I read this from catholic-saints.net

Wondering what you make of it

As for affectionate kisses between mother and child, again the Byzantine Tradition offers us the following insight through the icon of the Virgin Elousa, in which Theotokos and the Christ Child are hugging or kissing, the original of which Tradition teaches was written (painted) by St Luke the Evangelist himself.

Quote from: gooch

I read this from catholic-saints.net

Wondering what you make of it

That site was created by a banned member (who was banned for a very good reason!)

He is a puritan heretic. He is an ex-protestant (the ex- part is debatable) who claims or pretends to be Catholic, yet is filled with errors. In particular, he is obsessed with sex and foreplay (don't get too excited now -- he's AGAINST it...) He is also addicted to putting his own bizarre opinions on the level of Catholic dogma.

To keep things rated G, let's just say he believes that things must be kept to a bare minimum. No need for a sit down restaurant; a handful of acorns picked up on the way to work and a dry crust of bread will "get the job done" (maintaining life), so seasonings, flavors, variety, dedicated mealtimes, etc. is unnecessary and therefore sinful "gluttony". Oh, and in case you enjoy acorns or dry bread, you should plug your nose (so you can't taste anything) just to be safe from danger of hell-fire.

He spends hours each day thinking about and writing about sex. He's like a man who checks out a Moral Theology book and skips to the chapter on "6th and 9th" -- what he might call "the good stuff". He has no mandate or excuse to think about, write about, or focus on such a prurient topic. He's just a pervert in disguise.

The last time I spoke with him (after banning his latest account) he sent me an angry e-mail recommending me for Hell in about a dozen different ways.

Anyhow, my main problem with this man comes from his own website: He was "inspired" to put himself out as a teacher of men (with a large website) when his life as a Catholic was measured in MONTHS. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind!

Anyhow, you can safely ignore this lunatic. Stick to more reputable Catholic authors -- those with suffixes after their names, those with actual Theology training, as well as those whose names start with "Fr.", "Msgr." or "His Excellency" and you'll be fine.

This man likes to quote various authors, including Scripture and St. Thomas Aquinas, but the "good part" (or what backs him up) is always what is added by him in brackets. Not the words of St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Like I said: private, ignorant interpretation all the way.

I knew there was something perturbing about that website.,,

Sadly, probably.

I see your point but  would be interested to read his arguments on this forum, how about this quote ?

Tradition.

Look at the icon of St Joachim and St Anna, parents of the Blessed Mother and grandparents of Our Lord. They are embracing in front of a bed. The model of this icon can be traced back centuries to before the East-West split.

Do you really think Our Lord and the Blessed Mother would allow countless generations of devout faithful to publicly venerate His grandparents/ her parents in a sinful pose?

Icons are not just sacred art. They are theological statements and safeguards to the Incarnation and to Sacred Tradition. One of the purposes of this particular icon of St Joachim and St Anne is to safeguard the dignity of physical intimacy within marital love, through which our Blessed Mother was conceived.

Traditional Catholic moral theology holds that such types of activities can be venial sins if sought excessively for themselves without being ordered towards the primary and secondary ends of marriage, but only become mortal sins when the activities are not ordered at least by way of virtual intention towards the primary ends of marriage.  In marriage, when there is no attempt to subvert the ends of marriage, i.e. the couple is not trying to block conception, that virtual intention is almost always there.  With that said, excessive indulgence in venereal pleasures for their own sake can lead to patterns and habits of venial sin (and we know that even venial sin should never be taken lightly) which then can in turn open up the soul for falls into mortal sin.  Ideally, such activities should be expressions of love and affection between a married couple, who in turn are married and love one another with the intent of procreating children.  Even if they cannot procreate, however, due to infertility or advanced age or whatnot, these can be legitimately ordered towards the secondary ends of marriage.  But when they are sought directly in and of themselves, and are not properly subordinated to the primary and seconds ends of marriage, they can be venially sinful.  If, however, they are sought in such a way that they are inherently anti-procreative, they can become morally sinful.

