Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[edlinked]

Love and virtue doesn’t reside in pleasure (not even in sexual pleasure). What is good comes from God as only God is good. Pleasure gives a certain satisfaction, some kind of enjoyment, but this enjoyment doesn’t give the basis of virtue or love (the point is to be good not that people are good towards you. You treat the way you want to be treated). Love sacrifices and virtue always look for the goodness (referring to Gods goodness) toward the person. That’s why morality comes from the dignity of the person. Pleasure is not at the same level of the person, so morality will never follow it, it will never come from it, it will never be determined by it.

Even in marriage and most importantly in marriage, this responsibility of God’s love is greater, because you even promised to perform that kind of love, to act that love (referring to God’s love of course). This means that you always need to be sure of following Gods love (like in everything) because temptation is there behind you (Gods path is not easy). If you don’t follow Gods morality (natural moral order) it will not follow Gods intended order. Chastity, temperance, self mastery, and love virtue are the ways to act Gods love, are the ways to understand Gods love, that’s why the correct understandings and rules come only from the church, and their understandings comes from or begins by understandings correctly Gods love. This understanding is a process, because Gods love is not an easy task, not its understanding, and worst its acting.

In my understanding, you cannot force things specifically when they are forced to please your pleasures, well you can, but you will not be loving. You can’t have both ways, that’s why you understand that love come with sacrifices, but you know you will be protecting the person. You cannot serve two masters.

I say that it crumbles when you state that people can’t use the catholic church teachings (Gods love) to protect themselves in marriage, because I still think your views don’t add up to God’s love. I am not saying I understand Gods love completely, as I am not even close to being a saint, but, in my understanding, Gods love is the only one you can go to, that will never let you down. Any human can let you down (we see that even chosen ones do), but God will never let you down. We are the ones that let Him down in a sense.
The same goes for your opinion when you stated before thinks like, that woman cannot say they have a headache or if they are pregnant as excuses, (you wrote) that was not valid for you (this is how I understood it). This kind of statements are the ones that tell me something is wrong, because they don’t enact love. Love is reflected by actions, actions that you can clearly differentiate, from actions that are lead by our pleasures, from using, from egoism. Love differentiates so much that it will sacrifice because it loves so much (when talking about Gods love of course).

God’s love is about never forgetting the person’s value, that the person is in fact a person, never letting pleasures or anything, become more important than the person. Like I wrote before, only God is above the person, but as God is love, He also protects the person.
The bibles states that He will leave many to look for that lost one, (in my understanding) not because He doesn’t love the others, but because the lost one is alone (is the one that needs Him the most at that precise moment when no one else can be there, or will be there).

God’s love, looks to help the weak, the one without hope, and gives them love, gives them their “value” back. He is the only one that never “devalues” us. He paid a big price.
Only people, will “devalue” people, because of our own pleasures. Our heart will be where we put our treasures.

Sins make us loose the persons value, make us blind from “seeing” its “value” (because it sees precisely “the pleasure” it gives to us. It puts it in front).

The concupiscence of the flesh does that, because if you don’t fully tame it (self mastery, chastity), it will make you sin. We just have to notice how do we treat prostitutes, how do we see them sometimes. (from the point of people using them, and by how others sees them as “lesser humans” sometimes (which they are not of course, as their actions are the ones that are bad)). Pleasures have to be tamed so that we don’t lose ourselves, so that we are not blinded.

The point is not to let our selves “hurt” others (we can hurt even if we don’t sense it, know it, or see it), and justify it by our pleasures, thinking that our pleasures are more important than the person, or thinking that, that’s the way God made it. God’s love will only be done by making sacrifices, because like the bible states: “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Mathew 16:25”

This is about actions that reflect this, that’s why for me, love is not reflected in your views.

 

[edlinked]

The only way we know we understand Gods love and are in fact living it, is when our actions are similar as those as the actions done by Jesus. That’s why He says love like I love. When we never put ourselves in front, even if others are ingrates or wrong, (like Jesus sacrifice in the cross). Because like Jesus said to His/our Father on our behalf, forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing. This is God’s love. He is even excusing our wrong doing. He didn’t even deserved to be killed because He was only showing us how to love.

For me, if you understand Gods love, the practical way to show it, is sainthood, it is as simple as that. That’s why it is difficult to become a saint. They are special because of their actions, but they are not super humans, the Holy Spirit helps them carry the responsibility of God’s love, but for them to get there, I assure you, it was not an easy task (and of course it was a personal decision).

The sexual act is needed for procreation, but it is not needed for love. For me, as I understand it, so that you truly love your spouse, your sexual pleasure should be fully tamed, you should be chaste. Chastity, is not only a word, it is a process, you need to work for it. If actions don’t reflect chastity you are not chaste. Chastity doesn’t mean not be in adultery, it means pureness, it means to be clear, to see the person, not as a mere sexual partner, but as someone you will love (as love is not sexual pleasing). You even promise to God (in marriage) you will love them. What kind of love do you think you promised to God, you promised the love that Jesus stated, when He said love like I love. I assure you, it is not that easy. (And I would think I am right when I say that He is not referring to love as sexual pleasing).

