Sex for married couples

  • Thread starter Thread starter dontknowmuch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The real truth here is that Ron Conte buttresses his arguments here with a claim of ‘theological works’ as to imply that other opinions carry less weight than his. It has been noted that all his works are self published, have no reviews, no credentialed theologians reviewing them(no one at all actually, unless he’s got a mouse in his pocket), no one to date has recommended his works and above all else no faithful Catholic publisher publishes his work–self-published. Further his books dont carry any recommendations on the cover,backcover, foreward, thankyou page or anywhere. He is the ‘one-man band’ of self proclaimed theologians.

His self-published books are way out there. For instance he can give you a date for the ‘Second Coming of Christ’. Prod me and I’ll give you a link off his website. But more importantly for whatever he teaches, most of it I dont have a problem with but in the area of Sexual Morality and Ethics, he is way off base with Church Teaching and for that reason I challenge him. Never in one of these threads or elsewhere can he name one contemporary book or contemporary theologian , faithful to catholic teaching, that agrees with his arguments and propositions in the realm of Sexual Morality. Instead, on his website you are more than likely to find him berating contemporary and faithful theologians. The very theologians and apologists who have been a part of the reemergence of the Catholic Church in the last 20+ years and have been responsible for the ‘new evangelization’.

Further Conte makes light of things like imprimaturs, nihil obstats, bishop approval, catholic publishers and other theologians, his criticisms throw them all into the one bag of being unreliable and essentially makes the contrasting point that he can be trusted. But he fails to make the point that the Catholic Church has had a reemergence, a new spring, new evangelists, apologists, catholic media and publishers that have led the way towards faithfulness and truth for the last 20+ years. Many of these people have imprimaturs, nihil obstats, Bishop support, and are professors in many top Catholic insitutions being faithful to the Church. Yet Ron Conte is outside of the mainstream of faithful new evangelist/apologists and Catholic writers disseminating these faithful Catholic teaching and writings. So in one swipe he criticises, the old and the new, the bad and the good and makes the claim that he is the one to be trusted for authentic Catholic teaching.

So, Mr. Conte, once again where is that one reputable person or book that agrees with you on Sexual Morality?

Ans: Here we go again, he’ll list Humanae Vita, St Augustine, and other saints works where he has misconstrued and missapplied terms and make the derivation to the points he is trying to make.
 
Let’s pray for a return of earlier humility here and for a greater spirit of service on this topic.

Credentialism, and word splitting has its place in the academic world (word splitting often protects/creates jobs in the academy; just look at the program descriptions in universities today) but both are like adding liquid hydrogen to a camp fire. Let’s not confuse opportunity for helpful interactions with the “real world” of academics.

Standing by for flames.
 
Several questions:

(1) If I understand correctly, the thread where Mr. Conte references Fr. Gow has been deleted. Can a moderator re-post the specific section of the thread where Mr. Conte references Fr. Gow? I suspect this would clarify a lot of the back-and-forth comments.

(2) Has our current Pope (or prior Popes) made any specific comments that either validate or invalidate the opinions of Mr. Conte on this topic?
 
So you claim.

So you doubt this?? …I have the degree in my house…and why would i make such up…
Have you written or published any theology books or articles?

Yes written…and works I have assisted on have been published…by an a publisher. But nothing on this…and what does that matter?

Have you done any work in theology at all at any time?

I live in theology…this my life.

Here is what I have done with my degree

Hummm that is called self-published…anyone can do this…and no endorsements…recommendations…imprimaturs etc…

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?

I have given theological arguments…and have shown again and again how you misread Humanae Vitae…and I have given very sound orthodox theological sources…

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.

Now you are again misrepresenting things…never said any such thing…you are setting up a straw man to knock down. And sorry but the morally legit and good acts of foreplay are not intrinsically evil…nor do you produce one source that agrees with your assertion.

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?

I am not the one who is saying “here is my work in theology” …and then pointing to your website and self -published book…the fact that a person writes something down and self-publishes it …does not give it any particular weight…(except the weight of the paper) the question is where are the recommendations for all these works you are pointing people to??? Where are peer reviews? Where is there anyone who agrees with you???I am not asserting such works…I am simply answering questions on a forum…and giving very good sources …

You repeatedly use your claim to have a degree in theology to substitute for your lack of theological argument.

