Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[fpt]

I can only say it one more time.
You are taking elements that are part of the conjugal act and elevating them to moral rights.
A spouse does not have a right to the provision of pleasure by the other spouse. That makes the spouse an object. Persons cannot be objects. Pleasure is, or can be, or should be, “part of the whole package” in conjugal love.

And since we are chasing our tails now I am unsubscribing.

Do you make the difference between a obligation of means and an obligation of results?

Each member of couple has no moral right, to establish **voluntary ** a strategy, for impeding the normal process of the marital act in what is concerned the potential fecundity and the conjugal sexual joys of each one.

 

[edlinked]

fpt,
For me what continues to be wrong is the approach you take. For me you don’t understand what love means, what is love virtue, what is virtue, what is to be good. What is to want what is good for your spouse, what is want God for your spouse.
For me, you are not analyzing the concept of God’s love (of what the church teaches about God, about love).

You put the song of songs as example, the song of songs takes the desire of the body as examples to explain how desirable we see the body, and to relate them to other things. The context is not about the desire explicitly, that’s not the point. It is not teaching you how to “love”, that’s not the context of it. The desire of the body is something real, and its abuse is very real too.

We are bodies, but more importantly what makes us different from animals is our interiority and souls. And what make us understand Gods love is the Holy Ghost. That’s why saints are the ones to know the truth easier and directly, the objective truth, Gods truth.

What I’ve been saying is that if you put more importance in the body (and its pleasures) it will control you, there is no doubt on that. You have examples in the bible, like that of King David. The importance of that sin says a lot about the power of temptation and sin. King David is a Chosen One, but he sinned because of temptation, that’s the power of evil and how easy is for us to abuse and to get lost (and in this example, specifically because of the desire of the body, which is what we are talking about). That’s why the point is not to see the spouse for sexual pleasing, that’s never going to be true love.

Your views for me are very wrong now, because you seem to imply that we can’t do anything about things because we are just men, and we sin. Saints, are humans too, and they are not like special super men or women, they sacrificed themselves and took their crosses to be saints. They were normal people, just like you or me, and if we do the same, we can become saints.

Mary and Joseph even if they were human they were chosen to be Jesus parents.
Sins even if they are done, we need to aspire sainthood. We fall, and we can continue falling, but we need to get back on track every single time.

What is impossible to humans is possible to God, don’t ever forget that.
Your views come to get pleasure, that’s why I say your approach is very dangerous. The person is and will always be above any type of pleasure.

Like I wrote before, your approach begins on a bad step, because for me you don’t understand what is true love. Or at least, your replies don’t add up on what is true love. If the equation is wrong from the beginning the solution will also be wrong.

What the church on its catechism and its writings states about marriage, comes from true love, Gods love. That’s their initial point, their focal point. The catechism and writings are made by the church and our Popes. (Take in consideration that many or even most of them will have chastity vows). So if you want to understand it correctly, you should understand what is meant as God’s love, only then you will get the correct approach of all that the catechism and writings states about, marriage and about the sexual act. Marriage is for procreation, and for the union of persons, but it should always come from love. Because what you are creating is a human, a person. Love, is not sexual pleasure, therefore, if for you pleasure is the most important thing, it will not be love. True love is reflected on actions, meaning that actions towards that affirmation (the human is greater than any pleasure) will be present, in case it is true love. It’s the same way the bible states about false prophets, a bad tree will not give good fruits.

Like I wrote before, we should come from being virgins, the point is self mastery and you can include here purity of the heart and body. Even if we don’t come from that, that’s the point.

It would be interesting to know where do we get the ideas of all the things you said need to be “forced” by love. Do they really come from love, or do they come from what we see, hear, or think it should be.

You can abuse on sexual intercourse even if it’s consensual for example, pornography. But spouses can abuse on sex to. And a spouse can abuse on the other spouse, by the simple action of not respecting the person over pleasure.

The conjugal duty is not sexual pleasing, it is loving the other. You are the one that is putting sexual pleasing as the most important part in love, which is quite wrong.

Jesus loved us, this is the purest love, and it didn’t need any sexual pleasing. This is my point, love doesn’t need sexual pleasing, so sexual pleasing needs to be subordinated to love. In your case, you don’t actually subordinate sexual pleasing, you force it, this is where for me it is a very wrong approach. You even want and need to justify it by forcing it through love, by love.

