D
Dredgemate
Guest
The plot thickens!!
- Status
B
Bookcat
Guest
To do so deliberately…with full knowledge and complete consent…is a mortal sin…even within the context of the Martial act…even if one goes on and “does it again” in the correct marital relations…the mortal sin was already committed.I understand accidents. I’m thinking of a more deliberate act. If I complete in a normal fashion, is it less procreative if I also ejaculate outside? After all, it only takes one sperm.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
So the Act (while still including foreplay) is only considered valid if intercourse is completed in the normal context?
B
Bookcat
Guest
unintended interruptions can happen…part of life…
If they intended to carry out the proper marital act and for some good reason can not continue…this does not mean there is any sin…lots of things can interrupt the planned event…
kids waking up and needing Mommy and no way to continue…
Inability to continue physically
all sorts of things could happen…
House catches on fire…
one spouse has a mild heart attack…
B
Bookcat
Guest
if one preforms some act intentionally to cause husbands climax outside of physical marital relations…this is sinful…as noted above…it is not a real marital act…
of course if one continues on to actually physical intercourse…that part can be an actual marital act…but the sin from before remains.
D
dontknowmuch
Guest
OK, I am going to sound even more ignorant then in the original post. Is it ok to do acts, (not self acts) but acts to each other that does not involve intercourse if (1) you do not finish outside (as stated in an earlier post) or (2) finish as a marital act?
I ask these questions because my spouse is refusing making love based on “spilling the seed”. But I was also told that waiting for only the time she is infertile is also wrong.
Who thought this would be this difficult?
I ask these questions because my spouse is refusing making love based on “spilling the seed”. But I was also told that waiting for only the time she is infertile is also wrong.
Who thought this would be this difficult?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Perhaps PM me…I am not following all the points…and we want to take …young eyes can view this.
E
Edward_H
Guest
The only acceptable way to “plan a family” is with a period of concomitant self-mastery (see below). This means you abstain from any sort of climaxing for both husband and wife. Use that time to deepen your relationship…go shopping, make her dinner, go on walks, offer the struggle up for your future children.
Don’t buy into the sad, unmanly argument that “I need a release”. Man up and lead on.
Not engaging in intercourse…AND having no other martial relations is ALSO ok, if the intent is for example for the health of the mother (some attempt to let her body adjust after a hard pregnancy for example).
If you’re abstaining from intercourse for that reason…there should be no other climaxing going on…this is a period for practicing self mastery.
Don’t buy into the sad, unmanly argument that “I need a release”. Man up and lead on.
Not engaging in intercourse…AND having no other martial relations is ALSO ok, if the intent is for example for the health of the mother (some attempt to let her body adjust after a hard pregnancy for example).
If you’re abstaining from intercourse for that reason…there should be no other climaxing going on…this is a period for practicing self mastery.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
I’ve changed my mind about not replying in this thread, because false claims are being made about me by a number of posters.
Beeline: “Ron Conte has made a post on Catholic Answers indicating that you approve of his teachings. Is this so?”
I did not say that Fr. Gow ‘approved of my teachings.’
Beeline: “Ron Conte has made a post on Catholic Answers indicating that you approve of his teachings. Is this so?”
I did not say that Fr. Gow ‘approved of my teachings.’
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Bookcat’s claims about marital sexual ethics lack any theological argument whatsoever. His posts are a series of unsupported assertions.
His claim that my writings are incorrect and not recommended are his own opinion. My opinion is that his posts contain serious doctrinal errors on morality and a poor understanding of the basic principles of ethics.
He misrepresents his own opinions as the teaching of the Church. For example, the Church does not teach a ‘moral unity’ that permits all manner of non-unitive and non-procreative acts to be justified as long as there is a mere intention to complete at least one natural act. His idea of a ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as the ‘principle of totality’ which the Magisterium explicitly rejected in Humanae Vitae.
In moral theology, in all areas of human life, an act is a knowing choice. Each and every knowing choice must have three good fonts of morality. A set of choices cannot be justified as entirely moral merely because one choice within the set is moral. Any act that is intrinsically evil to do on its own, apart from other acts, remains intrinsically evil when done with other acts, even if some of those other acts are good.
In my opinion, Bookcat’s ideas on marital sexual ethics are incompatible with: the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, the teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality and on the unitive and procreative meanings, and the basic principles of moral theology.
My own understanding of marital sexual ethics is supported by an extensive theological argument, found in several different articles online and in my book on moral theology, and based on the teachings of magisterial documents, of Sacred Scripture, and of the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
His claim that my writings are incorrect and not recommended are his own opinion. My opinion is that his posts contain serious doctrinal errors on morality and a poor understanding of the basic principles of ethics.
He misrepresents his own opinions as the teaching of the Church. For example, the Church does not teach a ‘moral unity’ that permits all manner of non-unitive and non-procreative acts to be justified as long as there is a mere intention to complete at least one natural act. His idea of a ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as the ‘principle of totality’ which the Magisterium explicitly rejected in Humanae Vitae.
