martial sex

[ahs]

I am very curious as to whether or not it is still used…and if it is…if it is mandatory reading. I have heard that it is out of print. I am going to ask the monks at a nearby monastery to see if they know…and if they do…what they think of Jone’s blasphemous opinions on anal penetration.

I think I know what they will say.

To my understanding, it went out of print after the 60’s…but I have not been able to confirm this. I asked the local EO Mass Monsignor about it. He said he had never encountered such (as foreplay) but that he was very familiar with Jone (he was a seminarian in the early 50’s), Jone was a “very orthodox theologian” and this particular topic made perfect sense (as explained by Jone). Ask who you will. You might also take a moment to review the Church teaching I provided, twice now, and show where such offends against Church teaching…such to justify a person calling it a sin.

At any rate, you will see I have conceded on this topic (see above). So then, using the same teachings (CCC) please show us where any foreplay (oral/manual/etc…) is contrary to Church teaching.

 

[fpt]

The husband has the right to kiss, to touch, to make a massage, to stimulate … in the human fashion on all the body of his wife in the context of marital act. It is his body. The same for wife.

Sodomy is wrong, of course.

 

[RB2]

link to Ron Conte’s Amazon Book ‘Roman Catholic Sexual Ethics’
amazon.com/Catholic-Marital-Sexual-Ethics-ebook/dp/B0074AXTNE/ref=cm_cr-mr-title

and associated review:

1.0 out of 5 stars Dangerous work by ‘self taught , self described theologian’–RUN February 4, 2012
By RoryB “Catholic”
Ronald Conte has many authored books on Amazon that are self-published. He has a bachelors degree in Philosophy & Theology and self-taught himself beyond that. Like many self taught men he presents many errors in his book that more educated peers, actual theologians that continue on to Masters and PHD degrees, are cautioned, forewarned and educated not to fall into. Anyone claiming to be a theologian should be approaching a PHD degree in theology or be recognized by theologian peers as such.

To be more precise, Ronald Conte is not a theologian of any merit except to state that he describes himself as such. None of his books are peer reviewed, nor presented for review by anyone with credentials. His works dont bear imprimaturs, nor a foreward page recommending it by qualified people, nor a thank you page for people who helped proofread, edit or correct for errors. As if lacking all these things were not enough, his books also lack backing by a good and faithful Catholic publishing house. Once again, this is a self-published author without any collegial review or oversight.

Ronald Contes teachings,writings and books have been rightfully criticized across the internet for teaching what the Catholic Church does not teach or state. Mr. Conte’s works frequently contain teachings that are represented as ‘Church Teaching’ when in fact they are not. More to the point, this work is a dangerous mix of Catholic church teaching and self-styled Catholicism. The problem for most is discerning the difference between the two–very difficult… BEWARE!

A more recommended and highly commended book in this vein would be:
Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Summary, Explanation, & Defense

 

[ahs]

She surely does…[reject Jone’s definition of sodomy]

[bracket’s mine for context…see original posts at top of page, post #408]

Really? Please provide that source where the Church has stated such…or perhaps any place where the college of Bishops said his work should no longer be used in the seminaries due to this teaching/definition of sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

link to Ron Conte’s Amazon Book ‘Roman Catholic Sexual Ethics’

I am not familiar with all of Ron’s work…and indeed some of his writings may be questionable. But he is spot on about the subject of anal penetration and fellatio/cunnilingus being sodomy within the marital bond.

Furthermore, an anonymous review/opinion on Amazon is not a very credible source.

 

[ahs]

CCC 2360-2363…love of husband and wife…begins:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the **conjugal love **of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion…

What is meant by “conjugal love” here? We turn to CCC 1643-1654…goods and requirements of conjugal love:

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility…

Understanding conjugal love (click the hyperlink for more), we continue with the love of husband and wife:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love…Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such…(click the hyperlink provided above for more)

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."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

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.145

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under **the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
**

**In what way is any act of foreplay contrary to the above? **

But then we look to the offenses against marriage in CCC 2380-2391. All listed are: Adultery, Divorce, Polygamy, Incest, Pedophilia (it talks of adult/child), Free Union, Trial “Marriages”.

Which of these does any act of foreplay go against?

But surely it offends against chastity?! CCC 2337-2359

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

Let’s look at offenses against Chastity…they are Lust, Masturbation, Fornication, Pornography, Prostitution, Rape, Homosexuality.

So, using actual Church teaching…please show me where foreplay between two consenting spouses who find joy in such as part of the conjugal union is contrary to Church teaching…where is the sin involved?

 

[Mickey]

To my understanding, it went out of print after the 60’s…but I have not been able to confirm this.

I see.

Jone was a “very orthodox theologian” and this particular topic made perfect sense (as explained by Jone).

He was pre V2 and I know that the SSPX use his book.

Ask who you will.

I shall.

You might also take a moment to review the Church teaching I provided, twice now,

You van post it 100 more times. It does not condone anal penetration or fellatio/cunnilingus as a form of foreplay with marriage.

 

[Walking_Home]

To my understanding, it went out of print after the 60’s…but I have not been able to confirm this. I asked the local EO Mass Monsignor about it. He said he had never encountered such (as foreplay) but that he was very familiar with Jone (he was a seminarian in the early 50’s), Jone was a “very orthodox theologian” and this particular topic made perfect sense (as explained by Jone). Ask who you will. You might also take a moment to review the Church teaching I provided, twice now, and show where such offends against Church teaching…such to justify a person calling it a sin.

