I don’t want to let him, because he makes a bad publicity to Catholicism by his crazy theology. He is dangerous for the couples, for the husbands and much more for the wives. He refuses to understand the phenomenology and the temporality of the marital act **and the female sexology. **In addition, his acception of the definition of the masturbation is totally… no word. It’s a shame for the human intelligence.I doubt that Conte is still watching this thread. You may be able to locate an email address for him on his blog, and invite him to participate.
The doctrinal reductionism of the marital act to coitus, only, is a shame. That is awful and too monstrous for the wife, more specifically, and for the human nature. *I cannot believe that. Who are his confessors? Who are his spiritual directors? What is the position of his local bishop? *I doubt that Conte is still watching this thread. You may be able to locate an email address for him on his blog, and invite him to participate.
I have dialogued with him on another thread, and I noted he does not care to pursue debates for very long. Perhaps he is very busy? Or perhaps he does have some pre-conceived ideas, for which he has formulated a supportive argument linked to Catholic teaching, but he does not wish to defend it against intense scrutiny? I did note he tends to be very repetitive in his posts, rather than engaging with the ideas put by his interlocutors. His contributions on CAF that I’ve seen tend to resemble a Blog, rather than dialogue.I want to confront him publicly on this forum. I wish to understand the deep reasons of his intellectual approaches about this particular topic. I hope to get some information with him, without taboo. But, one day, he told me that my sentences were too much (2 years ago). The exact terms, that he used, when I sent to him a message with anatomical words, were “sexual harassment”. For him the words of the human anatomy are constitutive of a “sexual harassment”. He has an issue!!!
The simple fact of being shy, shocked and bothered by anatomical words is a great sign. Thus, in my humble opinion, you – " so called theologian "-- is not capable to study (no psychological skill), in the details with all the subtleties and without taboo, this particular subtopic.Well said.
By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.
Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.
As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“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… 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.”
“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,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”
Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).
What are you gonna ask for next, his home address?The doctrinal reductionism of the marital act to coitus, only, is a shame. That is awful and too monstrous for the wife, more specifically, and for the human nature. *I cannot believe that. Who are his confessors? Who are his spiritual directors? What is the position of his local bishop? *
The simple fact of being shy, shocked and bothered by anatomical words is a great sign. Thus, in my humble opinion, you – " so called theologian "-- are not capable to study (no psychological skill), in the details with all the subtleties and without taboo, this particular subtopic.
Do you support, morally speaking, in the context of the marital act:
to the wife who invokes the catholic morality in order to justify of not showing her nudity to her husband? Thus, she refuses to undress for him in front of him and / or she refuses to be undressed by him;
to the wife who invokes the catholic morality in order to justify of not trying all the sexual positions with her husband: the doggy style? She refuses to please him about that, systematically, in invoking the catholic morality.
to the wife who invokes the catholic morality in order to justify of not touching the intimate parts of her husband?
to the wife who invokes the catholic morality for explaining that the existence of sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, to give and to receive is totally false, wrong and impossible?
Some of his ideas simply can’t withstand the light of day in Catholic theology. So I suppose he is probably doing the prudent thing for his career as a “theologian” by dodging debate.I have dialogued with him on another thread, and I noted he does not care to pursue debates for very long. Perhaps he is very busy? Or perhaps he does have some pre-conceived ideas, for which he has formulated a supportive argument linked to Catholic teaching, but he does not wish to defend it against intense scrutiny? I did note he tends to be very repetitive in his posts, rather than engaging with the ideas put by his interlocutors. His contributions on CAF that I’ve seen tend to resemble a Blog, rather than dialogue.
By my sentences, i want, only, to know what are his actual mentors who can be on the same line than him. Who are the catholic priests of today who are okay with him? Who are his inspirators, his “muses”!!! in theology?What are you gonna ask for next, his home address?
Chill out.