To be chaste or start from chastity, is why you start from virginity, and why masturbation is not good. (If masturbation happens even if sometimes people know it is bad, why would you think there is no possibility to abuse against your spouse (as you abused on yourself (masturbation) even if you felt good and not bad (pain)). Temptation and pleasures can take the lead and take the lead very easily). If masturbation is a habit, then you will probably not stay a virgin, which can later be a problem because the concupiscence has power (power that you let it grow), then you can abuse (abuse doesn’t only mean using force on someone, it also refers as just putting your pleasures above your spouse) from the sexual acts. (If we know pleasure and temptation can lead very easily, why would Gods love put pleasures above the person in any situation).
The difference in God’s love and what people call love needs to be clear. God’s love is divine, He is love, man needs love, man needs God.

The marital debt is not sexual pleasing, it is love, Gods love.

The power of sin is not to be underestimated. The concupiscence of the flesh if not approached correctly, it will make you sin. The problem is that sin will make you hurt someone. This is why Gods love will even say to love our enemies because love tries to protect the person, and will try to save them.

You say: “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”.

Objectivity (meaning Gods true finality), love, goodness, catholic charity, the church rationality, justice, the church understanding, the church’s wisdom doesn’t come from words. These are based on actions, these are based on God’s love. The marital act needs to come from Gods love if not you will put your pleasures over your spouse. You can put nice words on it (love, justice, rules of reason, natural goodness, etc), but if the actions don’t reflect God’s love, they will be just “pretty” words, deceiving words. Sainthood is God’s love put to actions. The catholic teachings, are based on sainthood too. Sainthood doesn’t come just by reading it or feeling it, it’s a process where you start from wanting and learning Gods love, to acting Gods love. You become a saint because you acted Gods love, because they feel the responsibility to act Gods love. I am explaining this because for me Gods love needs to be reflected on your actions if it is in fact Gods love, Gods way (that’s the responsibility Gods love gives). Because sometimes , we can even know something is bad, but sometimes we do it anyway, because of temptation or pleasure. Or we can know something is good and not do it. So, you can state you love, but if the actions don’t reflect it, it is not going to be love.

Marriage is a decision like you say, but loves actions, are not focused on the pleasures of the sexual acts. Sexual acts are defined by the actions you decide to do, and these actions if they do not come from Gods love, will try to use the person, because that is its finality. Pleasure will be put in front of the person (before the person), as that is what pleasure do, because pleasure is your own.

 

[edlinked]

You say: “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.”

Marriage is a sacrament, the marital act needs to be ordered by love, as marriage should come from love. Their natural moral order comes from love virtue. You need to see how do you get to the point of love virtue, because if you knew what that meant, and you were living it, you would be going toward sainthood.

So this is also kind of tricky for me. What is, the rules of reason, reasonability, the fair rationality, legitimate sexual hopes, sexual needs, sexual desires, legitimate sexual rights, for you? Are you coming from chastity, virginity, temperance, self mastery, when you state this? Are you coming from saint hood, as you should try to be a saint? Sex is for bringing babies to the world, that’s why procreation is its objective, not sexual pleasing. It is for the closeness of the spouses, but this will happen in as much as true love (Gods love) is there. What happens if you have abused on sexual things, if you made sex a habit before marriage (or even after marriage), wouldn’t that make your desires bigger, your “needs” bigger, wouldn’t you ask for more pleasure. Aren’t you misplacing love for sexual pleasing. What happens in the case that the other spouse comes from virginity, chastity, which desire would be the correct one for you? Do the pleasure you need depends on each person (but wouldn’t the type of life that the person has influence his desires, so what happens if he comes from a very bad one)? You write the word reasonable, Do you know what’s the right pleasure for a saint? I would say that would be the north for the pleasure I would need (a catholic that practices its faith and tries to find Gods way), don’t you think? That’s why the sexual drives objective finality is procreation, not sexual pleasing. For me the correct approach of the sexual drive can only be done when you come from chastity and virginity. If that’s not the case, you need to know, learn how to become chaste first (have temperance, self mastery), then your actions will always put the person over any pleasure, because you will see clearly, you will think clearly. The person is always over any pleasure.

Your spouse is not for your mere sexual enjoyment (you promised God to love the spouse, I would think it is not prudent to lower love to sexual pleasing). The pleasures in life, are for our happiness, but the problem is that sins reside in those pleasures, that’s why they need to be mastered. The spouse is there to be loved by the other and procreate from that love, but not from any love, but from Gods love (very different, because its responsibility is very big).

The only thing the spouses need to understand is how their sexuality works in an objective way (sex drive is for procreation). What is their objective (true) finality. They need to be clear on what is love, on what is God’s love. Sexual pleasure takes part in sexual intercourse but will never be the focus of marriage, it is a “side effect” of procreation.

 

[edlinked]

You say: “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.”

