Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on December 02, 2019, 10:50:41 AM
-
If a husband were to for example, touch his wife's breasts or buttocks, would that be sinful?
Is it permissible for the husband to do it outside of the marital act?
-
Yes it is. As long as everything finishes up in the right place. Catholics are not Puritans or Manichaeans. Since we are not Manichaeans, we don't believe in an evilgod. So this evilgod couldn't have created the physical world, the body, or sex. In unrelated news, you can drink alcohol too, in moderation. Tell the Baptists and Muslims to take a hike. You can also eat meat. Tell the Hindus, Jєωs, Vegans, and Climate Alarmists to jump in the lake. Moral of the story, error is everywhere.
-
If a husband were to for example, touch his wife's breasts or buttocks, would that be sinful?
Is it permissible for the husband to do it outside of the marital act?
It can be sin or occasion of sin outside the intention to complete the marital act or if the spouse objects to such touches. However, If the spouse consents and these touches are used in preparation for the marital act, then it would not be a sin.
-
If a husband were to for example, touch his wife's breasts or buttocks, would that be sinful?
Is it permissible for the husband to do it outside of the marital act?
No, and yes, in that order.
There might be some extremely strict --- far stricter than anything the Church teaches --- people who would say otherwise, but I am not concerned with them. I cannot imagine that any SSPX, FSSP, ICKSP, even CMRI, SSPV, or SGG priest would be that strict.
-
Oh, come on now, a husband can touch his wife's breasts or buttocks at any time without sin. There need not be a proximate intention to consummate the marriage act, as a certain amount of intimacy can entail a remote preparation for such activity.
-
Oh, come on now, a husband can touch his wife's breasts or buttocks at any time without sin. There need not be a proximate intention to consummate the marriage act, as a certain amount of intimacy can entail a remote preparation for such activity.
If you are responding to my comments, I reaffirmed that this is not sinful, and was submitting that no priest I can imagine, would ever say this is sinful. Way, way out on the fringes of the internet, you will find websites that make some pretty outlandish assertions --- that the BVM is God, that there has been no valid pope since Pius IX (yes, Pio Nono, as in Syllabus of Errors Pius IX), that there has been no valid pope since around AD 1100, and so on. On sites like that, yes, you might find an assertion such as the one you cite. But other than sites like that, I don't think so.
The closest thing I can imagine would be a couple who is practicing NFP but has a certain difficulty with abstinence and, as a result of engaging in such licit embraces, might be tempted to alleviate their concupiscence through masturbation or non-procreative acts. But that does not make the intimacies in themselves sinful. Another close analogy would be when couples are involuntarily separated for a time (e.g., military service, husband has to travel with his job, wife has to go stay with an infirm family member), and reflecting on each other's physical attributes, and intimacies they have shared, could cause them to fall into solitary vice.
-
If a husband were to for example, touch his wife's breasts or buttocks, would that be sinful?
Is it permissible for the husband to do it outside of the marital act?
I sure hope the answer to the first is in the negative while the answer to the second in the affirmative, otherwise... I'm in trouble.
-
Has anyone got any sources or books from traditionalist sources on this topic?
-
Has anyone got any sources or books from traditionalist sources on this topic?
Buy this book, it gives you the Catholic principles on when certain pleasures become licit or illicit.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720
-
But this same book contains this, which greatly confuses me:
"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical actionis posited without danger of pollution. - Positive cooperation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure."
Also this:
"Wives who do not obtain complete satisfaction may procure it by touches imediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation. Some authors believe she may do so also when the husband withdraws in an onanistic manner. The same cannot be said of the husband should the wife withdraw since the seed would thus be wasted."
-
If you are responding to my comments, I reaffirmed that this is not sinful, and was submitting that no priest I can imagine, would ever say this is sinful.
No, this was a general response.
-
Buy this book, it gives you the Catholic principles on when certain pleasures become licit or illicit.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720
I looked up the reviews on Amazon. Below is a screenshot of the top one. I don't think the term 'orthodox' means what the reviewer thinks it means. :cowboy:
(https://i.ibb.co/ZTQsXRN/Review.jpg)
-
I sure hope the answer to the first is in the negative while the answer to the second in the affirmative, otherwise... I'm in trouble.
And someone else I know, who will remain anonymous!
I wonder if the OP is a troll wanting to make fun of Catholics.
