F
fpt
Guest
There are the sexual natural moral order of the entrance into the marriage, and the sexual natural moral order of the use of the marital act. The rules are still existing.
- Status
F
fpt
Guest
The husband is under the yoke of his wife about the marital act, and the wife is under the yoke of her husband about the marital act.
The “yoke” in the catholic sense, the mutual and reciprocal submission: the term “conjugium” means to place under the yoke.
The “yoke” in the catholic sense, the mutual and reciprocal submission: the term “conjugium” means to place under the yoke.
F
fpt
Guest
For being clear, morally speaking:
The natural offense, by omission, is a possible thing, and thus the sin by omission is still existing, even about the conjugal sexuality. The refusal of practicing the marital act is in this category of sins: it is a lack of justice and a lack of charity in link with the marital debt if the conditions of the conjugal refusal are not present. Yes, the rules of marriage are quite serious. The exception of the non-practice of the marital act is one of rules of marriage. That means that the spouse who is refusing of making one flesh with the spouse has to explain and justify to the other the reasons of this refusal: those reasons must be real, just, fair, realistic, true, actual and objective. The unilateral refusal coming from one spouse of practice the marital act after the conjugal request for the conjugal sex has to be motivated and justified, in all honesty, in the conjugal love and the conjugal tenderness. The conjugal talk, the conjugal explanation, the conjugal explication, the conjugal discussion, the conjugal information, the conjugal dialogue and the conjugal debate are very essential, important and helpful and they have to be genuine.
The unilateral refusal of consuming of the marriage that is coming from one of spouse* is not respectful of the natural moral order of marriage.* Each spouse has the moral right of getting the consummation of the marital act: the opposability to the right on the body, the right to the body and the right of the body. The conjugal debt for union of bodies is still existing. Only, the bilateral refusal of consuming of the marriage coming from both spouse can be respectful the natural moral order of marriage, under particular conditions, but at each second, each spouse has the natural right of modifying his or her mind, unilaterally, and thus to request the practicing of the union of bodies, the opposability is and stays the first rule. In this case, the asker, that has just changed his or her mind, does not act wrongly. That is her or his moral right.
The spouse having some sexual troubles has to try to solve them for the other, in the respect of the natural moral order. It is a moral obligation for each one.
The natural offense, by omission, is a possible thing, and thus the sin by omission is still existing, even about the conjugal sexuality. The refusal of practicing the marital act is in this category of sins: it is a lack of justice and a lack of charity in link with the marital debt if the conditions of the conjugal refusal are not present. Yes, the rules of marriage are quite serious. The exception of the non-practice of the marital act is one of rules of marriage. That means that the spouse who is refusing of making one flesh with the spouse has to explain and justify to the other the reasons of this refusal: those reasons must be real, just, fair, realistic, true, actual and objective. The unilateral refusal coming from one spouse of practice the marital act after the conjugal request for the conjugal sex has to be motivated and justified, in all honesty, in the conjugal love and the conjugal tenderness. The conjugal talk, the conjugal explanation, the conjugal explication, the conjugal discussion, the conjugal information, the conjugal dialogue and the conjugal debate are very essential, important and helpful and they have to be genuine.
The unilateral refusal of consuming of the marriage that is coming from one of spouse* is not respectful of the natural moral order of marriage.* Each spouse has the moral right of getting the consummation of the marital act: the opposability to the right on the body, the right to the body and the right of the body. The conjugal debt for union of bodies is still existing. Only, the bilateral refusal of consuming of the marriage coming from both spouse can be respectful the natural moral order of marriage, under particular conditions, but at each second, each spouse has the natural right of modifying his or her mind, unilaterally, and thus to request the practicing of the union of bodies, the opposability is and stays the first rule. In this case, the asker, that has just changed his or her mind, does not act wrongly. That is her or his moral right.
The spouse having some sexual troubles has to try to solve them for the other, in the respect of the natural moral order. It is a moral obligation for each one.
F
fpt
Guest
As the marital act is not a simple coitus, like in the world of animals, the sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, are totally normal. The exclusion of their existence is deeply wrong. The intellectual negation of the right to give and to receive sexual foreplay should imply the possible nullity of marriage , if before the wedding, or a wrong thinking and a wrong action after the wedding, if no practice without just reason.
