Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on September 22, 2024, 07:52:54 AM
-
In regards to one's own spouse of course.
Reading St Alphonsus Sunday sermon this week had me thinking
Some young men will ask: Father, is it sinful to make love? I say: I cannot assert that of itself it is a mortal sin; but persons who do so are often in the proximate occasion of mortal sin; and experience shows that few of them are found free from grievous faults. It is useless for them to say that they neither had a bad motive nor bad thoughts. This is an illusion of the devil; in the beginning he does not suggest bad thoughts; but when, by frequent conversations together, and by frequently speaking of love, the affection of these lovers has become strong, the devil will make them blind to the danger and sinfulness of their conduct, and they shall find that, without knowing how, they have lost their souls and God by many sins of impurity and scandal. Oh! how many young persons of both sexes does the devil gain in this way! And of all those sins of scandal God will demand an account of fathers and mothers, who are bound, but neglect, to prevent these dangerous conversations. Hence, they are the cause of all these evils, and shall be severely chastised by God for them.
Above all, in order to avoid bad thoughts, men must abstain from looking at women, and females must be careful not to look at men
It is always dangerous to look at young persons elegantly dressed; and to look at them purposely, and without a just cause, is, at least, a venial sin.
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal, but pointing me in the right direction would help.
-
Moral theology : Jone, Heribert, 1885-1967 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0000jone)
Not sure if it gives the whole book. If not:
Moral Theology: Jone, Heribert: 9780895554727: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720)
-
Most traditional moral theology manuals treat the explicit characteristics of intimacy, but do so in Latin.
In the strict order of things, any sɛҳuąƖ activity which doesn't complete in natural intercourse is gravely sinful. A liberal interpretation of this reality has led some to conclude that "anything goes" as long as the act completes in natural intercourse. I'm not convinced that's true. St Alphonsus, I've heard, regarded imperfect sodomy as a despicable act. I can't find a citation for that, maybe someone else can. But it sounds right to me.
I think the best advice comes from St Thomas Aquinas, who instructs husbands to treat their wives as their wives rather than as any woman. I think any man will intuitively understand that this means treating intimacy with a certain dignity that will preclude degrading and humiliating acts. And I think if a man asks himself "am I treating her as my wife or just as any woman?", he will instinctively know if he is acting properly.
-
Most traditional moral theology manuals treat the explicit characteristics of intimacy, but do so in Latin.
In the strict order of things, any sɛҳuąƖ activity which doesn't complete in natural intercourse is gravely sinful. A liberal interpretation of this reality has led some to conclude that "anything goes" as long as the act completes in natural intercourse. I'm not convinced that's true. St Alphonsus, I've heard, regarded imperfect sodomy as a despicable act. I can't find a citation for that, maybe someone else can. But it sounds right to me.
I think the best advice comes from St Thomas Aquinas, who instructs husbands to treat their wives as their wives rather than as any woman. I think any man will intuitively understand that this means treating intimacy with a certain dignity that will preclude degrading and humiliating acts. And I think if a man asks himself "am I treating her as my wife or just as any woman?", he will instinctively know if he is acting properly.
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
I could be misunderstanding, but you sound like a melancholic getting lost in the weeds of his own thoughts. Go do something to clear your mind.
-
I could be misunderstanding, but you sound like a melancholic getting lost in the weeds of his own thoughts. Go do something to clear your mind.
I am trying educate myself so that when I do get a wife I won't sin.
-
Moral theology : Jone, Heribert, 1885-1967 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/moraltheology0000jone)
Not sure if it gives the whole book. If not:
Moral Theology: Jone, Heribert: 9780895554727: Amazon.com: Books (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720)
limited preview
-
I am trying educate myself so that when I do get a wife I won't sin.
If you aren’t married or at the very least engaged, you don’t need to know things like this. There’s a reason that moral theology isn’t taught until the end of seminary, it’s a delicate subject with some nuance involved.
Broadly speaking, I will say that the church has taught that Saint Alphonsus is safe to follow in ALL of his opinions, but even St Alphonsus admits that many of his opinions are just those, opinions and one would be safe to follow more permissive opinions of other moral theologians.
in any case, don’t concern yourself with things like this if you aren’t married or at least engaged. Just pray for a holy spouse.
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
.
He isn't treating his wife like his wife if he's treating her like a whore.
