Marital, unitive, procreative

[tafan]

Just because the Catholic Church says something is true DOES NOT make it true. The Catholic Church is not God; and the Catholic Church does not define truth.

And I tell you, you are Peter,* and on this rock* I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

Teflan:

In other words, add more rules? I don’t think so, dear!

 

[onmyknees]

Just because the Catholic Church says something is true DOES NOT make it true. The Catholic Church is not God; and the Catholic Church does not define truth.

The Church and it’s teachings are from God. Every teaching was guided by the Holy Spirit, who is God. And Jesus Himself gave the apostles( the pope, bishops and priests) the authority.

 

[OraLabora]

I second what PaulinVA said. Truth is Truth.

Indeed Truth is Truth. But humans aren’t Truth; and humans cannot ever attain 100% perfection in the Truth; we are all victims of the Fall, all tainted with the stain of original sin. Therefore any Truth, if it is to avoid descending into a Pharisaical law, has to be accompanied by a good measure of pastoral care and concern. As St. Benedict says, the Abbot will be held more to account for the lost souls in his care than the lost themselves.

In the reality of the world outside the cloister, given the realities of the pressures of modern society, that pastoral care has to achieve a delicate balance between not driving the penitent away from the Church by imposing a burden on them they are not ready to acquire on the one hand, and by nudging them in the right direction to equip them to carry the burden eventually on the other hand.

Nobody said that would be easy either, and I have known more than one burned-out priest because of it.

I can give you a list as long as my arm as when abstinence can draw a couple closer and how it brings them to greater holiness. Just because some people have decided that sex defines their marriage doesn’t make it true. It just means that they have not embraced sacrifice.

The marital act is in fact intrinsically linked to marriage. A marriage cannot be a marriage without it and an unconsummated marriage is invalid, nor can the perpetually impotent enter into a sacramental marriage. As St-Paul says abstinence is fine if it is of common accord, and for a limited prayer in order to bring ourselves closer to Christ.

It’s also not right to say that couples who have made sex perhaps bigger in life than it should be, have not embraced sacrifice. They have perhaps sacrificed in other ways, for example sacrificing financially to educate their children, in elder care, for humanitarian causes, dealing with illness of self and or spouse, etc. It’s also possible that for these people, sexual relations are a means of coping with the sacrifices and stress of life.

Humans are a complicated amalgam, and if sex takes too big a place in the lives of some couples, it does not mean that they are not holy in other aspects of their lives. We all, in some way, fall short of the glory of God, just as most of us in other ways, do justice to the charity that God demands of us.

I knew a notorious adulterer for instance, and a Catholic and someone in my mind I had written off as a nasty piece of work. But at his death I learned of the depth of his commitment to disadvantaged children, through a summer camp for them, to which he contributed personally, materially and financially. And he couldn’t have done it for self-aggrandizement as nobody ever knew about it.

The day I will condemn someone for his sins is the day I will be free of them myself. I will, however, be praying for the sinner and that I may overcome my own.

 

[PaulinVA]

Indeed Truth is Truth. But humans aren’t Truth; and humans cannot ever attain 100% perfection in the Truth; we are all victims of the Fall, all tainted with the stain of original sin. Therefore any Truth, if it is to avoid descending into a Pharisaical law, has to be accompanied by a good measure of pastoral care and concern. As St. Benedict says, the Abbot will be held more to account for the lost souls in his care than the lost themselves.

In the reality of the world outside the cloister, given the realities of the pressures of modern society, that pastoral care has to achieve a delicate balance between not driving the penitent away from the Church by imposing a burden on them they are not ready to acquire on the one hand, and by nudging them in the right direction to equip them to carry the burden eventually on the other hand.

You are confusing Truth with what we do because we know the Truth.

Yes, we have to be compassionate towards people, but we can’t violate the Truth.

 

[OraLabora]

You are confusing Truth with what we do because we know the Truth.

Yes, we have to be compassionate towards people, but we can’t violate the Truth.

But we always will violate the Truth in some way or another. That’s why we have and need the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Anyone who tells you he never violates the Truth, is lying.

 

[vera_dicere]

Yours are so correct right, I don`t think so, Most catholics are lukewarm, are U one of them. Devout catholics who are serious about their faith will not do certain type porn flick sex

I’m of the understanding that the church teaches that as long as “tab A” finishes in “slot B” anything goes. As long as both parties consent, that the act is open to life, that there are no other vegetable, animals or minerals added that whatever happens in the bed room is the business of the married couple.

 

[PaulinVA]

But we always will violate the Truth in some way or another. That’s why we have and need the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Anyone who tells you he never violates the Truth, is lying.

That is not what we were discussing.

In the reality of the world outside the cloister, given the realities of the pressures of modern society, that pastoral care has to achieve a delicate balance between not driving the penitent away from the Church by imposing a burden on them they are not ready to acquire on the one hand, and by nudging them in the right direction to equip them to carry the burden eventually on the other hand.

