Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[kozlosap]

You should provide citations so we can address common issues and have a discussion. Otherwise you are merely throwing flames.
So?/Q

While waiting for the Right Here, Right Now program with Patrick Madrid to come on about six months ago, I happened to listen to the last fifteen minutes of the Terry & Jessie Show and was totally appalled at their vicious and ignorant comments regarding LGBTQ people. Their guest was the Holy priest who runs Courage, and as he tried to explain his ministry, the two hosts continually emoted lies and vicious innuendo about the nature of being gay and how most gays are pedophiles. I’m sure if any people were listening that were interested in Courage, they were run off by the hate. That same day I emailed the priest my concerns about those two non-priests trying to ruin his wonderful ministry. I’m sure you should be able to Google their podcasts and find many examples. Leading with hate and non- truths are not exactly the manner that works when trying to reach people.

 

[Rau]

The desire to fornicate – at least, as many people experience it – is not intrinsically disordered. It is only disordered when it involves lust. But it was perfectly well ordered for me to want to have sex with my wife, when I was dating her. There was nothing disordered about it. The action would have been wrong, but the desire was the desire for proper marital intimacy. By contrast, it it objectively disordered for me to desire to have sex with a man, no matter what relationship I have with him, and even if I desired without lusting.

The ACT of fornication is intrinsically disordered, ie. always wrong to choose.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The ACT of fornication is intrinsically disordered, ie. always wrong to choose.

Agreed.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The desire to fornicate – at least, as many people experience it – is not intrinsically disordered. It is only disordered when it involves lust. But it was perfectly well ordered for me to want to have sex with my wife, when I was dating her. There was nothing disordered about it. The action would have been wrong, but the desire was the desire for proper marital intimacy. By contrast, it it objectively disordered for me to desire to have sex with a man, no matter what relationship I have with him, and even if I desired without lusting.

Just a quick word here, and then I’m off once more…

A disordered desire is a desire that has as its end a disordered act.
Fornication is a disordered act.
A desire for fornication is a disordered desire.

Being attracted to a person, however, is not tantamount to desiring to fornicate with that person. Desiring a depth of communion with a person to whom one is attracted is also not tantamount to desiring to fornicate with that person.

But yes, gay sex is MUCH more similar to fornication than to child abuse.

Be careful here. The problem with bringing abuse into the picture has to do with making a category error. Fornication and child abuse are not on opposite ends of some spectrum of unhappy sexual behaviors–which is to say, the act of fornicating does not participate or share in the nature of child abuse (or vice versa) in some profound or even subtextual way. Fornicators are not crypto child abusers. Fornication and abuse belong in two very different categories. You would not say that tying your shoes is more similar to tying a bow on a present than it is to tying a noose for an execution because saying such a thing is absurd: though both a hanging and tying your shoes benefit from knowing how to tie the proper knot for the occasion, the occasions are starkly and definitively different. They do not belong in the same category.

This is the problem when abuse is brought up by either side of the homosexuality debate: it suggests that somehow homosexuality and child abuse are on some sort of spectrum together (either close together or far apart, it doesn’t matter). The simple fact of putting them on the same spectrum is the problem. It is a category error and thus does little justice to the seriousness of child abuse or the realities of homosexuality.

If we’re concerned with humanize people, we should humanize everyone that God loves.

Yes. And this brings up the troubling nature of the “humanization” discourse: it is usually the case that we do no one any favors when we attempt to “humanize” other people–because what we often mean when we want to “humanize” others is, “They’re just like me.” And I become the human standard. As chief of sinners, I can tell you that my human standard is rather warped. But thanks be to God that the standard of humanity is not me, but is in fact Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, the Cornerstone that makes both One! The task before us is this, then: to see in every sinner not the image of my own humanity, but the image of the Divine Humanity of Jesus Christ, to love them for the sake of Jesus, to love Jesus in them, and to live a life of loving discipleship that may serve as an encouragement to all and any to find in themselves and in others the image of the Holy One of God, who became all that we are in order to give us all that he is, who humbled himself to die our death and now lives that death may die.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[fpt]