-
https://www.catechism.cc/articles/saint-alphonsus-liguori-marital-chastity.htm
-
If you aren’t married or at the very least engaged, you don’t need to know things like this. There’s a reason that moral theology isn’t taught until the end of seminary, it’s a delicate subject with some nuance involved.
Broadly speaking, I will say that the church has taught that Saint Alphonsus is safe to follow in ALL of his opinions, but even St Alphonsus admits that many of his opinions are just those, opinions and one would be safe to follow more permissive opinions of other moral theologians.
in any case, don’t concern yourself with things like this if you aren’t married or at least engaged. Just pray for a holy spouse.
^^^This^^^
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry. Anything else is just a way the devil gets you to dwell on dangerous topics.
-
Useless curiosity, if I may say so.
When you get married, it is expected that you will have some sort of preparation. A good priest should conduct some classes on the subject, and you can always ask a good confessor a week before your marriage or so.
Don't rush.
You are better off concentrating on reading about how to be a good husband and father.
-
limited preview
You can "borrow", so you you can read the whole book.
-
We converted 13 years ago after an initial civil marriage, so we then proceeded to have a catholic wedding. The priest gave us a article to read on the process of reproduction.
There was never any problem changing our mindset.
I remember reading an article from Ann Barhardt that I can no longer find. In the article it stated that of course the finality of the reproductive act is to have children and grow a family, but if you apply this rule to the letter you could still end up with very undignified and sinful behavior if all that matters is that you complete the act normally.
-
Useless curiosity, if I may say so.
When you get married, it is expected that you will have some sort of preparation. A good priest should conduct some classes on the subject, and you can always ask a good confessor a week before your marriage or so.
Don't rush.
You are better off concentrating on reading about how to be a good husband and father.
The above is very good advice. Wait until you are engaged to be married before you focus on the specific details of the marriage act.
-
^^^This^^^
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry.
I seriously have to question this. There are literary examples of how girls were never told about menstrual periods until they actually had one, and it scared them to death. (I suppose at that point, they had to be told something.) Likewise with young boys and nocturnal emissions.
And then there are the countless examples of either girls thinking "you can't get pregnant the first time", or boys who are duped into thinking they are the father of a child when, in fact, they are not (but, to be fair, at that point, the "avoiding sin" part is moot, because they've already fallen into it). There are also boys who are assured by an ambitious female that she can't get pregnant (for whatever reason) when, in fact, she can, and is using that as a ruse to trap the boy into fathering a child, or to return to the above scenario, thinking he's the father if she has more than one boyfriend and wants to pick the one she likes best, the young men possibly not even being aware of the other. (Thankfully, there are now DNA tests that can tell you who the father of the child actually is. About time.)
I'd put it in the same category as teaching your children that animals bite, or that climbing up onto tall edifices carries a danger of falling.
-
Two words:
prurient interest
-
What if the man has a mindset that he wouldn't do such acts with any women except his wife?
I think we really need to be talking about respect also when it comes to intimacy between wife and husband. A wife should be open to intimacy, but a man should not force a woman into something she is uncomfortable with and vice versa. The husband and wife will learn together. Some of the talk seems to side with a very puritan idea of the marital act, which could lead to a wife never receiving anything good other than a baby.
The only rule is the act ends in natural intercourse (like mithrandylan said).
Here are two encyclicals that might be helpful.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
-
Also, if you raise farm animals, you'll know how procreation works.
-
I think we really need to be talking about respect also when it comes to intimacy between wife and husband. A wife should be open to intimacy, but a man should not force a woman into something she is uncomfortable with and vice versa. The husband and wife will learn together. Some of the talk seems to side with a very puritan idea of the marital act, which could lead to a wife never receiving anything good other than a baby.
The only rule is the act ends in natural intercourse (like mithrandylan said).
Here are two encyclicals that might be helpful.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum.html
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
That you Ville Heitanen?
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
Are you saying there is no foreplay allowed?
-
The idea is to have a baby and to have the act the way God intended so no "extra stuff" that couples like to make excuses for, this goes into a species of lust and unnatural acts. St. Alphonsus, St. Augustine, and others are clear on this.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What is defined by "extra stuff"?
I think we need a married person group, so we can discuss better without worrying about giving too much info away to the unmarried.
-
I am not sure what you are trying to say. What is defined by "extra stuff"?
I think we need a married person group, so we can discuss better without worrying about giving too much info away to the unmarried.
