Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[edlinked]

"
Then, interior or exterior deeds are born that have for their object merely the sexual value linked to the person. These deeds remain within the aim of the directional reaction characteristic of sensuality itself: oriented to the “body as a possible object of use”. Thus, they relate to the person in a utilitarian, consumption-oriented way. Whether the deeds are exterior or only interior depends on a large extent on the structure of sensuality itself in a given person.”

The reactions of affectivity also possess a directional character, although their direction differs from that of the reactions of sensuality. Affectivity does not tend toward the using that has for its object the “body and sexus” and seeks an outlet in “bodily love” alone. If we sometimes speak of the need for an affective outlet, it is not in the same sense as when one speaks of a sensory-sexual outlet. Concerning the former, the point is rather a satisfaction of the need for affective lived-experiences themselves, the need to “be in love” with somebody or to suffer someone’s affection (“to be loved”). Affectivity has its separate world of interior and inter-personal facts, which by themselves stay away from the concupiscence of the flesh. Affective love seems to be pure to the extent that any comparison of it to sensual passion amounts to a debasement and brutalization.
However, it does not constitute a positive and full solution to the problem of the concupiscence of the flesh. At most, affective love move this problem away from the field of consciousness, even bringing into the relation of a woman to a man (or viceversa) that idealization we spoke about in the preceding chapter.

What affectivity brings into the reciprocal relation between a woman and a man is still only the “material” of love.

Fully-mature protection against the concupiscence of the flesh is found only in the deep realism of virtue, and the point here is precisely the virtue of chastity. Affectivity, however, and this “idealization” that is born on its substratum in the relation X-Y and Y-X, can be very helpful in forming the virtue of chastity. Nevertheless, even the most delicate natural reactions that arise on the ground of affectivity with respect to “femininity or “masculinity” do not by themselves create an adequately deep basis for the love of the person to crystallize.

In fact, a certain danger exists that the concupiscence of the flesh will absorb these reactions, that it will assimilate them as a kind of “accompaniment” that will obscure its proper relation to the human being of the other sex.

It must be added that when affectivity is not strengthened with virtue but left to its own devices, and in this way made to face the powerful concupiscence of the flesh, it is most often reduced to that role. Indeed, it then adds from itself a certain new moment; it makes love something of a subjective “taboo” in which affection is everything and decides everything.

The problem of subjectivism appears right here, for it is affection more than anything else that introduces a subjective moment into human love. Affection must be distinguished from affectivity. By affectivity we understand the ability to react to certain values connected with the “human being of the other sex” (“femininity” – “masculinity” – “charm” – “strength”). Affection, however, is a subjective psychical fact bound with the reaction to various values, and therefore it is bound with deeds that are formed in the orbit of that reaction, in its extension, so to speak. So, sensual-bodily affections are joined with the reaction of sensuality and with the exterior or interior deeds that have their source in the concupiscence of the flesh. Affections are also joined with the reactions of affectivity and with deeds to which these reactions create a stimulus. When we speak of the need for integration, that is, for the correct incorporation of all that proceeds from sensuality and affectivity into an ethically and fully-mature relation of one person to another, then we take fully into account the plasticity of human affection. Affection can develop and adjust to what man consciously forms with his will. The integration of love demands that man consciously forms with his will all that the senses provide him with in the reactions of sensuality and affectivity, so that by thoroughly affirming the value of the person he places all this on the level of a relation between persons and keeps it within the boundaries of a true union of persons.

Subjectivism differs fundamentally from subjectivity, from the subjective profile of every love. Subjectivity belongs to the nature of love which concerns two subjects (a subject), Y and X. Subjectivism, on the other hand, is a distortion of the essence of love — it is such an overgrowth of the subjective moment that the objective value of love becomes partially or completely absorbed and lost In it.
"

 

[edlinked]

"
Love in the subjective profile is always some psychological situation, a lived experience evoked by some sexual value and concentrated around it in the subject or in both subjects mutually experiencing love. Love in the objective profile is an inter-personal fact; it is reciprocity and friendship based on a community in the good, and so it is always a union of two persons that become their belonging to each other. The objective profile cannot be replaced by two subjective profiles or their sum — these are two completely aspects of love.

Sensual lived experiences possess their own appetitive dynamic linked to sensation and to the sexual vitality of the body. Affective lived experiences also possess their own rhythm; they aim at creating a positive mood that facilitates a sense of closeness to the beloved person and of some spontaneous communication with him.

Love, however, aims at unifying through self giving to each other. This fact has a profound objective, even ontological, meaning, and, therefore, it belongs to the objective profile of love. Sensual and affective lived experiences are not identified with it, although they create a group of conditions among which this fact becomes a reality.