… I simply state my credentials…not as any substitute for any argument…I have given arguments…anyhow I should note it does not take much to argue this simple little point…just see Dr. Grisez who does it in a short paragraph…

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.

sorry this is not some place for discertations…much of the work has been done by wonderfully orthodox theologians…one need not reinvent the wheel…

with all due respect of course…
 
Christopher68 said:
Several questions:

(1) If I understand correctly, the thread where Mr. Conte references Fr. Gow has been deleted. Can a moderator re-post the specific section of the thread where Mr. Conte references Fr. Gow? I suspect this would clarify a lot of the back-and-forth comments.

(2) Has our current Pope (or prior Popes) made any specific comments that either validate or invalidate the opinions of Mr. Conte on this topic?
Click to expand...
From the assist of Bookcats recollections in this thread, here is what happended.
Conte in response to a question of supplying people or books that agree with his position on Sexaul Morality , mentioned that… I’m going to quote here but only in a generalized way to represent the gist of what he was saying:

‘a Father who posts on this forum might agree with me & he runs a website called www.CatholicSomethingorOther.com’

thats to the best of my recollection.

So I contacted the Fr. gave him a link to the offending thread, the Fr. found it deleted, so he didnt know what it said, and responded the best he could. To include in his response he said he barely knew Mr. Conte.
And to all others who want to express themselves, lay down platitude and attitude, here it is, essentially my job and others is to expose Mr Conte’s lack of credentials to people he might be influencing, like young married couples who think they are sinning in acts of petting and foreplay before intercourse. Mr Contes thoughts and teachings are fundamentally misrepresentative of Church Teaching. The Church has only one truth and on this issue Mr. Conte is leading people into a false scrupulosity. To that
end is my participation here ordered. This has been a repeated theme on many deleted threads here on CAF and Conte,Bookcat and I have been a familar occurence on them. Fortunately or unfortunately, they regularly get deleted due to inappropriate talk or content relating to the presence of children 13 years and up on this forum.

Frankly if Mr. Conte would fundamentally stay out of these ‘Sexual Morality’ threads, I think he would find that I and perhaps BookCat would find no significant problems with what he has to say and his right to say it on other matters. I personally dont find much too unpleasant or disagreeable on other matters of Catholicism that he talks about.
 
Bookcat said:
Have you written or published any theology books or articles?
Yes written…and works I have assisted on have been published…by an a publisher. But nothing on this…and what does that matter?
Click to expand...
Your response is incoherent. The phrase “Yes written…” does not tell us if you wrote a book, or an article, or a paper for a class in school, or a diary entry.

So, some works you ‘assisted on’ have been published by a publisher? This seems to imply that you were not one of the authors, but an assistant to an author, is that correct?

You have written nothing ‘on this’? Does that mean nothing on moral theology, or nothing on theology at all?

Also, in my considered theological opinion, you are misrepresenting the work of various moral theologians on this topic of marital sexual ethics. It is not true that numerous orthodox moral theologians all have the same position that you advance.

I have Grisez’s work The Way of the Lord Jesus. I’ve quoted Grisez in agreement with him on various points of moral theology in my book. I’m familiar with his position on a number of different questions in sexual ethics. His point of view is not the same as yours.

In fact, I don’t know of any moral theologian who has the same radical position that you present, which seeks to justify any number and type of sexual acts whatsoever in the marital bedroom, as long as the husband (to put it discretely) only completes within the natural act. In your view, the wife seems to have no moral restrictions at all; all manner of unnatural acts are justified for her, just as long as the couple merely intends to complete one natural act at some time – even if that act never actually occurs. Even Christopher West, as I understand his position, does not go to that extreme.

So it is not true that your position is the same as Grisez, or any other moral theologian. You are misrepresenting their views as if they were the same as your own. And therefore, it is not true that, by disagreeing with you, I am really disagreeing with Grisez and many others.

Finally, I would like to point out that there are many Catholics who agree with my conservative position on marital sexual ethics. My discussion group has over 80 members who agree. And a number of Catholics have e-mailed me on this topic, also expressing their agreement and their thanks for my writings on this topic.

But if anyone is sincerely doubtful, especially as to what they should do in their own marriage, they should ask their confessor. I don’t believe that any faithful priest in the confessional will advise a married man or woman that unnatural sexual acts are moral with any intention, under any circumstances, within the holy Sacrament of Marriage.
 
I’ve never seen such haughty little pointless games in credentialism. We’re far and away from the poor fellow’s original sincere question and trouble.

Who is being served selflessly here?

What service is coming out of this debate, what’s really being progressed? Ego, vanity, self-puffery. Where’s the charity, humility, putting others first?