Better yet, this topic is discussed with a priest during marriage prep.
It boggles my mind that people ask such important and intimate questions to random laymen on the internet, instead of going to a priest.
-
limited preview
I have this Moral Theology book. You can get it on Amazon.
-
Better yet, this topic is discussed with a priest during marriage prep.
It boggles my mind that people ask such important and intimate questions to random laymen on the internet, instead of going to a priest.
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
-
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
tendencies*
-
I'd say, as long as you know how to avoid sin, you probably don't even need to know a single thing about how procreation works until you are about to marry. Anything else is just a way the devil gets you to dwell on dangerous topics.
If you do this to your sons they are going to be bullied, easily scandalized, and not be prepared to lead their wives in this regard. Five-year-olds who live on farms know about procreation, why on earth would you retard your 18-year-old son and make him weird by sheltering him from such a topic?
If you are easily scandalized or tempted (if you are a teenage boy) you probably should not read the below.
Still, no one has answered the question for OP. We have to have an understanding of 1) the ends of marriage, 2) the motives of the act, and 3) the nature of the act.
St. Albert the great lists the ends and motives for us, but for this thread, I will only touch on what he says certainly makes us culpable of grave sin. If the act comes forth with both 1) the end of quieting the concupiscence in mind and 2) at the urge of our vicious nature, then the act, even if completed in the natural way, “the sin is mortal.”
St. Albert then touches on unnatural acts during marriage. "While it remains true that marital intimacies which retain their relation to the primary purposes of conjugal life are never seriously sinful per se, yet the manner of their practice may be a sign of concupiscence which is gravely culpable. The attitude adopted in intimacy is a sign of such concupiscence." (Ethics of Conjugal Intimacy According to St. Albert the Great, Clifford).
Here I want to add a small foreword. Even if we decide to disagree with St. Albert here, it at least gives us an idea of what the bias has always been in the medieval Church when it comes to the permissibility of things in the marital act. St. Albert even disagrees with some early scholastics who posited that when the attitude of the marital act is anything outside of a single position, it is always a mortal sin. While St. Albert mentions that this opinion "displeases" him, we can at least see what the bias was. In a similar vein to those early scholastics, some Spanish Catholics in the Middle Ages would cut holes into a sheet and cover their wife with it so as not to incite unnecessary lust. Now ask yourself, what would these early scholastics and Spanish Catholics think if they heard that modern Traditional Catholics were taking the liberty to do whatever they want to do with their wives as long as "it ends up in the right place"? The bias of the Church has always been closer to St. Albert than to Christopher West.
To return to what St. Albert says on this subject: very little. But we can use the above information to inform us that he would obviously be against any sort of action during the martial act that exists outside of the actual marital act. So no, you cannot treat your wife as a prostitute and do whatever you want with her.
All of that being said, moral theology admits of dozens and hundreds and thousands of nuances on a case-by-case basis. If the marital act is directed towards the primary end and the human faculties are not perverted in any way (as they would be in sodomy, making the substantial nature of the act unnatural), any accidentals of the act being slightly misdirected do not seem to be enough to make the sin mortal in St. Albert's eyes, but instead may only enlighten us that the motive for the act is teetering on the line between holy and lustful. So, all of this needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis and you will need to let your conscience inform you whether or not you are stepping into the territory of a vicious lust.
What we focus on during the marital act can also inform us of what our motives were for engaging in it. If we are hovering around areas of the marital act that have no direct relation to the primary end of marriage for too long, that can inform us that the ends are being switched in our minds, and that we are giving ourselves up to concupiscence. If there are fleeting gestures that only amount to an accidental change in the nature of the act, I do not believe you would be gravely culpable (I believe I read something along these lines from St. Alphonsus).
I am not going to go into gross specifics, but I do not think men should get scrupulous about small touches, kisses, and other things done during the marital act which are not substantially unnatural. If you read through my post, I think you would get the gist enough of what specific things may be permissible and what are not without me having to spell everything out.
I think we all know what is an is not permissible in the bedroom. We just want to convince ourselves that we can take more liberty than we should by digging up what this or that "moral theologian" said on the subject. Stick to the great Saints. Stick to St. Thomas, St. Albert, and St. Alphonsus on this and you can't go wrong.