E
edlinked
Guest
From book:"
Immanuel Kant (german philosopher) stated “Act in such a way so that the person is never a mere means of your action but always an end.” Wojtyla rephrase it saying: “Whenever the person is an object of action in your conduct, remember that you may not treat him merely as a means to an end, as a tool, but (you must) take into accounts that the person himself has or at least should have his end.
For Wojtyla the relation to another man does not merely depend on the fact of him being an end in himself, but also on him being ordained to ends outside of himself that are perfective of him (and of his freedom), and ultimately to God as his final end. Man unalike as other animals has self determination (free will), and is and should be self reliant in his actions, has an interiority which no one can take, and is incommunicable to the other, and no one can will in his stead. "
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."
Man is a being, so to speak, doomed to creativity. This creativity also obliges in the sphere of love. How often we witness that from the promising “material” of affections and longings not true love is formed, but in fact something contrary; whereas at times truly great love is formed from modest “material”. But this great love can only be a work of persons –and for the sake of completing the picture – a work of grace. The operation of grace is hidden in the work of man (his action toward the direction of love) as a contribution of the invisible Creator, who being love Himself has the power to form any love, including love which in its natural development is based on the value of sex and the body, if only people want consciously to co-create it with Him. There is no need to be discouraged that this happens sometimes in intricate and convoluted ways. Grace has the power to make straight the ways of human love.
Is love not something at once ready-made, something given to man or two people as a certain kind of adventure of the heart? This is what young people on particular very often think, and a consequence of this view must be at least a partial canceling of what we have called here the integration of love. In that case love remains only a psychological situation, which is (as if against its nature) subordinated to the demands of objective morality. However, quite the contrary, love is guided by a norm, by a principle, from which the fullest value of each psychological situation ought to be drawn; only then will the situation itself achieve its proper fullness, become an expression of the mature commitment of the person. For love is never something ready-made, something merely “given” to a woman and a man, but at once it is always something “entrusted”. Love in a sense never “is”, but only constantly “becomes”, depending on the contribution of each person, on their thorough commitment. This commitment is based on what is “given”, and therefore the lived experiences that have their basis in sensuality and natural affectivity of either a woman or a man constitute only the “material” of love. A tendency exists to consider them as a ready-made form of love. This is an erroneous tendency –it conceals the consumption-oriented and utilitarian attitude, which --as is known—is contrary to the nature of love itself.
The whole profile of morality in which the commandment to love plays a central role by all means reducing marriage to spousal love, or rather – taking the problem educationally- with bringing marriage forth from this form of love. Only by being restricted to two people, a man and a woman, can this love all the more fully open toward new persons who by nature are fruits of spousal love between a man and a woman.
All the ends of marriage have to come from love as virtue or come as an effect of love-virtue. Love is not an end of marriage, but persons have to seek it, keep it and work for it, so that the personalistic norm can be achieved.
The Church teaches consistently that the primary end of marriage is procreation (objectively speaking marriage is above all to serve existence), whereas the secondary end is what in Latin terminology has been defined as Mutuum Adiutorium (relationship between a man and a woman). The tertiary end is Remedium concupiscentiae (The correct direction of concupiscence).
The ends of marriage ordered in this way oppose any subjectivistic interpretation of the sexual drive, and accordingly they demand from a man as person objectivity in thinking about sexual themes and above all in conduct. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality.
The personalistic norm is a principle that conditions the proper realization of the ends, and guarantees that these ends will be realized in accordance with the indicated hierarchy, for a deviation from it contradicts objective dignity of the person(and therefore morality). “
Spousal love in marriage is the reciprocal giving of there I, but it is not the physical I as you cannot own somebody physically, that is a characteristic of oneself. The I you give is your interior I and this is talked by Wojtyla in the book.
Immanuel Kant (german philosopher) stated “Act in such a way so that the person is never a mere means of your action but always an end.” Wojtyla rephrase it saying: “Whenever the person is an object of action in your conduct, remember that you may not treat him merely as a means to an end, as a tool, but (you must) take into accounts that the person himself has or at least should have his end.
For Wojtyla the relation to another man does not merely depend on the fact of him being an end in himself, but also on him being ordained to ends outside of himself that are perfective of him (and of his freedom), and ultimately to God as his final end. Man unalike as other animals has self determination (free will), and is and should be self reliant in his actions, has an interiority which no one can take, and is incommunicable to the other, and no one can will in his stead. "
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."
