Sex between married couple a SIN?!

  • Thread starter Thread starter anrmenchaca47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is, then according them, God has been talking out of both sides of His mouth when He tells Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”. And what about the steamy Song of Songs? And let’s not forget the Spiritual Franciscans, those medieval heretics who sought to impose mandatory celibacy and poverty on everyone.

I’ve heard similar claims, such as one writer for the Remnant calling those who like JPII’s Theology of the Body “deluded neopagans”.

Bottom line, whoever these people are, they’re most likely the kind who can’t fathom the idea of being wrong. If you we’re to point out the fact that what they embrace is Gnostic heresy, they’d curtly shoot back, “no YOU’RE a heretic!” It’s part of the sedevacantist/radtrad defense playbook.
 
JackVk said:
If it is, then according them, God has been talking out of both sides of His mouth when He tells Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”. And what about the steamy Song of Songs? And let’s not forget the Spiritual Franciscans, those medieval heretics who sought to impose mandatory celibacy and poverty on everyone.

I’ve heard similar claims, such as one writer for the Remnant calling those who like JPII’s Theology of the Body “deluded neopagans”.

Bottom line, whoever these people are, they’re most likely the kind who can’t fathom the idea of being wrong. If you we’re to point out the fact that what they embrace is Gnostic heresy, they’d curtly shoot back, “no YOU’RE a heretic!” It’s part of the sedevacantist/radtrad defense playbook.
Click to expand...
THIS^^^. Be smart about what you read.
 
Ron_Conte said:
Pope Pius XII from his Address to Midwives:
  1. The same Creator, who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman by uniting them in matrimony for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also disposed that, in this function, the spouses should experience pleasure and happiness in body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure, do not do anything wrong. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.
  2. Nevertheless, here also, the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage, with the observing of this rule, is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the act from which it is derived, and not vice versa – the act from the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
  3. The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times, there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God, and not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive act. In addition, there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature, in place of the moral obligation to dominate the passions. And this, sooner or later, cannot turn out to be other than a danger to morals, conscience, and human dignity.
  4. If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” [the generation and education of offspring] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.
  5. Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
  6. This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian – a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality.
  7. No; the gravity and the sanctity of the Christian moral law do not allow for an unchecked satisfaction of the sexual instinct, tending only to pleasure and enjoyment. They do not permit rational man to let himself be mastered to such an extent, neither as regards the substance, nor the circumstances of the act.
  8. There are some who would allege that happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the reciprocal enjoyment in conjugal relations. Not so; happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the mutual respect of the spouses, even in their intimate relations. It is not that they refuse and deem as immoral what nature offers and what the Creator has given, but rather that this respect, and the mutual esteem that it engenders, is one of the strongest elements of a pure love, and, for this reason, is all the more tender.
Click to expand...
My questions:

What are your conclusions on the doctrines of this website? Do you share these moral views? Do you agree with these doctrines? Do you condemn their moral writings? Do you struggle against them? Are you on another line than them? Are they touched by many diseases of the intelligence? Are they polluted by heresies and o ideologies?

Normally, like catholic, you have to disagree with those doctrines and those practices. *You have the moral obligation to denounce the elements of this website. *

After reading, you are, of course, on the same line on the acception of the definition of the sin of masturbation in the context of the conjugal act between spouses. For you and them, the sexual massages, the sexual caresses, the sexual kisses… on the body of the other, as sexual foreplay, are, always, per se, by themselves, from themselves, for themselves, of themselves and in themselves, morally wrong, because they are unnatural acts: you share some moral views with writers!!!
 