-
Proverbs 5 pretty explicitly describes and condones this.
-
But this same book contains this, which greatly confuses me:
"Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical actionis posited without danger of pollution. - Positive cooperation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remains unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure."
Also this:
"Wives who do not obtain complete satisfaction may procure it by touches imediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation. Some authors believe she may do so also when the husband withdraws in an onanistic manner. The same cannot be said of the husband should the wife withdraw since the seed would thus be wasted."
The first passage is the most problematical thing about Jone's book (at least of which I'm aware, I haven't read the entire book --- it's meant to be used as a reference work). Where in the world did he come up with such a thing? Jone does not use footnotes nor cite sources, at least not in the main --- his book is just a distillation of majority opinions on various points of morality. Why anyone would do the act he cites, and contend with the hygenic issues involved, is beyond me. I have heard of irreligious and secular people singing the praises of this act within a heterosɛҳuąƖ relationship --- a very crude female coworker of mine in the business world, who had no filter, boasted of providing this favor to her husband (miserere nobis, Domine!) --- but it is either an abomination, or something very close to it. I have to wonder if this was some kind of clumsy translation from the original German.
I can't see the problem with the second passage. There is anecdotal evidence that the woman bringing herself to climax manually as part of the marital act, or allowing her husband to do this for her, is helpful in attaining pregnancy. That may just be an old wives' tale.
-
I believe that this thread is extremely inappropriate on a public forum, and have told the moderator so.
-
The above was from me. I didn't check the box.
-
I believe that this thread is extremely inappropriate on a public forum, and have told the moderator so.
If you are referring to my comments, I am sorry if you found them offensive. I was not the one who wrote the book, Father Jone did. We as traditional Catholics sometimes have to stare sin, mortal sin, sin of the flesh, directly in the eye, and discuss things that are offensive by their very nature. Frank discussions sometimes take place.
That is what we have a moderator for, and his decision is to be abided by. I invite him to delete my post, if indeed he deems it offensive.
-
If you are referring to my comments, I am sorry if you found them offensive. I was not the one who wrote the book, Father Jone did. We as traditional Catholics sometimes have to stare sin, mortal sin, sin of the flesh, directly in the eye, and discuss things that are offensive by their very nature. Frank discussions sometimes take place.
That is what we have a moderator for, and his decision is to be abided by. I invite him to delete my post, if indeed he deems it offensive.
-
I am not talking about any poster or book - it is the subject matter. It is not Catholic/acceptable to discuss something like this publicly. And I haven't even read the thread in toto - just enough to see the direction. No offense meant.
-
The subject matter in this forum is actually pretty tame, compared to what you will find on other Catholic online forums, and possibly even past threads on CathInfo.
I've heard the objection before that "Catholics talk too much about sex". We talk about what we have to talk about, where the salvation of souls is at stake. Alone perhaps among Christians and even other religionists, we realize that any deliberate, completed sɛҳuąƖ act outside of marriage, and even within marriage where it is not ordered to procreation (whether procreation can actually take place or not), is a mortal sin that makes one worthy of eternal damnation. It is a minefield if one wanders outside of the Church's gentle guidance --- human nature inclines towards sɛҳuąƖ gratification --- and yes, it's something we have to talk about. Sometimes the talk has to get a little nitty-gritty. Where the danger exists, you have to face it head-on, and know it for what it is. That's not always pleasant.
In the example I cited, an arrogant, self-prepossessed young career woman, having had her "bag limit" of two children, spaced a couple of years apart, at just the right time, "had herself fixed" (i.e., tubes tied) and was therefore available to her husband on demand without consequences. She further boasted that when she was on her period, she had other ways to gratify her husband. In other words, he has a 24/7/365 concubine, and she has a 24/7/365 stud. The secular world thinks that this is exactly the way to go, and no other Christian church (aside from possibly Orthodoxy) condemns this in the least. Unless someone makes it public knowledge, as she did, it is hush-hushed under the rubric of "what people do in the bedroom is private". That "privacy mantle", in this case, extends to marital heterosɛҳuąƖ sodomy.
Now we, as Catholics, know that this is living in mortal sin. We must proclaim this, and yes, to some extent, we have to describe the sin. Sometimes "talking pretty" is not an option. We have to, for instance, look at pictures of war atrocities --- the various events of WWII, Andersonville, Vietnam, and so on. We have to look at pictures of what takes place during an abortion. We have to look at pictures of lynchings in the post-bellum South, men hanging from trees. Not nice stuff. Not at all. We would not, of course, look at pictures of sinful sex acts --- that would be pornography --- but we do, sometimes, have to paint "verbal pictures". Those aren't nice either.