With this you state the same thing. For me you want to elevate sex to something that it is not. Of course, if someone is sick, and can get better, they should get better, but it is not for their sexual pleasing (it is to get well). I don’t think you understand what is meant by love virtue. (Love is not the same as sexual intercourse, they are talking about Gods love here, the same way Jesus states to “love like I love”. (He is not talking about sexual intercourse)). Again, chastity is not about adultery, (or it means to have all the sexual pleasing you can get from your spouse) (you can abuse, if in marriage you don’t tame your sexual drive, just like when you have to tame it before you get married to stay a virgin) chastity is about being clear on what is important (this is what it helps you see), on having self mastery even in marriage, on controlling yourself and not let pleasures lead the way (because even in marriage they will take the lead, and you will “hurt” your spouse)(If masturbation can become a problem, don’t you think, sex can create a problem with your spouse, when you don’t tame it or have self mastery. The concupiscence will take over if you don’t master it. It is more dangerous if you think you should have a green light everytime, which is not true, that’s why intercourse should come from love. That’s why you should understand Gods love). You have to be chaste always, because you can abuse on sex even in marriage. That’s why I don’t think your views reflect Gods love. The person is the important “thing”. Pleasure from sexual acts is always below the person, you can’t go around that. Sexual pleasing is not done so that the spouse doesn’t go fooling around, it is a secondary effect for procreation. The wrong effect from the concupiscence is created with the fact that the person is not chaste and doesn’t have temperance and self mastery. A catholic knows that if you are in a marriage, procreation is wanted (you want a family), but this doesn’t mean that the spouse is there for your pleasing. The spouse is there because both want to start a family, this family should come from Gods love.

If you want clarity, of what a marriage is, see the Holy family. Mary and Joseph were together to be a family, to be a father, to be a mother, not for any sexual pleasing, but for loving, very different things. In my understanding, the person should be enough for love in a family, in a marriage, but as we can’t come like Jesus and need sexual intercourse the coming of a person is the reason behind that sexual encounter. The need to unite man and woman so that both need each other (to continue procreation), for me, in a sense, so that neither can state supremacy over the other. This encounter unites the spouses, in as much as they understand that the person is the better good, and in another category than the lesser type of good that pleasure is (in another words, that they understand they need to love each other).

This goes with what I wrote before about your statement of not allowing the spouse protection from the catholic teachings. For me you want to give sexual pleasing a part in love (a too high of a part) that it doesn’t have, at least not in God’s love. Hope for God is limitless, nothing that a person feels it threatens them will come from Gods love. That’s why your views don’t add up for me, because you want love to force pleasures on someone just because you feel them (because you want to feel that pleasure, because you want another to fulfill them), without wanting to see that the important part is not the sexual pleasing but the person (this is how the concupiscence of the flesh acts if you don’t master it). That’s why I tell you that for me your views don’t add up to God’s love, Gods love will die for the person even if the one that is wrong is the person (Jesus sacrifice). God’s love is limitless. God’s love tries to save the person, but the person can go as far as to even kill the One that loved them. Selfishness, pleasures, egoism, will blind them so much as not to see the obvious. (That’s how blinded we can get, that’s the danger of not taming or mastering our pleasures)(or that’s how evil can trick us).

 

[edlinked]

In my understanding, you are trying to put love as a leverage for sexual pleasure, this for me is not acceptable. You are trying to imply that a spouse is worth as the sexual pleasure it can give. This for me is totally a wrong assumption. Are you trying to imply that the person is not enough if it don’t please you sexually? I think if that is what some think, in my understanding, they are completely wrong and don’t know what love is. Did Jesus did that, would you say that Jesus love is not enough? Like I wrote before, the clearest proof for me, is Mary and Joseph. Marriage is the basis for the family, sexual pleasure is a side effect of this, not the focus or essence of it. It is clear that sexual intercourse is not love, this is something people need to be clear on. If they think they get love from the spouse just from sexual pleasure, they do not understand what a marriage is, and don’t understand what is meant by Gods love. The point is that you don’t need sexual pleasing for love, in marriage or out of marriage. Love is not for the pleasure, it is for the person. You should love the person not the pleasure the person gives. Love is not just the feeling, it is the responsibility towards the person (which you committed to, as you promised God in marriage).

For example, when the church states that intercourse can be done at any time, for me, it tells me that there is no ban in any “date” for it. But intercourse should always be in harmony and from love, which for me doesn’t mean that it should come just to please the pleasure of a certain spouse, both have to be willing, wanting to do it. For you to have harmony, for it to bring enjoyment to both, it needs to be from love, there is the responsibility that intercourse should bring happiness to both, that’s why love puts others in front, love is for others, because it doesn’t let your I be first, you look for the welfare of others and this is an action that should be reflected from love, if not, it is not love. You should want what is “good” for the other, but you need to know what is meant when saying good (because I am not referring to sexual pleasing), good, is what good is for God, which is a “limitless” thing, because God wants us to love each other, He wants us to love like He loves. For that, we need to understand His love first, so that we can apply it. That’s why the church is the one that states what is right because only the Pope with the church has that “right”, knows what’s right (because they see through the Holy Ghost).

