Theology of the Marital Act: Conte vs. West

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orthodox_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I have very rarely heard the former terms used by married couples. I have heard them used primarily by young, single men.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we’ve had a couple of young fellows on here who seemed to be Catholic manifestations of the “incel” phenomenon – creepily pleased with the “marital debt” concept and how it would allow them to threaten their future wives with hell for not performing on demand. One of them was even specifically planning to move to a non-Western country to find a very sheltered girl who would be financially dependent on him. (Which is a scheme I’ve read on incel boards also, hence my comparison.)

Fortunately, for anyone worried that that was a common Catholic attitude, every actually married person on those threads took them to task, strongly recommending that they not even consider marriage until their understanding of marriage was not so impoverished.
 
Last edited:
And not a moment too soon. Men need to be focused on providing and loving, not getting their part of marriage. It will come in due time and effort to create and maintain a healthy relationship.
 
Orthodox_T said:
is firmly against the wife’s satisfaction in the marital embrace, since if intercourse alone is licit and all other acts are mortal sins, the wife will never achieve satisfaction, as it biologically takes more than this in the marital embrace to reach this. She will, as JP II says in Love and Responsibility , “never fully participate in the act,” and as someone who is seeking to marry in the church, it unnerves me.
Click to expand...
Don’t be unnerved. JPII (I think it was him) said that it was the husband’s duty for his wife to achieve satisfaction, even if the act itself was over. It’s been a few years since I’ve posted on this subject, but I could probably find it if needed.

Also, Conte’s view of the marital embrace is impossible to achieve. Everyone needs a little help, if you know what I mean, to simply engage in the act, especially as we age. That alone should be enough evidence to discard his writings.
 
PaulinVA said:
Don’t be unnerved. JPII (I think it was him) said that it was the husband’s duty for his wife to achieve satisfaction, even if the act itself was over.
Click to expand...
Which is somehow more sexually liberal than society is today…in a good way, of course.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
Don’t be unnerved. JPII (I think it was him) said that it was the husband’s duty for his wife to achieve satisfaction, even if the act itself was over.
Click to expand...
Yes. He said this in Love and Responsibility prior to becoming the pope. He even said it was ideal if husband and wife could achieve satisfaction together, but recognized the difficulty in this.
 
He’s correct on sexual ethics though. He cites Doctors of the Church, writings of Popes, and documents from the Magisterium. He also forms his arguments from the Church’s teaching on moral theology.
 
He doesn’t just make “claims” He backs it all up with Church teaching, Pope’s teaching, Doctors of the Church, and moral theology.
 
Miiiils said:
When it comes to sexual ethics, go with Conte every time.
Click to expand...
This guidance is incorrect and harmful to the OP. Conte has absolutely no authority and his opinions conflict directly with those of St. Pope JPII and of the modern Church.
 
They have both their wrong.

One is being too restrictive, repetitive and micromanaging in every little details, the other being too sex-obsess and trying to push the limits of the doctrine as much as he can, even to the absurdity.

If you want Catholic teaching, read the Bible, the encyclicals, the pastoral letters. If you want Theology of the Body, just go the the writting of JPII and Love and responsability.
 
Last edited:
Miiiils said:
He’s correct on sexual ethics though. He cites Doctors of the Church, writings of Popes, and documents from the Magisterium. He also forms his arguments from the Church’s teaching on moral theology.
Click to expand...
The Doctors of the Church were scientifically ignorant of the sexual anatomy and biological responses of women in their day. Women need more than straight intercourse to be satisfied in the marital embrace. Scientific study after study shows this — we cannot ignore this fact. God made them this way, did He not?

It is unfair and wrong, in my opinion, to leave a wife “high and dry” in the marital embrace. JP II agrees with this as well, as I’ve just read in Love and Responsibility.
 
Last edited:
Well, you know, that’s possible that most of the doctors of the Church were ignorant.

But more fundamental point, through Church history, She try to discourage her faithfull from using the sexual functions for having deliberate sexual pleasure.

Chastity via continence is what was noble. Copulation for married people was admitted as a necessity for the primary purpose of having children the secondary purpose of relieving the concupiscence. sexual pleasure should be the product (or the consequence) of the use of sexuality for the others purpose.

Church cultivate the fear of the carnal realities.

It is only since the XXth century that this millenary perspective change, and mostly via JP views.
 
I’m sorry but that’s just not true.

His arguments on sexual ethics are backed up by Church Teaching, Statements from Popes, Magisterial documents, and Catholic Moral teaching.
 
Miiiils said:
Church Teaching, Statements from Popes, Magisterial documents, and Catholic Moral teaching
Click to expand...
But has he properly understood these things, or is he just proof-texting in an attempt to bolster his otherwise faulty position (as so often happens when armchair theologians pontificate online)?
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I know there is at least one schismatic group who owns a domain name with “catholic” in the title.
Click to expand...
Would this be the two brothers in upstate New York?

Sadly, the word “Catholic” is in the public domain, and aside from ecclesiastical censure for using it without authorization (something I don’t think would deter them), there is really nothing the Church can do, if a group or a church wants to call itself “Catholic”.
Usagi said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
I have very rarely heard the former terms used by married couples. I have heard them used primarily by young, single men.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we’ve had a couple of young fellows on here who seemed to be Catholic manifestations of the “incel” phenomenon – creepily pleased with the “marital debt” concept and how it would allow them to threaten their future wives with hell for not performing on demand. One of them was even specifically planning to move to a non-Western country to find a very sheltered girl who would be financially dependent on him. (Which is a scheme I’ve read on incel boards also, hence my comparison.)
Click to expand...
“Incels” need to work on their social skills — perhaps get some sort of counselor or life coach — and bring their standards more into line with reality, and what they have to offer in return. Women well worth knowing come in all sizes, shapes, and appearances.

The term “marital debt” sounds absolutely hideous in English, and I’m not suggesting that the Church should sweep the teaching under the rug, but surely there has to be a gentler, more loving way of phrasing it.
 
I believe he has properly understood, yes.

We probably aren’t going to make any ground, so we can just leave this one here.

God bless you!
 
Miiiils said:
Interacting with your spouse in a fashion similar to masturbation, is not permissible.
Click to expand...
Similar to is not equal to the act itself.

There are plenty of modern (and pre-Vatican II) theologians that would disagree with your statement here, and who would also disagree with Conte.
 
Miiiils said:
I believe he has properly understood, yes.
Click to expand...
You believe based on what? An in-depth reading and analysis of Pope St. John Paul II’s writings, the modern magisterium (which is the sole authority in interpreting the Church’s tradition on the matter), and other theologians old and new who disagree with you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top