B
Bookcat
Guest
as the Dwarves say in the Hobbit (the book!) ~ “at your service”…while bowing
- Status
F
fpt
Guest
The union of bodies implies the body, the soul and the heart with all the corollaries. All the phenomenons in link with the marital act are created and wanted by God. No moral issue, per se. It is a gift, a present and a donation coming from God and coming from the spouse. The fact of giving pleasure, of receiving pleasure, of taking pleasure and of enjoying is not a moral problematic, per se. In the marriage and in the context of the marital act, all the carnal acts should be signs of conjugal love. *She offers her body, he offers his body, she takes his body, he takes her body, she receives his body, he receives her body, he is active on her body, she is active on his body, she is passive and he is passive. *fpt and Bookcat,
I am happy to see that both of you have understood my question very well. And it appears that this is something that you both have previously considered.
The reason I am asking is that the heights of pleasure that spouses might bring each other to can sometimes be breathtaking and can make it difficult to hold a rational, logical thought in one’s mind. Is accepting and embracing that pleasure which is given in love, with total surrender and abandonment of one’s self to the other, when language becomes impossible and thoughts don’t make sense anymore, is that hedonism, or simply a holy communion between husband and wife? Must a person maintain a reserve that would include a dampening of arousal, in order to retain the ability to hold a rational thought? Sexual function is still possible with such reserve, but it does become more difficult.
And if a person is swept away to the point that they forget about the holiness of the marital act, but only know that in that moment that it is wonderful and exciting, is that a sin which injures their relationship with God?
Disclaimer: I am a convert of several years now, and I came from a Protestant background that taught very wrong, inappropriate things about sexual intercourse within marriage, so my questions arise as I continue to form my conscience with the teachings of the Catholic Church on these matters. I hope these don’t seem like stupid questions, because sometimes I really struggle to understand the truly Catholic perspective on matters.
THE DONATION AND THE RECEPTION OF BODIES, OF SOULS AND OF HEARTS, VIA THE CONJUGAL SEXUAL UNION,* IS A PRAYER, A LITURGY, A GIFT, A PRESENT, A RIGHT, AN OBLIGATION, A DUTY FOR THE COUPLE AND FOR EACH ONE.*
**This Eros **is morally lawful in the marital act because it is ordered to the ends of marriage.
There are a holy EROS and a wrong EROS. The virtue of Temperance is for servicing the HOLY EROS.
STOP, STOP WITH SCRUPULISM AND WITH THE SCRUPULOUS THINKINGS
F
fpt
Guest
In catholicism, the essential paradigm is **the enjoyment in the respect of the natural moral order of the creation. We can apply that view to the marital act (see the Song of Songs). **
In the marriage, the conjugal passion, even the conjugal sexual passion, does not have to be opposed to the reason. Reason and passion, and passion and reason are not opposed, per se. By definition, love is passion otherwise that is not love, but passion has to be reasonned. Love without passion is not the love.** Love is a sentiment, a will and a choice with a reasonable passion. The conjugal romantism has to be attempted, that is an obligation of means.**
The enjoyment in the respect of the natural moral order of the creation is the rule in catholicism. The fact of saying the contrary is not very catholic. The fact of being a conjugal pleasure-seeker in the respect of the natural moral order is a Holy Eros.
T
tafan
Guest
Limiting oneself to 3 meals a day would certainly be an example of temperance with respect to food.
Perhaps a couple limiting themselves to three times a day…
Never mind,
Perhaps a couple limiting themselves to three times a day…
Never mind,
F
fpt
Guest
In Catholicism, there is no figure for saying if the marital act is too much? How many times per day, per night, per morning, per afternoon, per week, per week-end, per month? It is not defined by the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Each couple has to decide freely. Only, the couple has this competence. It is function of each wife, of each husband and of each couple.Limiting oneself to 3 meals a day would certainly be an example of temperance with respect to food.
Perhaps a couple limiting themselves to three times a day…
Never mind,
One time a day? Six times a day? Every day? Every week? Every month? Every Year? Four times in the night? No moral issue, per se.