Man is a being, so to speak, doomed to creativity. This creativity also obliges in the sphere of love. How often we witness that from the promising “material” of affections and longings not true love is formed, but in fact something contrary; whereas at times truly great love is formed from modest “material”. But this great love can only be a work of persons –and for the sake of completing the picture – a work of grace. The operation of grace is hidden in the work of man (his action toward the direction of love) as a contribution of the invisible Creator, who being love Himself has the power to form any love, including love which in its natural development is based on the value of sex and the body, if only people want consciously to co-create it with Him. There is no need to be discouraged that this happens sometimes in intricate and convoluted ways. Grace has the power to make straight the ways of human love.
Is love not something at once ready-made, something given to man or two people as a certain kind of adventure of the heart? This is what young people on particular very often think, and a consequence of this view must be at least a partial canceling of what we have called here the integration of love. In that case love remains only a psychological situation, which is (as if against its nature) subordinated to the demands of objective morality. However, quite the contrary, love is guided by a norm, by a principle, from which the fullest value of each psychological situation ought to be drawn; only then will the situation itself achieve its proper fullness, become an expression of the mature commitment of the person. For love is never something ready-made, something merely “given” to a woman and a man, but at once it is always something “entrusted”. Love in a sense never “is”, but only constantly “becomes”, depending on the contribution of each person, on their thorough commitment. This commitment is based on what is “given”, and therefore the lived experiences that have their basis in sensuality and natural affectivity of either a woman or a man constitute only the “material” of love. A tendency exists to consider them as a ready-made form of love. This is an erroneous tendency –it conceals the consumption-oriented and utilitarian attitude, which --as is known—is contrary to the nature of love itself.
The whole profile of morality in which the commandment to love plays a central role by all means reducing marriage to spousal love, or rather – taking the problem educationally- with bringing marriage forth from this form of love. Only by being restricted to two people, a man and a woman, can this love all the more fully open toward new persons who by nature are fruits of spousal love between a man and a woman.
All the ends of marriage have to come from love as virtue or come as an effect of love-virtue. Love is not an end of marriage, but persons have to seek it, keep it and work for it, so that the personalistic norm can be achieved.
The Church teaches consistently that the primary end of marriage is procreation (objectively speaking marriage is above all to serve existence), whereas the secondary end is what in Latin terminology has been defined as Mutuum Adiutorium (relationship between a man and a woman). The tertiary end is Remedium concupiscentiae (The correct direction of concupiscence).
The ends of marriage ordered in this way oppose any subjectivistic interpretation of the sexual drive, and accordingly they demand from a man as person objectivity in thinking about sexual themes and above all in conduct. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality.
The personalistic norm is a principle that conditions the proper realization of the ends, and guarantees that these ends will be realized in accordance with the indicated hierarchy, for a deviation from it contradicts objective dignity of the person(and therefore morality). “
Spousal love in marriage is the reciprocal giving of there I, but it is not the physical I as you cannot own somebody physically, that is a characteristic of oneself. The I you give is your interior I and this is talked by Wojtyla in the book.
C
clem456
Guest
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming the body is not part of the complete and reciprocal conjugal act of self donation. I think you misunderstand his philosophy.
JP2’s Theology of the Body addresses this thoroughly.
E
edlinked
Guest
I dont want to misinform by telling you what I remember, so Ill have a look at it and put it here to clarify…
.
E
edlinked
Guest
clem456 here you go:
"
Can a person give himself to another person ? After all it was stated that every person by his essence is nontransferable (alter incommunicabilis). So, he is not only his own master (suiiurius), but also cannot impart or give himself. The nature of the person opposes such self-giving. Indeed, in the order of nature we cannot speak of giving a person to another person, especially if we understand this giving in a physical sense. What is personal rises above any form of giving, and, on the other hand, above any form of appropriation in the physical sense. The person as such cannot be somebodys possession, like a thing. Consequently, treating the person as an object of use is also excluded.
What is not possible and correct in the order of nature or in the physical sense can be accomplished in the order of love and in the moral sense. In this sense, the person can give himself to another person, both to a human person and to God, and through this giving a particular shape of love, which we define as spousal love, is formed.
"
"
Can a person give himself to another person ? After all it was stated that every person by his essence is nontransferable (alter incommunicabilis). So, he is not only his own master (suiiurius), but also cannot impart or give himself. The nature of the person opposes such self-giving. Indeed, in the order of nature we cannot speak of giving a person to another person, especially if we understand this giving in a physical sense. What is personal rises above any form of giving, and, on the other hand, above any form of appropriation in the physical sense. The person as such cannot be somebodys possession, like a thing. Consequently, treating the person as an object of use is also excluded.