What you are arguing is that we violate the Truth and not expect people to fully follow it, on purpose with Church sanction, because if we do people might leave. We can’t do that. We always have to be sympathetic and understanding, but I don’t think we can have people follow half the Truth for now, and then it add more later.

 

[vera_dicere]

Masturbation is normal, everyone knows that , its inborn, it hurts no one, its impossible to ignore your sex urges especially when You are very young, God meant it as a sublimation until marriage or whatever,But oral sex & anal sex within marriage is degrading, its filthy pure lust the marriage bed should be undefiled, if married people can get away with doing anything they want to sexually then certainly masturbation should be no sin at all, but mind you, if I do masturbate, I will confess it I would never go to the altar like so many many do without reconciliation. I only confess it because the Church says it is a sin, I personally dont believe it is . & guess what, we are all confused, you included, none of us really know anything, we only think we do

And this was the post with which I stopped taking anything you said seriously.

 

[OraLabora]

That is not what we were discussing.

What you are arguing is that we violate the Truth and not expect people to fully follow it, on purpose with Church sanction, because if we do people might leave. We can’t do that. We always have to be sympathetic and understanding, but I don’t think we can have people follow half the Truth for now, and then it add more later.

No, you misread me. The goal of the pastoral action is to get the person to attain the Truth, and act in accordance with it. I am no suggesting that going against the Truth be without sanction. I am suggesting that the sanctions applied, be consistent with the pastoral goal of nudging the penitent towards observance of the Truth, through sacramental confession.

In my own experience, most priests achieve just that.

What I am saying is that it’s unrealistic to expect 100% compliance overnight especially for some long-standing sins that have become habitual. Any type of sanction geared towards that is likely to discourage the penitent. My experience in my short time on this forum is that there’s a lot of “it was easy for me therefore you can do it too”.

Sanctity is in the effort, not the result. That’s why we needed a redeemer. The Jewish people could not follow the law perfectly either. There’s no reason to expect we’re superior in that respect.

 

[onmyknees]

OraLabora,

The marital act is in fact intrinsically linked to marriage. A marriage cannot be a marriage without it and an unconsummated marriage is invalid, nor can the perpetually impotent enter into a sacramental marriage. As St-Paul says abstinence is fine if it is of common accord, and for a limited prayer in order to bring ourselves closer to Christ.

It’s also not right to say that couples who have made sex perhaps bigger in life than it should be, have not embraced sacrifice. They have perhaps sacrificed in other ways, for example sacrificing financially to educate their children, in elder care, for humanitarian causes, dealing with illness of self and or spouse, etc. It’s also possible that for these people, sexual relations are a means of coping with the sacrifices and stress of life.

A marriage cannot be a marriage without the marital act? So this means that in a valid marriage when one of or both of the spouses get sick and are permanently unable to engage in the marital act they don’t have a marriage? No. Not true.

Did you read any of my posts about this? Married couples go through this all the time especially when they are older. It is hard but they carry their cross for Christ. And they do grow together in holiness because they are going to God in their sufferings. My own parents and some of my friends at church are examples of this. God does allow suffering sometimes to have us come closer to Him.

Yes, I agree that many couples who have enjoyed marital relations have also sacrificed and suffered in other ways during their marriage. But this does not mean that they can then just say well we did our part so now we are just going to ignore God’s teaching and do it our way. Maybe God is calling them to a greater sacrifice.

 

[OraLabora]

A marriage cannot be a marriage without the marital act? So this means that in a valid marriage when one of or both of the spouses get sick and are permanently unable to engage in the marital act they don’t have a marriage? No. Not true.

No, I did not say that at all. Consummation validates a marriage. Whatever happens after that is immaterial, the marriage is consummated and valid. The inability to engage in marital relations after the marriage was validly consummated does not invalidate the marriage.

A marriage that has never been consummated though, is invalid and is grounds for annulment. And a state of perpetual impotence is an impediment to marriage, if it is known beforehand the Church will not marry the couple.

Check out the Code of Canon Law. It’s all there. A marriage in which the marital act has never occurred, is not a valid marriage.

 

[Lauds]

And this was the post with which I stopped taking anything you said seriously.

Well, too bad, I am not in love with your posts either. Everything does not go in the marriage bed

 

[onmyknees]

Quote from OraLabora,

The marital act is in fact intrinsically linked to marriage. A marriage cannot be a marriage without it.

OraLabora,

You did quote the above. I know that a marriage is invalid when it cannot be consummated. And I know that anything that invalidates a marriage must have been there when the couple is taking their vows. Please don’t talk to me like I am an idiot. I had my marriage convalidated when I came back to my faith because we were not married in the Catholic Church and our marriage was considered invalid.

 

[OraLabora]

Quote from OraLabora,

The marital act is in fact intrinsically linked to marriage. A marriage cannot be a marriage without it.

OraLabora,

You did quote the above. I know that a marriage is invalid when it cannot be consummated. And I know that anything that invalidates a marriage must have been there when the couple is taking their vows. Please don’t talk to me like I am an idiot. I had my marriage convalidated when I came back to my faith because we were not married in the Catholic Church and our marriage was considered invalid.