-
Now we, as Catholics, know that this is living in mortal sin. We must proclaim this, and yes, to some extent, we have to describe the sin. Sometimes "talking pretty" is not an option. We have to, for instance, look at pictures of war atrocities --- the various events of WWII, Andersonville, Vietnam, and so on. We have to look at pictures of what takes place during an abortion. We have to look at pictures of lynchings in the post-bellum South, men hanging from trees. Not nice stuff. Not at all. We would not, of course, look at pictures of sinful sex acts --- that would be pornography --- but we do, sometimes, have to paint "verbal pictures". Those aren't nice either.
We are not obliged to look at or use horrific pictures. They are clearly not appropriate for children. I am not sure about men, but I would expect many women also to have a problem with such things. I know that I do. I avoiding looking at pictures of war atrocities and abortions. I have not even watched Mel Gibson's the Passion. I can barely manage to get through the Stations of the Cross.
I also avoid discussions of sɛҳuąƖ morality that involve descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ activities. Traditionally, this subject was written about in Latin in order to prevent people who wanted to read about it out of prurience. sɛҳuąƖ details were not preached about in public. People with questions asked about it in private.
-
We are not obliged to look at or use horrific pictures. They are clearly not appropriate for children. I am not sure about men, but I would expect many women also to have a problem with such things. I know that I do. I avoiding looking at pictures of war atrocities and abortions. I have not even watched Mel Gibson's the Passion. I can barely manage to get through the Stations of the Cross.
I also avoid discussions of sɛҳuąƖ morality that involve descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ activities. Traditionally, this subject was written about in Latin in order to prevent people who wanted to read about it out of prurience. sɛҳuąƖ details were not preached about in public. People with questions asked about it in private.
The Passion of the Christ is possibly the ultimate example of "forcing ourselves to look at that which is not pleasant to see". Parents most certainly do need to be controlling what their children see, as well as those who are acting in loco parentis --- teachers, caregivers, etc. Children need to be kept in innocence as long as that is reasonably possible. I saw pictures of WWII atrocities when I was in grade school (small-town public school library in a time and place where traditional moral values were "just understood"). It didn't harm me --- far from that, it helped me to see things for what they actually were. I didn't know that facing reality was a bad thing.
If you choose not to look at such unpleasantness, that is up to you. I am accustomed to looking at unpleasantness, because I need to force myself to see evil for what it actually is, and not merely rely upon oblique or demure allusions to it. Emmett Till's mother certainly thought the world needed to see what racist murderers did to her son. People who say they have traditional morals need to have some idea of what will go on in the White House if they vote for and elect a certain candidate, openly gαy with a "husband" (not to say that such shenanigans have never gone on there). I would certainly hope that (for instance) African Americans, who are said to have an issue with this, would say to themselves "that's too far, I can't go there" when considering whether to vote for that candidate or not. They could either refuse to cast a vote, vote third party, or bite the bullet and vote for Trump (who is actually very much an advocate of African Americans, you'd think they'd see that).
As far as descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ sin, obviously we cannot use pictures --- not even drawings --- but we do need to have some idea of what the sin actually is. We cannot condemn what we do not understand. Of course the discussions need to be muted, but the person being taught needs to have some idea. How many times has someone said "I didn't know 'that' was a sin"?
-
The Passion of the Christ is possibly the ultimate example of "forcing ourselves to look at that which is not pleasant to see".
I actually discussed with a priest whether I ought to force myself to watch this and he said that I did not have to. This is not a "one size fits all" issue.
If you choose not to look at such unpleasantness, that is up to you.
When it is posted, without any warning, on a forum that I read that limits my ability to choose whether or not I see it. If we really want to leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves, such things need to be posted invisibly with an option to be seen.
