Morality in Relationships

  • Thread starter Thread starter JJose12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JJose12

Guest
Hello everyone! I am asking this question for my friend. He’s not on CA forums and he needs advice on some things and I would like to give him some resources.

My friend does not really understand morality in relationships, regarding male/female relationship dynamics, sex, relationships, etc. because he hasn’t been taught much about Catholic theology on such matters. He recently started taking his faith seriously upon entering college.

I suggested Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body. Are there any other resources?
 
Last edited:
Love and reaponsibility can be a bit “philosophical” and bear this in mind.
I would suggest Fulton Sheen.
 
I would suggest going to the Magisterium and buying a copy Denzinger, and methodically studying all the decrees issued by the Holy See in the hundreds and hundreds of years of our Church. While JPII is a Saint, he is not a Doctor of the Church. I would recommend going FIRST to the 36 Doctors of the Church. In particular, I would highly recommend the sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori on impurity. St. Alphonsus has gotten more affirmation by our Church than any other theologian, ever. In fact, the Holy See under Pope Gregory XVI, ruled that the opinions of St. Alphonsus in his monumental work titled Moral Theology could be quietly accepted just by virtue of him having held that opinion.


This sermon above is an absolute must watch, must watch, for anyone thinking about dating/ marriage, or unmarried for that matter. The Summa Theologica is also an excellent resource for properly understanding Catholic Morality. Also look into the teachings of Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales on marital chastity.
 
Last edited:
Geeze, the guy isn’t planning on getting a doctorate in moral theology. Fultin Sheen’s book Three to Get Married is good.

If you want a more theological coverage, but still very readable, the relevant sections of “The Way of the Lord Jesus” by Germain Grisez is good, and available on line here: http://twotlj.org. It is more modern, and the author was perhaps the preeminent lay moral theologians of the late 20th century.
 
Last edited:
While Germain Grisez is an interesting read, you should remember that he often does not operate from theological principles, and happily contradicts the non-infallible Magisterium. His New Natural Law theory is vociferously denounced by Fr. Kevin Flannery, Dean of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. For this reason, I would recommend starting with the encyclicals themselves: Veritatis Splendor, Persona Humana, Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Evangelium Vitae, Dignitas Vitae, Donum Vitae, the Vademecum for Confessors, Denzinger 2715, 2795, 3634, 3638, 3684, 3907, etc.

Please instead read the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. The NCBC is an organization which advises Bishops. They lead/instruct the largest gathering of Bishops outside of the Holy See. The President Dr. John Haas is a genius. Also, Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, who works at the NCBC, studied at Stanford and Harvard. His work is very insightful. The National Catholic Bioethics Center never/ extremely rarely issues rulings that contradict the Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Please provide me info on the critique if his new natural law theory, which has always made sense this admitted amateur.

I have never seen anything he writes that contradicts the Church’s teaching. Any examples of that?
 
New Natural Law Theory judges the object of the act by essentially saying that the intentions of the actor are pertinent in discovering the moral object of an act. However, Fr. Kevin Flannery, a Dean/ Professor/ expert Thomist at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, strongly disagrees. He states that Thomas Aquinas’s theory is still valid today. It can be deduced from the Summa Theologica then (which Veritatis Splendor says still holds true today) that the object of an act has its own intentionality independent of the intentions of the actor.

Examples of this error:
(1) Contraception is only an act of contraception when you specifically intend contraception. Fr. Martin Rhonheimer takes this error further than Grisez. He says that condoms can be used with the intention of stopping HIV.

(2) Sodomy and masturbation are okay with the proper intention of completing the marital act correctly (St. Alphonsus/ St. Aquinas are rolling over in their graves at this one).

(3) That it is moral to smash a baby’s head when it is stuck in the birth canal and both the baby and mother will die if nothing is done. That contradicts decrees by the Holy See in 1884 and 1889 (look up Denzinger 3258) and then again in the 1890s. This also contradicts the National Catholic Bioethics Center which specifically states that it is aways immoral to target the organism of the baby for destruction regardless of intentions.

(4) “Direct” and “Indirect”: A Reply to Critics of our Action Theory, says that blowing up an airplane with the intention of making an insurance claim is detestable in the circumstances… but he says it is not murder in the object… which is incorrect.

(5) Germain Grisez disagreed about the inherent nature of the death penalty. He said it is intrinsically evil because you always have to directly intend human death (putting intentions into the object again) John Fennis, a fellow NNL theorist, parrots this error again regarding Pope Francis’s 2018 update to the Catechism.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
The problem I have with modern chastity speakers is that they overemphasize love to the exclusion of procreation. The primary meaning/purpose of sex is procreation.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with CAF posters is they tend to misrepresent Catholic techie g, as this does.

The marital act, according to RCC teaching, has two aspects. By calling one of them primary, you are denying church teaching.

Yes, individual Catholics, including saints, have taught otherwise, but that no more makes their position church teachings than Aquinas’ error on quickening makes that a church teaching.
 
Denzinger 2295 is part of the Magisterium, it is not just the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas. (Also, don’t be so quick to throw out the opinions of Doctors of the Church for that matter… but it is true the Magisterium is not an opinion poll of Doctors of the Church). This comment saying that the two meanings of sex are on equal levels directly contradicts the teaching authority of our Church. Please, no one be misled. The Magisterium as it currently stands says that procreation is the primary end of sex and marriage. If you want me to repost Denzinger 2295 again, then I will. But let’s end this debate now.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
New Natural Law Theory judges the object of the act by essentially saying that the intentions of the actor are pertinent in discovering the moral object of an act. However, Fr. Kevin Flannery, a Dean/ Professor/ expert Thomist at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, strongly disagrees.
Click to expand...
Yes, John Paul II strongly disagreed as well in Veritatis Splendor. The morality of an act must have it’s basis elsewhere from the actor or else morality becomes relative.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top