For me, how can it be love when you force your pleasures on someone. The problem is that people think that love is just some sexual carnal pleasing, or think love comes from this. God is love, and Jesus didn’t come from this (sexual intercourse, as it is not love, that’s why it needs love to come from love, it needs Gods love to give love, it needs that the person already has Gods love, acts Gods love, so that it can give that love, if not it will only be using, satisfying your pleasure). True love only comes from God, from doing His way, from acting His way, from performing His actions. This is the misunderstanding. That’s why you need chastity, temperance and self mastery, these will not be there if your thinking of sex comes from tv, from the internet, from friends, from some ordinary theology, from “the world” in a sense, because Gods wisdom only can come from His church, and will be understood by those that are soft and humble of hearts, and are opened to His kind of love, to His kind of ways. I believe that people now have a deformed meaning on sexual matters (more than before), because everywhere, you see sexual “ideologies”, and these make ideas on people that probably are not healthy, and that don’t follow Gods love “rules”.

 

[edlinked]

For me your views are dangerous because you use words that seem to imply that’s what the church teaches, but in my case when you analyze them it creates confussion, it kinds of deceives them, because for me they don’t add up. For example when you use the words love and virtue, when you use morality, when you use justice, etc, even the word reasonable. I assure you that these words mean differently for someone that is an atheist, for someone that is a normal catholic, and for someone that is a saint (meaning the church). Which meaning would you think is correct? Which meaning follows Gods way? They can mean only the understanding that “you” think they mean (the understanding that you only see, or can only see, because something limits it). Which one would see it clearly in Gods way, which one would probably have the Holy Ghost in him so that he can clearly see? This for me (being wrong) is very dangerous because then you can imply things that are not correct, and can become very harmful for others, because they (this actions) don’t reflect Gods love, and you can instead create resentment towards God. This is why God separates mans wisdom from His wisdom. God is always going to protect the person as He went as far as to die for them. Your views for me, imply that “love” will force someone to act on someones pleasures (just because they want to feel it), when love will never put any pleasures before the person, love can go as far, that our God let himself be judged, be killed by His creation, without deserving it, because the only thing He gave was love. You have to remember that even within the church (from priests or other officials) there has been ideas that are very wrong and damaging, for example the beginning of the protestant churches and their separation from the catholic church. Also, an idea that Mary was not mother of God came from inside the church once, and the church included Mary mother of God in the Hail Mary to end that questioning. With this I am just warning that just because we have the church, sometimes we tend to see only want we want, that’s why we need to pray and always be wary of our ways in a sense.

For me there is no right to the body, there is the responsibility to procreate from love. It is not a right to the body, it is a responsibility to love. That’s where i think you mix things. The body is your own, in your case or views as I understand them, you want the right for your pleasures. Marriage is for procreation and it should come from love. Love doesn’t give rights for you, worst if they are for serving your pleasures, it gives you responsibilities, great ones at that, for the welfare of the person. It doesn’t make you the owner of the person for pleasure. For me, if you think something like that, be sure that you are not getting it, you should be wary about it. Love is not there for your pleasures, i don’t get from where do you get this (as this is what I understand from your views, let me know if I am wrong).

Love is there (as it should be there) in fact to protect you from the pleasures.

Love shows itself by actions, this actions will never be backed or defined by pleasures, just look if Jesus actions are defined by His pleasures or even His well being.

 

[edlinked]

So as far as my understanding goes, there is no right for the body. That’s not the point. Love cannot confer a right of the body to the other, because the body only belongs to the person that has it. Love will not give that away. The point of giving yourself is that you see the other over yourself. You love when you want the best good for the other, over yourself, you are willing to sacrifice yourself for the one you love, that’s how love acts. And this giving comes from yourself. Love is a personal decision, so it comes from oneself. Love is not done by seconds, meaning that love begins and ends in what you yourself do, not on what others do for you. You act love, you will receive it if others act it. Love is not about having the right of the other, this is a big misunderstanding. Love will not confer any right, it gives responsibilities on yourself toward the others, but they will never be determined by pleasures, because pleasures are not the point, the point is in a sense the best “welfare” for the person. Do to others what you want them do to (for) you, love others like yourself. But, love God above anything. Pleasure doesn’t determine or define the way you are good to a person. Pleasure gives some kind of satisfaction but it can give satisfaction even when you are doing something atrocious. That is why pleasure is never going to determine morality, because it can’t, pleasures finality is just some kind of enjoyment on yourself, as it is not something transferable, only you feel your pleasure, its finality is not the protection of the person (or love). That’s why love, Gods love, needs to be understood correctly.

