An important decision

You still have not answered my questions. Have you read the Song of Songs? What are your thoughts? Do you believe it is not inspired? Do you believe it is only allegory? Do you agree with the USCCB’s Introduction that it “it presents an inspired portrayal of ideal human love, a resounding affirmation of the goodness of human sęxuality that is applicable to the sacredness and the depth of Marital union” and “mutual desire” between Husband and His Bride?

I believe I had asked you other questions too, but we will start with these.

Again, yes.

Does “ideal human love” mean enticing your husband or wife to have intercourse through lewd speach, acts, or provocative dressing? Does “ideal human love” mean having intercourse with your husband or wife to satisfy the craving for intercourse or gratification? Does “ideal human love” mean engaging in intercourse without the intention to procreate?

Do you and your wife entice each other to have intercourse through lewd speach, acts, or provocative dressing? Do you and your wife have intercourse to satisfy the craving for intercourse or gratification? Do you and your wife have intercourse without the intention to procreate?

Firstly, I am a woman not a man. Secondly, I’m arguing for the unitve and procreative. How is the unitive aspect removed by refraining from intercourse when not coming together in holiness and with the intent to procreate with each other and God as God intended?

Your questions are starting to make me feel uncomfortable.

  1. Do you have to register with a database every time you get a new job or relocate?
  2. Are you not allowed to live within a certain distance of a school?

Some of the things you say remind me of “Ben the Baptist” who used to come into our work and order garments for his Congregation. He was very concerned about the fit of the T-shirts. No women’s fit nor V-necks. He got picked up for exposing himself to the girls’ high school track team a few months later. I’m getting some similar vibes from you.

If your answers to my questions were “no” then you wouldn’t feel uncomfortable answering “no”, and thus your answers are “yes”. And, to have yes answers to those scenarios is the lustful, unholy and immoral aspects I’m talking about that don’t unify. By the way, if it’s uncomfortable answering those questions, how much more uncomfortable is it for you to know that God sees and hears all immoral words that you speak and acts that you commit?

Well, again, I’m actually a woman, single, and abstinent. So, if I ever do get married, my answer would be no to both questions.

I must admit that when my wife and I had sex and it resulted in the conception of each of our three daughters the sex was motivated, to some degree, by what Soul calls “lust”. I would call it desire. “lust” has an arbitrarily negative connotation. I am unable to imagine sex without desire.

It makes me feel uncomfortable, because your speech is lewd. I do not speak to my wife in the manor that you describe. I am attracted to my Wife though, and that is not a sin.

This changes everything! Ha-ha! : ) Majority of registered offenders are male. So, the creep-factor goes down a notch ; ) How many cats do you have? Just curious.

Are you discerning a Religious vocation? (Not a joke, but a serous question.) I have a cousin who is becoming a Religious Sister. The Order she is doing a test-run with is quite strict, in that if she chooses to join, she may not see her Family (which I think is quite sad and I would consider an Order that is not cloistered).

I’ve inspired my oldest Daughter to discern if is called to the Religious Life. She would have to give up her collectables, which she is not ready to give up yet. She is friends with a boy who does not go to Church. He is a nice young man. He would like to date her, but she is not ready to date yet. So Pray for her discernment and for Josh’s conversion.

You think my questions were lewd?? I didn’t even graphic or detailed…

So, in a previous post, you said that you and your wife don’t speak lewdly and thats good. No lewd acts, toys, or provocative dressing, watching lewd movies, shows, etc, either? No having intercourse solely to get gratification too?

I have one cat and her name is “Chai”. I’ve never owned more than one cat at a time.

No, but I’m 36, and have been single and abstinent for 11 years so far, and I have more time than a married woman to dedicate time to God in ways a married woman couldn’t. So, I already live a life of vocation. Jesus dictated to Maria Valtorta that if one never left their room, they could do so much for the world through prayer.

Why would I put a bag over my husbands head and a sheet between during intercourse? lol And how is the unitive aspect removed by refraining from intercourse when not coming together in holiness and with the intent to procreate with each other and God as God intended?

I will pray for them both.

Correct.

Is your cat broken?

36 is an awesome age! 36 was one of the best years.