At any rate, you will see I have conceded on this topic (see above). So then, using the same teachings (CCC) please show us where any foreplay (oral/manual/etc…) is contrary to Church teaching.

---

This is from the — Handbook of Moral Theology – by Dominicus M. Prummer, O.P. Note that imperfect sodomy–is not qualified by where ejaculation occurs.

I think – the problem here is understanding Jone. He is not saying that the act of anal intercourse in marriage is not wrong – but it’s sinfulness is brought up to a grave sin – when ejaculation happens outside the vagina.

booksforcatholics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=B&Product_Code=HMT&Category_Code=

“A male committing sodomy (unnatural carnal intercourse) with another male is ‘perfect sodomy’ while when done with a female is ‘imperfect sodomy.’ Both are considered sinful. (Sec. 525, 2)”

 

[Mickey]

Please provide that source where the Church has stated such.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Church accepts his blasphemous opinion on this subject. Some patristic writings would go a long way to proving your case.

 

[ahs]

---

This is from the — Handbook of Moral Theology – by Dominicus M. Prummer, O.P. Note that imperfect sodomy–is not qualified by where ejaculation occurs.

I think – the problem here is understanding Jone. He is not saying that the act of anal intercourse in marriage is not wrong – but it’s sinfulness is brought up to a grave sin – when ejaculation happens outside the vagina.

booksforcatholics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=B&Product_Code=HMT&Category_Code=

“A male committing sodomy (unnatural carnal intercourse) with another male is ‘perfect sodomy’ while when done with a female is ‘imperfect sodomy.’ Both are considered sinful. (Sec. 525, 2)”

Note that Prummer is speaking of intercourse (an act taken to completion). He does not mention anything about an act prior to the conjugal union as Jone does. Jone’s would represent a clarification of Prummer…or Prummer’s a simplification of Jone’s. They don’t contradict.

ETA: Where Jone has differentiated between what is and isn’t sodomy…Prummer now discusses what is sodomy without discussing what* isn’t*.

 

[ahs]

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Church accepts his…opinion on this subject.

It is YOUR assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy. YOU provide the justification for YOUR assertion, or it rejected as easily as it is made.

“…Facile indicabat, facile reprobaverunt…”

 

[Walking_Home]

Note that Prummer is speaking of intercourse (an act taken to completion). He does not mention anything about an act prior to the conjugal union as Jone does. Jone’s would represent a clarification of Prummer…or Prummer’s a simplification of Jone’s. They don’t contradict.

---

You are picking at straws. Prummer does not “qualify” the act of anal intercourse as not wrong – based on where the man ejaculates.

 

[ahs]

---

You are picking at straws. Prummer does not “qualify” the act of anal intercourse as not wrong – based on where the man ejaculates.

I don’t think I am picking at straws. Prummer uses the word “intercourse”. He does not say anything about “foreplay” or an act “prior to intercourse”. This is an important distinction. I believe where Jone has differentiated between what is and isn’t sodomy…Prummer now discusses what is sodomy without discussing what isn’t.

If you happen to have the book, does the preface or introduction indicate anything about his work…what was to be discussed and what was not? His work was published in 1956(9?) and I wonder what, if any, influence Jone may have had on his work. (Jone was published in the 1920’s.)

 

[ahs]

I just went to find out if Jone was still in publication and still approved by the Church. Yes to both:

amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720

 

[fpt]

I see.
He was pre V2 and I know that the SSPX use his book.
I shall.
You van post it 100 more times. It does not condone anal penetration or fellatio/cunnilingus as a form of foreplay with marriage.

In general:

The SSPX is okay with the oral stimulations of sexual organs, like foreplay.
The SSPX is okay with manual the stimulations of sexual organs like foreplay.

Priests of SSPX are okay with those types of simulations in the context of marital act, in general.

 

[fpt]

In general:

The SSPX is okay with the oral stimulations of sexual organs, like foreplay.
The SSPX is okay with the manual stimulations of sexual organs like foreplay.

Priests of SSPX are okay with those types of stimulations in the context of marital act, in general.

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think I am picking at straws. Prummer uses the word “intercourse”. He does not say anything about “foreplay” or an act “prior to intercourse”. This is an important distinction. I believe where Jone has differentiated between what is and isn’t sodomy…Prummer now discusses what is sodomy without discussing what isn’t.

If you happen to have the book, does the preface or introduction indicate anything about his work…what was to be discussed and what was not? His work was published in 1956(9?) and I wonder what, if any, influence Jone may have had on his work. (Jone was published in the 1920’s.)

---

He doesn’t say anything about “foreplay”— because the act itself is wrong – irrelevant to whether it occurs as part of a couples sexual union.

 

[Mickey]

In general:

The SSPX is okay with the oral stimulations of sexual organs, like foreplay.
The SSPX is okay with manual the stimulations of sexual organs like foreplay.

Priests of SSPX are okay with those types of simulations in the context of marital act, in general.

I wonder if they are okay with fellatio, cunnilingus and anal penetration as a form of foreplay. I would think not.

 

[Mickey]

I just went to find out if Jone was still in publication and still approved by the Church.

$310 usually means it is out of print.

 

[fpt]

I wonder if they are okay with fellatio, cunnilingus and anal penetration as a form of foreplay. I would think not.

For anal penetration, they are not okay, of course.