The sexual value, which in various shapes constitutes, so to speak, a crystallizing center of the sensual affective erotic lived experiences, must be firmly joined in the consciousness and the will with the relation toward the value of the person—the person who in a sense provides the content of those lived experiences. Only then can one think about the union of persons and their belonging to each other. Without this, then, “love” has merely an erotic meaning and does not have the essential meaning—that is, a personal meaning: it leads toward a sexual union, but one that is not justified by a true union of persons. This situation has a utilitarian character, as the relation of persons to each other is determined by the realization of what is contained in the verb “to use”. Then, X (she) belongs to Y (him) as an object of use, and by giving Y an opportunity to be used, X herself tries to find some pleasure in it.” This attitude on both sides is fundamentally contrary to love, so there can be no talk about a union of persons. On the contrary, everything is in a sense prepared for a conflict of mutual interests and only waits for an explosion. Egoism — egoism of the senses or egoism of affections— can only for a time be concealed in the recesses of the fictitious structure which, in supposedly good faith, is called “love”. Over time, however, all the dishonesty of this structure must become evident. One of the greatest sufferings is when love turns out to be not what it was considered to be, but something quite contrary.

The point is to avoid such disillusionments…

Spousal love consists, on the one hand, in the giving of the person, and, on the other hand, in the reception of this giving. The “mystery” of reciprocity is intertwined in this — reception must be at once giving, and giving at once reception. Love is by its nature reciprocal: one who knows how to receive also knows how to give —of course, we mean a proficiency that is symptomatic of love, for there is also a proficiency of receiving and a proficiency of giving that is symptomatic of egoism.

The proficiency of giving and receiving –the one symptomatic of love—is possessed by such a man whose relation to a woman is permeated with the thorough affirmation of the value of her person. This proficiency is also possessed by such a woman whose relation to a man is permeated with the affirmation of the value of his person. Such an attitude creates the most interior climate of giving — the personal climate of entire spousal love. Both persons need this genuine ability to affirm the value of the person, and they need this so that both the giving of one’s person and the reception of this giving are fully-mature. Only that woman is capable of truly giving herself who is fully convinced about the value of her person and of the value of the person of the man to whom she gives herself. And only that man is capable of fully receiving the self-giving of a woman who is thoroughly conscious of the greatness of this gift—and he cannot possess such awareness without the affirmation of the value of the person. Being conscious of the value of the gift awakens the need of gratitude and reciprocation that would match the greatness of the gift. This also shows how thoroughly spousal love, love of reciprocal self-giving, must contain in itself the interior structure of friendship.
"

 

[edlinked]

"
In any case, it is only when we move on the plane of the person in the orbit of his essential value, that all the objective greatness of spousal love, of reciprocal self-giving, and of the belonging of persons – of a woman and a man— becomes understandable and transparent. However we cannot enter into the proper orbit of the problem as long as we reflect on this theme “from the position” of the sexual value itself and of the play of affections and passions related to it. In that case, it would be impossible to comprehend these principles of sexual morality that remain closely connected with the commandment to love, which, as has been stated, is the “personalistic norm”: both it itself and all of its consequences become transparent only when we move on the plane of the person, in the orbit of his essential value.

There exists responsibility in love —responsibility for the person, the one who is drawn into the closest community of being and acting, who in a way is made one’s possession by taking advantage of his self giving. And therefore there exists responsibility for one’s own love: is it mature and thorough enough that in its boundaries this enormous trust of the other person, the hope generated from his love —the hope that one does not lose one’s “soul” by giving oneself, but, quite the contrary, finds the greater fullness of one’s existence –is not going to suffer a disappointment. Responsibility for love is reduced, as is evident, to responsibility for the person, proceeding from it and also returning to it. Therefore, this responsibility is enormous. However, its magnitude can be understood only by the one who has a thorough sense of the value of the person. The one who possesses only the capacity to react to sexual values connected with the person and inhering in him, without, however, seeing the very value of the person, will continue to confuse love with erotics and will complicate his own life as well as that of others, thus ruining for himself and for them the proper sense of love and its essential “flavor”. For this “flavor” of love is bound with the sense of responsibility for the person. After all, this sense implies concern for the true good of the person –the quintessence of all altruism and at the same time an infallible sign of some expansion of one’s “I”, of one’s existence, with this other “I” and with this other existence, which is for me as close as my own. The sense of responsibility for the other person is at times full of concern, but it is never in itself unpleasant or painful. For what comes to light in it is not a constriction or impoverishment of man, but precisely his enrichment and expansion. Therefore love separated from the sense of responsibility for the person is a denial of itself, and, as a rule, is always egoism. The more the sense of responsibility for the person, the more true love there is…

