Marital, unitive, procreative

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You two stop this instant.

Don’t make me stop this forum. Do you want me to pull over right now?

If I do, someone isn’t going to be able to sit for a week.
 
Lauds said:
Eat some more popcorn, LOL!🙂
Click to expand...
🍿

This is the umpteenth thread that has arrived at the same place.

But you know what? I do believe in Truth, and I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the books that have made it into the Bible. Science and archeology tell us that the New Testament books we have today were written very close to the actual events, and what we have today is exceptionally close to what was originally written.

So, I believe that we can know the Truth.
 
PaulinVA said:
🍿

This is the umpteenth thread that has arrived at the same place.

But you know what? I do believe in Truth, and I believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the books that have made it into the Bible. Science and archeology tell us that the New Testament books we have today were written very close to the actual events, and what we have today is exceptionally close to what was originally written.

So, I believe that we can know the Truth.
Click to expand...
Believe me, I do have faith, Going to Mass is the highlight of my week. I do confession frequently, but we do have questions, all of us do. , along with some doubt, even consecrated religious have doubt about certain things, & being we live on earth, and are not celestial bodies yet, we will always have doubt & sin, so long as we live in thought , word, or deed. I believe, close to what was originally written, is probably correct about the Bible.
 
Sure said:
Ron,

You do not understand how certain circumstances and intentions can become part of the object of the act. Please review St. Thomas Aquinas and the numerous other examples of this in the thread on NFP question and “The Pill.”

Also, please note the fact that numerous theology texts which have nihil obstat and imprimatur directly contradict your assertions.

As a personal recommendation, perhaps when your assertions are completely shredded by those posting here, you could attempt to defend your position or alter it accordingly instead of merely leaving to start more threads filled with your flawed views. By all means, go ahead and debate your position. But merely restating your position over and over despite the fact that it has been refuted begins to grow tiresome.

God bless!
Click to expand...
I just want to get feedback about two things that I have been wondering about. First, from the book “Good News About Sex and Marriage” on the nihil obstat and imprimatur page it says this. The nihil obstat and imprimatur are the official declarations that a book is free from doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who grant the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statement expressed.

What does this last sentence mean? It sounds like their could be error in these Catholic teachings.

Second, from the catechism of the Catholic Church it says

2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” [GS 49 # 2] Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Code: 
The Creator himself... established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951]
What does just moderation mean?
 
onmyknees said:
What does just moderation mean?
Click to expand...
I think it means: try not to pretend you’re actors in a porn flick.

Keep it a private act between the two of you, and give each other pleasure, do not demand of the other what they find distasteful or unpleasant.

The definition of “just moderation” probably varies within cultures and times so it’s hard to pin down an exact definition. And I think it is worded the way it is worded for exactly those reasons.

At one time, “just moderation” was the missionary position only, and try not to enjoy it TOO much. Our understanding now of a healthy sexuality is probably different than it was 100 years ago.
 
onmyknees said:
… No implication is contained therein that those who grant the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions, or statement expressed.

What does this last sentence mean? It sounds like their could be error in these Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
I believe this means that, while free from doctrinal error, the author’s opinions about the subject area might not find agreement with the Imprimatur. Such as, “Give 5% of your earnings to the children of Haiti”. That is free from doctrinal error, but the Imprimatur might disagree with the statement. Someone might suggest that you have sex with your spouse on every Wednesday - no error, but no agreement, either.
Second, from the catechism of the Catholic Church it says
Click to expand...
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; …They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation. [Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951]
Click to expand...
What does just moderation mean?
Click to expand...
Well, frequency might be one aspect. If you are interested in having sex so often that you don’t get your other work done, or you start to view each other as playthings, that would be bad.
 
just moderation means morally acceptable & moderate, rather than extreme & excessive
 
q. is touching of the genitals of ones spouse permitted within the context of the marital act.

a. yes.

q. is it permitted to the point where the husband has climax outside of the “actual marital embrace”?

a. no
 
Bookcat said:
q. is touching of the genitals of ones spouse permitted within the context of the marital act.

a. yes.

q. is it permitted to the point where the husband has climax outside of the "actual marital embrace?

a. no
Click to expand...
And that neatly summarizes it.
 
1ke said:
Ron should post this disclaimer on all his claims, but he doesn’t:

Ron Conte repeatedly posts his OPINIONS on this topic on this forum. The Church doesn’t teach this, and it is not doctrine.

Ron asserts he is a qualified theologian because he has a bachelor’s degree from Boston College (per his website). However, NONE of his writings have an imprimatur or a nihil obstat. They have NOT been vetted by any Church authority.

This particular posting is very problematic and could lead people to erroneous conclusion. People should read authentic Church documents on this subject and books with an imprimatur.
Click to expand...
Seconded.

Here we go again :rolleyes: sigh

This is gunna go south quick.
 
PaulinVA said:
I believe this means that, while free from doctrinal error, the author’s opinions about the subject area might not find agreement with the Imprimatur. Such as, “Give 5% of your earnings to the children of Haiti”. That is free from doctrinal error, but the Imprimatur might disagree with the statement. Someone might suggest that you have sex with your spouse on every Wednesday - no error, but no agreement, either.

Well, frequency might be one aspect. If you are interested in having sex so often that you don’t get your other work done, or you start to view each other as playthings, that would be bad.
Click to expand...
But also keep in mind that what Mr. Conte is posting (ad nauseum on as many threads as he possibly can, I may add) is in direct opposition to several other catholic writings (some by popes) that encourage this foreplay and have an imprimatur and nihil obstat. 🤷
 
PaulinVA said:
I believe this means that, while free from doctrinal error, the author’s opinions about the subject area might not find agreement with the Imprimatur. Such as, “Give 5% of your earnings to the children of Haiti”. That is free from doctrinal error, but the Imprimatur might disagree with the statement. Someone might suggest that you have sex with your spouse on every Wednesday - no error, but no agreement, either.

Okay this makes sense now. Thank you!

Well, frequency might be one aspect. If you are interested in having sex so often that you don’t get your other work done, or you start to view each other as playthings, that would be bad.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with the this too. So when we give each other oral foreplay is it still keeping in just moderation? Also what about my dh (who is not religious) saying bad things too. After reading the posted encyclical teachings by former popes it makes me wonder. I thought that the Churches teachings on faith and morals never could be changed.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
But also keep in mind that what Mr. Conte is posting (ad nauseum on as many threads as he possibly can, I may add) is in direct opposition to several other catholic writings (some by popes) that encourage this foreplay and have an imprimatur and nihil obstat. 🤷
Click to expand...
To put it in laymen terms, it sounds like the OP ain’t gettin’ any…😉
 
Ron_Conte said:
To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. This threefold meaning of the marital act is the moral object of sexual relations. If any one or more of these three meanings is absent in any sexual act, then the moral object is evil and the sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.
Click to expand...
I agree with the teaching of the Church on these matters, just not with you.
  1. Marital Act. Surely you don’t mean the outward sacrament of marriage is required here. How many sacramental marriages do you believe occurred the moment after Christ’s death? Not very many.
  2. Unitive. Then tell us exactly what sexual behavior does not qualify. Oral sex? Masturbation of a partner? Come on. We are adults here. We just want to understand what your interpretation is of non-unitive behavior.
  3. Procreative. Women past menopause cannot have children. Neither can sterile couples. Is sex forbidden for these folks then?
Your post is truly bizarre.
 
I apologize. I didn’t realize I was feeding . . . well . . . trolls. :o
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top