question on sensitive issue
Traditional Catholic (FSSP) Conference on Conjugal Chastity.

For more audio see:

This will answer all your questions.

Mr. West is a heretic and a sex pervert who brainwashes Catholic Americans into practicing heterosexual acts of sodomy. Interestingly enough he sings rock and roll songs (e.g. Desire by U2) in his speeches, which isn't a surprise  since Mick Jagger said rock and roll is "99% sex" and John Oates called it "music for the neck down". Pray for the conversion of Christopher West. 

Music directly imitates the passions or states of the soul...when one listens to music that imitates a certain passion, he becomes imbued withthe same passion; and if over a long time he habitually listens to music that rouses ignoble passions, his whole character will be shaped to an ignoble form. - Aristotle
[-] The following 1 user Likes Skarga's post:
  • SkyRise
This excerpt from the Catechism of the Council of Trent supports the von Hildebrand thesis:

The Use Of Marriage

Finally, the use of marriage is a subject which pastors should so treat as to avoid any expression that may be unfit to meet the ears of the faithful, that may be calculated to offend the piety of some, or excite the laughter of. others. The words of the Lord are chaste words; and the teacher of a Christian people should make use of the same kind of language, one that is characterised by singular gravity and purity of soul. Two lessons of instruction to the faithful are, then, to be specially insisted upon.

The first is that marriage is not to be used for purposes of lust or sensuality, but that its use is to be restrained within those limits which, as we have already shown, have been fixed by the Lord. It should be remembered that the Apostle admonishes: They that have wives, let them be as though they had them not, and that St. Jerome says: The love which a wise man cherishes towards his wife is the result of judgment, not the impulse of passion; he governs the impetuosity of desire, and is not hurried into indulgence. There is nothing more shameful than that a husband should love his wife as an adulteress.

But as every blessing is to be obtained from God by holy prayer, the faithful are also to be taught sometimes to abstain from the marriage debt, in order to devote themselves to prayer. Let the faithful understand that (this religious continence), according to the proper and holy injunction of our predecessors, is particularly to be observed for at least three days before Communion, and oftener during the solemn fast of Lent.

Thus will they find the blessings of marriage to be daily increased by an abundance of divine grace; and living in the pursuit of piety, they will not only spend this life in peace and tranquillity, but will also repose in the true and firm hope, which confoundeth not, of arriving, through the divine goodness, at the possession of that life which is eternal.
I'm a little hesitant in posting here in the Lady's Forum.  Ideally, this area should be your corner of FE.

However, as a husband in a successful marriage, I can tell you what the difference is between the proper and improper use of the marital bond: intent.  It's really just that simple.  As long as my wife and I aren't looking to use each other as a means of physical gratification and we remain open to God's plans for children, then we are operating within the realm of the proper use of the marital act.

It's really not all that different than the proper relationship any of us has with food.  Just as food is something that we can abuse, we can also use it in a prayerful manner as a gift from God.  The piece of cake is still the same piece of cake, the only difference is us.
I'm trying to understand TOB more and there was a thread about the way it's presented by Christopher West... anyways, it approached this question too but more explicitly than I feel comfortable in a mixed forum. So I wanted to ask here in the women's forum... the last page of the thread has two posts in the end, both of which talk about this issue - but claiming different things. There's a quote from a moral theology manual and then another quote from St Alphonsus' manual, and they seem to disagree. Which one do we go with?? This has zero relevance to my life because I'm not married, discerning a different vocation, and I just have no liking for this particular topic. But I wanted to understand just what to think whenever other Catholics mention it in relation to TOB. Any thoughts? here's the thread with the quotes
Not to put too fine a point on it, but St Alphonsus'  goes well outside of the catechism: Trent or the CCC.
- certain things are incompatible with dignity of marriage and human beings. (Dietrich con Hildebrand and his wife tend to gravitate towards this view if Alice von Hildebrand"s article was understood rightly by me).

I'm on in with Dietrich  on this question!
Fr. Ripperger gave a notably un-opinionated presentation siteing Doctor of (moral theology) the Church, St. Alphonsus Ligorie and (the angelic) Doctor of the Church St. Aquinas on his site as teaching that...

1. Without doubt sodomy and the use of toys/objects are never acceptable.
2. The nature of the woman's "vase" (St. Thomas Aquinas's term for that) was only suited to have (specifically) the complimentary portion of her husband's anatomy "enter", and not (specifically for the marital act) his / her digits, non-complimentary protrusions/organs, etc...
3. I can't fully recall the presentation, but it seemed to indicate the rules were less restrictive in relation to that organ Muslims cut off of their daughters, but truly I do not know for certain. The talk is fuzzy in my memory.
4. The talk mentioned that St. Ligouri tackled the topic of "specifically" the wife's mouth in relation to her husband's uniquely male anatomy, and that while there may not have been an absolute guarantee of sin, it almost assuredly was. The way the saint phrased the question may be of interest. "Is it always a sin for a man to place his ----- in his wife's mouth?"

I hope this was of some help and subtle enough, I for one heartily appreciate your emphasis on discretion. I would so much rather be guilty of being so vague that I had to offer 1 or 2 slight clarifications rather than so unveiled that I could be said to have disquieted one's mind.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)