-
If you choose not to look at such unpleasantness, that is up to you. I am accustomed to looking at unpleasantness, because I need to force myself to see evil for what it actually is, and not merely rely upon oblique or demure allusions to it. Emmett Till's mother certainly thought the world needed to see what racist murderers did to her son. People who say they have traditional morals need to have some idea of what will go on in the White House if they vote for and elect a certain candidate, openly gαy with a "husband" (not to say that such shenanigans have never gone on there). I would certainly hope that (for instance) African Americans, who are said to have an issue with this, would say to themselves "that's too far, I can't go there" when considering whether to vote for that candidate or not. They could either refuse to cast a vote, vote third party, or bite the bullet and vote for Trump (who is actually very much an advocate of African Americans, you'd think they'd see that).
As far as descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ sin, obviously we cannot use pictures --- not even drawings --- but we do need to have some idea of what the sin actually is. We cannot condemn what we do not understand. Of course the discussions need to be muted, but the person being taught needs to have some idea. How many times has someone said "I didn't know 'that' was a sin"?
Good points! I have to chime in since there was so much good content in your post.
Good point about the TRUTH of what sodomites do to each other. If you are 100% against sodomy and would never elect a sodomite to office? Then fine, JayneK and others can abstain from reading about what sodomites do to each other. But for the rest! Time to go into detail about JUST HOW DEGENERATE they are. If you're even THINKING about voting for one, you need to know the TRUTH about them, their subculture, their habits, etc.
Long story short, we're not children. Children's innocence should be protected as long as possible. But adults? Should adults "innocence" about the evils of the world be protected AT ALL? That's a crazy notion. I'm not talking about anything which would cause sin by looking at it. But violence, torture, war, genocide, abortion, other evils? We need to know the TRUTH about what goes on in the world -- as soon as we're grown up and mature, that is.
And if any of us over 18 don't consider ourselves "mature" enough -- we have a big problem.
Matthew
-
If someone clicks on this thread, which has enough info to describe the topic, they shouldn’t be surprised at the details of it. If you want to avoid it, you had the opportunity.
-
If someone clicks on this thread, which has enough info to describe the topic, they shouldn’t be surprised at the details of it. If you want to avoid it, you had the opportunity.
Good point! Don't blame others for YOUR "prurient interest". If you're not married and clicked on such an article, and it causes you temptation, etc. you have only YOURSELF to blame. There are a thousand other books, manuals, photographs, articles, etc. which are perfectly without sin to publish, but could be sinful for single people to read or view without good reason.
If I pick up a medical manual with graphic nudity in it and lead myself into temptation and sin, whose fault is it? The question is, did I need to read that medical manual? Am I a doctor or nurse? Was I just using it as the most convenient/acceptable-for-me form of pornography? Ask yourself that question, with God as your witness. Remember that many (most?) Trad Catholics would never dream of voluntarily visiting a hard-core porn site. But what tempts them, when they're bored/lusty/alone/idle, when a non-Trad Catholic would visit a porn site? Does a Trad Catholic, perhaps, read articles about sex? Read about what bad guys in the world are doing to violate the 6th and 9th? Read about Catholic morality within marriage? Catholics have their outlets or temptations when they get bored, curious, and prurient, I'm sure.
-
I included both NSFW and foreplay in the title, I dont know what you were expecting
-
Yup. I was waiting for that argument.
The title ALONE should have been enough to bring this thread to a screeching halt.
Because of the impurity rampant in the world that rubs off on those living in it, now Trad. Catholics here are just becoming nonchalant about publicly discussing subjects which should be off-topic?
If CathInfo is described as a place similar to where Catholic topics can be discussed as they would be while having coffee after Sunday Mass, it would (or should) be hard to imagine that the subject of this thread would talked about after Holy Mass at this or that Catholic chapel.
It is out of place here.
-
If someone clicks on this thread, which has enough info to describe the topic, they shouldn’t be surprised at the details of it. If you want to avoid it, you had the opportunity.
My comment about what was posted without warning referred to horrific pictures of war atrocities in another thread. That was not predictable from the thread title and it was not easy to avoid.
I agree that this thread is relatively easy to avoid, even though I typically read the forum by using the "recent posts" option rather than clicking on the thread. I have been able to just skim over the posts in this thread rather than reading them closely.
-
This thread is not necessarily impure. It's a question of moral theology. It could be impure for some, and not for others. If you need to avoid it, you should, and you had the opportunity.
.
I think much of America's obsession with sɛҳuąƖity is the puritanical avoidance of discussing it, when necessary. There is such a thing as a healthy, catholic, moral way to discuss martial relations. It's part of life; God created it. What we have in America (which they don't have in Europe or S. America...which are both more Catholic than us)...is avoidance of the issue altogether. One extreme leads to the other. There must be balance in both areas, and America has neither.