-
If you do this to your sons they are going to be bullied, easily scandalized, and not be prepared to lead their wives in this regard. Five-year-olds who live on farms know about procreation, why on earth would you retard your 18-year-old son and make him weird by sheltering him from such a topic?
The above was my post.
-
What if your priest has feminist tenancies? Every trad priest is different, some are more strict than others.
Exactly. I have had traditional priests tell me that "anything is permissible, the Church does not teach on the subject."
Some priests give out NFP dispensations willy-nilly, some think NFP is always a mortal sin. Etc. etc.
If I was OP, I would go to the most flamboyantly gαy and liberal "traditional" priest I could find just so I could get the liberal response that I want when it comes to this subject. Cathinfo is still by far probably the best place to ask these sorts of questions, because then, at least, you are getting the entire body of opinions on the subject. OP is not asking just "any layman," he is asking hundreds of actually "traditional" Catholics who have an amalgamation of lived experiences, advice personally received from priests, knowledge learned from seminary (in some of our more illustrious members cases), etc. I would trust Ladislaus' or Matthew's direction over that of many priests.
-
If I was OP, I would go to the most flamboyantly gαy and liberal "traditional" priest I could find just so I could get the liberal response that I want when it comes to this subject.
To be precise, you shouldn't want the Priest's opinion, you want God's direction on a particular matter, it just happens to come through the Priest. In practice, I pray for the Priest and that God would speak through him to direct me in the particular concern that I have. Doing that, I have received some very solid traditional direction from some rather "liberal" Priests and, once in a while, some advice that I would consider "liberal" from a solid traditional Priest. Tells me that not all my opinions and judgements might be correct in every matter.
-
To be precise, you shouldn't want the Priest's opinion, you want God's direction on a particular matter, it just happens to come through the Priest. In practice, I pray for the Priest and that God would speak through him to direct me in the particular concern that I have. Doing that, I have received some very solid traditional direction from some rather "liberal" Priests and, once in a while, some advice that I would consider "liberal" from a solid traditional Priest. Tells me that not all my opinions and judgements might be correct in every matter.
To add clarity, it's not just people seeking a permissive opinion that engage in "Priest-shopping"; it happens quite often that the scrupulous will do the same thing, trying to find a Priest that will condone their opinion or desires as well.
-
The above was my post.
Excellent post
-
Obviously, this is for those who are married and have need of access to the information. Those who aren't married or who don't need the info are cautioned not to be curious. There's a reason it's in Latin.
Get yourself an OCR/AI companion such as this: https://sider.ai/
This will allow you to translate Latin as you go through the following resources:
1871 - https://archive.org/details/compendio-della-teologia-morale-di-alfonso-maria-de-liguori-volume-2/page/467/mode/2up
1880 - https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis02scav/page/696/mode/2up
1884 - https://archive.org/details/CompendiumTheologiaeMoralis/page/791/mode/2up
1885 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheol03gurygoog/page/400/mode/2up
1890 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002gury/page/400/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/cu31924021851526/page/n95/mode/2up
1911 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem01nold/page/n501/mode/2up
1925 - https://archive.org/details/compendiumtheolo0002ferr/page/726/mode/2up
1927 - https://archive.org/details/plaintalksonmarr0000revf/page/46/mode/2up
1935 - https://archive.org/details/summatheologiaem0000merk/page/946/mode/2up
1936 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_h2g7/page/248/mode/2up
1945 - https://archive.org/details/moralpastoralthe0004davi_y0j2/page/n5/mode/2up
1958 - https://archive.org/details/catholicmarriage00kell/page/36/mode/2up
All of these have imprimaturs, and are written by real theologians, not keyboard theologians.
There is much in these manuals that will be helpful and give clarity on this topic. All of them are in complete agreement, and these sample principles from Compendium Theologiae Moralis 1884 is carried through to all of them:
---
938. Whatever is necessary for completing the conjugal act, or useful for performing it more easily, quickly, or perfectly, is entirely permissible for spouses. However, anything that, in the conjugal act, harms generation or induces pollution outside of the natural union is seriously illicit. Anything ultimately useless or indifferent to remotely and indirectly procuring generation or reasonably promoting the conjugal affection is equally illicit, but does not exceed a venial sin.
Reason for the first: Whoever has the right to the end also has the right to the necessary or useful means, unless otherwise prohibited; and those for whom the principal is permissible, the accessory is also permissible, as well as the means to it.