In moral theology, in all areas of human life, an act is a knowing choice. Each and every knowing choice must have three good fonts of morality. A set of choices cannot be justified as entirely moral merely because one choice within the set is moral. Any act that is intrinsically evil to do on its own, apart from other acts, remains intrinsically evil when done with other acts, even if some of those other acts are good.
In my opinion, Bookcat’s ideas on marital sexual ethics are incompatible with: the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, the teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality and on the unitive and procreative meanings, and the basic principles of moral theology.
My own understanding of marital sexual ethics is supported by an extensive theological argument, found in several different articles online and in my book on moral theology, and based on the teachings of magisterial documents, of Sacred Scripture, and of the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
C
Christopher68
Guest
B
Bookcat
Guest
Bookcat’s claims about marital sexual ethics lack any theological argument whatsoever. His posts are a series of unsupported assertions.
Rather it is Mr. Conte who is presenting his private opinions on certain matters…I do not really desire to keep going to go round and round with him but from some responses of other readers who said what he wrote caused them confusion I will try to briefly respond
His claim that my writings are incorrect and not recommended are his own opinion.
not just mine…
My opinion is that his posts contain serious doctrinal errors on morality and a poor understanding of the basic principles of ethics.
My Professors at Steubenville would disagree with you…as would my degree with honors from that same University
Doctrinal errors? Not.
He misrepresents his own opinions as the teaching of the Church.
never…
Never have I said my “opinions” were the teachings of the Church…though they really are not so much MY opinions here but the teachings of Catholic Moral theologians who are faithful to the Church…the Church often does not get into these sorts of details in official teaching…(though just a note…many things i post here in this forum are simply the teachings of the Church
For example, the Church does not teach a ‘moral unity’ that permits all manner of non-unitive and non-procreative acts to be justified as long as there is a mere intention to complete at least one natural act.
I never said it was a “teaching of the Church” it is an understanding in theology… for instance with the sacraments…many things in orthodox Catholic Theology are not “teaching”
His idea of a ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as the ‘principle of totality’ which the Magisterium explicitly rejected in Humanae Vitae.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that Mr. Conte does NOT understand this section of Humanae Vitae…Paul VI was NOT condemning any idea of a moral unity of certain human acts…but the misuse of the “principle of Totality” (which by the way IS another thing…and is a very legit principle of Moral thoeology which one finds in the various Moral theology works approved by the authorities of the Church) --but HV was against a misuse of the principle of totality. As I was taught a course on Sexual and Medical Morality in Steubenville…what was happening was some were attempting to say it was ok to have some acts of intercourse that were contraceptive …so long as most were not in the over all marriage…THIS is what was being written about in this section of HV. IT was NOT saying one could not take foreplay in conjunction with the act of intercourse …Mr. Conte MISREADS this document…for it was saying (rightly) that one could not justify a few acts of contraception by looking at the majority of marital acts …thus taking it as a totality in the marriage…
In moral theology, in all areas of human life, an act is a knowing choice. Each and every knowing choice must have three good fonts of morality. A set of choices cannot be justified as entirely moral merely because one choice within the set is moral. Any act that is intrinsically evil to do on its own, apart from other acts, remains intrinsically evil when done with other acts, even if some of those other acts are good.
Yes any act that is intrinsically evil can never be justified…this is true…but again Mr. Conte is misapplying things…see Dr. Germain Grisez
In my opinion, Bookcat’s ideas on marital sexual ethics are incompatible with: the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, the teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality and on the unitive and procreative meanings, and the basic principles of moral theology.
Well some one can say the world is flat…but saying it does not make it so…so then in your opinion Dr. Germain Grisez and others with with fine imprimaturs on their books (which yours does not have…) and who have never been condemned but rather honored by the Church are in the same boat… Again you are misapplying things…
My own understanding of marital sexual ethics is supported by an extensive theological argument, found in several different articles online and in my book on moral theology, and based on the teachings of magisterial documents, of Sacred Scripture, and of the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
Your theological work and arguments…have Not even **one **support from Bishops…or any known source of such support…no recommendations from normal source other than those of your website…usually when books are published…they have reviews…and recommendations…where are yours? There are no peer reviews…no recommendations…no support from any known legit source…and the book is self published…
Rather it is Mr. Conte who is presenting his private opinions on certain matters…I do not really desire to keep going to go round and round with him but from some responses of other readers who said what he wrote caused them confusion I will try to briefly respond
His claim that my writings are incorrect and not recommended are his own opinion.
not just mine…
My opinion is that his posts contain serious doctrinal errors on morality and a poor understanding of the basic principles of ethics.
My Professors at Steubenville would disagree with you…as would my degree with honors from that same University
Doctrinal errors? Not.
He misrepresents his own opinions as the teaching of the Church.
never…
Never have I said my “opinions” were the teachings of the Church…though they really are not so much MY opinions here but the teachings of Catholic Moral theologians who are faithful to the Church…the Church often does not get into these sorts of details in official teaching…(though just a note…many things i post here in this forum are simply the teachings of the Church
For example, the Church does not teach a ‘moral unity’ that permits all manner of non-unitive and non-procreative acts to be justified as long as there is a mere intention to complete at least one natural act.
