Theology of the body

[bilop]

1. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

Can someone elaborate on this? I’m confused what this means.

If you look at St. Paul, as I quoted above, you will see a major goal of Christian marriage is to fight concupiscence, the tendancy to sin.

Therefore, by providing a moral, and virtuous, outlet for sexual desires, marriage helps the spouse remain chaste and avoid sins such as fornication and masturbation.

So, as long as spouses engage in procreative/unitive sex they remain chaste and pure.

Hope that helps.

God Bless

 

[saint_rafael]

If you look at St. Paul, as I quoted above, you will see a major goal of Christian marriage is to fight concupiscence, the tendancy to sin.

Therefore, by providing a moral, and virtuous, outlet for sexual desires, marriage helps the spouse remain chaste and avoid sins such as fornication and masturbation.

So, as long as spouses engage in procreative/unitive sex they remain chaste and pure.
Hope that helps.
God Bless

What St. Paul said was true and was related to the marital duty, but all that is the secondary aspect that belongs to marriage.

The Church has always taught for 2,000 years that the primary goal of marriage is procreation and children for God.

St. Paul does not address procreation in those verses because the Corinthians were preoccupied with the questions over pagan spouses, wether to marry, and abstinence.

Unitive always follows procreative. That has been held by all Catholics throught history.

Nonchristian and Catholic marriages have the same ends. Both were established by God according to the natural law for procreation. Jesus elevated Catholic marriage to the level of sacrament in which grace is given and marriage becomes supernatural.

**
Your error is that you are placing the unitive as the primary goal of marriage when the infallible Church teaching states that it is the secondary goal.**

 

[bilop]

The Church has always taught for 2,000 years that the primary goal of marriage is procreation and children for God.

That can’t be right. If it were, then in vitro fertilization would be moral. Having children is more important that the salvation of the spouses according to you, so we should sin to have children.

Nothing on earth is more important than helping your spouse go to heaven, except for our own salvation.

Read the Catechism

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."147 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."148

God Bless

 

[bilop]

**
Your error is that you are placing the unitive as the primary goal of marriage when the infallible Church teaching states that it is the secondary goal.**

The primary goal of marriage is the salvation of the spouses. Secondary is begetting children.

The unitive and procreative aspect are equal in the marital act. Both must be present to make a marital act morally licit.

God Bless

 

[saint_rafael]

The primary goal of marriage is the salvation of the spouses. Secondary is begetting children.

The unitive and procreative aspect are equal in the marital act. Both must be present to make a marital act morally licit.

God Bless

That is heresy. The two aspects are not equal.

I agree that the goal of marriage is salvation of the spouses, but this is accomplished by the two ends of marriage, Procreation and Unity.

Church teaching has been clear for centuries through the Apostles, Popes, Councils, Doctors of the Church that Procreation is the primary end with unitive the secondary end. They are not equal.

Couples help each other get to heaven as part of their vocation while they also raise children for God. Their responsibility is to create sanits for God.

You either obey the Curch or live in your error.

The Church teaches with infallibility and truth. Catholics must learn to bend down and humble themselves to Church teaching.

As far as those who cannot biologically concieve children, this is an exception to the principle. God has allowed these unfotunate problems to happen.

IVF is morally evil. It is not an option. Couples who cannot concieve either live as a childless couple or they adopt. It is the will of God for many of these couples to adopt and take care of children who are not wanted and need parents.

 

[m134e5]

The primary goal of marriage is the salvation of the spouses. Secondary is begetting children.

The unitive and procreative aspect are equal in the marital act. Both must be present to make a marital act morally licit.

God Bless

That is correct. As with *any *vocation, the primary goal of marriage is salvation. Don’t look too deep into theology for this- it’s common sense, really. God calls us to holiness. To help us on the way to holiness, He gives each of us a vocation. By the way some traditional Catholics talk, you’d think the Church taught that the priesthood and religious life were the only vocations to holiness- everyone else was just put on this earth to breed.