About the conjugal carnal love, the primary rule is the conjugal charity. The couple has to decide. Per se, the Church has no power to decide for the couples.
!!!
M
mommamaree
Guest
Limiting oneself to 3 meals a day would certainly be an example of temperance with respect to food.
Perhaps a couple limiting themselves to three times a day…
Never mind,
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Temperence is the contrary virtue to the vice of lust. The Catholic encyclopedia tells us that temperence has 3 subordinate virtues… abstinence, chastity and modesty. These are not just to be observed outside of the marriage but within as this weakness pertains to mans primal nature and not to his rational nature*…“It ought to be noted, however, that in its primary and generally understood sense temperance is concerned with what is difficult for a man, not in so far as he is a rational being precisely, but rather in so far as he is an animal.”*
newadvent.org/cathen/14481a.htm
Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body lectures also reminds us of the primal root of lust…
Adultery committed in the heart is not circumscribed in the limits of the interpersonal relationship which make it possible to determine adultery committed in the body. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially about adultery committed in the heart, but the very nature of lust. It is expressed in this case by a look, that is, by the fact that that man—of whom Christ speaks, for the sake of example—looks lustfully. Adultery in the heart is committed not only because man looks in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb42.htm
Temperence is as important a consideration inside marriage as out. It is wrong but common for people to think that marriage legitimises every primal desire. People argue that if both spouses are willing participants in lustful acts, that this is what renders them legitimate, but this is simply not true. Mans selfish desires are always a problem regardless of marriage and regardless of complicity.
What does temperence look like? Well since Jesus tells that sin begins in the intentions within the heart, this is a good starting place to examine our attitude and respectfulnes towards our spouse in the general life of the marriage.
newadvent.org/cathen/14481a.htm
Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body lectures also reminds us of the primal root of lust…
Adultery committed in the heart is not circumscribed in the limits of the interpersonal relationship which make it possible to determine adultery committed in the body. It is not these limits that decide exclusively and essentially about adultery committed in the heart, but the very nature of lust. It is expressed in this case by a look, that is, by the fact that that man—of whom Christ speaks, for the sake of example—looks lustfully. Adultery in the heart is committed not only because man looks in this way at a woman who is not his wife, but precisely because he looks at a woman in this way. Even if he looked in this way at the woman who is his wife, he could likewise commit adultery in his heart.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb42.htm
Temperence is as important a consideration inside marriage as out. It is wrong but common for people to think that marriage legitimises every primal desire. People argue that if both spouses are willing participants in lustful acts, that this is what renders them legitimate, but this is simply not true. Mans selfish desires are always a problem regardless of marriage and regardless of complicity.
What does temperence look like? Well since Jesus tells that sin begins in the intentions within the heart, this is a good starting place to examine our attitude and respectfulnes towards our spouse in the general life of the marriage.
M
mommamaree
Guest
LongingSoul,
I am not sure if you read my other posts that clarified my question. I am not talking about lusting after one’s spouse or using them as an object of pleasure, but rather of abandoning oneself to one’s spouse and to the pleasure of the union that remains within the bounds of what is still a marital act. Or perhaps you said what you did because a person is temperate if they are not using their spouse to fulfill lustful desires?
So I am a bit confused by your post, whether you were speaking to one of my posts directly, or whether you were generally explaining lust vs temperance. Could you explain further your perspective?
I am not sure if you read my other posts that clarified my question. I am not talking about lusting after one’s spouse or using them as an object of pleasure, but rather of abandoning oneself to one’s spouse and to the pleasure of the union that remains within the bounds of what is still a marital act. Or perhaps you said what you did because a person is temperate if they are not using their spouse to fulfill lustful desires?
So I am a bit confused by your post, whether you were speaking to one of my posts directly, or whether you were generally explaining lust vs temperance. Could you explain further your perspective?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I did indeed read your clarifications, but it seemed to me that you were defining temperence in too narrow a way.
‘Lusing after one’s spouse or using them as an object of pleasure’ comes from the place where the act begins… the heart. Abandoning yourself to the pleasure is like the end place. Everything has already been set in place by that time and that is just the animal part of the act. That part is not the part to be applying the moral and rational examination of the act.