The Encratism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Manicheism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Catharism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Jansenism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Fideism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Quietism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The english Puritanism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The american Puritanism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The anglican Victorianism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Theoretical Providentialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-personalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-phenomenologism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-sexualism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Quiverfullism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary Physiologism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Pharisianism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Prudism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Angelism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The primary Immaterialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-materialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Presumptionsim of the near occasion of sin of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Negationism of the moral naturality of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary Animalism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Negationism of complementarity and of alterity of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Externalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Judgmentalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Pessimism of the marital act is morally wrong;

 

[fpt]

Some corrections

The Encratism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Manicheism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Catharism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Jansenism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Fideism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Quietism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The english Puritanism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The american Puritanism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The anglican Victorianism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Theoretical Providentialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-personalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-phenomenologism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-sexualism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Quiverfullism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary Physiologism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Pharisianism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Prudism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Angelism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The primary Immaterialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti-materialism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Presumptionism of the near occasion of sin of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Negationism of the moral naturality of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary Animalism of the mariral act is morally wrong;
The Negationism of complementarity and of alterity of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Externalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Judgmentalism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The Pessimism of the marital act is morally wrong;

The doctrinal refusal of the unitive **and **procreative aspect of the marital act is morally wrong;
The primary anti sexologism of the marital act is morally wrong;
The doctrine of asexualism of the marital act is morally wrong;

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Grace & Peace!

Just a quick word here, and then I’m off once more…

A disordered desire is a desire that has as its end a disordered act.
Fornication is a disordered act.
A desire for fornication is a disordered desire.

Being attracted to a person, however, is not tantamount to desiring to fornicate with that person. Desiring a depth of communion with a person to whom one is attracted is also not tantamount to desiring to fornicate with that person.

Be careful here. The problem with bringing abuse into the picture has to do with making a category error. Fornication and child abuse are not on opposite ends of some spectrum of unhappy sexual behaviors–which is to say, the act of fornicating does not participate or share in the nature of child abuse (or vice versa) in some profound or even subtextual way. Fornicators are not crypto child abusers. Fornication and abuse belong in two very different categories. You would not say that tying your shoes is more similar to tying a bow on a present than it is to tying a noose for an execution because saying such a thing is absurd: though both a hanging and tying your shoes benefit from knowing how to tie the proper knot for the occasion, the occasions are starkly and definitively different. They do not belong in the same category.

This is the problem when abuse is brought up by either side of the homosexuality debate: it suggests that somehow homosexuality and child abuse are on some sort of spectrum together (either close together or far apart, it doesn’t matter). The simple fact of putting them on the same spectrum is the problem. It is a category error and thus does little justice to the seriousness of child abuse or the realities of homosexuality.

Yes. And this brings up the troubling nature of the “humanization” discourse: it is usually the case that we do no one any favors when we attempt to “humanize” other people–because what we often mean when we want to “humanize” others is, “They’re just like me.” And I become the human standard. As chief of sinners, I can tell you that my human standard is rather warped. But thanks be to God that the standard of humanity is not me, but is in fact Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, the Cornerstone that makes both One! The task before us is this, then: to see in every sinner not the image of my own humanity, but the image of the Divine Humanity of Jesus Christ, to love them for the sake of Jesus, to love Jesus in them, and to live a life of loving discipleship that may serve as an encouragement to all and any to find in themselves and in others the image of the Holy One of God, who became all that we are in order to give us all that he is, who humbled himself to die our death and now lives that death may die.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

This post says what I was going to say in a far more articulate manner than I could have achieved.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A disordered desire is a desire that has as its end a disordered act.
Fornication is a disordered act.
A desire for fornication is a disordered desire.

Many people don’t desire to fornicate, though. They are single, and they desire to make marital love to a particular person. As long as they do not fantasize, they are not sinning, and there is nothing unnatural about their desire. But when I desire to have sex with a beautiful man, there IS something unnatural about my desire.