The truth about the person as the object of choice is crystallized precisely in the fact that the very value of the person is, for the one who chooses, the value to which he subordinates all others. Sexual values, which act on the senses and affections, are grasped properly. If they constituted the only or the primary motive of choosing a person, this choice would be in itself incomplete and untrue, for it would deviate from the full truth about its object, about the person. Such a choice would have to constitute the point of departure for love that is disintegrated, hence also incomplete and untrue.
True love, love that is interiorly full, is one in which we choose a person for his own sake; thus in it a man chooses a woman and a woman a man not merely as a “partner” for sexual life, but as a person to whom he or she wants to give his or her life. The sexual values, so vibrant in sensual and affective lived experiences, accompany this decision and contribute to its psychological vividness, but they do not determine its depth. The very “core” of choosing a person must be personal, not merely sexual. Life will test the value of the choice and the true greatness of love.

It is most fully put to the test when the sensual-affective lived-experience itself diminishes and the sexual values themselves cease, in a sense, to act. Then, only the value of the person will remain, and the interior truth of love will become evident. If this love was true self-giving and belonging of persons, then it will not only survive but even be strengthened and confirmed.
"

 

[edlinked]

"
By analyzing love under three different aspects (the metaphysical, psychological, and ethical), we managed to distinguish many of its elements. The point is to integrate the elements correctly, both in every person and between them, between a woman and a man, so that they form a proper personal and interpersonal whole. That is why the function of integration is so important. Love cannot remain merely a subjective “situation” in which the energies of sensuality and affectivity that are awakened by the drive come to light. For then it does not measure up to the person nor does unite persons. Love must be firmly based on the affirmation of the value of the person so that it can attain full personal value and unite properly a man and a woman. Taking this affirmation as a departure point, one can easily proceed to thoroughly desiring the good for the beloved person — the good worthy of the person ---- which confers on love a “beatifying” character. People, a woman and a man, long for love, because they count on the happiness that it will bring into their life.

Longing for the true happiness for the other person and genuine self-giving for his good impress on love the invaluable mark of altruism. All this, however, may not mature and crystallize in the love between a man and a woman if what prevails is the concupiscible attitude, love of desire, or especially desire born from the reactions of sensuality, even if placed against the background of rich affective lived-experiences. These lived-experiences give love a “flavor”, but do not always contain its objective essence, which is most closely connected with reciprocal affirmation of the value of the person.

For love is something different from amorous lived experiences. Love is formed on the basis of a thorough and fully responsible relation of a person to another person, whereas amorous lived-experiences are born spontaneously in reactions of sensuality and affectivity. A very abundant development of these lived-experiences may conceal in itself an underdevelopment of love. Therefore, in our analysis of love, we drew attention to the necessity of distinguishing between these two profiles: the objective and the subjective.
And therefore we must consider very seriously the possibility of a disintegration of love. This refers to a lived-experience or even a number of amorous lived-experiences that find their source and basis in the senses and affections, while themselves being still personally immature. The desintegration means above all an underdevelopment of the ethical essence of love.

(Man as a composite “multilayered” being is manifested in a multitude of dynamisms having their specific interior ends. The bodily, psychical, and also personal “layers” take part in the lived-experience of love. The integration of these three kinds of dynamism takes place in the human act, that is, in this case, in the act of love. They become then a part of the human act, which means that its totality manifested in them as in proper parts, in the way appropriate for each part. This integration is not something arbitrary, but constitutes the program of “unifying oneself”, of fulfilling oneslf, that is proper to man. Therefore, the lack of integration of these factors in the act is not only a lack but also a counter-integration. And the “disintegration means some — more or less profound— inability to possess oneself and govern oneself through self-determination”. )

The manifestations of sensuality or affectivity in relation to the person of the other sex, manifestations that are born earlier and developed faster than virtue, are not yet love. However, they are usually taken for love and called by the name of love.
Only the correct concentration of the particular sensual –affective elements around the very value of the person allows us to speak of love.