What I was trying to do was bring the moral examination of the act, back to the place where we do have rational capacity. That is how something grows in the heart. What is planted and how it is tended. That’s what produces the quality of what comes naturally at the end. You could plant a fruit tree seed or you could plant something poison at that place of rational capacities. The flurry of natural growth that results (as in the flurry of natural pleasure) has no moral character whatsoever. The seeds that were planted in the heart are where temperence, chastity and modesty apply.
An example would be seen in the cases of child sexual abuse and the character of grooming. A big problem a child has is with the pleasure it might experience in the midst of the abuse and the further sexual desires that the abuse ignites in that child.
A child needs to be reminded in this case that the quality of the pleasure in that state of abandon does not make for culpability. The reality is that no child wants to have sex with an adult. (In normal circumstances) The intent and the deliberate grooming to facilitate what will follow is where we place the moral character.
Even in marriage, grooming can play a part in ensuring the compliant participation of a spouse. This is why it is important to live virtuously in every part of the relationship in order that the conscience and reason are alert and active as our moral compass.
M
mommamaree
Guest
LongingSoul,
I was not defining temperance at all, but rather was asking for help in understanding it.
I really don’t understand what you are saying. The references you make to planting poison and grooming children for sex are incredibly disturbing in the context of this conversation. It makes it seem like you are saying that by really enjoying a wonderful lovemaking experience with a spouse, one risks committing not only mortal sin, but truly heinous and destructive injuries against one’s spouse.
I was not defining temperance at all, but rather was asking for help in understanding it.
I really don’t understand what you are saying. The references you make to planting poison and grooming children for sex are incredibly disturbing in the context of this conversation. It makes it seem like you are saying that by really enjoying a wonderful lovemaking experience with a spouse, one risks committing not only mortal sin, but truly heinous and destructive injuries against one’s spouse.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Wow. Ok. Sorry I contributed. Consider my posts null and void.LongingSoul,
I was not defining temperance at all, but rather was asking for help in understanding it.
I really don’t understand what you are saying. The references you make to planting poison and grooming children for sex are incredibly disturbing in the context of this conversation. It makes it seem like you are saying that by really enjoying a wonderful lovemaking experience with a spouse, one risks committing not only mortal sin, but truly heinous and destructive injuries against one’s spouse.
M
mommamaree
Guest
I am sorry I offended you. I didn’t mean to. I just am having a really hard time understanding what you are trying to say, and some of the analogies you used were upsetting. I never asked you not to contribute, just to explain. Remember, I am a convert and am trying really hard to understand all this. I don’t understand how there is any relation between grooming a child for sex and a marital act between two spouses. Is there? Or did you mean something else entirely?
P
Petaro
Guest
I believe your second option is the more valid. Sex within marriage is valid within the parameters of respect and love for your partner. if for example you wished to offer your desire fox sex to the Lord without gaining approval from your spouse I believe this is not a valid offering to God as it is not your individual right and indeed a breech of your marriage vows to make that decision alone.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Unfortunately I’m not understanding your question at all. I’ll bow out and leave the question to others.
M
mommamaree
Guest
Fair enough. Thanks for trying. From what Bookcat and a couple other forum members have explained, my concern over the virtue of temperance in the holy marital act might have been much ado about nothing anyway.
Z
zz912
Guest
For you it sounds like it is holy communion between husband and wife, and you can completely surrender yourself to it. The reason that I say it this way it for clarity’s sake. These breathtaking moments are great gifts of God, but they can also be used improperly, such as two people having sex outside marriage. As you described them here, yours is proper and holy.
Nope.
Nope. In fact, for a married couple such as yourself, who are enjoying the gifts God has given within their proper “structure”, it enhances your relationship with God. You are renewing and celebrating one of God’s sacraments. I think we overlook this sacrament too easily. Remember, the seven sacraments are channels of God’s grace! Think about that.
Not stupid at all. That is what these forums were created for.
- Status