-
If CathInfo is described as a place similar to where Catholic topics can be discussed as they would be while having coffee after Sunday Mass, it would (or should) be hard to imagine that the subject of this thread would talked about after Holy Mass at this or that Catholic chapel.
It is out of place here.
IS CathInfo described that way?
Anyone who has been around here any time at all, knows that things get pretty bare-knuckled at times. That's the nature of defending truth and refuting error. We can't confine ourselves only to that content that would not have soiled the pages of The Maryfaithful 50 years ago.
As for abortion, photographs of fetuses --- both intact and slaughtered --- have done more to teach people the truth about abortion than anything else. "Back in the day", abortion was spoken of in whispered tones, shame be upon a woman who would ever get herself in the position to consider something like that, and nobody really knew what it was. It wasn't a topic of decent conversation. People pretended like it didn't exist. Hollywood starlets had doctors in Los Angeles who "took care of that sort of thing". There was always that doctor or midwife "on the edge of town" who could help out a girl who had gotten "in trouble". Again, it was whispered, it was taboo.
If someone needs to avoid upsetting topics and descriptions, I don't think CathInfo is the best place for them to find refuge from this.
-
IS CathInfo described that way?
Anyone who has been around here any time at all, knows that things get pretty bare-knuckled at times. That's the nature of defending truth and refuting error. We can't confine ourselves only to that content that would not have soiled the pages of The Maryfaithful 50 years ago.
As for abortion, photographs of fetuses --- both intact and slaughtered --- have done more to teach people the truth about abortion than anything else. "Back in the day", abortion was spoken of in whispered tones, shame be upon a woman who would ever get herself in the position to consider something like that, and nobody really knew what it was. It wasn't a topic of decent conversation. People pretended like it didn't exist. Hollywood starlets had doctors in Los Angeles who "took care of that sort of thing". There was always that doctor or midwife "on the edge of town" who could help out a girl who had gotten "in trouble". Again, it was whispered, it was taboo.
If someone needs to avoid upsetting topics and descriptions, I don't think CathInfo is the best place for them to find refuge from this.
This was my post. That "Post with your username? (NOT ANONYMOUS)" deselect check-box is a pain in the tuchas.
-
This thread is not necessarily impure. It's a question of moral theology. It could be impure for some, and not for others. If you need to avoid it, you should, and you had the opportunity.
.
I think much of America's obsession with sɛҳuąƖity is the puritanical avoidance of discussing it, when necessary. There is such a thing as a healthy, catholic, moral way to discuss martial relations. It's part of life; God created it. What we have in America (which they don't have in Europe or S. America...which are both more Catholic than us)...is avoidance of the issue altogether. One extreme leads to the other. There must be balance in both areas, and America has neither.
Clapping hands icon!
-
IS CathInfo described that way?
Yeah - it is. By Matthew.
-
IS CathInfo described that way?
Yeah - it is. By Matthew.
Then I would look to Matthew to edit or even delete this thread, if in his estimation it runs counter to CathInfo's values.
-
Good points! I have to chime in since there was so much good content in your post.
Good point about the TRUTH of what sodomites do to each other. If you are 100% against sodomy and would never elect a sodomite to office? Then fine, JayneK and others can abstain from reading about what sodomites do to each other. But for the rest! Time to go into detail about JUST HOW DEGENERATE they are. If you're even THINKING about voting for one, you need to know the TRUTH about them, their subculture, their habits, etc.
Long story short, we're not children. Children's innocence should be protected as long as possible. But adults? Should adults "innocence" about the evils of the world be protected AT ALL? That's a crazy notion. I'm not talking about anything which would cause sin by looking at it. But violence, torture, war, genocide, abortion, other evils? We need to know the TRUTH about what goes on in the world -- as soon as we're grown up and mature, that is.
And if any of us over 18 don't consider ourselves "mature" enough -- we have a big problem.
Matthew
Matthew has already visited and given his OK, or at least that is how I interpret this above quote.
-
It's not easy to segregate CathInfo readers into
Mature adults (and/or youths who have had the Birds and Bees discussion with parents)
and
Children who haven't had "The Talk" yet.
So all I can say is, CathInfo is rated PG-13, not G. Parental discretion advised. If you want your children to sign up and/or read CathInfo, you need to supervise and be around.
