any way, under any circumstances.

There is no legitimate exception or justification for any act that is intrinsically evil. One cannot justify an intrinsically evil act by saying that it is completed with a moral act. Unnatural sexual acts are contrary to “the precepts of the natural law.” One cannot justify unnatural sexual acts by saying that these are combined with a moral act of natural marital relation, nor by saying that the unnatural sexual act is mere foreplay completed by a moral act of natural marital relation. For each and every marital act must be natural and open to life; sexual acts cannot be grouped together in order to justify an act which by itself is intrinsically evil. Concerning intrinsically evil acts, “the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” All married couples must refrain, at all times and in every circumstance, from every kind of unnatural sexual act.

Although the above quote specifically mentions contraceptive practices, all unnatural sexual acts are included in the phrase “intrinsically evil acts” and all such unnatural acts are certainly not open to life. One may never do evil, including unnatural sexual acts within marriage, because such acts by their very nature contradict the moral order.
 
The circumstance of completing an unnatural sexual act with an act of natural marital relations does not justify the former act, for the former act is intrinsically evil. The intention to be charitable and loving to one’s spouse does not justify achieving sexual climax by any means other than an act of natural marital relations.

Pope John Paul II’s lecture series on the Theology of the Body is sometimes used in an attempt to justify unnatural sexual acts in certain circumstances or by means of certain exceptions. But the above quotes from an Encyclical Letter by the same Pope are clear and authoritative. Also, the lecture series never stated that unnatural sexual acts could be used morally within marriage in any context; rather, that false idea is a misinterpretation of the Pope’s words in his lecture series. As stated repeatedly by the same Pope in Veritatis Splendor, there are no exceptions, circumstances, or intentions which can make any intrinsically evil act moral, and this includes sexual acts which are inherently not open to life.13. Does the Sacrament of Marriage make all sexual acts within marriage permissible?Certainly not. Saint Augustine of Hippo, in his moral treatise ‘On the Good of Marriage,’ writes on the subject of sexual intercourse within marriage:

The expression ‘that use which is against nature’ refers to unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex. Saint Augustine condemns such acts unequivocally. He even states that such unnatural sexual acts are even more damnable (i.e. even more serious mortal sins) when these take place within marriage. For God is even more offended by a sexual mortal sin that takes place within the Sacrament of Marriage, since this offense is not only against nature, but also against a Holy Sacrament. “So then, of all to whom much has been given, much will be required. And of those to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be asked.” (Lk 12:48).

In this passage, Saint Augustine first compares natural sexual relations within marriage, done out of impure desires, to the same natural sexual acts outside of marriage. He teaches that having natural sexual relations within marriage, when done to satisfy a somewhat impure desire, is pardonable, i.e. a venial sin, but that natural sexual relations outside of marriage is damnable, i.e. a mortal sin. Then Saint Augustine goes on to consider ‘that which is against nature,’ i.e. unnatural sexual acts. He condemns such unnatural sexual acts as ‘execrable’ (utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent). Therefore these acts are among the worst of the sexual mortal sins. He also teaches that unnatural sexual acts within marriage, far from being permitted because they take place within marriage, are even worse, calling them ‘even more execrable,’ than the same unnatural sexual acts outside of marriage. Again, this is because the sin is not only against nature, but against a Holy Sacrament
 
become permissible when these take place within marriage. Instead, unnatural sexual acts are made even more sinful when these take place within marriage because they offend against both nature and a Sacrament.

D. Summary of Definitive Catholic Teaching
  1. Any and all unnatural sexual acts, even if used as foreplay or as stimulation with the sexual act completed in natural marital relations, or even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to climax, or even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
  2. Any and all natural sexual acts outside of marriage are intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
  3. Any and all sexual acts, whether natural or unnatural, whether within marriage or outside of marriage, which are not open to life, are intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
  4. Each and every sexual act, in order to be free from objective mortal sin, must be natural and marital and open to life.
  5. Each sexual act must be considered individually and separately from any and all other sexual acts, as to whether or not it is natural, marital, and open to life.In order to be moral, each sexual act must be natural, marital, and open to life. When considering whether or not an act is natural, marital, and open to life, each sexual act must be considered by itself. One cannot combine together several sexual acts, only some of which are open to life, and then justify one act by combination with another act. One cannot precede, combine, or follow an act of natural marital relations with a sexual act that is unnatural or not open to life, and then justify the one by the other. (
 
THIS TYPE OF PROHIBITION ON SEX WITHIN THE MARRIAGE IS PLACED UPON FOLLOWERS BECAUSE SEXUAL RELATIONS IS NOT PERMITTED FOR SIMPLE COMPANIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MAN AND WOMAN WHO HAVE PLEDGED THEMSLVES TO EACH OTHER FOR LIFE.

THIS TEACHING IS CONTRAY TO THE BIBLICAL PURPOSE FOR MARRIAGE: AND GOD SAW THAT ADAM WAS ALONE, AND SAID: IT IS NOT GOOD.

SEX ENTERED THE GARDEN FOR COMPANIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

CHILDREN WERE THE FRUIT OF THAT RELATIONSHIP, BUT NOT ITS PURPOSE.

Apostolically Speaking

This is where it ends. Help!!!
 
Concern over this particular website has been going around here on CAF. There have been quite a few that were deceived by the name of the web address, making it appear that it was really part of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In addition to praying for any who might be led astray by the deceptive website name/address and for the conversion of the website’s owner, the best way I can think of to fight it is to simply inform the person/people that refer to it that it is not the CCC and give them the link to the real deal:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
or
usccb.org/catechism/text/
 
I did not read much of the posts…this I will admit from the first.

Why?

Cause it is simple to answer. He is not using the Catechism etc. He is using the writings of Mr. Ron Conte…these writings have various things mixed up in regards to what the Church teaches or does not teach. He does not represent the Church.

So simply…his writings are not presenting what the Catholic Church teaches in his “Catechism” but rather can be a personal “take” on Church teachings. And while the writings can of course can get things correct…they also gets things incorrect…hence there can be a mix …and put in a certain mode of language can sound convincing to one who has not studied the subject or who does not know that aspect of Church teaching or theology.

He is not a recommended source in regards to the Catholic Faith. You will not find his works endorsed…no imprimatur etc

Here is the actual catechism…this section deals with chastity:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P83.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P84.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P88.HTM
 
Bookcat…why would someone do this??? They know it’s not truth!!
 
joclucsylv said:
Bookcat…why would someone do this??? They know it’s not truth!!
Click to expand...
I cannot answer for another person. (we will presume always the best…)

But trust me … his writings are not a good source…

(he by the way is not setting up his “Catechism” as if it were the CCC…the other person just took it for such in his web search…)
 
Can you tell me why??? What is his motive for having a site that is Catholic but yet spreads garbage
 
Haha, wwwwoooooowwwww…

There are definitely some crazies out there… :rolleyes:
 
I sense your anger. When people represent Church teachings untruthfully or falsely it upsets me too. Remember to approach these people with a humble heart. They lie and misrepresent because satan has lied to them. Help them to see clearly. Your profile claims that you have a blessed life so bear witness to it. Affirm the good things of the Church. Spread the good news. Headlines today are always coached in terms like, “The Church Denounces X, Y, and Z.” Like Fr. Barron says (www.wordonfire.org is an amazing site by the way), the heart of Catholicism is a “YES” to everything truly beautiful and wonderful. Imagine describing a sunset to a blind man. So, too, we must describe the faith to those who cannot see. God bless and thank you for being the strong Catholic woman that you are.

Best Regards,

Thomas Augustine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top