The oral-genital contacts between spouses, in the context of the marital act, to give or to receive, like sexual foreplay are not constitutive of oral sex, because there are no replacement and no substitution. The oral-genital contacts between spouses in this particular context are not sinful, per se, are not unnatural, per se, and are not always morally wrong. They are morally acceptable. The moral theology of Mister Ronald Conte jr and Co on this topic are totally … no word.For information in order to be very clear about the context of the marital act:
The wife has to refuse to receive the complete and imperfect sodomy on her: her moral obligation to refuse and her moral right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of practicing the complete and imperfect sodomy on her: his moral obligation to refuse and his moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse to receive the incomplete and imperfect sodomy on her: her moral obligation to refuse and her moral right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of practicing the incomplete and imperfect sodomy on her: his moral obligation to refuse and his *moral *right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse of practicing the complete fellatio on his husband with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body or everywhere else (the oral sex on him by her): her moral obligation to refuse and her moral right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of receiving the complete fellatio from his wife with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body or everywhere else (the oral sex on him by her): his moral obligation to refuse and his moral right to refuse;
As soon as it stops being “kissing” and starts being “fellating”, I think we’ve left the reservation. I don’t care if it’s “complete” or not. As far as I’m concerned, there’s no such thing as “complete fellatio”, because fellatio is not an activity with a genuine nature.For information in order to be very clear about the context of the marital act:
The wife has to refuse to receive the complete and imperfect sodomy on her: her moral obligation to refuse and her moral right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of practicing the complete and imperfect sodomy on her: his moral obligation to refuse and his moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse to receive the incomplete and imperfect sodomy on her: her moral obligation to refuse and her moral right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of practicing the incomplete and imperfect sodomy on her: his moral obligation to refuse and his moral right to refuse;
The wife has to refuse of practicing the complete fellatio on his husband with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body or everywhere else (the oral sex on him by her): her moral obligation to refuse and her right to refuse;
The husband has to refuse of receiving the complete fellatio from his wife with a voluntary ejaculation on the wrong place of her body oreverywhere else (the oral sex on him by her): his moral obligation to refuse and his right to refuse;
Between husband and wife in the context of the marital act:*We cannot use a person as a mere tool for an end as a person is already an end, the best end in fact. So using someone for pleasure cannot be done, because the person is a best end, so you can’t choose pleasure instead of the person.
A man and a woman can only have sexual intercourse in marriage where the love (if built correctly) is fully mature. When this love is fully mature, the sexual intercourse between them, evolves to a personal level where there is no using. The only way that the sexual act can stop or cut out its utilitarian property, is the common end of procreation. Then pleasure stops being the end of the actual act. Why is this important, because a person cannot be used as tools for an end, as persons are ends by themselves and because of the nature of their specific creation. We are created under the image of God, where everyone has the final end of God. (We are top ends, this means that using for pleasure or for anything else would be degrading, to the essence of persons).
Love is first of all a principle or an idea which people must live up to, so to speak, in their conduct if they want –and they should want- to liberate it from a utilitarian attitude toward other persons. Loving the other person demands a recognition of not only his final end and his vocation to it, but also his capacity (interiority) and responsibility to order his conduct toward that end (through his self determination) and to become good (or evil) in this conduct.
The personalistic norm, as the commandment to love, presupposes not only the honorableness of such a relation, of such an attitude, but also its justice. For it is always just to render what is rightly due to somebody. It is rightly due to the person to be treated as an object of love, and not as an object of use.
As the marriage is an institution, a contract, an alliance, a covenant and a consortium, what are the rights, the obligations, the duties, the roles, the functions, the competencies / the competences and the responsibilities of each member of the couple about the “donation / reception” of bodies? What are the reserved acts to spouses in link with the marital act?? What is the list of rights, of obligations, of duties, of roles, of functions, of competencies / or of competences and of responsibilities of each one about the marital act?Between husband and wife in the context of the marital act:*
The fact of wanting to give some sexual pleasures to the other and to provoke the sexual orgasms to the other is totally moral, per se. The fact of wanting to receive some sexual pleasures via the other *** is totally moral, per se.*** The fact of wanting to get the sexual orgasms via the other is totally moral, per se. For the couple, the fact of searching the sexual pleasures and the sexual orgasms is totally moral, per se.