This is not a Facebook group for funny cat videos. We discuss some important and serious topics here.
But the topic of this thread has come up several dozen times in the past 10 years, and I've had to ban a few users because of heretical notions on this heading. (Heitanen comes to mind)
So yes, it needs to be mentioned, with all due discretion and decorum. I don't think anyone in the thread has used crass or vulgar terms yet.
But people have legit questions -- that is, they ask as married people with a legit need to know.
-
It's not easy to segregate CathInfo readers into
Mature adults (and/or youths who have had the Birds and Bees discussion with parents)
and
Children who haven't had "The Talk" yet.
So all I can say is, CathInfo is rated PG-13, not G. Parental discretion advised. If you want your children to sign up and/or read CathInfo, you need to supervise and be around.
This is not a Facebook group for funny cat videos. We discuss some important and serious topics here.
But the topic of this thread has come up several dozen times in the past 10 years, and I've had to ban a few users because of heretical notions on this heading. (Heitanen comes to mind)
So yes, it needs to be mentioned, with all due discretion and decorum. I don't think anyone in the thread has used crass or vulgar terms yet.
But people have legit questions -- that is, they ask as married people with a legit need to know.
Why weren't they tolerated as Poche is tolerated?
-
When it is posted, without any warning, on a forum that I read that limits my ability to choose whether or not I see it. If we really want to leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves, such things need to be posted invisibly with an option to be seen.
There should be, like, a title, maybe, that gives the reader some indication of what might be discussed beyond that link.
.
Oh wait, that's already there. ;)
-
Why weren't they tolerated as Poche is tolerated?
Actual danger of leading others into error. This danger was present for Heitanen; completely absent for Poche.
If you disagree, go join the Novus Ordo. After all, Poche has convinced you, right?
...
I see you're still here. I guess Poche wasn't so convincing after all. If he didn't convince you, what makes you think he's going to convince other serious Trads to do a complete U-turn on their Trad life and/or upbringing?
Matthew
-
It's not easy to segregate CathInfo readers into
Mature adults (and/or youths who have had the Birds and Bees discussion with parents)
and
Children who haven't had "The Talk" yet.
So all I can say is, CathInfo is rated PG-13, not G. Parental discretion advised. If you want your children to sign up and/or read CathInfo, you need to supervise and be around.
This is not a Facebook group for funny cat videos. We discuss some important and serious topics here.
But the topic of this thread has come up several dozen times in the past 10 years, and I've had to ban a few users because of heretical notions on this heading. (Heitanen comes to mind)
So yes, it needs to be mentioned, with all due discretion and decorum. I don't think anyone in the thread has used crass or vulgar terms yet.
But people have legit questions -- that is, they ask as married people with a legit need to know.
In a perfect Catholic world, young people would be out playing softball, hiking in the woods, practicing archery and air rifle marksmanship, reading Gulliver's Travels and The Last of the Mohicans, attending daily Mass during their summer vacations, collecting coins and stamps, and discerning vocations --- not sitting glassy-eyed in front of a TV set, gaming console, or computer, wandering into places where they have no business being. But we don't live in that perfect world. At the very least, parents need to be aware of what their children are doing online --- before they do it, not after.
-
Can people go back to answering the question?
-
Actual danger of leading others into error. This danger was present for Heitanen; completely absent for Poche.
If you disagree, go join the Novus Ordo. After all, Poche has convinced you, right?
...
I see you're still here. I guess Poche wasn't so convincing after all. If he didn't convince you, what makes you think he's going to convince other serious Trads to do a complete U-turn on their Trad life and/or upbringing?
Matthew
You are familiar with the concept of sharing in another's sins, aren't you?
Failing to discipline an error when such correction is possible makes you an accomplice to Poche's sins.
-
Another analogy.
Do you have pets?
Do you let your dog poop in your living room just because people can recognize it's poop and can walk around it?
How full of poop will you let your living room get?
-
Maybe Matthew should have an Anonymous Men's only section.
As to the one who started this topic, I would suggest you ask a Priest you trust.
-
You are familiar with the concept of sharing in another's sins, aren't you?
Failing to discipline an error when such correction is possible makes you an accomplice to Poche's sins.
You have to point to a sin.
I and everyone else on CathInfo contradicts Poche 24/7.