 

[edlinked]

If you need sexual pleasure as much that you need to state that love should force sexual pleasing when one of the couples is not in the mood, and that the couple cannot use the church values as an excuse, you are completely wrong. The sexual act should be performed in harmony, how will it be done in harmony if one is not in the mood, or don’t feel well. I assure you that if a spouse don’t want procreation at any time and got married willfully there is a bigger problem behind it (maybe they even can feel used, which then like I wrote before true love is not being acted, as love will never let a person be used as an object of use. Love will never be mistaken, can never be mistaken. Just see if you can mistake Jesus sacrifice as something related to antilove). You can’t force any sexual act on anyone by love, that is antilove, it’s a contradiction. The person is and will always be above any sexual pleasure. That’s why procreation is not about sexual pleasing, is about bringing a person to this world.

This is why I say that for me you don’t understand what true love is. Love is benevolence, love is friendship, love is a divine virtue. And if you don’t have self mastery, chastity temperance, you will not get to true love.

Your views doesn’t reflect love or even tenderness, because the love we are talking about is God’s love.

God’s love doesn’t rely on sexual pleasures. God’s love is not easy, if it was there would be much more saints. But this doesn’t mean it’s ok not to be a saint, you have the purgatory for that. It means you should be always conscious about becoming a saint, and about the first commandment (Love God above everything). Gods way is so difficult that you see some chosen ones fall (like king David, Solomon, etc), but we have to be humble, say sorry and get back on the cross.

God wants you to love your spouse, not for the mere pleasing of your pleasures, but to love the person, the way Jesus loved us. So much He loves us, that Jesus died for us (that is God’s Love). Died for us, the God died for His creation. He is the only person that didn’t deserved to die. This is the correct approach on loving persons. That’s how high the price He thinks we are worth. So, for me, to undermine the person to just pleasing of your pleasures, will never be loving, meaning God’s love of course, but just using as an object of use, for our own pleasures (egoism).

You can never let your instincts override Gods love, because when you do that, you are putting aside God and letting your desires in. Pleasure needs to be ordered by love, only then your spouse will be really loved. You need to learn to sacrifice your needs for others, sometimes , maybe most of the times, that’s sainthood, that’s why it is so difficult. Our “I” gets in our own way. Temptation puts that “I” in front of us for a reason.

Love your spouse with true love (Gods love), I assure you, you will not let down God this way, you will not let down your spouse this way. When you follow God, love, with its justice and responsibility, goes for everything. And be sure that’s the right way. You will always give the person its proper value.

There is a difference in killing and sacrifice. Love sacrifices, because it loves. God sacrificed Himself, not because we were right, or even being good, but because He loves us, even if we get blinded by our own pleasures. His sacrifice means, we can even go that far to kill God, the purest good, because we cant even see the obvious (Gods love, Gods goodness), when egoism, when temptation, when our pleasures are on the way. Love is distorted by our own pleasures. So our pleasures need to be mastered, for us to love the right way, the correct way, the true way.

Hate clouds true love too, so we need to take things that are antilove (or that can become antilove) very seriously. Because they can be very dangerous. The same goes with our pleasures, as they can be antilove and grow hate, and it can grow to hate God (as resentment).

So it is very bad to be wrong in an approach, you need to be very wary on that, that is why the dignity of the person and the responsibility in love, are things not to be said lightly.

Love will protect the person at all cause, without any doubt, against any good. That’s why God died for us, to save us, to protect us, never lower love to the level of sexual pleasure. Never state that marriage is a sacrament of sex, as God is Love. (True Love and sexual pleasure are not even contendants, one is divine the other is in a sense from “flesh”).

You have to aspire sainthood, for that you need to understand love, and to be good. You have to take the cross. The one that Jesus took, undeservingly, but He took it because of love. That’s the objective of goodness, sainthood, and we need to seek it (even in marriage), for ourselves toward others. As Jesus told the disciples, to serve. That which wants to be first in heaven, is the one that will serve the most. This is for everything we do in our lives.

 

[edlinked]

Temptation will be fierce when you are in Gods path, that’s why Gods path is a cross.

Being good and love are intertwined. God is love. Jesus stated in Luke 18:19-27 that only God is good after a man asked Jesus how to be good. He said to the man, if he had carried out all the commandments, and the man said yes, so Jesus asked him to sell all his possessions and follow Him, if he wanted to be perfect. The man went away sadly. For me this is not just about leaving or selling our possessions (our pleasures), but He is telling us in a way what is good, or how to be good. Being good is limitless, love is limitless. You can’t state now I am good, now I have pass the mark of being good. We can never be fulfilled by our “goodness”, in a sense, as to be good doesn’t have a limit.