Hence one may not call love what is merely its element or “part”, since an improper concentration of these “parts” or elements can result not in love, but rather in the denial of love. Furthermore, there is a fundamental postulate from the viewpoint of ethics: for the good of love, for the sake of realizing love’s true essence both in every person and between persons, it is necessary to be freed from all those “amorous” lived-experiences that do not find justification in true love, that is, in the reciprocal relation between a man and a woman based on a mature affirmation of the value of the person. This postulate hits the crux of the matter concerning chastity. The word chastity speaks of being free from all that “makes dirty”. Love must be in a sense transparent: through all lived experiences, through all deeds that find their source in it, it must always be apparent that this relation to the person of the other sex proceeds from a genuine affirmation of his value. Since the lived-experiences and deeds that deprive love of this transparency spring from the substratum of the senses and the affections connected to them, a separate virtue is needed in order to protect from this side the true character and objective profile of love. This virtue is chastity, which is allied most closely with the love of persons Y and X.
”

 

[fpt]

I guess we agree to greatly disagree. Here is some info:
"
Sex, however, which is above all manifested in the body, and which as a property of the body falls under the senses, creates a possibility of concupiscence. The concupiscence of the flesh is most closely linked to sensuality. Sensuality reacts to the sexual values connected precisely with the body, and this reaction possesses a directional character (inherent orderly toward something).

From this first stage of the reaction of sensuality is very easy to transition to the next one, which is desire. In the first stage, we find out that this value “reaches” the subject, whereas the case of desire, the subject clearly turns toward the value. Something in the subject starts to gravitate toward and cling to it, and moreover, some vehement, spontaneous process starts in the subject (in man) and proceeds in the direction of ultimately willing this value. Sensual desire is not yet willing, but clearly tries to become it.
This is a source of great tensions in the interior life of the person: these tensions are linked to the virtue of temperance.

The reactions of sensuality possess a directional character not merely from the side of the object, where the concupiscence of the flesh is not limited to the sensitive concupiscible power but imparts itself to the will and attempts to impose on the will its own proper relation to the object.

The direction of the reaction first of all points to the “body and sex”, and secondly to “use”. It is sensual desire that tends toward this together with “bodily love”, which seeks satisfaction in the “body and sex” through use. Once this “love” is satisfied, the entire relation to the object ceases; interest in it disappears until the moment when desire re-awakens. Sensuality finds it “outlet” in desire. The concupiscence of the flesh goes in the direction of finding “an outlet”, and after having found it, the entire relation to the object of desire breaks off. In the animal world, where sexual life is regulated by the reproductive instinct correctly aligned with the need to preserve the species, such a closing of the concupiscible reaction is completely sufficient. In the world of persons, however, a serious danger of a moral nature emerges at this point.

“Bodily love”, which grows from the very concupiscence of the flesh, does not contain in itself the value that love of the person should possess. For the concupiscence of the flesh replaces the object of love, which is the person, with another, namely the “body and sex” linked to some person. As is known, the reaction of sensuality is not related to the person as person, but only to the “body and sex” of a concrete person, precisely “as a possible object of use”. Thus, as a matter of fact, in the field of vision of desire proceeding from the concupiscence of the flesh, the person of the other sex is present not as a person but as the “body and sex”. The place of the personal value that is essential to love is taken by the sexual value itself, which in turn becomes the center for crystallizing the whole lived-experience. Because the lived-experience is accompanied by the sensual affection of love, desire acquires the character of an amorous lived-experience — one that is strong and intense, because it is firmly based on the sexual reactions of the body and on the senses. When speaking of the “sensual affection of love” we do not mean the reaction of affectivity alone, which itself does not react to the “body and the sex”, but to the “human being of the other sex” – “femininity” or “masculinity”, as the analysis in chapter II revealed. “Affection” in this case signifies a sensual state evoked first of all by the desire of the “body and sex” as that which corresponds to sensuality alone, and then by the satisfaction of this desire through “bodily love”.

This concupiscence leads to “love” that is not love, for it evokes amorous lived-experiences on the basis of sensual desire alone and its satisfaction. These lived-experiences have the person of the other sex for their object, and at the same time, they do not measure up the person, for they stop merely on the level of the “body and sex” as their proper and only content. From here the disintegration of love proceeds. With great force, the concupiscence of the flesh pushes toward bodily intimacy, toward sexual intercourse. However, this intimacy and intercourse grown out of the concupiscence of the flesh alone do not unite a man and a woman as persons, do not have the value of a personal union, and are not love in its proper (i.e. ethical) meaning. On the contrary, this sexual intimacy and intercourse that grow out of the concupiscence of the flesh alone are a denial of the love of persons, for at their basis lies the directional character to “use”—the reaction characteristic of pure sensuality. This reaction must be incorporated in a correct and honorable relation to the person, and this we call integration. When left to its own devices, the concupiscence of the flesh is not a source of the person’s love, even though it evokes amorous (erotic) lived-experiences charged with a large dose of sensual affections.
"

It is good thing to quote many sentences coming from a holy thinker, from a holy philosopher and from a holy theologian,* but after it is very relevant of summing up this thought by giving your own analysis, and it is important to try of making conclusions for the life of couples.*

What is always morally wrong, per se? What is neutral, always, and can be become morally wrong in function of circumstances, intentions and effects??