Ron_Conte said:
Pope Pius XII from his Address to Midwives:
  1. The same Creator, who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman by uniting them in matrimony for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also disposed that, in this function, the spouses should experience pleasure and happiness in body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure, do not do anything wrong. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.
  2. Nevertheless, here also, the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage, with the observing of this rule, is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the act from which it is derived, and not vice versa – the act from the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
  3. The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times, there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God, and not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive act. In addition, there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature, in place of the moral obligation to dominate the passions. And this, sooner or later, cannot turn out to be other than a danger to morals, conscience, and human dignity.
  4. If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” [the generation and education of offspring] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.
  5. Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she receives a masturbation from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. Thus, she must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he receives a masturbation from his wife. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses* to confess the sexual foreplay*, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation? Do you know any priests who teach to future spouse, during the preparation of marriage, to refuse to give and to receive sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

I need your public answer. I want it. Could you answer me on this forum, please, publicly and directly, without image???
Click to expand...
 
fpt said:
According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she receives a masturbation from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. Thus, she must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he receives a masturbation from his wife. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses* to confess the sexual foreplay*, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation? Do you know any priests who teach to future spouse, during the preparation of marriage, to refuse to give and to receive sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

I need your public answer. I want it. Could you answer me on this forum, please, publicly and directly, without image???
Click to expand...
This is a non sequitur. Masturbation is a selfish or otherwise one-way act. Foreplay, OTOH, is initiation for the marital act (that’s why it’s called foreplay. ) I really don’t see how it’s masturbation if the sensations are ultimately reciprocated in sex.

Think of masturbation like procrastination; the only person you screw is yourself. 😃

Unless we’re trying to give ammo to the anti-Catholics who think the celibate clergy are control freaks wanting to micromanage our sex lives, I would say we should avoid such sexual hair-splitting.
 
Ron Conte,

Do you agree with the following doctrines, and the following practices? Yes or No.

the encratism of the conjugal act;
the manicheism of the conjugal act;
the catharism of the conjugal act;
the jansenism of the conjugal act;
the fideism of the conjugal act;
the quietism of the conjugal act;
the puritanism of the conjugal act;
the victorianism of the conjugal act;
the externalism of the conjugal act;
the judgmentalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-personalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-phenomenologism of the conjugal act;
the rabbitism of the conjugal act;
the absolute natalism of the conjugal act;
the absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the theoretical providentialism of the conjugal act;
the quiverfullism of the conjugal act;
the anti responsible pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-conjugal erotism of the conjugal act;
the pharisaism of the conjugal act;
the scrupulism of the conjugal act.

The simple fact of being in favor of one of those " stuff "* is already an issue*. Like true catholic lay person, you do not have to support them. You have to denounce them with a great force. Those “moral views” are totally crazy, foolish and Co (so on), and are against the catholic reason.
 
fpt said:
Ron Conte,

Do you agree with the following doctrines, and the following practices? Yes or No.

the encratism of the conjugal act;
the manicheism of the conjugal act;
the catharism of the conjugal act;
the jansenism of the conjugal act;
the fideism of the conjugal act;
the quietism of the conjugal act;
the puritanism of the conjugal act;
the victorianism of the conjugal act;
the externalism of the conjugal act;
the judgmentalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-personalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-phenomenologism of the conjugal act;
the rabbitism of the conjugal act;
the absolute natalism of the conjugal act;
the absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the theoretical providentialism of the conjugal act;
the quiverfullism of the conjugal act;
the anti responsible pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-conjugal erotism of the conjugal act;
the pharisaism of the conjugal act;
the scrupulism of the conjugal act.

The simple fact of being in favor of one of those " stuff "* is already an issue*. Like true catholic lay person, you do not have to support them. You have to denounce them with a great force. Those “moral views” are totally crazy, foolish and Co (so on), and are against the catholic reason.
Click to expand...
Others doctrinal errors:

The angelism of the conjugal act;
The absolute immaterialism of the conjugal act;
The machism of the conjugal act;
The misogynism of the conjugal act;
The misandrism of the conjugal act;
The left radical feminism of the conjugal act;
The refusal of sexed sexual differentialism in the procedure of the conjugal act;
The negationism of the existence of conjugal rights to sexual preliminaries;
The reductionism of the the conjugal act to a coitus;
 
Corrections:
fpt said:
Others doctrinal errors:

The angelism of the conjugal act;
The absolute immaterialism of the conjugal act;
The machism of the conjugal act;
The misogynism of the conjugal act;
The misandrism of the conjugal act;
The left radical feminism of the conjugal act;
The refusal of sexed and sexual differentialism in the procedure of the conjugal act;
The negationism of the existence of conjugal rights to sexual preliminaries;
The reductionism of the conjugal act to a coitus;
Click to expand...
The crazy moralism of the conjugal act;*
 
the alterity;
the complementarity;
the temporality;
the phenomenality;
the processuality;
the equity;
the equality;
the mutuality;
the bi-laterality;
the reciprocity;
the materiality;
the corporeality;
the workability;
the co-workability;
the co-operationality;
the eroticity;
the sensuality;
the sexuality;
the orgasmicity;
the affectivity;
the emotionality;
the romanticity;
the unicity;
the procreativity;
the immateriality;
the spirituality;
the religiosity;
the will;
the liberty;
the responsibility;
the radicality;
the totality;
the charity;

…etc

are the elementary principles that are linked to the conjugal act. For understanding the deep morality of the conjugal act, we must agree with those elements and with discover the true rules that are behind each one of those principles.
 
JackVk said:
This is a non sequitur. Masturbation is a selfish or otherwise one-way act. Foreplay, OTOH, is initiation for the marital act (that’s why it’s called foreplay. ) I really don’t see how it’s masturbation if the sensations are ultimately reciprocated in sex.
Click to expand...
That is fine, but Conte is a Catholic theologian who, unless I’m mistaken, teaches that the touching of genitals or any kind of interaction with them other than that which is absolutely necessary is masturbation and thus that most forms of foreplay ARE masturbation even if they are done in the context of the marital act.

Fpt, I believe, is trying to dissuade him from preaching such a peculiar notion.
 
StSentry83 said:
That is fine, but Conte is a Catholic theologian who, unless I’m mistaken, teaches that the touching of genitals or any kind of interaction with them other than that which is absolutely necessary is masturbation and thus that most forms of foreplay ARE masturbation even if they are done in the context of the marital act.

Fpt, I believe, is trying to dissuade him from preaching such a peculiar notion.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes, yes. *The sexual préliminaries to give and to receive are the privileges of state of marriage, between wife and husband, during the session of the marital act.
*
The moral right to give those sexual caresses to the other and the moral right to receive those sexual caresses coming from the other;

The moral obligation to give those sexual caresses to the other and the moral obligation to receive those sexual caresses coming from the other;
*
The conjugal sexual yoke is existing.*

If you do not agree with the fact of being touched by the other, sexually speaking, in the human fashion, you are not ready for the marriage. If you do not agree with the fact of touching the other, sexually speaking, in the human fashion, you are not ready for the marriage.

The manual caresses, the digital caresses, the oral caresses, the buccal caresses, the lingual caresses and the caresses from the body are elements of the conjugal act.
 
StSentry83 said:
That is fine, but Conte is a Catholic theologian who, unless I’m mistaken, teaches that the touching of genitals or any kind of interaction with them other than that which is absolutely necessary is masturbation and thus that most forms of foreplay ARE masturbation even if they are done in the context of the marital act.

Fpt, I believe, is trying to dissuade him from preaching such a peculiar notion.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but is it clear that Mr. Conte in fact qualifies as a “theologian?” My understanding is that he has only an undergraduate degree, which does not a “theologian” make.
 
StSentry83 said:
That is fine, but Conte is a Catholic theologian who, unless I’m mistaken, teaches that the touching of genitals or any kind of interaction with them other than that which is absolutely necessary is masturbation and thus that most forms of foreplay ARE masturbation even if they are done in the context of the marital act.

Fpt, I believe, is trying to dissuade him from preaching such a peculiar notion.
Click to expand...
No, Mr Conte is self-described as a Catholic theologian: catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892

Yes, he does attempt to teach that one must just put “item A into slot B” and touch nothing else during sex- quite the mechanical that is devoid of the love and intimacy that should be part of the marital embrace. Sort of the “Brace yourself Bridget” approach, I guess.

fpt has asked him numerous times on many threads to clarify or respond to him on this peculiar idea he espouses and promotes, but so far…crickets.
 
Only Catholics may validly receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t mean that a Catholic cannot possibly sin when receiving Holy Communion. A married couple must talk to each other, but of course they can sin in how they choose to talk to each other. They have to eat, but they can commit sins in how and what and when they choose to eat.