For us to be out of sin God states that is better to cut a hand or take an eye if that makes you sin (you can be in adultery in your heart if you desire another woman, that is why chastity and self mastery is a must). That is how bad is sin. The prodigal son story, the son lets the pleasures get the better of him. The pleasures of life, without taming them are the ones that make you sin, if you abuse on them or approach them incorrectly, they will make you sin.

Sin and egoism makes you focus on yourself, love makes you focus on others, leaving your “I” behind. Love makes you do good.

If you sin on yourself (masturbation for example), why won’t you sin against others, what makes you sure you will not or cannot.

The problem of sin, is that you will hurt others not only yourself. This is something you got to keep in your conscious. The responsibility for the person is what love protects.

Do to others what you would like them to do for you. You want love, then give love (true love that is). True love makes you subordinate all other goods towards the value of the person, only God is over it, but God is love, so love will never devalue the person.

Heaven is for the ones who are like kids. Pure of hearts, obey like kids, love like kids, being simple. Kids understand tenderness better than grown ups, because sexual pleasure is not in their system yet.

An interesting thing is that sexual pleasing will be abused if you don’t tame it, while love and goodness is limitless. But people tend to get it the other way around, a lot of sex, less good and love.

We got Mary mother of God, a woman, which God wanted to keep pure from the desire of the flesh (Mary had to work for her purity too, accept God, a difficult decision). We got Saint Joseph to complete the family as stated by God. But sexual pleasing was not needed for the love in that family (the Holy Family, a north for us all). He just wanted pure true love. This is a correct approach. Pleasure can only be in marriage as a side effect of procreation.

The church knows love, knows true love, knows Gods love, understands Gods Love and everything the church writes comes from this initial point, from God, from the Holy Spirit. We are the ones that understand things from a wrong approach, as we are not saints and most of the time don’t come from this initial point.

That’s why I put this here: “The abiding conviction of the late Holy Father (John Paul II), that love reveals the meaning of the person and, through the person, of all “flesh,” the whole of creation”.

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the right to the body, of the right on the body and of the right of the body with all the corollaries, the consequences and the implications is a sign of the lack of capacity to enter in the marriage, and thus to assume the conjugal love, in my humble opinion. The marriage is for one part a sexual yoke, if we are not okay with that, it is a great issue. Your view of the ends of marriage is so simple. The catholic doctrine on the articulation of ends of marriage is more complex and complicated. The fact of avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence is one of ends of marriage and of the conjugal act.

 

[fpt]

edlinked ,

The repeated refusal of the marital act [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to adultery, or can facilitate other sexual sins.

The repeated refusal of normal sexual caresses to give or to receive [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other, or can facilitate other sexual sins.

The repeated refusal of the non respect of sexual physical rights [without reasonable reason] can be an one form of provocation to sexual sins of the other, or can facilitate other sexual sins.

Each member of couple has to make proof his or her love via acts, actions, and behaviors. The sexual acts are one part, in the marriage.
We are not in the ideal world without sin. The sin is present, and the rules are the rules. The fact of being the " keeper angel " of the conjugal chastity of the other is a proof of the conjugal love. The marriage is for one part, with the rules of the natural law and of the catholic theology,* a sexual contract, a sexual institution, a sexual alliance and sexual consortium.* The union of bodies and Co makes part of this contractual institution.

 

[fpt]

The respect the natural moral law of the marriage and of the marital act, in the context of the Fall, is already a sign the respect of the will of God.

 

[fpt]

Correction:

The respect the natural moral law of the marriage and of the marital act, in the context of the Fall, is already a sign *of *the respect of the will of God.

The reading of documents of John Paul II is not quite enough. The unitary reading is important. You need to touch down and to be in the real difficult life of couples. Your view on the conjugal sexuality is not enough pragmatic.

 

[edlinked]

Fpt,
I only state that if your reasoning doesn’t start from Gods love it will never take you to Gods love. I am just stating that it doesn’t matter how much you read sometimes, it’s about love and that when you think of the other more than on yourself, this will always be the correct way. You have Judas, that was right at Jesus side, and so many incredible things happened before him, if our hearts are hard, you will not see the obvious (it is as simple as that).

