Author Topic: Marital Act During Pregnancy (Read 19464 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #85 on:** July 27, 2016, 10:26:53 AM »

Ergo, if your intentions/actions are "open" to the primary ends of marriage (i.e. children) then there is no sin. Even if there is already a pregnancy, or a biological reason where pregnancy is unattainable. This is the teaching of the Church.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** July 27, 2016, 12:54:46 PM »

Quote from: T. G. Wayne, "Some Principles"

Intercourse is good when it supports and expresses the blessings of marriage. In summary the motives may be one, or two, or three of the following: the making of a family by the birth and bringing up of children; the intense and intimate friendship of a man and woman; the healthy and human satisfaction of physical passion. ... a bodily passion should be satisfied not as a principal preoccupation, but as part of a wider and more human situation, the intimacy of the greatest human friendship.

Well put by this author.

Dolores · « **Reply #87 on:** July 27, 2016, 01:39:50 PM »

Quote from: Geremia

Quote from: Ladislaus
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church.

Indeed, but he was not infallible. One needs only to look at his opinion of the Immaculate Conception to prove that. If there is a conflict between St. Thomas and the Magisterium, the Magisterium wins every time.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #88 on:** July 27, 2016, 01:44:34 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Geremia
Quote from: Ladislaus
St. Thomas is NOT the Magisterium.
St. Thomas is the greatest theologian and Doctor of the Church.

Indeed, but he was not infallible. One needs only to look at his opinion of the Immaculate Conception to prove that. If there is a conflict between St. Thomas and the Magisterium, the Magisterium wins every time.

Thank you. I'm glad that somebody gets it ... even if it isn't Geremia.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #89 on:** July 27, 2016, 02:29:26 PM »

Quote from: Amakusa

That is the way the encyclical must be understood.

Says you. Theologians do not understand it this way. I suppose you can interpret away anything you want.

Quote from: Amakusa

The Book of Leviticus is from God Himself, and among the sins which are mentioned as calling the wrath of God upon the peoples such as the Cananeans, there is sɛҳuąƖity during menstruation: this sin is mentioned along with incest and such very great sins!

Judaizer!

Quote from: Amakusa

As for pregnancy and sex:
Saint Hildegard, Scivias, book II, vision 3:

Irrelevant. Not the teaching of the Church. In no way is the "development of [a] little child" "polluted by excessive ... semen". Lack of medial understanding there.

Quote from: Amakusa

You are accusing me to spread moral errors

Absolutely I am. And Matthew has agreed with me. Nice try with the "Feeney" play, but it's entirely irrelevant to this thread and is just another cheap ad hominem from someone who has little else to offer than his own Puritanical attitudes and quotations from Old Testament ritual law.