Theology of the Marital Act: Conte vs. West

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orthodox_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Miiiils,

I don’t agree with all Ron Conte is saying, and it’s obvious to me that he asks probably more than what should be excepted from a Catholic standpoint.

But I agree that some are trying to push the Catholic doctrine as far as they can even if common sense or morality or personal dignity is lost in the process. It is not right either.
 
I am sorry. I know that you didn’t speaking of your personal situation.

I was thinking on a more general point, and… more for my own situation than yours.

Sorry for not being clearer.
 
Anicette said:
I am sorry. I know that you didn’t speaking of your personal situation.

I was thinking on a more general point, and… more for my own situation than yours.

Sorry for not being clearer.
Click to expand...
No problem. We actually get along quite well as divorced parents go. She wished me a happy birthday on Tuesday via text and we shared an inside joke about our son’s becoming a budding political philosopher (just like Dad). Perhaps one day he can go to Sciences Po, peut-être? 😊 🇫🇷
 
Last edited:
Contemporary Moral Theology II (Ford and Kelly) as well as The Way of the Lord Jesus (Germain Grisez) both claim the wife’s completion forms a moral unity with the man’s, if done during the context of the marital act but not necessarily during actual penetration.

Both works were written by staunch conservative, godly Catholic moralists and theologians, and both (alongside Christopher West’s work, fwiw) bear Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats, and one bears an Imprimi Potest.

Surely these books are considered free of any moral harm, or doctrinal error opposed to Magisterial teaching?
 
Anicette said:
@Miiiils,

I don’t agree with all Ron Conte is saying, and it’s obvious to me that he asks probably more than what should be excepted from a Catholic standpoint.

But I agree that some are trying to push the Catholic doctrine as far as they can even if common sense or morality or personal dignity is lost in the process. It is not right either.
Click to expand...
This seems like a well thought-out viewpoint.
 
Orthodox_T said:
bear Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats, and one bears an Imprimi Potest.

Surely these books are considered free of any moral harm, or doctrinal error opposed to Magisterial teaching?
Click to expand...
Such declarations guarantee it be so.
 
Orthodox_T said:
This seems like a well thought-out viewpoint.
Click to expand...
That’s why I also no longer look or care to what West say.

I used too read his articles, and he certainely do a courageous mission, but he lost any credibility in the 2008 polemic for me.

Definitely our conscience should be enlight by the Church teaching. And I also with the conclusion of Alice Hildebrand that we should use our thinking and common sense when sexual morality topic are raised.
 
Last edited:
What . . . the Church cares about when you have sex is that you are married, aren’t using birth control and that the . . . husband completes the marital acts within his wife . . . and obviously that it’s a loving act. . . . It’s not that complicated and you shouldn’t be worrying about it.
 
Last edited:
Miiiils said:
I find it extremely hard to believe a book with those certifications would teach the permissibility of any unnatural sexual acts.
Click to expand...
They’re unnatural according to your opinion, but obviously not to the Church, if they have received such certification.
 
How do you understand - that is, resolve the seeming contradiction - in the existence of differing “backed-up and magisterially grounded” conclusions regarding the Truth of conjugal love? Truth cannot contradict itself.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
40.png
Miiiils:
I’m sorry, but they are not wrong and also do not contradict any of JPII’s teachings.

If you would like to supply a contradiction, I would be interested to read!
Click to expand...
JPII taught that a man has responsibility to his wife to bring her to completion, even if necessary after his own, which is impossible by penetration alone, the only method acceptable to Conte.
Click to expand...
One of the keys is to realize that responsibility is not equal to mere duty. Duty carries the connotation of grudging or indifferent actions bereft of love. Completing requirements can be part of love, but it’s not the fullness of it.
Responsibility is awakened by love. It pursues what is best for another. And enjoying the full fruit of the conjugal act is good for both partners, and it should be a joyous thing for a husband to please his wife, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
As a side note, I don’t see anywhere that the Church has laid out pastoral guidance on this particular issue, if just to clarify and guide couples (and future men and women called to marriage) who might worry about chastity in marriage, (i.e. - if completion for the wife aside from actual intercourse but during the context of the act is sin, etc.). Surely, God’s design for the female body is not in error. I really regret stumbling on that blog.

Are there any priests on this forum that can chime in?
 
Ok that’s junk.
Perhaps you need a cuddle time to Express the feelings God gave you both…no details
 
Last edited:
I’m a real-live moral theologian. Do not trust Ron Conte. He is not a good guide.

As to the question, if you make enough distinctions, the problem disappears. It is fine to heat the oven, and to knead the dough, as long as it is really truly being done as a preparation for baking, in a moderate way. It would not be okay to play with your food or see how hot the oven can get on its own, or to keep the oven heating after baking is done. Get it?
 
West’s position is much more nuanced than that. He doesn’t actually give any sort of approval for anal sex, but simply points out that the Church doesn’t condemn it, so long as the man climaxes in the appropriate place.
 
I’ve always thought the Church’s teaching on the wife’s completion was like the “relaxed play” concept in baseball.

After the ball is pitched, may things can happen. A strike. A throw down to second. A hit. A double play. A runner thrown out and then a second runner caught in a rundown.

Until the pitcher has the ball and toes the rubber, it’s still the original play. Same thing with appropriate marital relations in a Catholic context. As long as there isn’t a definitive stop, it’s all one act.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, both Conte and West take things too far.

Conte thinks that all foreplay is forbidden within marriage, while West thinks all foreplay is allowed within marriage.

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

After all, sodomy is sodomy, even if it’s performed within a marriage.
 
Last edited:
It’s my understanding (from other priests) that this priest is talking about West (without mentioning his name) and others who share his views.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top