The person will always be first, pleasure will never take that spot, can never take that spot.
God comes to the humble of hearts, to the soft and pure of hearts, more than to intelligent ones, because people that are humble, are the ones that are open to Gods love (they understand it first). (I am not saying that I am humble, but you see people that maybe doesn’t have your education, but you know they are special, you feel the love. You see the sacrifice they are willing to make, and I am like, I could never do this. This is love) And I am sorry, but I don’t feel the love from your views, and for me that is one of the most important things on Gods path. If you don’t feel the love, you don’t feel the goodness, you don’t feel that the other is being looked, protected, loved, as God would look at them, then something is quite wrong. Love can never be mistaken by selfishness, will never be mistaken by it. Will never be mistaken by injustice. Because Love will always sacrifice for the other. Love and goodness are limitless, thats why only God is love and good.

This is a very simple thing. When you state that someone can’t use the catholic church to protect themselves, for me your approach comes right down, its crumbles down, with only this affirmation from your understanding, it tells me you are not coming from the initial point, Gods love.

You write your quotes very complicated for people to understand, because for me you try to make the understanding very “intellectual”. But your approach doesn’t protect the person, it protects pleasure (this is what I understand from your replies.)

Lets say I am the one that’s wrong, I just loose the pleasure of the body, and not even loose it because I just take the approach that the person is more important than any pleasure (that I can never hurt the person in any way by my pleasures or even their own pleasures, and I have to be clear that is not what I think it will hurt them, is that I will analyze and always be wary on everything so that I don’t hurt the person, and no matter if I have to make sacrifices, because if the other loves me, the other will do this for me too. But at the end of the day I will do this for God even if the other doesn’t do this for me. Love your enemies too, says God).

Now, if you are wrong, what are you loosing and what are you informing. For me if you are wrong, you are stating that pleasure is in the same level as love. Marriage is a sacrament of sex, the person cannot take God (as God is love) to protect themselves when they feel they are being attacked, when the person feels threatened, when the person feels attacked by the using of pleasure. And you state that love is behind you, saying that God is behind you. You are stating that God can make people feel bad, and that’s the way it is, so live with it. (Keep in mind this is what I get from your views, let me know if I am wrong on what I am understanding).

Take in consideration that I know pleasure is not bad, but the approach can become bad very easily, because pleasure depends on ourselves, and when this happens it is very difficult to understand when you are abusing, because probably you feel pleasure from it. (For me That’s why even chose ones fall, that’s why it clouds your judgements).

 

[edlinked]

Love will never take the side of pleasure. You state that only reading John Paul II is not enough. Its interesting you say that. You understand that the writings of saints will never go against each other, they will only enhance each other, make you understand things better. Make you understand God better (Gods love better). I understand that Gods love will be understood much better uniting every writing of every saint, that is very clear to me. You will become a better saint if you understand them (or understand the path much better). You will learn sacrifice is part of love, a very important one in fact. Most of the disciples died because of God, because of the love they learned and had of God. Are you willing to give your life (if you state that you cant give up your pleasures?).

Maybe I won’t understand the fullness of Love, if I only read Karol Wojtylas book (a saint that become the Pope), as I know I am not a saint, but from what I understood from it, I got that pleasure will never be Love, and it will be antilove, if you don’t understand Gods love and his attributes. I also understand that Gods love will die for the person, will sacrifice for the person, will never go with something that hurts the person, but will always cure the person, will always help the person, will always make the person full of happiness of a happiness that’s nothing else can approach it.

I have given you examples of the desire of the body and its problems when it is not approached correctly. I have given you examples of what is Gods love (examples from the bible).

We have the greatest example from the Holy Family, Mary, and Joseph. And I still get from your replies, that sexual pleasure is on the level of love, and that sexual pleasure will be protected by love over the person.

For me, the Virgin Mary, stayed a virgin to maintain Her purity, to be Mother of God. Joseph as a saint respected that without any trouble, because he loves God, and understood Gods love. I believe that anyone who follows Her, will get to Her Son for sure. I understand If the spouses get married, they want to procreate, but before that, they want to follow Gods love. I understand that marriage is not for sexual pleasing, it will never be, it is for procreation, to give love, to maintain love, sexual pleasure is never the focus, it is Love, that’s why it is a sacrament.

The will of God is not the will of man. Man does his own will because God will not even force his salvation to us. That’s how much God loves us. We make our own path, if the approach is wrong, you will go the wrong way. The fall happened because evil is really real, not because it was the will of God. Evil and the wrong path is not the will of God, but God lets us decide for ourselves. The interesting part is how the fall came, it came with our understanding, with the science of good and evil. Evil tricked humans, thinking they would become gods with “knowledge”.