Do you support the moral theology of Ronald Conte Jr on the sexual foreplay and on the definition of some sexual sins in the context of the marital act? Yes or No??

 

[fpt]

Corrections.

It is good thing to quote many sentences coming from a holy thinker, from a holy philosopher and from a holy theologian,* but after it is very relevant of summing up this thought by giving your own analysis, and it is important to try of making conclusions for the life of couples.*

What is always morally wrong, per se? What is neutral (thus good, per se), always, and can ***become ***morally wrong in function of circumstances, intentions and effects??

Do you support the moral theology of Ronald Conte Jr on the sexual foreplay and on the definition of ***any ***sexual sins in the context of the marital act? Yes or No??

 

[fpt]

I guess we agree to greatly disagree. Here is some info:
"
Sex, however, which is above all manifested in the body, and which as a property of the body falls under the senses, creates a possibility of concupiscence. The concupiscence of the flesh is most closely linked to sensuality. Sensuality reacts to the sexual values connected precisely with the body, and this reaction possesses a directional character (inherent orderly toward something).

From this first stage of the reaction of sensuality is very easy to transition to the next one, which is desire. In the first stage, we find out that this value “reaches” the subject, whereas the case of desire, the subject clearly turns toward the value. Something in the subject starts to gravitate toward and cling to it, and moreover, some vehement, spontaneous process starts in the subject (in man) and proceeds in the direction of ultimately willing this value. Sensual desire is not yet willing, but clearly tries to become it.
This is a source of great tensions in the interior life of the person: these tensions are linked to the virtue of temperance.

The reactions of sensuality possess a directional character not merely from the side of the object, where the concupiscence of the flesh is not limited to the sensitive concupiscible power but imparts itself to the will and attempts to impose on the will its own proper relation to the object.

The direction of the reaction first of all points to the “body and sex”, and secondly to “use”. It is sensual desire that tends toward this together with “bodily love”, which seeks satisfaction in the “body and sex” through use. Once this “love” is satisfied, the entire relation to the object ceases; interest in it disappears until the moment when desire re-awakens. Sensuality finds it “outlet” in desire. The concupiscence of the flesh goes in the direction of finding “an outlet”, and after having found it, the entire relation to the object of desire breaks off. In the animal world, where sexual life is regulated by the reproductive instinct correctly aligned with the need to preserve the species, such a closing of the concupiscible reaction is completely sufficient. In the world of persons, however, a serious danger of a moral nature emerges at this point.

*I ask you questions and you do not answer. *

1. The marital act is done for 4 ends:
   The expressing of the conjugal love???
   The fact of being a procreator, the participation to the human creation, make babies, to be open to the life???
   The fact of improve the bonding of the conjugal love???
   The fact of avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence: here, if one spouse refuses and denies, doctrinally speaking, the physical rights of the other, the great risks are the adultery, the masturbation, the bad feelings, the conjugal sexual frustration without just reason. Yes, each spouse is the “keeper angel” of the sexual chastity of the other???
2. The Song of Songs talks about many sexual caresses and sensual acts for the conjugal lovers???
3. Are you against the notion of the marital debt with all the moral regime that she implies? The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the donation / the reception of bodies, the sexual rights on the body of the other, the wife’s body is the husband’s body, the husband’s body is the wife’s body, the sexual privileges of each one on the body of the other, the rights to give conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms to the other, the rights to receive conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms from and by the other. The marital debt is one of elements of the marriage. The marriage implies many sexual vows, in favor of the other???
4. Do you deny the physical rights of each one on the body of the other during a session of the marital act? Do you refuse the existence of those sexual carnal rights to give and to receive, in love and the tenderness during a session of the marital act? Do you support to the acception of the definition of sexual sin of masturbation seen at the manner of Ronald Conte Jr?
5. The preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries to give or to receive, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation, in the context of the marital act, are:
   Some acts of the conjugal love?? Some acts of the conjugal tenderness??
   Some acts for expressing the conjugal love??? Some acts of conjugal friendship???Some acts of conjugal faith??? Some acts of conjugal trust?? Some acts of conjugal confidence??? Some acts expressing the donation of the body?? Some acts expressing the reception of body??? Some acts refusing to promote the doctrinal reductionism of the marital act to a simple coitus???
6. The fact of neglecting his wife, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels, in the quantity and the quality??? The fact of neglecting her husband, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels, in the quantity and the quality???