Be careful here. The problem with bringing abuse into the picture has to do with making a category error. Fornication and child abuse are not on opposite ends of some spectrum of unhappy sexual behaviors–which is to say, the act of fornicating does not participate or share in the nature of child abuse (or vice versa) in some profound or even subtextual way. Fornicators are not crypto child abusers. Fornication and abuse belong in two very different categories. You would not say that tying your shoes is more similar to tying a bow on a present than it is to tying a noose for an execution because saying such a thing is absurd: though both a hanging and tying your shoes benefit from knowing how to tie the proper knot for the occasion, the occasions are starkly and definitively different. They do not belong in the same category.

I didn’t ever say they belong in the same category, qua actions. I said that they belong in the same category, qua disordered desires. Isn’t the problem with both these desires that they have, as object, an individual that is not the proper object of sexual desire for that person?

This is the problem when abuse is brought up by either side of the homosexuality debate: it suggests that somehow homosexuality and child abuse are on some sort of spectrum together (either close together or far apart, it doesn’t matter). The simple fact of putting them on the same spectrum is the problem. It is a category error and thus does little justice to the seriousness of child abuse or the realities of homosexuality.

You’re right that the desire to abuse is nothing like homosexuality, of course. But have you ever considered the possibility that some people might be attracted to children without desiring to abuse them?

As chief of sinners, I can tell you that my human standard is rather warped. But thanks be to God that the standard of humanity is not me, but is in fact Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, the Cornerstone that makes both One! The task before us is this, then: to see in every sinner not the image of my own humanity, but the image of the Divine Humanity of Jesus Christ, to love them for the sake of Jesus, to love Jesus in them, and to live a life of loving discipleship that may serve as an encouragement to all and any to find in themselves and in others the image of the Holy One of God, who became all that we are in order to give us all that he is, who humbled himself to die our death and now lives that death may die.

Can’t argue with that!

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Many people don’t desire to fornicate, though. They are single, and they desire to make marital love to a particular person. As long as they do not fantasize, they are not sinning, and there is nothing unnatural about their desire. But when I desire to have sex with a beautiful man, there IS something unnatural about my desire.

To desire sex with a woman you are not married to would be an objectively disordered desire.

Shame on you for your hypocrisy of engaging in heteronormative rationalization of your disordered postlapsarian nature as if it were not disordered yet treating the homosexual inclination as disordered.

The filthy modernists have gotten to you.

I didn’t ever say they belong in the same category, qua actions. I said that they belong in the same category, qua disordered desires. Isn’t the problem with both these desires that they have, as object, an individual that is not the proper object of sexual desire for that person?

In the same sense that a boat is a vehicle even if the discussion is in fact about land vehicles which a boat is not.

You’re right that the desire to abuse is nothing like homosexuality, of course. But have you ever considered the possibility that some people might be attracted to children without desiring to abuse them?

Yes and I pity the people who are attracted to children and do not act on it.

Can’t argue with that!

Indubitably

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To desire sex with a woman you are not married to would be an objectively disordered desire.

Even if we’ve fallen in love, we intend to marry, and we’re both single? And even if my desire is to be married to her AND make love to her?

A healthy sexual impulse toward the opposite sex involves the desire to give oneself wholly to the other. It’s impossible to actually desire that without also desiring marriage. But that desire often occurs in people who are unmarried, and it is not morally disordered. Why not? Because man is made for woman, and woman is made for man.

Shame on you for your hypocrisy of engaging in heteronormative rationalization of your disordered postlapsarian nature as if it were not disordered yet treating the homosexual inclination as disordered.

I don’t think that my desire for random scantily clad women on a beach is properly ordered, Joie. If I’m teaching an attractive student, and I’m tempted to desire her, I don’t think that is properly ordered. But my sexual desire for my wife, when we were dating, was properly ordered.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

Do you condemn?

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-personalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-phenomenologism 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 Presumptionsim 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 coitus;
The doctrinal refusal about the existence of foreplay, in the context of the marital act?
The doctrinal refusal about the existence of sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act?

 

[fpt]

Do you condemn?