The solutions and conclusions of the ideas of the church that you state, are not enough for me, and are quite dangerous (as they can be antilove for me), but you yourself can only make your path, as we all have free will. Just be sure that from them you will reach sainthood, for me that’s the safest bet.

 

[fpt]

Fpt,
I only state that if your reasoning doesn’t start from Gods love it will never take you to Gods love. I am just stating that it doesn’t matter how much you read sometimes, it’s about love and that when you think of the other more than on yourself, this will always be the correct way. You have Judas, that was right at Jesus side, and so many incredible things happened before him, if our hearts are hard, you will not see the obvious (it is as simple as that).

The person will always be first, pleasure will never take that spot, can never take that spot.
God comes to the humble of hearts, to the soft and pure of hearts, more than to intelligent ones, because people that are humble, are the ones that are open to Gods love (they understand it first). (I am not saying that I am humble, but you see people that maybe doesn’t have your education, but you know they are special, you feel the love. You see the sacrifice they are willing to make, and I am like, I could never do this. This is love) And I am sorry, but I don’t feel the love from your views, and for me that is one of the most important things on Gods path. If you don’t feel the love, you don’t feel the goodness, you don’t feel that the other is being looked, protected, loved, as God would look at them, then something is quite wrong. Love can never be mistaken by selfishness, will never be mistaken by it. Will never be mistaken by injustice. Because Love will always sacrifice for the other. Love and goodness are limitless, thats why only God is love and good.

This is a very simple thing. When you state that someone can’t use the catholic church to protect themselves, for me your approach comes right down, its crumbles down, with only this affirmation from your understanding, it tells me you are not coming from the initial point, Gods love.

You write your quotes very complicated for people to understand, because for me you try to make the understanding very “intellectual”. But your approach doesn’t protect the person, it protects pleasure (this is what I understand from your replies.)

Lets say I am the one that’s wrong, I just loose the pleasure of the body, and not even loose it because I just take the approach that the person is more important than any pleasure (that I can never hurt the person in any way by my pleasures or even their own pleasures, and I have to be clear that is not what I think it will hurt them, is that I will analyze and always be wary on everything so that I don’t hurt the person, and no matter if I have to make sacrifices, because if the other loves me, the other will do this for me too. But at the end of the day I will do this for God even if the other doesn’t do this for me. Love your enemies too, says God).

Now, if you are wrong, what are you loosing and what are you informing. For me if you are wrong, you are stating that pleasure is in the same level as love. Marriage is a sacrament of sex, the person cannot take God (as God is love) to protect themselves when they feel they are being attacked, when the person feels threatened, when the person feels attacked by the using of pleasure. And you state that love is behind you, saying that God is behind you. You are stating that God can make people feel bad, and that’s the way it is, so live with it. (Keep in mind this is what I get from your views, let me know if I am wrong on what I am understanding).

Take in consideration that I know pleasure is not bad, but the approach can become bad very easily, because pleasure depends on ourselves, and when this happens it is very difficult to understand when you are abusing, because probably you feel pleasure from it. (For me That’s why even chose ones fall, that’s why it clouds your judgements).

The simple fact of respecting the natural moral order of the dual humanity, of marriage and of the conjugal act is, already, a sign of the respect of Will of God: the fact of respecting of 10 commandments is a sign of the respect of Will of God. The 10 commandments plus the New law (the Evangelical law) represent the natural love, the natural justice, the natural goodness and the catholic charity. For the catholicism, Love is the start of all things, is the end of all things, and is the motor of all things. Only, love and charity are important and essential.

Each of us must act, must react, must behave and must think of, with love: of course, that is a catholic truism. In the catholic marriage, each member of the couple has to act and Co, with the love and in the love. The wife and the husband have to respect their obligations, their duties, their roles, their functions and their responsibilities. The fact of respecting them is, already, an act of love. The fact of trying to be the agent of the happiness of the other is a act of love.

 

[fpt]

Corrections:

The simple fact of respecting the natural moral order of the dual humanity, of marriage and of the conjugal act is, already, a sign of the respect of Will of God: the fact of respecting the 10 commandments is a sign of the respect of Will of God. The 10 commandments plus the New law (the Evangelical law) represent the natural love, the natural justice, the natural goodness and the catholic charity. For the catholicism, Love is the start of all things, is the end of all things, and is the motor of all things. Only, love and charity are important and essential.