Likewise, of course a married couple can sin in how they share their marital bed. Just because they are the only ones who can have sexual relations without sinning does not mean it is impossible for them to sin in that area. That doesn’t even make sense!

Catholic couples must keep their sex open to procreation and mutually respectful of their dignity as a son and a daughter of God. That doesn’t mean that they have to be concentrating on those conditions during the whole encounter. It means the encounter cannot violate those boundaries. Of course engaging in sexual relations that are open to procreation and loving towards one’s spouse with only the immediate conscious awareness of the pleasure of it is OK. You can feed the poor, enjoy every minute without thinking what a good praiseworthy thing it is to do it, simply enjoying the company of the person you are sharing a meal with, and that is wonderful! So of course it is the same in marriage. Sometimes sharing the divine life just *seems like *nothing but a lot of fun, even though in truth it is far more. That is totally all right! Many times, I think that a childlike forgetfulness of the virtue of what we do is the better situation, the one more like Heaven.
 
fpt said:
Yes, yes, yes. *The sexual préliminaries to give and to receive are the privileges of state of marriage, between wife and husband, during the session of the marital act.
*
The moral right to give those sexual caresses to the other and the moral right to receive those sexual caresses coming from the other;

The moral obligation to give those sexual caresses to the other and the moral obligation to receive those sexual caresses coming from the other;
*
The conjugal sexual yoke is existing.*

If you do not agree with the fact of being touched by the other, sexually speaking, in the human fashion, you are not ready for the marriage. If you do not agree with the fact of touching the other, sexually speaking, in the human fashion, you are not ready for the marriage.

The manual caresses, the digital caresses, the oral caresses, the buccal caresses, the lingual caresses and the caresses from the body are elements of the conjugal act.
Click to expand...
Catholic journalist John Zmirak sarcastically put it this way: “just close your eyes and focus on the procreation aspect…” 😃
 
JackVk said:
Catholic journalist John Zmirak sarcastically put it this way: “just close your eyes and focus on the procreation aspect…” 😃
Click to expand...
This sarcastic sentence is coming from the victorian period and Co, in the U-K. It is so sad and* not linked with true catholic doctrine*. As catholic, we have the moral obligation to struggle against all the doctrinal errors concerning the marriage and the conjugal act.

The sexual foreplay are parts of the conjugal act. Without foreplay, it is a lunch without starter and without dessert. The conjugal act is a process and a phenomenon with different times and moments. The conjugal rabbitism of the conjugal act, in the manner of doing, is morally wrong.
 
:confused: “conjugal rabbitism”?

I think I understand what a ‘whack-a-doodle’ is, but once again on this forum, I am left in no doubt that the USA and the England are two great nations divided by a common language 😃
 
Rose71 said:
:confused: “conjugal rabbitism”?

I think I understand what a ‘whack-a-doodle’ is, but once again on this forum, I am left in no doubt that the USA and the England are two great nations divided by a common language 😃
Click to expand...
English is not fpt’s first language; your reaction to his/her post is often the case for a lot of us Yanks, too. 😉
 
fpt said:
This sarcastic sentence is coming from the victorian period and Co, in the U-K. It is so sad and* not linked with true catholic doctrine*. As catholic, we have the moral obligation to struggle against all the doctrinal errors concerning the marriage and the conjugal act.

The sexual foreplay are parts of the conjugal act. Without foreplay, it is a lunch without starter and without dessert. The conjugal act is a process and a phenomenon with different times and moments. The conjugal rabbitism of the conjugal act, in the manner of doing, is morally wrong.
Click to expand...
Spouses can engage in intercourse when they don’t expect pleasure from it, or when the only pleasure in it is the thought that perhaps they will conceive a child. That isn’t a sin. They can choose to engage in intercourse that involves the “main course only.” *That *isn’t a sin. It is very uncomplicated: As long as they come together in mutual respect and love, forsaking all others, open to the prospect of procreation, they can shut the door and close their ears to all the grave pronouncements from the peanut gallery. That is their right, and no one ought to imply otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top