I make sure his error is sufficiently demonstrated and contradicted, thank you very much.
Being honestly duped that the Conciliar Church is completely legit is not a sin, to the best of my knowledge.
There is an unprecedented Crisis in the Church, remember. Wicked men have deformed the Church under the banner of fidelity and obedience.
I keep that in mind always.
Matthew
-
You have to point to a sin.
I and everyone else on CathInfo contradicts Poche 24/7.
I make sure his error is sufficiently demonstrated and contradicted, thank you very much.
Being honestly duped that the Conciliar Church is completely legit is not a sin, to the best of my knowledge.
There is an unprecedented Crisis in the Church, remember. Wicked men have deformed the Church under the banner of fidelity and obedience.
I keep that in mind always.
Matthew
Perhaps you missed the docuмentation of his LIES, SINS AGAINST THE 8th COMMANDMENT.
I would not suggest banning him for his N.O. alignment any more than I would suggest banning Meg for her conflation of heresy and legit opinions.
He LIES in your living room at our family gathering. You beg the question, do you let your dog poop in your living room just because we can see it and walk around it? How full of poop do you want your living room?
Here the links to Poche's LIES again:
Poche willfully falsified the Matthew 16:18. He substituted "you" for "it" to bolster his equally phony contention about Jorge.
Quote from: poche on November 07, 2019, 04:55:39 AM
"And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against you" -Jesus to Peter
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-francis-the-pope/msg674301/#msg674301
He also lied when he claimed that Jorge "preached against the тαℓмυd" https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 and that Jorge was "paraphrasing St. Paul" when Jorge said Jesus “made himself the devil.” https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg671082/#msg671082
He has lied that Jorge has “the same view” on the Jєωs as Pope St. Pius X. https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/another-gift-for-the-rabbi/msg675367/#msg675367 Directly to their faces Pope St. Pius X told the Jєωs of Jesus Christ and their need to convert. Jorge is the diametric opposite, not “the same.” Jorge confirms тαℓмυdic Jєωs in their Faith and teaches their heretical dogmas to Catholics. Several examples here: http://judaism.is/st.-francis-on-francis.html#тαℓмυdicantipope
Here is Jorge's full allocution: https://zenit.org/articles/holy-father-continues-catecheses-on-acts-of-the-apostles/
"…precahed agianst the тαℓмυd"? There is not one word about the тαℓмυd, not one stinking word.
Second, contrary to Poche's assertion that Jorge preached "how Christianity is distinct from the Jєωιѕн religion," https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/pope-francis-said-51197/msg672784/#msg672784 Jorge uses the metaphors of "the Open Door," "the common way," "synodality," Instead of making a distinction, Jorge proposes an indifferentist blend of Christ and Belial: "relation between faith in Christ and the observance of the Law of Moses." The only "relation" recognized by the perennial and infallible Magisterium is that the Law of Moses died with Christ on the Cross—and, as expected, that dogma is entirely missing in Jorge's subversion.
Third, Jorge cannot bring himself to teach de fide supersessionism, that the Law of Moses is dead, so instead he infers тαℓмυdic Noahidism: "ask them only to reject idolatry and all its expressions." So Jorge did not "preach against the тαℓмυd" as Poche claimed. Jorge did the exact opposite; he preached тαℓмυdic Noahidism.
He constructed three lies in one run-on sentence!
These are not mere differences of opinion, but OUTRIGHT LIES, poop in your living room.
-
Buy this book, it gives you the Catholic principles on when certain pleasures become licit or illicit.
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720
I have this book. It may be in the beginning of the book somewhere or maybe I read it elsewhere, but it's my understanding that this book was written to help priests educate/form the consciences of Catholics oftentimes in the confessional....pre-Vatican II.
-
Another analogy.
Do you have pets?
Do you let your dog poop in your living room just because people can recognize it's poop and can walk around it?
How full of poop will you let your living room get?
Poor analogy. It would be one thing if the thread was discussing the topic outside of what is permissible within marriage according to Catholic teaching. But it's not. Given many Catholics these days do not have access/easy access to a true Catholic priest to ask these questions, where do you suggest they go? Not to mention, it's anonymous! For once the anonymous sub-forum is being used for an appropriate purpose!
-
If a husband were to for example, touch his wife's breasts or buttocks, would that be sinful?
Is it permissible for the husband to do it outside of the marital act?
That's ridiculous.