Each of us must act, must react, must behave and must think of, with love: of course, that is a catholic truism. In the catholic marriage, each member of the couple has to act and Co, with the love and in the love. The wife and the husband have to respect their obligations, their duties, their roles, their functions and their responsibilities. The fact of respecting them is, already, an act of love. The fact of trying to be the agent of the happiness of the other is *an *act of love.

The personality and the human dignity are essential notions in the catholicism. The moral order of the marriage and of the conjugal act takes in consideration those notions.

 

[fpt]

Fpt,
I only state that if your reasoning doesn’t start from Gods love it will never take you to Gods love. I am just stating that it doesn’t matter how much you read sometimes, it’s about love and that when you think of the other more than on yourself, this will always be the correct way. You have Judas, that was right at Jesus side, and so many incredible things happened before him, if our hearts are hard, you will not see the obvious (it is as simple as that).

The person will always be first, pleasure will never take that spot, can never take that spot.
God comes to the humble of hearts, to the soft and pure of hearts, more than to intelligent ones, because people that are humble, are the ones that are open to Gods love (they understand it first). (I am not saying that I am humble, but you see people that maybe doesn’t have your education, but you know they are special, you feel the love. You see the sacrifice they are willing to make, and I am like, I could never do this. This is love) And I am sorry, but I don’t feel the love from your views, and for me that is one of the most important things on Gods path. If you don’t feel the love, you don’t feel the goodness, you don’t feel that the other is being looked, protected, loved, as God would look at them, then something is quite wrong. Love can never be mistaken by selfishness, will never be mistaken by it. Will never be mistaken by injustice. Because Love will always sacrifice for the other. Love and goodness are limitless, thats why only God is love and good.

This is a very simple thing. When you state that someone can’t use the catholic church to protect themselves, for me your approach comes right down, its crumbles down, with only this affirmation from your understanding, it tells me you are not coming from the initial point, Gods love. Why do you say that?]???

You write your quotes very complicated for people to understand, because for me you try to make the understanding very “intellectual”. But your approach doesn’t protect the person, it protects pleasure (this is what I understand from your replies.)

Lets say I am the one that’s wrong, I just loose the pleasure of the body, and not even loose it because I just take the approach that the person is more important than any pleasure (that I can never hurt the person in any way by my pleasures or even their own pleasures, and I have to be clear that is not what I think it will hurt them, is that I will analyze and always be wary on everything so that I don’t hurt the person, and no matter if I have to make sacrifices, because if the other loves me, the other will do this for me too. But at the end of the day I will do this for God even if the other doesn’t do this for me. Love your enemies too, says God).

Now, if you are wrong, what are you loosing and what are you informing. For me if you are wrong, you are stating that pleasure is in the same level as love. Marriage is a sacrament of sex, the person cannot take God (as God is love) to protect themselves when they feel they are being attacked, when the person feels threatened, when the person feels attacked by the using of pleasure. And you state that love is behind you, saying that God is behind you. You are stating that God can make people feel bad, and that’s the way it is, so live with it. (Keep in mind this is what I get from your views, let me know if I am wrong on what I am understanding).

Take in consideration that I know pleasure is not bad, but the approach can become bad very easily, because pleasure depends on ourselves, and when this happens it is very difficult to understand when you are abusing, because probably you feel pleasure from it. (For me That’s why even chose ones fall, that’s why it clouds your judgements).

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The practice of the conjugal act between husband and wife, in the human fashion, with the mutual agreement of both, with some sexual cooperation, in respecting the rule of opening to the life, because only it feels good, without explicit intention to procreate, but for expressing the conjugal love, or for the bonding the conjugal love, or for avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence, or for getting and for receiving the conjugal sexual pleasures and the conjugal sexual orgasms coming from the marital act in couple, is totally natural, moral and catholic.

These ends and / or those intentions are catholic.

Do you contest this statement? If yes, it is an issue, in my humble opinion!!!

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

Do you deny (refuse) the existence of the right to the body, of the right on the body and of the right of the body with all the corollaries, the consequences and the implications? Do you deny (refuse) the existence of the sexual yoke? Do you deny (refuse) the existence of the sexual object of the marriage? Do you deny (refuse) the sexual donation of the body and the sexual reception of the body consented the day of marriage?