 

[latinmass]

We are getting off track. The thread is the problem that traditionalists have with Christopher West’s TOB. The type of sexual acts Mr. West says are acceptable is the problem, because the marital act is for expression of love and procreation first, and pleasure second, and never takes place without love. When pleasure becomes first, oral sex etc., this is the wrong path, if not sinfull, and Mr. West, seems to use JP2, to give the ok on these acts.

 

[saint_rafael]

We are getting off track. The thread is the problem that traditionalists have with Christopher West’s TOB. The type of sexual acts Mr. West says are acceptable is the problem, because the marital act is for procreation first, and pleasure second, and never takes place without love. When pleasure becomes first, oral sex etc., this is the wrong path, if not sinfull, and Mr. West, seems to use JP2, to give the ok on these acts.

Well said. The novelties of Christopher West seems to have confused many Catholics across the country.

I have heard that it has caused some break ups among TOB fanatics when they realize that the pelagian and unrealistic hyped positivity of marriage and sex does not live up to the to hard reality of married life.

Christopher West is also trying to turn the sex act into its own sacrament. The error is that marriage itself is the sacrament and not the intercourse it self.
His metaphors and analogies between sex, the Church, and Jesus have been stretched too far and have been scandalous

 

[bilop]

That is heresy. The two aspects are not equal.

You call this post heresy?

The primary goal of marriage is the salvation of the spouses. Secondary is begetting children.

The unitive and procreative aspect are equal in the marital act. Both must be present to make a marital act morally licit.

God Bless

So the Baltimore Catechism is heretical?

1. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;

1. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;

1. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0104/_P28.HTM

The current CCC is heretical?

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."147 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."148

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

Notice, the good/slavation/holiness of the spouses is always mentioned first.

I’d be careful who is the one preaching heresy.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

We are getting off track. The thread is the problem that traditionalists have with Christopher West’s TOB. The type of sexual acts Mr. West says are acceptable is the problem, because the marital act is for expression of love and procreation first, and pleasure second, and never takes place without love. When pleasure becomes first, oral sex etc., this is the wrong path, if not sinfull, and Mr. West, seems to use JP2, to give the ok on these acts.

Just to be precise, West does NOT say oral sex is OK.

Any non-intercourse sex act that ends in completion for the male is not-permitted.

What his says is that oral and manual stimulation as foreplay are permissible in the context of the completed marriage act.

This is supported by JP II and older Catholic Marriage manuals.

He also has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, so he is clearly not teaching error.

God Bless

 

[saint_rafael]

You call this post heresy?
So the Baltimore Catechism is heretical?
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0104/_P28.HTM

The current CCC is heretical?

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

I’d be careful who is the one preaching heresy.

God Bless

You are mixing up the goal of marriage with its ends. I was sloppy with the words earlier myself.

The goal of marriage is salvation because all the sacraments are supposed to give the grace for salvation. That is not the argument.

The argument is over the ends of marriage. The Baltimore Catechism lists the ends. It does not rank the ends. The Baltiomere Catechsim like I have aready said does not go into detail over the ends.

The heresy is that you are putting the two ends together, when the Church teaches with infallibility that procreation is the first end and unity the second end.

 

[latinmass]

Just to be precise, West does NOT say oral sex is OK.

Any non-intercourse sex act that ends in completion for the male is not-permitted.

What his says is that oral and manual stimulation as foreplay are permissible in the context of the completed marriage act.

This is supported by JP II and older Catholic Marriage manuals.

He also has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, so he is clearly not teaching error.

God Bless

Oral sex is oral sex, no matter how it ends. If your daughter has oral sex, then stops did she not have it. I would be interested where you got that JP2 supports this, can you specifically cite where he does, and the older Catholic Marriage manuals that do. Off topic, if he got the Nihil Obstat, are there different standards for getting this for different countries?