What is not possible and correct in the order of nature or in the physical sense can be accomplished in the order of love and in the moral sense. In this sense, the person can give himself to another person, both to a human person and to God, and through this giving a particular shape of love, which we define as spousal love, is formed.
"
C
clem456
Guest
Right, I have it on my bookshelf.
I’m sorry you are misunderstanding what he is saying, or taking it out of context.
He’s talking about utilitarianism and objectification, not conjugal love. A person cannot be a possession, as I bolded above. But he is not leaping to say that conjugal love is not a physical giving of one spouse to another. That would be silly.
The man and woman certainly do give themselves to one another physically in the conjugal act.
edit:
Go here, Chapter 17 specifically. Explains “the gift” well.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb16.htm
F
fpt
Guest
In one of past documents from the Vatican, a pope says something like* " the marital act is for one part, a mutual and reciprocal possession of bodies, but not only that. Thus, the procreative aspect is existing also* with all the moral effects on the moral regime of the marital act". *It is my humble rephrasing, of course.
*
*
F
fpt
Guest
In the context of the marital act, the wife receives the body of her husband because he gives his own body, and she takes his body in possession, and vice versa. But, the procreative aspect is also here, it is very important too.
Donation means to give. Reception means to possess. The husband possesses his wife physically and the wife possesses her husband physically .
Donation means to give. Reception means to possess. The husband possesses his wife physically and the wife possesses her husband physically .
F
fpt
Guest
In the vows of the marriage, each one agrees with the fact of being possessed by the other, and of possess the other, physically speaking, in the context of the marital act.
F
fpt
Guest
In the vows of the marriage on the marital act, each one agrees with the fact of being seen naked, touched, massaged, licked, sucked, aroused, excited and stimulated, in the human fashion on all the body, the primary erogenous parts and the secondary erogenous parts, by the other. In addition the wife agrees with the fact of being penetrated vaginally by the penis of her husband and of receiving his ejaculation inside her, vaginally, and the husband agrees with the fact of penetrating his wife vaginally with his penis and of ejaculating inside her, vaginally.
E
edlinked
Guest
I dont know what Iam misunderstanding or taking out of context? Could you tell me what you think that i am stating?Right, I have it on my bookshelf.
I’m sorry you are misunderstanding what he is saying, or taking it out of context.
He’s talking about utilitarianism and objectification, not conjugal love. A person cannot be a possession, as I bolded above. But he is not leaping to say that conjugal love is not a physical giving of one spouse to another. That would be silly.
The man and woman certainly do give themselves to one another physically in the conjugal act.
edit:
Go here, Chapter 17 specifically. Explains “the gift” well.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb16.htm
Thanks for the link but I think the book explains it better, as it also talks about the gift. Because it puts love in the equation. Meaning that it tells you about the path to follow to give the gift reciprocally. It gives you the way to reach the level on which the gift can be given as a gift (the right way it is intended), by elevating it to the personal level by love.
F
fpt
Guest
Again, all in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.
If the fiancée does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want to receive the masculinity of her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage.
If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want to receive the feminity of his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.
My humble advice:
If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage is not for you.
If the fiancée does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want to receive the masculinity of her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage.
If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want to receive the feminity of his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.
My humble advice:
If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch in the love and the tenderness, physically and sexually, the marriage is not for you.
C
clem456
Guest
This conclusion and interpretation you posted after you quoted L&R:
I don’t believe is supported by the quote you posted.
The physical body is an integral part of the self and is given to the spouse in the conjugal act. In a utilitarian context the body is not a gift to be handed over. And I believe that is the context of the passage you posted. (I don’t have the book in front of me)
F
fpt
Guest
If she does not want to give her femininity to her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage. If he does not want to give his masculinity to his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.
E
edlinked
Guest
My context is that a man doesnt own a woman because she gave herself to the man and viceversa. .
F
fpt
Guest
In the context of the marital act, each one has the natural right to request of receiving some sexual foreplay and of giving some sexual foreplay. The doctrinal negation and the doctrinal denial of those rights are totally immoral. In the context of the marital act, each one have the right to give and to receive some sexual foreplay. The natural requirement for each member of couple, in the human fashion, in love and the tenderness, is still existing.
- Status