Could you give your answers, in link with your understanding of the Catholic Teaching?

 

[fpt]

edlinked;12634961:

I guess we agree to greatly disagree. Here is some info:
"
Sex, however, which is above all manifested in the body, and which as a property of the body falls under the senses, creates a possibility of concupiscence. The concupiscence of the flesh is most closely linked to sensuality. Sensuality reacts to the sexual values connected precisely with the body, and this reaction possesses a directional character (inherent orderly toward something).

From this first stage of the reaction of sensuality is very easy to transition to the next one, which is desire. In the first stage, we find out that this value “reaches” the subject, whereas the case of desire, the subject clearly turns toward the value. Something in the subject starts to gravitate toward and cling to it, and moreover, some vehement, spontaneous process starts in the subject (in man) and proceeds in the direction of ultimately willing this value. Sensual desire is not yet willing, but clearly tries to become it.
This is a source of great tensions in the interior life of the person: these tensions are linked to the virtue of temperance.

The reactions of sensuality possess a directional character not merely from the side of the object, where the concupiscence of the flesh is not limited to the sensitive concupiscible power but imparts itself to the will and attempts to impose on the will its own proper relation to the object.

The direction of the reaction first of all points to the “body and sex”, and secondly to “use”. It is sensual desire that tends toward this together with “bodily love”, which seeks satisfaction in the “body and sex” through use. Once this “love” is satisfied, the entire relation to the object ceases; interest in it disappears until the moment when desire re-awakens. Sensuality finds it “outlet” in desire. The concupiscence of the flesh goes in the direction of finding “an outlet”, and after having found it, the entire relation to the object of desire breaks off. In the animal world, where sexual life is regulated by the reproductive instinct correctly aligned with the need to preserve the species, such a closing of the concupiscible reaction is completely sufficient. In the world of persons, however, a serious danger of a moral nature emerges at this point.

**Corrections
**

*I ask you questions and you do not answer. *

In general, do you deny the right to get the pleasures, in the respect of the moral order of the human nature??

1. The marital act is done for 4 ends:
   The expressing of the conjugal love???
   The fact of being a procreator, the participation to the human creation, make babies, to be open to the life???
   The fact of improving the bonding of the conjugal love???
   The fact of avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence: here, if one spouse refuses and denies, doctrinally speaking, the physical rights of the other, the great risks are the adultery, the masturbation, the bad feelings, the conjugal sexual frustration without just reason. Yes, each spouse is the “keeper angel” of the sexual chastity of the other???
2. The Song of Songs talks about many sexual caresses and sensual acts for the conjugal lovers???
3. Are you against the notion of the marital debt with all the moral regime that she implies? The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the donation / the reception of bodies, the sexual rights on the body of the other, the wife’s body is the husband’s body, the husband’s body is the wife’s body, the sexual privileges of each one on the body of the other, the rights to give conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms to the other, the rights to receive conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms from and by the other. The marital debt is one of elements of the marriage. The marriage implies many sexual vows, in favor of the other???
4. Do you deny the physical rights of each one on the body of the other during a session of the marital act? Do you refuse the existence of those sexual carnal rights to give and to receive, in love and the tenderness during a session of the marital act? Do you support to the acception of the definition of sexual sin of masturbation seen at the manner of Ronald Conte Jr?
5. The preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries to give or to receive, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation, in the context of the marital act, are:
   Some acts of the conjugal love?? Some acts of the conjugal tenderness??
   Some acts for expressing the conjugal love??? Some acts of conjugal friendship???Some acts of conjugal faith??? Some acts of conjugal trust?? Some acts of conjugal confidence??? Some acts expressing the donation of the body?? Some acts expressing the reception of body??? Some acts refusing to promote the doctrinal reductionism of the marital act to a simple coitus???
6. The fact of neglecting his wife, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels, in the quantity and the quality??? The fact of neglecting her husband, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong, in two levels, in the quantity and the quality???

Could you give your answers, in link with your understanding of the Catholic Teaching?

Do you deny the right for each couple to find out their own conjugal erotism*** that respects the moral order of the marriage and of the conjugal act***? Yes? No?

 

[clem456]

Edlinked:

You should use the quote feature and provide a reference link when you are posting someone else’s material.
Highlight the quoted text. Click the yellow quote button above on the tool bar.

I think your quote is from JP2?

 

[fpt]

The list of principle rights in link with the conjugal act is written!!! Do you want to read it? Maybe and certainly, there are many lacks, of course. I have not written the moral regime of each right, it will be too long.

