Blue Horizon, this will likely be my last post on this thread. If you take the time to actually read it, you may be satisfied with some points, and likely won’t be with others. I have a very busy couple of days in front of me, but more importantly I am tired of this thread and tired of having to defend myself from false accusations. I may respond in the future only if I something I say is misrepresented or appears to not be clear.
My sincere apologies Tafan. I have retraced things and people quoting people has confused me (using a tablet doesn’t help).
I accept your apology. Thank you.
Blue Horizon:
I don’t believe I need to Tafan, you are the one who says both that Grisez is NOT the Magisterium and also “its the Church’s clear teaching.”
I do not believe I have misquoted you here.
If YOU are unable to find Magisterial teaching that clearly confirms Grisez then you really have no basis for exaggerating that Grisez’s words are “the clear teaching of the Church”.
Fair enough, it was my statement. I could provide you quotes form 1 Corithians, from the Summa, from 3 or 4 moral theology sources (one of them from a bishop IIRC), but I won’t. St Paul’s statement is readily available, the Summa is clear about conjugal rights but I doubt you will take it has a legitimate source. And the only one of those moral theology sources I have at hand is Grisez . Also, Grisez book is the only source I have at hand at this point in time. And his book is the best modern comprehensive book on that I have seen.
The concept of conjugal rights is certainly part of Church teaching. I settled on the wording of Grisez’s wording because I felt it was most clear. I stand by it.
“Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter”. It is most clear, and is consistent with other sources.
I would also disagree with you that “not being in the mood” is never a reasonable excuse.
This is a prudential applied judgement re the abstract principles that even the wisest of theologians likely disagree over. The Magisterium has never come close to ever suggesting such a thing as far as I know.
There you go again. I clearly stated in my very first time I said this: IMO. that is short hand for In My Opinion, I never said that was a magisterium teaching. But again, I standby that opinion. I have detailed enough categories of reasonable causes that at this time: not being in the mood pretty much equates to just plain not wanting to do it for no real reason.
Finally, from a moral theology perspective you may like to reflect on the well established concept of “parvity of matter” when it comes to the “grave matter” of certain types of sins.
I am fully aware of the concept of parvity of matter. I agree with you it can certainly apply with regards to conjugal rights. Grisez points that out, and I should have included that. I did not because the post where I originally quoted Grisez it did not seem necessary, a couple of times later I thought I should go back and do so. I was wrong not to.
But I have settled on Grisez’s use of the term grave matter for a reason. It implies something that is objectively a mortal/very serious sin. Certainly depriving conjugal rights is a serious matter in a marriage. But like all acts which are grave matter, conditions apply which make each act sinful or not. I did not want to say it was a “mortal sin” because people interpret that as claiming if someone does it, they always go to hell.
In addition, the concept of parvity of matter typically applies to grave matter, so that terminology was appropriate.
But again, by leaving out the issue of parvity of matter, I gave the wrong impression.
Blue Horizon:
So I am sorry, I totally disagree with you that:
(a) frequency does not matter in a moral analysis
(b) “not in the mood” is always unreasonable
(c) we are always dealing with “grave matter” for an unreasonable decline
(d) such is always personally “sinful”.
(e) the Church clearly teaches the above.
a) You are correct, I was wrong. I was simply trying to say that each act is grave matter, that’s the way moral theology works. But certainly the frequency is important in any moral analysis on one’s behavior, and it could certainly be part of the “parvity of matter” issue.
b) We will have to agree to disagree. But at least you should stop claiming I say that this is part of church teaching. I most definitively have NOT made that point.
c) we are always dealing with “grave matter” for an unreasonable decline
Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Although I am not saying that an unreasonable decline is always a mortal sin, or even venial sinful.
d) such is always personally “sinful”.
I did not mean to ever say that. I admit to writing a couple of things that could be interpreted that way. When I said it was a sin, each and every time: I did not mean personally sinful, I would have said it is wrong each and every time (although perhaps not even a sin). As stated above, that is why I settled on the term grave matter.
e) the Church clearly teaches the above.
With respect to point a, I hope I did not say that. If I did, I was wrong and sorry. If I did not, you owe me another apology. With respect to point b, I know for a fact I never said that, or even implied it. With respect to point c, I stand by it, see my above explanation.
With respect to point d, while I may have left the impression it was always personally sinful (and again, I was wrong to do so), I never said the church taught that.
So there you have it. We agree on some things and disagree on others.
Finally, you made the accusation that Germain Grisez is an unorthodox theologian. You should either retract this calumnious statement or provide evidence.