I never said it was a “teaching of the Church” it is an understanding in theology… for instance with the sacraments…many things in orthodox Catholic Theology are not “teaching”
His idea of a ‘moral unity’ is essentially the same as the ‘principle of totality’ which the Magisterium explicitly rejected in Humanae Vitae.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that Mr. Conte does NOT understand this section of Humanae Vitae…Paul VI was NOT condemning any idea of a moral unity of certain human acts…but the misuse of the “principle of Totality” (which by the way IS another thing…and is a very legit principle of Moral thoeology which one finds in the various Moral theology works approved by the authorities of the Church) --but HV was against a misuse of the principle of totality. As I was taught a course on Sexual and Medical Morality in Steubenville…what was happening was some were attempting to say it was ok to have some acts of intercourse that were contraceptive …so long as most were not in the over all marriage…THIS is what was being written about in this section of HV. IT was NOT saying one could not take foreplay in conjunction with the act of intercourse …Mr. Conte MISREADS this document…for it was saying (rightly) that one could not justify a few acts of contraception by looking at the majority of marital acts …thus taking it as a totality in the marriage…
In moral theology, in all areas of human life, an act is a knowing choice. Each and every knowing choice must have three good fonts of morality. A set of choices cannot be justified as entirely moral merely because one choice within the set is moral. Any act that is intrinsically evil to do on its own, apart from other acts, remains intrinsically evil when done with other acts, even if some of those other acts are good.
Yes any act that is intrinsically evil can never be justified…this is true…but again Mr. Conte is misapplying things…see Dr. Germain Grisez
In my opinion, Bookcat’s ideas on marital sexual ethics are incompatible with: the teachings of Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, the teaching of the Church on the three fonts of morality and on the unitive and procreative meanings, and the basic principles of moral theology.
Well some one can say the world is flat…but saying it does not make it so…so then in your opinion Dr. Germain Grisez and others with with fine imprimaturs on their books (which yours does not have…) and who have never been condemned but rather honored by the Church are in the same boat… Again you are misapplying things…
My own understanding of marital sexual ethics is supported by an extensive theological argument, found in several different articles online and in my book on moral theology, and based on the teachings of magisterial documents, of Sacred Scripture, and of the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
Your theological work and arguments…have Not even **one **support from Bishops…or any known source of such support…no recommendations from normal source other than those of your website…usually when books are published…they have reviews…and recommendations…where are yours? There are no peer reviews…no recommendations…no support from any known legit source…and the book is self published…
R
rmbrulotte
Guest
You may wait for only the infertile time, it is not wrong.
You as a husband must be finishing things every time that would make conception possible were there to be an egg ready to go inside of your wife, whether or not there is one actually available for conception. If you are interrupted by things out of your control, then obviously you would have to stop. I can not get more specific without being inappropriate for young eyes.
Your wife is right, you may not “spill the seed” outside of her body. But you may engage in intercourse on infertile days as the act would still be open to life and does not in any way frustrate the meaning of sexuality.
B
Bookcat
Guest
B
Beeline
Guest
Okay I’ll play along. The thread has been deleted.
Fact: You mentioned Fr. Gow in that post and mentioned that we should
contact him in relation to you.
So why exactly were you recommending Fr. Gow to us and challenging us to explicitly contact him in relation to you?
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
That is not what I said either. I’m not willing to discuss this topic with you because you continue to misrepresent what was said.
B
Beeline
Guest
Actually what I said was substantially true.
However, since I cant quote you and may be off track in exact wording,
this gives you leeway to issue a blanket denial based on me misrepresenting what you said.
I am sure others have recollections that parallel mine and those
recollections ‘might’ not match a Clintonesque use of words with hemms and haws that no one really picked up.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I do recall somewhat the statement…and if I recall correctly …you noted Fr. as an one who agreed with you on the matter you were discussing (perhaps not by name…not that you said that he said “I agree with Mr. Conte”…) …but you did refer to him.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
So you claim.
Have you written or published any theology books or articles?
Have you done any work in theology at all at any time?
What have you done in theology since getting this degree?
Here is what I have done with my degree
You claim that I misunderstand. I claim that you misunderstand. I offer a theological argument, and you do not. You are free to disagree, but without a theological argument, why should anyone listen to you?
The principle of totality and the idea of moral unity both claim to justify a set of acts by including in the set at least some procreative acts. But while the principle of totality only seeks to justify non-procreative acts of the contraceptive type, the idea of moral unity seeks to justify nearly every kind of non-procreative and non-unitive act, even though these acts are intrinsically evil, merely because at least one natural act is intended. The effect of this idea is to completely nullify the teaching of the Church that certain types of sexual acts are intrinsically evil, and therefore always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances. For a lengthy theological argument on the topic of intrinsic evil and sexual acts, see my online articles on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics.
Where are your works of theology which have support from Bishops or from anyone? Where are your theology books and articles, with or without recommendations?
You repeatedly use your claim to have a degree in theology to substitute for your lack of theological argument. I also have a degree in theology. But I believe that each theological argument must stand on its own merits. I offer a theological argument to support my understanding of Catholic teaching on morality.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Yes, that is what I recall also. But I don’t think it is appropriate to continue this discussion about deleted posts/threads.
- Status