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

One of ends of marriage and of the marital act is the fact avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence, thus each member of couple is for the other a conjugal nurse, a conjugal doctor, a medical lover and a medicinal beloved. The marital debt is helpful and useful for keeping the chastity. Each one must offer his or her body to the other, and to sacrifice, in the reason and the moderation, (rules of reason), in favor of the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. Yes, the practice of the marital act can be a moral treatment, a spiritual treatment and a physical treatment for each member of couple.

The marriage is a voluntary act of love, what means the will to love the other for all the life by the mechanism of the volition.* This love is composed, materially speaking, by the body.* Thus, if you disagree with the fact of having to touch the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you, and if you disagree with the fact of having to be touched by the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you. The marital act and Co is one of hard cores of marriage because the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual covenant and a sexed and sexual consortium: a sexed and sexual donation, and a sexed and sexual reception, for all the life and for all the time, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.

Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate sexual hopes, the legitimate sexual needs, the legitimate sexual desires and the legitimate sexual rights of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. The married male, who is the husband, has to understand the normal sexuality of his female: husband is the teacher of the sexuality of his wife, he is also the professor of the sexuality of his wife, and then he is the doctor and love’s master of the sexuality of his wife. The married female, who is the wife has to understand the normal sexuality of her male: wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the doctress and the master of love of the sexuality of her husband.

The rules of reason, the reasonability, the fair rationality, the objectivity, the justice, the natural goodness, the catholic charity, the natural love, the supernatural love, the moderation, the balance, the efforts and the sacrifices, the principle of practice of the marital act and the exception of un-practice of the marital act are the rules of marriage.

Conclusion:*** “the remedium concupiscentiae as purposes of marriage must result from love as a virtue”***. Each member of the couple has to try that the partner does not fall into the sexual sins: the medical end of marriage and of the marital act (the medicinal end). The fact of avoiding the wrong effect of the concupiscence is important, a right, a duty and an obligation for each one. Yes, the wife is the nurse and the doctoress of the sexuality of her husband, and the husband is the nurse and the doctor of the sexuality of his wife. Each member of couple is like a keeper angel for the chastity of the other.

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The respect the natural moral law of the marriage and of the marital act, in the context of the Fall (after the Original Sin), is already a sign of the respect of the will of God.

Do you agree with this sentence? Yes or No?

 

[fpt]

Correction: with a plus

edlinked,

The respect **of **the natural moral law of the marriage and of the marital act, in the context of the Fall (after the Original Sin), is already a sign of the respect of the will of God.

Do you agree with this sentence? Yes or No?

How do you answer to this type of situation? forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=949421

From Secant: Marriage and intimacy

" Having read multiple threads on this, a close friend of mine and I were debating a not so hypothetical situation that he and his wife have. Frankly, she hates marital relations. When they got married, she was hoping that the required physical intimacy would be all it was cracked up to be and has since found it to be, “torture, the worst thing one person can do to another in the name of love.” She says that is it painful, degrading, and disgusting. They have a child and have agreed to try for another in two months (spacing for her health), but outside of trying for children, she wants him to go without, which is driving him crazy. He has trouble waiting the on average 25 days until her infertile times (with STM-NFP, except without the cervical checks due to the extreme pain they cause her) for only six days, during which she claims it hurts even more. So now he feels guilty any time he initiates the conjugal act because the pain leaves her in tears and near retching, and she feels guilty every time he asks and she refuses because she worries about what St. Paul said about not denying each other. They have seen a priest who told them that their situation was a problem and they’d have to fix it, without any further guidance. They have seen an OB-GYN who said there is nothing wrong with her. They have seen a psychiatrist (not catholic-the closest catholic one they have heard of is 11 hours away and not within their ability to see) who said the issue was that she needed to grow up and not be so “Puritan,” and learn to self please to better prepare for her husband, obviously against Catholic teaching. They both feel that they are in a permanent state of sin. What can they do? "

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

from Regina7: Sex in Marriage ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=948164 )

*" I’ve searched old forums and can’t seem to find this specific question.

Please forgive me for being blunt but I can’t figure another way to ask this.

A couple married over 10 years- the husband is “quick.” The woman has never had an orgasm from regular intercourse- perhaps because the husband is quick or other unknown reasons. My question is this: can he stimulate her to climax immediately before/ after intercourse? Or, could something like a vibraror be used during intercourse?

Also, the man has tried various techniques to slow his response down…nothing works. Short of seeing a doctor, which he won’t do because he’s embarrased, please focus responses on female stimulation.