Sorry, it didn’t appear from your statement that you were aware.

 

[PaulinVA]

What I am saying is that it’s unrealistic to expect 100% compliance overnight especially for some long-standing sins that have become habitual. Any type of sanction geared towards that is likely to discourage the penitent. My experience in my short time on this forum is that there’s a lot of “it was easy for me therefore you can do it too”.

Sanctity is in the effort, not the result. That’s why we needed a redeemer. The Jewish people could not follow the law perfectly either. There’s no reason to expect we’re superior in that respect.

Okay, I think I’m with you on this.

I would say, though, that following the Truth is REALLY HARD and we just need to make sure that we don’t leave the impression that partial compliance as a permanent state is allowable.

 

[OraLabora]

Okay, I think I’m with you on this.

I would say, though, that following the Truth is REALLY HARD and we just need to make sure that we don’t leave the impression that partial compliance as a permanent state is allowable.

Well I worked for years in the Quality Assurance in industry. We used to call it “continuous improvement”.

The important thing to note is that Christianity is a dynamic state. A Christian is not someone who has arrived at perfection, but someone on the road towards it, each at his own pace. And yes sometimes we take the wrong fork in the road and have to backtrack to get back on the correct route. That’s part of life, it’s again why we needed a redeemer, and it’s why the Church in her wisdom has provided us with that most wonderful sacrament that often gets short shrift, the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Think of that Sacrament as our moral GPS to get us back on the right road to our destination

 

[PaulinVA]

Well I worked for years in the Quality Assurance in industry. We used to call it “continuous improvement”.

Hey, Me Too!

“The race for Quality has no finish line, so, technically, it’s more like a Death March”

 

[OraLabora]

Hey, Me Too!

“The race for Quality has no finish line, so, technically, it’s more like a Death March”

I’m pretty sure Toyota feels that at the moment!

 

[Mijoy2]

There are quite a few off topic comments and uncharitable remarks above, which I will ignore. I also do not reply to posts which exaggerate or distort my position in order to claim to have refuted it. Also, I’m not participating in the discussion with Lauds, because he/she openly rejects Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

… (had to reduce character count)

Let’s apply the three fonts of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.”

1. A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The moral object of an unnatural sexual act is evil because all such acts lack the procreative meaning (neither are such acts truly unitive or truly marital). To be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive, procreative, and marital. Therefore, every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

The absence of climax does not cause an intrinsically evil sexual act to become moral because the moral object remains unchanged; the moral object is the sole determinant of the moral species of any deliberately chosen act. The result called sexual climax is a consequence in the third font, and so it does not affect the moral object in the second font.

1. circumstances - the circumstance that the unnatural act lacks sexual climax does not change the moral object from evil to good; the circumstance that the wife cannot achieve sexual climax without the aforementioned act does not change the moral object from evil to good. No circumstance or context can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Pope John Paul II: “The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species’, or ‘in itself’, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

In my several posts above, I’ve stated a clear theological argument, based on the writings of Saints and the teachings of the Magisterium. I’ve written a couple of articles on this subject, containing the same theological arguments, but in greater detail.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

With all due respect, you are more confusiing then you are enlightening. I hardly think one needs to delve into such deep theological study to fully understand how he may and may not touch his wife. This seems unnatural.

You do not delve into specifics. I understand this fully. It is a sensitive matter and an open forum which makes this a bit uneasy.

What confuses me about your teachings is:

Why must hey be so deep they rival rocket science?

Your teachings (in my understanding, I have little time to read all you have written) seems to imply nothing short of the “marital act” itself is moral. Am I reading this incorrectly? If not, how is one to reach the ability to perform the “marital act”? I do not know your age, but this decreases with age. Which means your approach (or your teachings) implies all must enter into older age understanding and accepting they will be eventually be humiliated and suffer during a phase in which they desire to exercise the unitive aspect (which I understand is to be welcomed and encouraged) of thier marriage. Which would by natural progression result in avoidance of attempting said act any longer.

Can’t you see how this seems unnatural? Can’t you see how it is difficult for the otherwise faithful catholic to reconcile the God of love with what appears from all dimensions other then your interpretations to counter this teaching in aother aspects?

What you propose is not a cross like an illness or a financial catastrophe, what you propose is destructive by it’s very nature. Unlike all other forms of purity which is productive and beautiful.

You use church fathers to support your claim. In one post in this thread you quote Augustine. (Don’t have time to find it and quote it I apologize). Augustine also teaches in the City of God that our flesh is to be burned off (or at least may be) and rejuvinated only to burn off again again throughout eternity. I have been led to believe that I am not to hold this as dogma.

Also, you leave one wondering what is acceptable and what is not. Again I know this is a sensitive matter. But when one reads between the liines one is led to believe nothign is accaptable ouside the act itself. I’d be curious to understand you definition of foreplay. Unless the term itself is immoral.

All said with the utmost of respect. I know you come froma standpoint of fully believeing in what you teach. You would not be here otherwise.