Sexual moral act question. Please help me understand

Hi,

What does the statement in red mean in context? Thank you!!
Brian

Only natural marital relations (natural genital-to-genital intercourse) open to life has all three meanings: marital, unitive, and procreative. If a husband or wife are infertile, due to old age, or injury, or illness, the natural marital act remains moral because it is still the type of act which is inherently directed toward procreation (even if procreation is not attained). The essential moral nature of any act is determined by its inherent ordering toward its moral object, not by the attainment of the moral object. - catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

My take:

The purpose of the act of sexual intercourse is to create offspring. But if Sexual intercourse does not result in offspring, that is OK.

My understanding of the text in red is: ‘Any act is moral if the act itself is designed to achieve a moral result. It doesn’t matter that the moral result might not happen.’

I am not here getting into the question itself - one may see the Catechism itself here regarding “moral object” scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

  • rather I would note that the site you are listing is NOT a site that I would recommend.

Rather seek out good information from well established sources. Catholic Answers Staff can provide sources for the subject.

:thumbsup:

What’s the problem, please explain? I thought it has some really detailed moral theological answers that were in line with the Church?!?

I think they said argued that wasn’t the case on the website link. I am just learning the moral theological language, so I am not 100% sure…

NOT recommended. Go to established sources.

See my PM.

Such is NOT a site recommended for learning Catholic Moral Theology…

Brian,

In the way of another example: let’s suppose that you decided to murder me in cold blood. Would the act of shooting me – aside from whether you successfully killed me – be a morally good act? In other words, whether or not you succeed, the act of shooting with the intent to murder me is an immoral act.

The part I highlighted is the part that’s being disputed. He believes that his explanations are “in line with Church” teaching, but there are (some? many?) around here who would dispute that. He does not represent the Church, so we cannot say with any authority that his explanations are, de facto, the teaching of the Church. So, it would be safer to stay with the Church teachings themselves, while you are in the process of learning what the Church says…

A member referenced a review here of the site: forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=10023853&highlight=Ron+Conte#post10023853

In his writings the author in question even accused Catholic Answers Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin of heresies! :eek:

(nonsense!)

Look elsewhere - completely elsewhere for Church Teaching and Catholic Moral Theology than that site.

catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?Example=8711&recnum=3892&task=showexample

and in addition to publishing a Catechism without the needed approval there is also a Bible - without the needed approval that has been published.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.