Marriage Sins Questions - *Detailed Questions Warning*

  • Thread starter Thread starter MasterXploder7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MasterXploder7

Guest
I read on catechism.cc/articles/marriage-sins.htm that every sexual act is separate and individual and that there is a slew of disordered and unnatural sexual acts. Even stimulation of the genitals through any means - I repeat - ANY MEANS other than natural intercourse is a grave sin - a mortal sin. This would then heavily suggest that if a man is not already erect that any stimulation he or is wife performs to make him erect is a mortal sin because it isnt open to life and is judged on its individual merits. The only acceptable way “enamor” your partner to be prepared for any kind of intercourse then is through hugging and kissing and caressing. Is this true Catholic teaching?
 
OP, that website belongs to a man called Ron Conte who has opinions that are not in line with church teaching. He is not a theologian. He used to post on this forum but I believe he was banned. What irritates me most about that website is that the URL makes it look like some official church thing, when the content is just nonsense

If you search this forum for “Ron conte” or “catechism.cc” you’ll find at least a dozen threads discussing this topic.
 
Last edited:
Thank Christ in Heaven. [edit] then is all of it up in the air?
 
Last edited:
Yeah that website got me before too at one point. I think if you scroll to the bottom of the page, you’ll see his name, but I’m not sure.
 
My understanding of catholic teaching is: foreplay is pretty much an open book as long as the man eventually ejaculates into the vagina and as long as both parties are comfortable with the activity and it’s not degrading. I believe Christopher West / JPII also suggest in Theology of the Body that, while ideally a man and woman should orgasm together, if the woman doesn’t orgasm before the man ejaculates, he can manually help her get there afterwards in order to, I suppose, solidify the unitive aspect of the act for both parties. It’s considered part of the overall act of intercourse and therefore is not masturbation.
 
Last edited:
ShrodingersCat said:
JPII also suggest in Theology of the Body that
Click to expand...
Not in Theology of the Body he doesn’t. Very, very little sex in Theology of the Body. Always hate to see this because it give the impression ToB is some sort of Catholic sex manual.
 
Last edited:
But I think it’s suggested in Love and Responsibility. See summary paragraphs on the Love and Responsibility PDF for download here: www.jp2.info.

edit: page 28 of the pdf doesn’t actually state it, although it does seem to lay the groundwork for it. Christopher West’s book is generally accepted as being in accordance with church teaching regardless.
 
Last edited:
Sorry meant to say Christopher West suggested it in either Theology of the Body for Beginners or The Good News about Sex and Marriage.
 
Last edited:
No need to apologize, you said “I think”. Just wanted to.clarify. too often ToB is misrepresented imo.
 
Last edited:
I have not read that one, but I have heard it was mentioned in book, which he wrote in the 1950s, if memory serves me correctly.
To the OP, in 50 some years of being Catholic, I have never once heard any priest or theologians come close to what you say the web site suggests. It has been pointed out, more than once, that Ron Conte’s views on the matter simply do not match the way human biology works.
 
Last edited:
Please be aware that site is NOT an official Catholic site. It has no approval from any Church authority. The domain name is misleading.

The person who runs it calls himself a theologian but he has no commission from any bishop to publish and teach.

My advice: Stay away. That site is full of squirrelly stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top