 

[bilop]

Oral sex is oral sex, no matter how it ends. If your daughter has oral sex, then stops did she not have it. I would be interested where you got that JP2 supports this, can you specifically cite where he does, and the older Catholic Marriage manuals that do. Off topic, if he got the Nihil Obstat, are there different standards for getting this for different countries?

If she’s married, oral stimulation of and by her husband is fine with me.

If you get one of West’s books he has the specific citation, I’ll try to look it up at home.

Nihil Obstat means free of doctrinal error. He’s popular enough that it would have been challenged by now.

God Bless

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

This has always been the traditional teaching of the Church on Marriage:
the Church considers oral sex an act of lust and not permissible because the genitals are meant soley for the lawful act of intercourse.

Could you check both your theology and biology? Do you have a citation for your “act of lust” statement? And, in males at least, I can think of another approved and very needful use for the plumbing…

 

[Windmill]

A well-articulated editorial on the TOB

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

A well-articulated editorial on the TOB

That linked article includes the following statement:

"I remember an old Jesuit from my college days counseling his students that the pursuit of sanctity within the married state must inevitably lead to a weaning away from the marital privilege, the idea being that spiritual pursuits must take precedence over all else as we age and prepare to face the judgment of the Almighty. This may not wash with the pathetic spectacle of old Bob Dole hawking Viagra years ago when he was decrepit enough to be shilling for Depends, but it does have a decidedly Catholic ring to it, wouldn’t you say? "

I don’t know about a “Catholic ring,” but maybe an Augustinian one. Implicit in this statement is that the marital privilege is somehow suspect, somehow shameful or at least inappropriate as a couple ages, and certainly something to abandon in contemplation of “judgment.” It explicitly says that “sanctity” is somehow incompatible with intimate relations between a sacramentally-married husband and wife. I must have missed the pre-Cana class that taught separate bedrooms by 50 or else. It does have a decided ring to it after all…a Manichean ring methinks.

 

[dessert]

We are getting off track. The thread is the problem that traditionalists have with Christopher West’s TOB. The type of sexual acts Mr. West says are acceptable is the problem, because the marital act is for expression of love and procreation first, and pleasure second, and never takes place without love. When pleasure becomes first, oral sex etc., this is the wrong path, if not sinfull, and Mr. West, seems to use JP2, to give the ok on these acts.

I have not read the book but from what everyone is talking about I don’t think I want to. I don’t agree with the book.

 

[bilop]

I have not read the book but from what everyone is talking about I don’t think I want to. I don’t agree with the book.

He has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat from Achbp. Chaput of Denver, who is very orthodox, on “The Good News about Sex and Marriage”.

It’s worth a read. Just because some pratices may be licit does not mean everyone has to partake in them.

God Bless

 

[Solitude]

Here’s something older than the Baltimore Catechism and even the Council of Trent:

“Q. 764 - What is the principal end of marriage?

A. To beget children, and bring them up in the service of God; and the next to this is, that man may have a remedy against concupiscence, and a helper in the way of salvation.”

The Douay Catechism of 1649

I think the biggest problem with Christopher West’s teaching is this: He teaches that oral sex and anal sex are acceptable as foreplay. It may be technically true that they are not sinful in the sense that ejaculation outside the vagina is sinful. But they are sodomitic acts – just not completed ones. That in and of itself is troubling. Moreover, I think it may be an occasion of sin. If married people are doing what homosexuals do, it might well make them more prone to condone homosexual conduct.

Another thing that bothers me about Christopher West is that he makes it sound like everything that comes out of his mouth echoes John Paul II. I seriously doubt it. I would really like to see a clear citation to statements by John Paul II that oral and anal sex are just fine in marriage because I doubt one can be found.

 

[Solitude]

Here’s something older than the Baltimore Catechism and even the Council of Trent:

Sorry. I misspoke. I realize Trent was prior to the Douay Catechism.