When you see the acts of love from the bible, they will never be mistaken by doing something by pleasure, or for pleasure. Love will give some kind of pleasure, because it looks for the welfare of the person, because of this it will tend to give pleasure, but pleasure will not give love (if it doesn’t come from it). The greatest acts of love are shown by some kind of sacrifice. Love acts toward the welfare of the other even when sometimes it means this will bring some kind of negative aspect toward yourself. But the person that loves, acts that way because that’s the way love reacts, it puts others over yourself. Give all the things you have and follow me, said Jesus. Following God, giving Gods love is not a “pleasurable” kind of decision, it’s the same as doing what’s right, it will not be something that it will always gives “satisfaction”, because doing what’s right is difficult, the same way that loving is something difficult, but it is a responsibility, the responsibility to do good, the responsibility of treating a person the way it should be treated, the way Jesus would treat them. Loving and doing what’s correct, is kind of interchangeable, because it is what God wants (meaning Gods way). Did Jesus put His pleasures, or even His well being over the person? So why should you put your pleasures over someone. You give love, that’s the only responsibility you have, you don’t have any right in a sense, but responsibilities (now it becomes difficult, right). That is the difference between what others think is love, and what Gods love means for me (what the church has teached me). One of my questions for thinking this way is: Which kind of approach will make Jesus sacrifice and die for man? The one in which love, gives you rights over the other (for our pleasures), or the one that gives you personal responsibilities of affirming the value of the person, of assuring the best good toward the person. Which approach will put your life below some that don’t even deserve it, that are even wrong doers, and tell you that this is the right thing to do, and tell you that, that is how much God loves us. Jesus needed to Love, to do what’s right, as being God He followed what is love, and was (is) an example for us.

 

[edlinked]

In my understanding, you try to write things so that it implies love acts on your actions, but a simple act of love shows the difference on what you write and what it really means to love. That’s why i say that your views (or conclusions) don’t reflect Gods love, don’t add up to what is God’s love, are not parallel to how saints act or how Jesus acted (as for me that is true love). You are trying, for me, to justify things by love that, are not love, so you will never find love, or end in love. This is dangerous because you are trying to justify those actions that are not love with love (in the name of love), and this conclusions will only bring more things that are wrong, and can (and will probably) bring “anti-love”. So you are permitting “anti-love” by “love” (in the name of love) and implying that’s ok (or worst, that, that’s the way). Again, for me, love reacts for the “welfare” of others, we see this perfectly on how a mother or a father will act towards their children. Marriage is a sacrament (a Gods way in a sense), i know this love is different as loving your children, but keep in mind we are Gods children though, and keep in mind that this love, couples love, will share all the basic things that love is, and you can notice the similarities (because they all come from God). With this I am telling you that Gods love will easily be differentiated by egoistical type of actions, because loves finality, loves basic instincts if you will, will always protect, do good, do justice, give justice, give affection, put above oneself, do to others what you want them do to you, meaning that you will never do something that can even slightly put others in harms way, specially never because of our own pleasures. It just can’t, love can’t do that, because that is its basic finality. Its nature, its natural nature, is morality (in a sense), is protecting the person. And the one that loves, is a person, so a person that loves, will never put his pleasure in a situation that can even slightly harm another person. That’s how I understand Gods love.

God is love, you need to love God above everything, humans need to love. Love is (should be) the way to act among humans, among persons, because we are made by Love, by God, Love is divine as God is divine. Humans need to get to where love is, the way you get to true love is by the Holy Ghost, in other words, by love Himself. We are not love, but as we come from love (God), we have some “flashes” of love, but if you want true love you need to understand God (look for God, act like God wants you to act, follow His ways, love His ways). This, for me, will never be as easy as feeling and following some pleasure, worst if a pleasure comes from “harming”, from forcing someone else, form “exploiting” someone else (in the name of love), another of Gods children, to give the pleasure to you (so that you can feel it). For me, you can never imply, that, that is love. That “love” forces you on to someones pleasure, and to be fine with it, because that’s the way it is (that’s not my kind of love, because I believe it is not Gods love).

You stated before that I was not pragmatic, for me, this statement is kind of tricky. For me, the way you understand practically on this world that you understand Gods love, is by sainthood. By becoming a saint. That is when a human fully understands and is being practical about God’s love.

Pragmatism for God’s love, the church does this, how does it do it, because it has the Holy Spirit with them. God is divine, we are humans. Your approach for me, gives the idea to be saying to God, to be realistic, saying, or justifying yourself and telling Him we are just humans. For me God already knows that, He is the creator. He knows we need His love, His way of love, because we tend to put our pleasures first. For me, His divinity cannot be understood with just knowledge, with “practicality”, cannot be understood normally, cannot be understood without faith, without hope, without love, because our humanity limits us. (In the theological virtues, charity (love), is the most important one) Our understanding cannot do it alone (if you don’t open up to Him), that’s why you cannot resize His love and “make” it human, because it is not human, it is His, He is love (we cannot be gods). That’s why only saints are saints, because Gods love can be really shown by this kind of people (people that decide to be saints by their actions, not just by their thinking). The responsibility to God’s love is enormous, it is that important, as its love is limitless (only God is good), only then (for me) you start to understand God’s love. I could believe that even saints may not fully understand Gods love, but their faith and hope and love given or directed (or both) by the Holy Spirit gives them what they need (the Holy Spirit makes them understand).