Are you ready? This list can, may be, disturb some readers!!!

 

[clem456]

The list of principle rights in link with the conjugal act is written!!! Do you want to read it? Maybe and certainly, there are many lacks, of course. I have not written the moral regime of each right, it will be too long.

Are you ready? This list can, may be, disturb some readers!!!

If it is from the Church, it cannot be disturbing. I am not familiar with any such list from the Church.

 

[fpt]

If it is from the Church, it cannot be disturbing. I am not familiar with any such list from the Church.

Of course, generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church does not often write lists. for instance, the list of heresies and of ideologies can be done my catholic thinkers. The Catholic teaching is linked to: *the Holy Bible, the Magisterium of all Ecumenical councils, all the official Papal Documents, the Holy Tradition, the Canon Law, the official documents from the Curia of Vatican (congregations and Councils), decisions of supreme catholic courts of Vatican, the objective realistic personalist and phenomenological philosophy (metaphysics, teleology, phenomenology, personalism, natural sciences, the realism, the good rationalism), the moral theology in link with the revealed anthropology, the dialogue between Faith and Reason and the dialogue between Faith and Reason.
*

By definition, this list of rights, because of the particular topic, is sexed and sexual without taboo, in the details with all the subtleties. Of course, this list can be debated, can be criticized, can be rewritten, can be changed and can be modified. All the helps are helpful and useful. The intellectual confrontations of thoughts are very important for improving my own thought. As English is not my mother tongue, the lack of an academical English is, sorry. Here, my purpose is to make on focus on the sexual rights of each member of a couple in the respect of the moral order of the conjugal act.

The moral regime of each right is not written, it is too long. But by my messages on this forum, you are able to feel my views on the moral regime of some.

I guess that you can be stupefied by this list, too much on the material aspects.

 

[fpt]

Corrections

Of course, generally speaking, the Roman Catholic Church does not often write lists. for instance, the list of heresies and of ideologies can be done by catholic thinkers. The listing is possible. The Catholic teaching is linked to: the Holy Bible, the Magisterium,* all the*** Ecumenical councils, all the official Papal Documents, the Holy Tradition, the Canon Law, the official documents from the Curia of Vatican (congregations and Councils), decisions of supreme catholic courts of Vatican, the objective realistic personalist and phenomenological philosophy (metaphysics, teleology, phenomenology, personalism, natural sciences, the realism, the good rationalism, the catholic sexology, the moderation, the rules of Reason, the good sense), the moral theology in link with the revealed anthropology, the dialogue between Faith and Reason and the dialogue between Faith and Reason.

By definition, this list of rights, because of the particular topic, is sexed and sexual without taboo, in the details with all the subtleties. Of course, this list can be debated, can be criticized, can be rewritten, can be changed and can be modified. All the helps are helpful and useful. The intellectual confrontations of thoughts are very important for improving my own thought. As English is not my mother tongue, the lack of an academical English is, sorry. Here, my purpose is to make on focus on the sexual rights of each member of a couple in the respect of the moral order of the conjugal act.

The moral regime of each right is not written, it is too long. But by my messages on this forum, you are able to feel my views on the moral regime of some.

I guess that you can be stupefied by this list, too much on the material aspects.

The list of moral prohibitions, per se, is possible to. The list of direct and voluntary sinful actions, for only one member, is possible, even if the other does not sin in the context of the marital act: that is the mystery of the catholic ethics, the passive agent of sin (suffered the sin of the other under particular conditions) and the active agent.

 

[fpt]

If it is from the Church, it cannot be disturbing. I am not familiar with any such list from the Church.

As catholic, we have to fight against those thoughts, those ideologies, those heresies and those manners of thinking. Like catholic lay person, we have this moral obligation.

The Encratism of the marital act;
The Manicheism of the marital act;
The Catharism of the marital act;
The Jansenism of the marital act;
The Fideism of the marital act;
The Quietism of the marital act;
The english Puritanism of the marital act;
The american Puritanism of the marital act;
The anglican Victorianism of the marital act;
The Theoretical Providentialism of the marital act;
The primary anti-temporalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-personalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-phenomenologism of the marital act;
The primary anti-sexologism of the marital act;
The primary anti-alterity of the marital act;
The primary anti-complementarity of the marital act;
The Quiverfullism of the marital act;
The absolute procreationism of the marital act;
The Pharisianism of the marital act;
The Prudism of the marital act;
The Angelism of the mariral act;
The Presumptionism of the near occasion of sin of the mariral act;
The Externalism of the marital act;
The Judgmentalism of the marital act;
The Pessimism of the marital act;
The Reductionism of the marital act to a simple coitus;
The Ronald L. Contism Jr of the acception of the definition of the sexual sin of masturbation by hands, by fingers, by tongues and by mouth, in the context of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of right to the body, of right on the body and of the right of the body for each member of the couple;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of four ends of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to some foreplay to give and to receive, in the context of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to some sexual foreplay to give and to receive, in the context of the marital act;