So that you are not attracted to him (“lusting”). And because you said that the Marital act is only for procreating. You are treating your husband like an object (or a baby factory part). Essentially you are doing the opposite of what you accuse someone who is intimate with their spouse during infertile times of dong (only in the in a different way).

Thank you : )

Obviously there are some here who have a strange and peculiar issue with normal healthy sex.

If you’re asking if she’s unable to have kittens, then yes, as she’s spayed. I wouldn’t have minded her having kittens, but my current living situation doesn’t allow for more cats.

I never said that finding someone attractive in and of itself was lust. What I’m opposed to is all immoralities, all of which affect the soul, and men and women, husbands and wives, whether they’re single or not, or fertile or not, have the free will to either resist committing them or not.

One example of immorality is lust. How much lust—of the flesh, of the mind, of the heart—spreads over the world, issuing forth from people as if from the orifices of many springs whose origins lie in the depths, where the Enemy reigns. It is a flood—not willed by God, but by Satan—to which they have lent themselves, that is pouring over the earth and driving Light, Truth, and Life away from them.

An example of carnal lust is a disordered desire for sexual pleasure, especially when it is sought for itself, separate from its procreative and unitive purposes. The unitive and procreative purposes are not separate but rather intertwined and mutually reinforcing. Each act of sexual intercourse is understood as a potential for new life, while also being an expression of love and union between the spouses.

The first chaste love of a spouse, love as that of men ought to have been, according to the Creator’s thought: love without the sting of sense and the mire of malice. A love at once natural and angelic, for in the souls of Adam and his children, according to the thought creating them, there was to be the angelic purity of the spirit mingled with human tenderness, and like a flower opening sinlessly from the stem bearing it, so, without the worm of lust, love was to arise in spouses and give children to chaste marriage beds.

To be chaste does not mean to prohibit union (intercourse). It means to fulfill it while thinking of God, who makes two reasoning animals into two lesser creators, and as God created the male and the female without introducing malicious thought into them and did not place in their pupils a fleshly light to reveal the flesh to the innocent, so spouses ought to make marriage a holy creation gladdened by cradles, but not sullied by lust.

The spouse who is honest and loving in a holy way seeks to become like the other spouse, for those who love tend to take on the likeness of the beloved creature, so that marriage, when well understood is a mutual elevation, for there is no one who is completely wicked, and it is enough for each to improve one point by taking as an example the other’s good side in order to climb up the stairway of sanctity, competing with one another like a plant putting forth a branch higher than the preceding one and rising and rising towards the sky, such is conjugal and individual holiness. Today it’s one virtue. Tomorrow from this virtue another, higher one sprouts forth, and from the human virtues of mutual forbearance one rises to the peaks of supernatural heroism.

One of the virtues is purity. To be pure does not mean to be virgins. There are virgins who are impure and fathers and mothers who are pure. Virginity is physical and-should be-spiritual inviolateness. Purity is the chastity which lasts in the circumstances of life. In all of them. Those who do not practice and second lust and the appetites of the flesh are pure. Those who do not take delight in thoughts and conversations or spectacles which are licentious are pure. Those who, convinced of the omnipresence of God, always behave, whether alone or with others, as if they were in public are pure.

Define Healthy. Care to answer Soul’s personal questions (some valid, some not valid).

I predict if you get broken or contracept that you and your Wife will not be Married in 15 years. How long have you been Married thus far? Is this your first Marriage?

This conversation has gotten really wierd. Your prediction about my marriage is assinine. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Soul’s personal questions are meaningless nonsense.

“define healthy” …look it up in the dictionary.

It did not say in the dictionary anything about getting broken as being healthy. In fact, I would argue that breaking a healthy part of the body is the opposite of healthy.

I also looked up the word “asinine” and it describes one who breaks a healthy body part ; )

Am I to assume that there’s no one more intelligent on this entire forum that can contribute to this discussion? Come on folks. Man up. Make your voices heard.

Man up. Tell me that it is a good idea to sterilize myself. This is the opposite of manning up : )

I will relay the Voice of the most intelligent of all, He Who is Wisdom: Jesus, and thus He can contribute perfectly to this discussion. On March 22nd, 1944, Jesus dictated the following to Maria Valtorta about procreation and the holy dignity of spouses:

The families which are not families and which are the origin of serious misfortunes radiating out from within the family cell to ruin the structures of nations and, afterwards, world peace, are the families in which God does not rule, but, rather, sensuality and self-interest hold sway and, therefore, filiation with Satan. Created on the basis of sensuality and self-interest, they do no rise to what is holy, but, like unhealthy grass sprouting in the mire, they always crawl towards the earth.