 

[edlinked]

I would assume that sexual pleasure for saints seems to be nothing compared to God’s love, this is my point. You don’t even need it to have Gods love, Jesus didn’t come from that (intercourse) because God is above that. Mary and Joseph didn’t need it, because that is just carnal pleasure, and God gives things that are above everything, like for example when Jesus talks with the samaritan woman by the well, “but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” John 4:14. Or when He states to the tempter: “He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”” Mathew 4:4.

I don’t want to mistake things done by God with abusing the things made by God. Pleasure needs to be tamed, that is where sin resides (in our pleasures. You heart will be where you put your treasures).

For me you can never say or imply Gods love can put pleasure above the person. Pleasure is for our enjoyment but never for our degradation, and never for devaluing the person. It will never be from Gods love, if it even slightly hurts the person, it will never be good or from Gods love if it hurts the other in any slight way giving enjoyment to the other. This will never be correct for the one feeling enjoyment from “hurting”, from “using”, from not putting the person above any pleasure (above my pleasures). This will never be love, even if the doers don’t know, or even if they think it is love. That is why the responsibility of being sure about an action needs to be taken seriously, because you are talking about Gods love, and not about some human rule or idea.

The original fall can follow this in my understanding. We could eat any fruit, but our wanting more made us sin (because we were tricked by thinking other things). Our doubting God, when the snake told us we were not going to die but have more knowledge and be like gods. Our not following what He told us (His rules). But nonetheless, the fall was a decision, our decision, God lets us choose, but He state the rules (the rules for us to be good, the rules for us to love) (remember that He states to love like He loves, He doesn’t say love like man, He states to love like He loves. He is God, not human, but He doesn’t want us to lower the love, because love is from God, there is no resizing it for humans. Love stays limitless even for us, for me, that’s how He wants it. The same thing happened when Jesus told the man to give all his possessions and follow Him, Was that practical for a man, what kind of action was that?).

Saints are the ones that discern on knowledge through wisdom, but Gods love will appear to all the humble of hearts. The humble of hearts need to take their cross to develop it (as it is a process), and some become saints. Gods wisdom will give wisdom, man knowledge will give knowledge (as God made us, we are intelligent creatures), but man will never give Gods love or Gods wisdom if they don’t want it or are looking for God’s ways (they need faith and hope and love). God’s love is not found in knowledge, because it doesn’t reside in it. One can be a genius, but can be evil. You can see very humble man with great love. Everything about God has to start with His love, His love can come from any person that is open to it. God’s love is about mastering our pleasures, and even sacrificing for His sake, for what He believes, for what He loves.

This thing about pragmatism stayed with me when I read it, here is another go at it: You say my thinking is from ideas and I am not “pragmatic enough”. Well, I don’t see a normal solution when talking about God, (thank the church for it though). You start from a virgin giving life, from a Man that is God living in a humble family (when He is the creator), a Man that cured and helped, and resurrected people. A man that apparently didn’t put His pleasures or well being in front of others and was killed undeservingly anyway. A man that resurrected afterwards and that gave His Holy Spirit to His disciples, to keep them company. A Man that is present everytime in a “piece of bread” everywhere, in the Eucharist, that we need to eat. You believe that Man is God, which has a Father that is the same God, which has His Spirit that is also the same God. Are this ideas or did these things really happen (are these truth)? You want me to be pragmatic about love, (worst of all about sexual pleasure ( which in itself it is not love, in my understanding)), when God is love, when in everything you do, should be done on His behalf (marriage included, since you promise God you will love the spouse), should come from His love, should reside in His love, should be about His goodness. I can’t be more realistic, my responsibility cannot be smaller, because I think His love should be divine, is divine.

 

[edlinked]

That’s why I think sexual intercourse should be treated with more responsibility, the responsibility to love, for God’s love, not for sexual pleasing, but for bringing a person to this world. Pleasure has a place, but never over the person. For you to act you need to believe first.

Love gives the person the trust that you will protect them no matter what (Jesus gave His life). In my understandings if marriage comes from this love (Gods love), it will not be about forcing in any way, worst if something is being forced for my own pleasure.

I think the point is that (should be that) you act accordingly to love, and in a sense, not to tell others (force others) to act love towards you.

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

I am sorry to say it like that, but after my reading of your messages, in my humble opinion, you seem to refuse:

the existence of the sexual donation of the body to the other, and of the sexual reception of the body by the other, what implies that the body of wife is the body of the husband and that the body of husband is the body of the wife;

the existence of* the right to the body, of the right on the body and of the right of the body on the body of the other*, with the sexual rights, with the sexual obligations, with the sexual duties, the sexual roles, the sexual functions of each member of the couple;

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, before the marriage, can be a cause of nullity of catholic marriage. And the doctrinal refusal of practicing the right to the body, the right on the body and the right of the body with all the corollaries, the consequences and the implications, during the marriage, can be a cause of non-respect of the conjugal morality (wrong acts, wrong thoughts, wrong doctrines, wrong behaviors to give or to receive).