Dag.

Fire when ready.
 
Edward_H said:
I’ve never seen such haughty little pointless games in credentialism. We’re far and away from the poor fellow’s original sincere question and trouble.

Who is being served selflessly here?

What service is coming out of this debate, what’s really being progressed? Ego, vanity, self-puffery. Where’s the charity, humility, putting others first?

Dag.

Fire when ready.
Click to expand...
I guess the only point your making is your role of getting to play ‘finger wagger’. Its an enviable position. Afterall, you get to finger wag from great heights. I applaud your effort as the first to assume this perch.
It was just a matter of time before the person with the least patience would
step up to the role and be the first. You earned the pole position.

Are we having fun yet? 😛
 
Your response is incoherent. The phrase “Yes written…” does not tell us if you wrote a book, or an article, or a paper for a class in school, or a diary entry.

So, some works you ‘assisted on’ have been published by a publisher? This seems to imply that you were not one of the authors, but an assistant to an author, is that correct?

Has nothing to do with anything So What???

I simply answered your question --I am not setting forth any writings…

You have written nothing ‘on this’? Does that mean nothing on moral theology, or nothing on theology at all?

Also, in my considered theological opinion, you are misrepresenting the work of various moral theologians on this topic of marital sexual ethics. It is not true that numerous orthodox moral theologians all have the same position that you advance.

I have Grisez’s work The Way of the Lord Jesus. I’ve quoted Grisez in agreement with him on various points of moral theology in my book. I’m familiar with his position on a number of different questions in sexual ethics. His point of view is not the same as yours.

Well actually what I am stating is actually what he states…in vol II…

In fact, I don’t know of any moral theologian who has the same radical position that you present, which seeks to justify any number and type of sexual acts whatsoever in the marital bedroom, as long as the husband (to put it discretely) only completes within the natural act. In your view, the wife seems to have no moral restrictions at all; all manner of unnatural acts are justified for her, just as long as the couple merely intends to complete one natural act at some time – even if that act never actually occurs. Even Christopher West, as I understand his position, does not go to that extreme.

Never ever ever said such…what I have been saying is what Dr. Grisez and others say…I await your retraction of such accusations…

So it is not true that your position is the same as Grisez, or any other moral theologian. You are misrepresenting their views as if they were the same as your own. And therefore, it is not true that, by disagreeing with you, I am really disagreeing with Grisez and many others.

Readers may read for themselves…here twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

and then go down to h) Marital sexual acts short of intercourse can be chaste. …then read …

Finally, I would like to point out that there are many Catholics who agree with my conservative position on marital sexual ethics. My discussion group has over 80 members who agree. And a number of Catholics have e-mailed me on this topic, also expressing their agreement and their thanks for my writings on this topic.

In reply I would point out that what I present is likely pretty standard in those writings that go into such detail…one can see an older moral manual such as Jone…or Dr. Grisez or the NFP Priest over at the EWTN site…see here ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=climax&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=25&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

and furthermore your position is not conservative (which by the way is not a theological term) but is rather pretty much solo

oh and of course the persons at your site agree with you! YOU REQUIRE THEM TOO AGREE WITH THIS UPON JOINING…

But if anyone is sincerely doubtful, especially as to what they should do in their own marriage, they should ask their confessor. I don’t believe that any faithful priest in the confessional will advise a married man or woman that unnatural sexual acts are moral with any intention, under any circumstances, within the holy Sacrament of Marriage.

again…again and again …of course unnatural acts can not be done…but foreplay is not unnatural …as anyone’s confessor will tell them…
 
Beeline.

You’ve contributed another fine example of trying to help out the original poster with some concrete help that doesn’t require pseudo-credentials to understand.

This thread has melted down fast and not an adult in sight. You think it’s progressing in a positive direction to help the originator?

Nice contribution. Just like in a kid’s fight. You’re the little egger-on-er. Not capable of slinging substantially, but you get some odd spectator kicks out this.
 
Edward_H said:
Beeline.

You’ve contributed another fine example of trying to help out the original poster with some concrete help that doesn’t require pseudo-credentials to understand.

This thread has melted down fast and not an adult in sight. You think it’s progressing in a positive direction to help the originator?

Nice contribution. Just like in a kid’s fight. You’re the little egger-on-er. Not capable of slinging substantially, but you get some odd spectator kicks out this.
Click to expand...
The poster has been helped…what has happened is Mr. Conte has again come and tried to confuse things…

It is important that Catholics not be confused by his off ideas here…
 
Edward_H said:
Beeline.