The fact of wanting to please, sexually speaking, to the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se. The fact of wanting to satisfy, sexually speaking, the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se.
The conjugal sexual pleasures are morally good. The conjugal sexual orgasms are morally good. The conjugal erotism is morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual pleasures, is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual orgasms is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal erotism, per se, is morally good. The fact of wanting to receive the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism from the other is, per se, morally good. The fact of wanting to give the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism to the other is, per se, morally good.
For each one, the fact of requiring the sexual rights on the body of the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se, because it is the justice.
fpt,Between husband and wife in the context of the marital act:*
The fact of wanting to give some sexual pleasures to the other and to provoke the sexual orgasms to the other is totally moral, per se. The fact of wanting to receive some sexual pleasures via the other. The fact of wanting to get the sexual orgasms via the other is totally moral, per se. For the couple, the fact of searching the sexual pleasures and the sexual orgasms is totally moral, per se.
The fact of wanting to please, sexually speaking, to the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se. The fact of wanting to satisfy, sexually speaking, the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se.
The conjugal sexual pleasures are morally good. The conjugal sexual orgasms are morally good. The conjugal erotism is morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual pleasures, is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual orgasms is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal erotism, per se, is morally good. The fact of wanting to receive the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism from the other is, per se, morally good. The fact of wanting to give the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism to the other is, per se, morally good.
For each one, the fact of requiring the sexual rights on the body of the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, is totally moral, per se, because it is the justice.
No, no , no, that is, only, a misunderstanding, I do not consider John Paul II 's reflections as a refutation of my “humble views”. I wished to respond to Edlinked, because by some of his sentences (the second message, not the quotes coming from Love and Responsibility, his first message) can appear like too much rigorist, in concreto, in the real life of a couple.fpt,
edlinked posted a series of reflections written by John Paul II. If your theology is sound, then why did you apparently consider JPII’s reflections to be a criticism of your view, and respond in kind?
Edlinked’s point is not that pleasure is immoral.No, no , no, that is, only, a misunderstanding, I do not consider John Paul II 's reflections as a refutation of my “humble views”. I wished to respond to Edlinked, because by some of his sentences (the second message, not the quotes coming from Love and Responsibility, his first message) can appear like too much rigorist, in concreto, in the real life of a couple.
For instance: “A man and a woman can only have sexual intercourse in marriage where the love (if built correctly) is fully mature”, this sentence could be seen, may be, like a critic of the practice of the marital act for searching the conjugal erotism and the conjugal orgasms. In concreto, the conjugal sexual pleasures and the conjugal orgasms appear by the acts of the other on the body of each one. Each member of couple is a conjugal lover for permitting the realization of the sexual joys of the marriage.
In addition, about the material order of the marital act, by his last message, he does not conclude and does not give his opinion about the rights of each one on the body of the other. In my opinion, some catholic lay persons could imagine, that he is not in favor of certain types of sexual foreplay, morally speaking. He is not quite clear.
Of course we are subject of love and not object of love. But, the marital act is realized by many material acts on the body of the other. The caresses, in the human fashion, in the conjugal love and the conjugal tenderness. No presumption of sinfulness about of types of touching on the body of the other.
Dictionary: Subject is human person; object is thing
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of a right for each one to receive and to give some sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act is an great issue, in my humble opinion. Canonical issues and or moral issues!!! The validity of marriage and / or the fact of being a good spouse, sexually speaking!!!Edlinked’s point is not that pleasure is immoral.
The point is that pleasure is not an end in itself. Pleasure is a good, ordered to higher goods, unitive and procreative.
(Preemptive rebuttal, before someone goes off about children being necessary to every act…
No, realize the difference between ordered to procreation, and in fact conceiving a child in every act. It is not possible to conceive a child in every act, but all acts can still be properly ordered. Foreplay, for instance, can be ordered to it’s proper end, the completed conjugal act. It is not and end in itself. The pleasure derived from foreplay, is not an end in itself, it should lead us to the good of a completed conjugal act.)