Your views on the ends of marriage are too simple and simplistic: Marriage and conjugal sex are not for only the procreation. You make a* huge reductionism.* You need to read *the Canon Law on the marriage and the Canonical doctrine on the conjugal debt and co.
*

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The marriage is an institution, a contract, an alliance and a consortium concerning the donation and the reception of two human persons, one male and one female: body, soul and heart. The notion of the conjugal debt and the notion of the conjugal rights are linked to conjugal sexuality. You seem to forget that the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution with:
Some sexed and sexual obligations;
Some sexed and sexual duties;
Some sexed and sexual rights;
Some sexed and sexual functions;
Some sexed and sexual roles.

 

[fpt]

That’s why I think sexual intercourse should be treated with more responsibility, the responsibility to love, for God’s love, not for sexual pleasing, but for bringing a person to this world. Pleasure has a place, but never over the person. For you to act you need to believe first.

Love gives the person the trust that you will protect them no matter what (Jesus gave His life). In my understandings if marriage comes from this love (Gods love), it will not be about forcing in any way, worst if something is being forced for my own pleasure.

I think the point is that (should be that) you act accordingly to love, and in a sense, not to tell others (force others) to act love towards you.

My questions:

The roles and functions of sexual pleasures and of sexual orgasms of each member of couple in the context of the conjugal act?

The ends of the catholic marriage and the ends of the conjugal act?

Do you know that the declaration of nullity of the marriage can be got if, before the wedding, the doctrinal refusal of the existence of the conjugal duty with all the implications is denied and is not consented by the volition, and if by consequence there are some negative effects on the essential and fundamental rights, on the essential and fundamental fruits (goods), essential and fundamental obligations and essential and fundamental duties of the marriage, in link with the conjugal sexuality?? (See the canonical jurisprudence).

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The marriage is an institution, a contract, an alliance and a consortium concerning the donation and the reception of two human persons, one male and one female: body, soul and heart. The notion of the conjugal debt and the notion of the conjugal rights are linked to conjugal sexuality. You seem to forget that the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution with:
Some sexed and sexual obligations;
Some sexed and sexual duties;
Some sexed and sexual rights;
Some sexed and sexual functions;
Some sexed and sexual roles.

In addition:

Some sexed and sexual effects;
Some sexed and sexual ends;
Some sexed and sexual fruits;
Some sexed and sexual goods;
Some sexed and sexual joys;
Some sexed and sexual pleasures;
Some sexed and sexual orgasms;
Some sexed and sexual pains;

The marriage and the conjugal act are not conceived by God, only, for the procreation: that is more complex. The articulation of the ends of marriage and of the conjugal act is not simple and is not simplistic. No reductionism is my slogan.

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

In the marriage there are:

Some sexed and sexual privileges;
Some sexed and sexual advantages;
Some sexed and sexual inconvenients;
Some sexed and sexual* risks*;
Some sexed and sexual rules;
A sexed and sexual yoke: a bilateral, mutual, reciprocal, equal, equitable, objective, phenomenological, personalist and fair yoke / submission, between the spouses, concerning the conjugal act;
A sexed and sexual life;
A sexed and sexual trust.

 

[fpt]

edlinked,

The respect of the natural moral law of the marriage and of the marital act, in the context of the Human Fall (after the Original Sin), is already a sign of the respect of the will of God.* If you disagree with that, in my humble opinion, your opinion is wrong: you are on a wrong way*. Each member of couple has to respect the 10 commandments, and the particular rules of the sexual contract linked to the marriage (see canon law, the jurisprudence, the official documents from the Holy see and the moral books on the marriage).

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. *

 

[fpt]

That’s why I think sexual intercourse should be treated with more responsibility, the responsibility to love, for God’s love, not for sexual pleasing, but for bringing a person to this world. Pleasure has a place, but never over the person. For you to act you need to believe first.

Love gives the person the trust that you will protect them no matter what (Jesus gave His life). In my understandings if marriage comes from this love (Gods love), it will not be about forcing in any way, worst if something is being forced for my own pleasure.

I think the point is that (should be that) you act accordingly to love, and in a sense, not to tell others (force others) to act love towards you.

In the marriage between spouses in the context of the marital act, there are:

Some sexed and sexual laws;
Some sexed and sexual rules;
Some sexed and sexual obligations;
Some sexed and sexual duties;
Some sexed and sexual rights;
Some sexed and sexual functions;
Some sexed and sexual roles.
Some sexed and sexual effects;
Some sexed and sexual ends;
Some sexed and sexual fruits;
Some sexed and sexual goods;
Some sexed and sexual joys;
Some sexed and sexual pleasures;
Some sexed and sexual orgasms;
Some sexed and sexual pains;
some sexed and sexual donations;
some sexed and sexual receptions;
some sexed and sexual presents;
some sexed and sexual gifts;
some sexed and sexual offerings;
some sexed and sexual contributions;
some sexed and sexual efforts;
some sexed and sexual sacrifices;
some sexed and sexual liberties;
some sexed and sexual responsibilities;
Some sensual and erotic preliminaries;
some sexed and sexual preliminaries;
some sexed and sexual afterglows;
Some sexed and sexual privileges;
Some sexed and sexual advantages;
Some sexed and sexual inconvenients;
Some sexed and sexual risks;
Some sexed and sexual rules;
A sexed and sexual yoke: a bilateral, mutual, reciprocal, equal, equitable, objective, phenomenological, personalist and fair yoke / submission, between the spouses, concerning the conjugal act;
Some sexed and sexual debts;
A sexed and sexual life;
A sexed and sexual trust;

