Some of what he says is correct but he caries it far past the reasonable bounds. For instance he begins talking about murder, rape, etc. Murder within marriage is of course always wrong(duh!) Rape even within Marriage is wrong. Sexual acts like genital stimulation are not wrong if they are oriented towards faciliating normal sexual intercourse open to new life.I am not married but soon to be engaged. There are some things I need to know before walking down the aisle. I got the no sex before marriage part down. I even have the no contraception within marriage part all straight. But there is still a few things regarding NFP and sexual acts within marriage that I haven’t figured out the morality of quite yet.
There is an article that someone sent me about how there are certain sexual acts within marriage that many good married Catholis do without realizing they are disorderd.
For example, any genital stimulation (oral or manual) is disorded, even when coupled with the natural marital act of intercourse open to life.
If interested in this topic, please read the following article: Sexual Sins within Marriage
I just want to do the right thing and live a pure life, but this article is the only instance where I have heard of such a thing. Is this common knowledge?
:tsktsk: And remember, there are children as young as 13 able to access this forum so please be prudent (Moderators: please remove thread if conversation is deemed inapporpriate.)
Well put. I think that the important thing is to avoid extremes when it comes to stuff like this. Clearly (whether due to Jansenistic influence or Puritan and Victorian era ideas or less enlightened ideas about human sexuality and the dignity of women) these concepts ran harshly in one direction. Now, of course, the general (unredeemed by good philosophy and faith) common wisdow of secular society leads heavily elsewhere. Somewhere in between (or, perhaps, it might be said “higher”) lies the balance. Yet, still, I think that there is a lot of room for legitimate debate. As such, calling something crazy when it was so commonly held sincerely as faith (and in many ways practiced devoutly as such - for better or worse, and likely with much frustration) tends harsh, even if ultimately accurate.You are correct, there was a school or schools of thought that once held such ideas. I think its a hangover from the Jansenist Heresy. I had advice from a priest once similar to the planet guy, it damn near ruined my marriage till I found other priests who helped me get things in the proper order. I was acquainted with one professor of philosophy who felt it was a good thing for married couples to never kiss. He and his wife had made such a vow to each other when they married. So you see nuts come in a variety of sizes and types in all ages. Morality when thought through should make common sense. If it doesn’t seek help.
Prove it.Drinking alcohol regularly is inherently immoral. (true)
I can look it up for you and serve it in a bottleProve it.
Jeremy
But wasn’t St. Augustine fairly well versed in sexuality? I thought he had a mistress (but never married) at age 18 who gave him a son. Given his experience it seems to me the man might know a think or two about sex and intimacy.Also, he quotes Augustine at length in his justification of his statements. Sorry, but I just don’t trust Augustine as my only authority when it comes to marriage. His teachings must be contextualized, and were better understood later. I believe he pretty much said that sex for any reason other than expressly procreative purposes is sinful. IMO, he still retained tinges of Manichaeism that made him dislike the body and think that, generally, bodily pleasures were sinful. That’s not the case when it comes to the ‘primordial sacrament’ of marriage! It is good for the two to become one flesh!
James1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
You’re the one making a claim; the onus is on you to prove that claim. Without a proof, I have no reason whatsoever to accept your claim.I can look it up for you and serve it in a bottle
or:
You can prove that drinking alcohol regularly is completely moral.