You’ve contributed another fine example of trying to help out the original poster with some concrete help that doesn’t require pseudo-credentials to understand.

This thread has melted down fast and not an adult in sight. You think it’s progressing in a positive direction to help the originator?

Nice contribution. Just like in a kid’s fight. You’re the little egger-on-er. Not capable of slinging substantially, but you get some odd spectator kicks out this.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat; Your being silly.
The original poster has been helped , I PM’ed him early on and offered
to answer his questions on a ‘I’m not qualified’ basis, but hopefully to keep him out of more trouble that was communicated to him by Ron Conte on another thread that was deleted. Sometimes things are not as they appear.

Belive it or not, Conte and I are somewhat longterm acquaintances
as he had mentioned in this thread or a previous one.

But I’m sure glad you got the role and not someone else!😛
 
Beeline said:
From the assist of Bookcats recollections in this thread, here is what happended.
Conte in response to a question of supplying people or books that agree with his position on Sexaul Morality , mentioned that… I’m going to quote here but only in a generalized way to represent the gist of what he was saying:

‘a Father who posts on this forum might agree with me & he runs a website called www.CatholicSomethingorOther.com’

thats to the best of my recollection.

So I contacted the Fr. gave him a link to the offending thread, the Fr. found it deleted, so he didnt know what it said, and responded the best he could. To include in his response he said he barely knew Mr. Conte.
And to all others who want to express themselves, lay down platitude and attitude, here it is, essentially my job and others is to expose Mr Conte’s lack of credentials to people he might be influencing, like young married couples who think they are sinning in acts of petting and foreplay before intercourse. Mr Contes thoughts and teachings are fundamentally misrepresentative of Church Teaching. The Church has only one truth and on this issue Mr. Conte is leading people into a false scrupulosity. To that
end is my participation here ordered. This has been a repeated theme on many deleted threads here on CAF and Conte,Bookcat and I have been a familar occurence on them. Fortunately or unfortunately, they regularly get deleted due to inappropriate talk or content relating to the presence of children 13 years and up on this forum.

Frankly if Mr. Conte would fundamentally stay out of these ‘Sexual Morality’ threads, I think he would find that I and perhaps BookCat would find no significant problems with what he has to say and his right to say it on other matters. I personally dont find much too unpleasant or disagreeable on other matters of Catholicism that he talks about.
Click to expand...
Beeline,

Thank you for replying to my questions.

I have read nothing in the way of official Church teaching that supports Mr. Conte’s opinion on this topic in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I have never heard these opinions expressed by anyone other than Mr. Conte.
 
Christopher68 said:
Beeline,

Thank you for replying to my questions.

I have read nothing in the way of official Church teaching that supports Mr. Conte’s opinion on this topic in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I have never heard these opinions expressed by anyone other than Mr. Conte.
Click to expand...
How is he not banned yet? The guy is more than a CAF troll, he’s a real life troll. And if he isn’t, he should be because I’d have more respect for someone who goes all out to troll Catholics, potential Catholics or skeptics than someone who genuinely believes the tripe that he writes and constantly assures himself and others that he knows more than the Magesterium. Keep in mind, many other authors who have written on this subject and earned the Imprimatur are in direct contradiction to the vast majority of his statements, so it’s clear that Mr. Conte is either a full-time real life troll, or he thinks he knows sexual morality better than the Magesterium.

A shame he’s not a better clairvoyant too; I lost big bucks betting on Hillary winning the 2008 election and Benedict XVI being assassinated because of his terrible predictions.
 
Is it always mortally sinful to finish anywhere outside the intended place?

Example. Wife cannot have relations due to a problem, and she helps the husband to finish another place…

if in this example contraception is not intended at all…just that due to current condition cannot finish in intended place.

If this is sin, what sin is it to be confessed?
 
Bookcat said:
Here is a review of Mr. Conte’s work I ran across from an organization called
Catholic Culture which seems to review sites…and an article by a Dr. Mirus

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892

catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=331

Particularly read the last few paragraphs.

here is info on Dr. Mirus

catholicculture.org/about/leadership/bio_jeff_mirus.cfm

Look I do not wish ill to Mr. Conte…but I fear for the confusion of fellow Catholics in certain areas…
Click to expand...
Very enlightening. I also did some researc of my own, perusing his web sites. I found them a bit, well, kooky. No offense to Mr. Conte, but I think I’ll avoid his brand of Catholicism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top