The moral order of the marriage and the moral order of the marital act are still existing and are linked to the " objective, realistic, phenomenological and personalist philosophy " of the morality explained by the Roman Catholic Church. If a catholic wants to disagree with the rules of natural and catholic marriage, the marriage is not for him or for her.

 

[fpt]

That’s why I think sexual intercourse should be treated with more responsibility, the responsibility to love, for God’s love, not for sexual pleasing, but for bringing a person to this world. Pleasure has a place, but never over the person. For you to act you need to believe first.

Love gives the person the trust that you will protect them no matter what (Jesus gave His life). In my understandings if marriage comes from this love (Gods love), it will not be about forcing in any way, worst if something is being forced for my own pleasure.

I think the point is that (should be that) you act accordingly to love, and in a sense, not to tell others (force others) to act love towards you.

The moral regime or the set of moral rules of moral order of the marital act is still existing. This very particular regime is, in the same time, institutional, contractual, coming from the alliance and coming from the consortium. There are several rules, and the articulation between them is not very easy, I know: it is a great work and a big job of all a life.

1. There are the question of the existence of some rights, of some obligations, , of some duties, of some ends, of some fruits or goods, of some roles, of some functions, of some liberties, of some responsibilities, of some offenses, of some prohibitions, of some principles, of some exceptions, of some privileges…etc?
2. There is the question of the nature and of the hierarchy of each one.
3. Then there is the question of the moral realization of each one. In catholic moral theology, in general, there are the circumstances, intentions and the effects that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral (Ethics to Nicomak is very useful):

The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used (employed);
The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

The personalism, the phenomenologism, the realism and the objectivisme are so important in the Catholicism: Catholicism is subtil and balanced. The ends of marriage and of the conjugal act are concomitant during the conjugal life, at each moment, they are here. * If you refuse the principle of the practicing of the conjugal act and the non practice like an exception, there is a issue. Yes, each spouse has to justify, explain and expose to the other the reason(s)* of a refusal. And morally speaking, the motive(s) of the refusal has to be true, genuine, real, actual, objective, moral, natural, legitimate, not stupid, not crazy and not linked to an heresy or an ideology. Of course, the force execution of the marital act is always morally wrong, and even *it is a conjugal rape, a great sin, a mortal sin.
*

 

[fpt]

Correction

The moral regime or the set of moral rules of moral order of the marital act is still existing. This very particular regime is, in the same time, institutional, contractual, coming from the alliance and coming from the consortium. There are several rules, and the articulation between them is not very easy, I know: it is a great work and a big job of all a life.

1. There are the question of the existence of some rights, of some obligations, , of some duties, of some ends, of some fruits or goods, of some roles, of some functions, of some liberties, of some responsibilities, of some offenses, of some prohibitions, of some principles, of some exceptions, of some privileges…etc?
2. There is the question of the nature and of the hierarchy of each one.
3. Then there is the question of the moral realization of each one. In catholic moral theology, in general, there are the circumstances, intentions and the effects that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral (Ethics to Nicomak is very useful):

The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used (employed);
The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

The personalism, the phenomenologism, the realism and the objectivisme are so important in the Catholicism: Catholicism is subtil and balanced. The ends of marriage and of the conjugal act are concomitant during the conjugal life, at each moment, they are here. * If you refuse the principle of the practicing of the conjugal act and the non practice like an exception, there is a issue. Yes, each spouse has to justify, explain and expose to the other the reason(s)* of a refusal. And morally speaking, the motive(s) of the refusal has to be true, genuine, real, actual, objective, moral, natural, legitimate, not stupid, not crazy and not linked to a heresy or an ideology. Of course, the forced execution of the marital act is always morally wrong, and even *it is a conjugal rape, a great sin, a mortal sin.
*

The natural virtues and supernatural virtues* are linked to the execution of rights, obligations and co, and not *to their existences.
*

 

[fpt]

That’s why I think sexual intercourse should be treated with more responsibility, the responsibility to love, for God’s love, not for sexual pleasing, but for bringing a person to this world. Pleasure has a place, but never over the person. For you to act you need to believe first.

Love gives the person the trust that you will protect them no matter what (Jesus gave His life). In my understandings if marriage comes from this love (Gods love), it will not be about forcing in any way, worst if something is being forced for my own pleasure.

I think the point is that (should be that) you act accordingly to love, and in a sense, not to tell others (force others) to act love towards you.

This thread for reading: sins within the marital act: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=953648

Read the part of the conjugal debt.