Some of these Puritan / Jansenist types think that pleasure is inherently sinful.  Yet why is it that actions which when performed outside of marriage are sinful become licit when done within marriage?  Because the sin is in the WILL; all sin is ultimately in the will.  If the will is aligned towards the laws of God with regard to the ends of matrimony, there is in many cases no sin whatsoever.  Sin isn't because of the pleasure itself; it's because the pleasure is sought in a way that's contrary to the laws of God.  People become obsessed with the "pleasure" part of sins when they should be focused on the "will" part of the sin.  Satan was sent to hell immediately precisely because his sin was so deeply rooted in the will (being an angel), but God puts up with us human beings sinning over and over again because human beings are so weighed down in our fallen natures that these sins are not as radically rooted in our wills as they were for Satan.

People also become excessively focused on sins against the flesh, or sins of pleasure, when in many cases these sins come from weakness, but then do not focus on sins like lack of charity against one's neighbor, sins of pride, and other things which very often displease God much more than excessive indulgence in pleasure because these sins are much more deeply rooted in the will and involve malice.  God has more compassion on sins of weakness than he does on sins against charity or sins of malice.  Just see how Our Lord treated a poor fallen sinner like St. Mary Magdalene vs. how He treated the pride of the pharisees.  In fact, I am of the opinion that God sometimes allows people to fall into sins of the flesh in order to instill humility in them, so much more does pride and selfishness and lack of charity displease God than do sins of weakness.

Traditional Catholic moral theology holds that such types of activities can be venial sins if sought excessively for themselves without being ordered towards the primary and secondary ends of marriage, but only become mortal sins when the activities are not ordered at least by way of virtual intention towards the primary ends of marriage.  In marriage, when there is no attempt to subvert the ends of marriage, i.e. the couple is not trying to block conception, that virtual intention is almost always there.  With that said, excessive indulgence in venereal pleasures for their own sake can lead to patterns and habits of venial sin (and we know that even venial sin should never be taken lightly) which then can in turn open up the soul for falls into mortal sin.  Ideally, such activities should be expressions of love and affection between a married couple, who in turn are married and love one another with the intent of procreating children.  Even if they cannot procreate, however, due to infertility or advanced age or whatnot, these can be legitimately ordered towards the secondary ends of marriage.  But when they are sought directly in and of themselves, and are not properly subordinated to the primary and seconds ends of marriage, they can be venially sinful.  If, however, they are sought in such a way that they are inherently anti-procreative, they can become morally sinful.

Some of these Puritan / Jansenist types think that pleasure is inherently sinful.  Yet why is it that actions which when performed outside of marriage are sinful become licit when done within marriage?  Because the sin is in the WILL; all sin is ultimately in the will.  If the will is aligned towards the laws of God with regard to the ends of matrimony, there is in many cases no sin whatsoever.  Sin isn't because of the pleasure itself; it's because the pleasure is sought in a way that's contrary to the laws of God.  People become obsessed with the "pleasure" part of sins when they should be focused on the "will" part of the sin.  Satan was sent to hell immediately precisely because his sin was so deeply rooted in the will (being an angel), but God puts up with us human beings sinning over and over again because human beings are so weighed down in our fallen natures that these sins are not as radically rooted in our wills as they were for Satan.

People also become excessively focused on sins against the flesh, or sins of pleasure, when in many cases these sins come from weakness, but then do not focus on sins like lack of charity against one's neighbor, sins of pride, and other things which very often displease God much more than excessive indulgence in pleasure because these sins are much more deeply rooted in the will and involve malice.  God has more compassion on sins of weakness than he does on sins against charity or sins of malice.  Just see how Our Lord treated a poor fallen sinner like St. Mary Magdalene vs. how He treated the pride of the pharisees.  In fact, I am of the opinion that God sometimes allows people to fall into sins of the flesh in order to instill humility in them, so much more does pride and selfishness and lack of charity displease God than do sins of weakness.

Ladislaus,

I never post on cathinfo but read it every day. I felt compelled though to say that what you have written is very insightful, well explained and that I believe will be very helpful to many people here...

I don't understand the idea of a sheet with an opening for less pleasure. In the usual course of things the husband will climax for children to be born so who is it less pleasurable for? The husband  has to enjoy himself unless they are just hoping to conceive from pre-seminal fluid and not climax.