Reason for the second: Voluntary effusion of seed is not permissible except in order for generation. Marriage only gives spouses the ability for effusion of seed, which can directly serve generation. Otherwise, if people could enjoy just the pleasure itself without the consequent burden of offspring to be raised and educated, the generation of children would easily be neglected or deliberately avoided, and society itself would decline toward destruction.
Reason for the third: Only pleasure would be sought in these things, which, as said above, is indeed a sin, but doesn't exceed venial.
939. Resolutions
Any honest kisses between spouses and touches in both modest and less modest parts (if done cautiously) are innocent by the reason of demonstrating conjugal affection or fostering love, even if sometimes involuntary pollution occurs by accident. All honest signs of love, even tender ones, as means to an end, are permissible for those who must become one heart and one flesh by the matrimonial bond (cf. S. Alphons, n. 933).
Touches and actions that are intended to arouse are generally considered less honorable unless they are directly related to coupling. Even inherently dishonorable actions that are necessary or useful for arousal are not considered grave offenses when they serve as preparation for the act of coupling. However, these actions become venial if they are done solely for pleasure, even if they precede coupling immediately. They are considered mortal offenses if they expose one or both spouses to the risk of defilement before coupling, which can easily happen if they linger too long before proceeding with the marital act.
---
End of quote.
There is much more in these moral theology manuals which wouldn't be suitable for posting here. The moral theologians are always quite specific about what is forbidden. As you go through these, you will notice what is missing from the list of "forbidden acts". On these topics, theologians rarely get into the weeds in terms of what is permitted, citing the first principle and leaving it at that.
Moral theology is not always an exact science but rather involves men making their best judgments based on moral principles, Divine and Natural law, and the teachings of the Church. This is why there are variations in what some theologians deem acceptable while others may not. I'm not going to get into the details on this, but if you read the moral theology works from the 16th century and compare them to St. Alphonsus' works from the 18th century and later, you'd be surprised at the number of ideas that had been abandoned/changed even in that small time frame, and not all of them had only to do with increasing knowledge of biology.
And in terms of the St. Alphonsus quote that everyone keeps sharing, it's important to note that what he refers to is irrumatio, not the other unspoken term that is the elephant in the room (starts with an F). They are indeed different. And I blame translations from Latin to English to be the chief cause of the confusion, and people like Ronald Conte Jr. as a close second. But even irrumatio, St. Alphonsus quotes those theologians of his day who say that is permitted, so long as the danger of pollution isn't present. He quotes those who think it's wrong, and simply places his opinion with them.
That's all I'm going to say on this topic.
-
IMO, the poster is just being crude and suggestive, so I reported it to the mod. If you want to discuss fellatio and cunnilingus at least just say it.
There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.
-
There are a variety of opinions on the subject from pre Vatican 2 moralists and theologians and saints etc and no firm consensus. It is important to remember that if a number of pre Vatican 2 moral theologians, teach that a certain act is acceptable, you cannot bind people’s consciences to accept a more rigorous interpretation. Even St Alphonsus admitted that someone following the advice of a more permissive moral theologian would NOT commit a sin. This is a common principal in moral theology otherwise there would be chaos and scrupulously everywhere. Use common sense. At the most, it seems that these acts could be venially sinful if done out of lustful motives. I do not think most traditional priests would say that the act that the poster is asking about would be forbidden.
That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.
-
I remember once Matthew said that he wanted the forums to be suitable for teenagers. I think that this thread has crossed this line.
-
That's all true, but if we're going to have an adult conversation, actually use the correct terms, not some vagary. That was the point.
Ah yes, agreed.
-
I remember once Matthew said that he wanted the forums to be suitable for teenagers. I think that this thread has crossed this line.
To be fair, the OP wrote this:
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal but pointing me in the right direction would help.
-
To be fair, the OP wrote this:
is there a resource that explains what is or isn't permissible? I don't want people here to explain because this is a public forum and may cause scandal but pointing me in the right direction would help.
It was ok until people began to be more explicit, in my opinion.
The original anonymous poster was probably not the one to make the indiscreet posts.
Either way, I think that he got what he asked for, since people gave links to many Moral Theology manuals plus some useful advice.
-
It was ok until people began to be more explicit, in my opinion.
The original anonymous poster was probably not the one to make the indiscreet posts.
Either way, I think that he got what he asked for, since people gave links to many Moral Theology manuals plus some useful advice.
Agreed.