I understand that all sexual acts need to be procreative, but I’m just confused how a couple can have a unifying sex life if only the man is ever satisfied.

Thank you for your answers. God bless! "*

What is your catholic view? *** I would like to know your catholic thought in order to try to solve the issue.***

 

[edlinked]

Fpt my opinion hasn’t changed as I don’t think your views of forcing sexual acts in the name of love are correct.

Ill put my replies to some of your older posts, but I read your last posts, the ones from the cases you are asking me about (I haven’t really read other posts from those threads though, just your posts). Keep in mind that those cases are different from what we were talking about, although many things can overlap. I think that with these replies concerning your older posts, you will get an idea of how can my approach be for those two cases.

Now this is my response to your older posts (I am not a good writer so I am sorry if some find me a bit repetitive):

As I was making these replies an idea came to me. Are your views inviting to God in any situation, and describing His love the way it should, or do your views can make people feel something against Gods love? Does someone feels your views as hurting, and can Gods love be seen as hurting? This for me should be important, because if in any slight ways your views can hurt someone in any way, in my case I should be very wary, as I would be saying that Gods love can hurt a person.

Here is something I found that I thought it was good to add here, not from Love and Responsibility but a kind of a analysis about it:
“Love and Responsibility is based on natural theology. Put simply, natural theology says that people behave morally when they act in accord with the natural order. That which is natural, though, is not simply that which is physical or biological, but rather that which follows God’s activity in creation. The order of nature, writes John Paul II, is generally confused with the “biological order” and so deprived of all importance. It is much easier to understand the power of the natural order (and its constitutive significance for morality, and for the development of the human personality) if we see behind it the personal authority of the Creator.

To understand John Paul II’s moral reasoning, then, it is necessary to understand that the natural is evident in but not reducible to the environment. From this base in natural theology, John Paul II identifies personhood as the beginning and end of all moral behavior. Human beings are different from all other animals because of their rationality, their unique inner life. Human reasoning capabilities allow them to transcend urges and instincts; that is, they have a free will, and with this freedom comes responsibility. Unlike animals which must obey their instincts, humans can will their behavior. Because they have the power of choice, their actions can be good or evil. Good deeds occur when people choose to behave in accordance with the created order.”

So as I understand, morality comes from the dignity of the person not from what is just biologically “natural”.

For me, the sexual act is natural but it can be abused. Sexual pleasure comes from the sexual act, but this doesn’t mean pleasure can define the sexual act as moral just because it is natural. The way the act is carried out defines if the sexual act is moral. For something to be moral, it needs to keep the dignity of the person over everything (specially over someone’s pleasures). That’s why objectively (Gods natural finality), the sexual drives finality is procreation, not sexual pleasing. So marriage (including the sexual act) should come from love, Gods love, (love doesn’t mean sexual pleasing or caressing), the love that Jesus showed (that’s the love we are talking about). God’s Love is above any sexual pleasure, Gods love doesn’t even needs any sexual pleasing. Sexual pleasing is for our enjoyment but it will be good enjoyment in as much as it comes from true love, Gods love.

The natural moral order follows morality, love protects the person, with love is how you act between persons (following the commandment to love, meaning Gods love), which is how dignity is acted by humans too. The way you come from, the way you approach, the sexual act defines its morality. For example rape is not moral even if the doer feels pleasure. Pleasure will never define morality (the act like intercourse will be define by the way your interiority approaches it, the way you decide to approach it). That’s why the church states that the sexual act should come from love, because it is possible that it doesn’t come from it (even in marriage, I think the point of the church is in marriage because it is the only place it should happen). The love that the church refers to is God’s love. If it comes from Gods love (the basis of morality of what is good, good and love is limitless), or better explained, when Gods love enters the act it becomes moral. Therefore its moral natural order is determined by Gods love (no matter if anyone can do it (if its natural, biological)), not because someone or anyone can enjoy its pleasure. Its morality is not defined by the act being natural (it is biologically natural for procreation) but its morality is ordered by Gods love, which people doesn’t necessarily want, or try to understand (because we stop on the pleasures it gives us, that’s how we humans are, unfortunately). Love doesn’t reside in sexual pleasure, if people think that, they are wrong. They would be saying that most saints, priests, etc (can we include here, Mary, Joseph), have never loved. Sexual pleasure is not loving, keep this clear, in a sense, for me, it will only be loving if you understand in a sense that true love doesn’t need sexual intercourse.