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-personalism of the marital act;
The primary anti-phenomenologism 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 coitus;
The doctrinal refusal about the existence of foreplay, in the context of the marital act?
The doctrinal refusal about the existence of sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act?

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.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

As the marriage is an institution, a contract, an alliance, a covenant and a consortium, what are the rights, the obligations, the duties, the roles, the functions, the competencies / the competences and the responsibilities of each member of the couple about the “donation / reception” of bodies?

What are the reserved acts to spouses in link with the marital act??

What is the list of rights, of obligations, of duties, of roles, of functions, of competencies / of competences and of responsibilities of each one about the marital act?

Could you give us the white list and the black list???

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

Only for information. Here, you are trying to expose the catholic doctrine, the fundamentals are fair, but you do not want to discuss about the good acception of definition of each intrinsically evil act. It is your issue!!!

For catholicism, the abortive contraception (the scientific term of seculars) in reality is an abortion: the abortive contraception = abortion; For catholicism, the contraception without abortive effect (the scientific term of seculars and of catholicism) is contraception: the contraception without abortive effect = contraception. The moral regimes are not totally the same.

You need to define each intrinsically evil act??? **What are the constitutive elements? ** What is the natural moral regime of each one? The moral rules for the active agent and the passive agent???

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12540730#post12540730

The morality of an intrinsically evil act is NOT determined by intention
Posted on 14 December 2014 by Ron Conte

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

!!!

According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband. She has *the natural moral obligation *not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she receives a masturbation from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She *has the natural moral obligation *not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. Thus, she must to confess to a priest those acts that are always wrong.

The husband *has to refuse to *be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he receives a masturbation from his wife. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, *he is a sinful husband *because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses to confess the sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, as sexual sins of masturbation?

I need your public answer. I want it. Could you answer me on this forum, please???

 

[fpt]

Corrections:

Only for information. Here, you are trying to expose the catholic doctrine, the fundamentals are fair, but you do not want to discuss about the good acception of definition of each intrinsically evil act. It is your issue!!!

For catholicism, the abortive contraception (the scientific term of seculars) in reality is an abortion: the abortive contraception = abortion; For catholicism, the contraception without abortive effect (the scientific term of seculars and of catholicism) is contraception: the contraception without abortive effect = contraception. The moral regimes are not totally the sames.

You need to define each intrinsically evil act??? **What are the constitutive elements? ** What is the natural moral regime of each one? The moral rules for the active agent and the passive agent???

ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/the-morality-of-an-intrinsically-evil-act-is-not-determined-by-intention/

The morality of an intrinsically evil act is NOT determined by intention
Posted on 14 December 2014 by Ron Conte

 

[Rau]

I doubt that Conte is still watching this thread. You may be able to locate an email address for him on his blog, and invite him to participate.

 

[fpt]

I doubt that Conte is still watching this thread. You may be able to locate an email address for him on his blog, and invite him to participate.

11 days ago (3th of december 2014), he wrote a message concerning this thread on this forum and the 14th of december, he wrote an article on his own blog entitled “The morality of an intrinsically evil act is NOT determined by intention”. He is following the debate about the marital act and the corollaries and he is giving some answers on his blog. His answers are indirect and are not quite clear.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

Questions???

As a man, do you consent to wed a woman, who considers that the sexual foreplay in love and the tenderness, in the context of the marital act, between wife and husband are constitutive of sexual sins of masturbation to give and to receive?

As a woman, do you consent to wed a man, who considers that the sexual foreplay in love and the tenderness, in the context of the marital act, between wife and husband are constitutive of sexual sins of masturbation to give and to receive?

 

[fpt]

I doubt that Conte is still watching this thread. You may be able to locate an email address for him on his blog, and invite him to participate.

I want to confront him publicly on this forum. I wish to understand the deep reasons of his intellectual approaches about this particular topic. I hope to get some information with him, without taboo. But, one day, he told me that my sentences were too much (2 years ago). The exact terms, that he used, when I sent to him a message with anatomical words, were “sexual harassment”. For him the words of the human anatomy are constitutive of a “sexual harassment”. He has an issue!!!