Morally speaking, in the context of the marital act: **a first small selection
**

Does she have the right to use foreplay on the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to use foreplay on the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
are the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to stare the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to see / to look at / to stare the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to see / to look at / to stare the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Is there the opposable right to see / to look at / to stare the nudity of the other, in the love and in the tenderness?? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to listen the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to listen the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to hear the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to hear the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to touch the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to touch the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to kiss the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to kiss the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to caresse the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to caresse the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to massage the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to massage the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to lick the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to lick the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to suck the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to suck the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.

I suppose that you can, may be, be disturbed or… give me the good words!!! My final list is very long and linked to notions of activity (to give and to expect to give) and passivity (to receive and to expect to receive). May be a private message!!!

 

[fpt]

Corrections:

As catholic, we have to fight against those thoughts, those ideologies, those heresies and those manners of thinking. Like catholic lay person, we have this moral obligation.

The Encratism of the marital act;
The Manicheism of the marital act;
The Catharism of the marital act;
The Jansenism of the marital act;
The Fideism of the marital act;
The Quietism of the marital act;
The english Puritanism of the marital act;
The american Puritanism of the marital act;
The anglican Victorianism of the marital act;
The Theoretical Providentialism of the marital act;
The primary anti-temporalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-personalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-phenomenologism of the marital act;
The primary anti-sexologism of the marital act;
The primary anti-alterity of the marital act;
The primary anti-complementarity of the marital act;
The Quiverfullism of the marital act;
The absolute procreationism of the marital act;
The Pharisianism of the marital act;
The Prudism of the marital act;
The Angelism of the mariral act;
The Presumptionism of the near occasion of sin of the mariral act;
The Externalism of the marital act;
The Judgmentalism of the marital act;
The Pessimism of the marital act;
The Reductionism of the marital act to a simple coitus;
The Ronald L. Contism Jr of the acception of the definition of the sexual sin of masturbation by hands, by fingers, by tongue and by mouth, in the context of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of right to the body, of right on the body and of the right of the body for each member of the couple;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of four ends of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to some foreplay to give and to receive, in the context of the marital act;
The doctrinal refusal of the existence of rights to some sexual foreplay to give and to receive, in the context of the marital act;

Morally speaking, in the context of the marital act: **a first small selection
**

Does she have the right to use foreplay on the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to use foreplay on the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
are the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to stare the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to see / to look at / to stare the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to see / to look at / to stare the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Is there the opposable right to see / to look at / to stare the nudity of the other, in the love and in the tenderness?? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to listen the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to listen the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to hear the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to hear the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to touch the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to touch the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to kiss the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to kiss the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to caresse the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to caresse the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to massage the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to massage the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to lick the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to lick the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to suck the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to suck the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.

I suppose that you can, may be, be disturbed or… give me the good words!!! My final list is very long and linked to notions of activity (to give and to expect to give) and passivity (to receive and to expect to receive). May be a private message!!!

Sorry, if I am already quite direct for some readers.

 

[edlinked]

Edlinked:

You should use the quote feature and provide a reference link when you are posting someone else’s material.
Highlight the quoted text. Click the yellow quote button above on the tool bar.

I think your quote is from JP2?

Clem456, yes everything is from Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla. Sorry about that.

 

[edlinked]

Fpt, I dont know if you understand the point. You understand who is Karol Wojtyla right? If there is something about the church that he needed to know (for the book he wrote specifically about the relations of people in marriage), I assure you, he knew about it.

FPT, You say that as catholics we have to fight against those ideas, those heresies, What are you saying, that what I quoted about the book are ideas that we have to be careful about, also? Could you explain this to me, because I want to know clearly which are the ideas that you think we have to be careful on, and if you are referring to all my quoted paragraphs, or just the stuff you posted?

 

[edlinked]

Just to be clear on this. The information on post # 787, 788, 789, 790, 791 come also from the book Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla. So it is not my opinion or conclusion.

I urge everyone that have not read the book to read it, it is any catholic must read book, even more important for discussions about sex.

 

[edlinked]

Fpt, also, I think it would be helpful if you posted what is love and tenderness for you?

 

[edlinked]

Fpt, I forgot to add, don’t mind post# 804 as I misunderstood something badly and found about it later so I couldn’t erase it.