The angel said to Tobiah, ‘I will teach you who the devil has power over.’

Oh, there really are spouses who are under demoniac power from the first hour of their marriage! Indeed, there are people who are such even before getting married. They are this way from the moment they make the decision to find a male or female companion and do not do so with an upright purpose, but with deceitful calculations where selfishness and sensuality hold sovereign sway.

Nothing is healthier or holier than two people who sincerely love one another and unite to perpetuate the human race and give souls to Heaven.

The dignity of a man and a woman who become parents is second only to God’s. Not even royal dignity is like this. For a king, even the wisest one, does nothing but administer his subjects. These parents, on the other hand, attract God’s gaze towards themselves and carry off from that gaze a new soul, which they enclose in the sheath of the flesh born to them. I would almost say they have God as their subject, in that moment, since God immediately creates a new soul for their upright love forming a union to give a new citizen to Earth and Heaven.

If they were to consider this power of theirs, to which God assents at once! The angels cannot do so much; rather, the angels, like God, are immediately ready to support the act of the fruitful spouses and become guardians of the new creature. But there are many who, as Raphael says, embrace the marriage state in such a way as to banish God from themselves and their minds and abandon themselves to lust. And the devil has power over these.

What difference is there between a sinful bed and the bed of two spouses who do not refuse pleasure, but do refuse offspring? Let’s not engage in verbal acrobatics and deceitful reasoning. The difference is quite small. For if, because of illness or imperfections, it is advisable or permissible not to have children, people must then manage to be continent and deprive themselves of the sterile satisfactions which are nothing but sensual pleasure. If, on the other hand, no obstacle to procreation intervenes, why do you make a natural and supernatural law an immoral act by deforming its purpose?

When any honest consideration induces you not to increase the number of children, manage to live as chaste spouses and not as lustful monkeys. How can you want God’s angel to watch over your home when you turn it into a den of sin? How can you want God to protect you when you force Him to avert his gaze in disgust from your sullied nest?

Oh, the families are wretched that are formed without supernatural preparation! The families from which all searching for Truth has been excluded a priori and where, on the contrary, the word of Truth is derided which teaches what Marriage is and why it exists. The families are wretched that are formed without any thought for what is superior, but only under the spur of sensual appetite and financial considerations! How many spouses, after the inevitable custom of the religious ceremony—I said ‘custom,’ and I repeat it, since for the majority it is nothing but a custom and not the soul’s aspiration to have God with it at that moment—no longer have a thought for God and make the Sacrament—which does not end with the religious ceremony, but begins then and lasts as long as the life of the spouses, according to My thought, just as the taking of vows does not last as long as the religious ceremony, but as long as the life of the man or woman religious—and they make the Sacrament a party and turn the party into an outlet for bestiality!

The angel teaches Tobiah that, by having the act preceded by prayer, the act becomes holy and blessed and fruitful in true joys and offspring.

It would be necessary to do this. For people to enter into marriage when moved by the desire for children, for this is the purpose of the human union, and every other purpose is a sin dishonoring man as a rational being and wounding the spirit, the temple of God, which flees in disdain, and to bear God in mind at all times. God is not an oppressive jailer, but God is a good Father who exults in the honest joys of His sons and daughters and responds to their holy embraces with heavenly blessings and with the approval which the creation of a new soul is proof of.

But who will understand this page? As if I had spoken the language of an unknown planet, you will read it without perceiving its holy savor. It will seem like old straw to you, and it is heavenly doctrine. You, the learned of this time, will mock it.

And you do not know that Satan is laughing over your foolishness; thanks to your incontinence, your bestiality, he has managed to turn to your condemnation what God created for your good: marriage as a human union and as a Sacrament.

I shall repeat for you so that you will remember them and be guided by them—if you can still do so through a residue of human dignity surviving in you—Tobiah’s words to his wife: ‘We are the children of saints and we cannot unite like the gentiles who do not know God.’

Let them be your norm. For, even if you were born where sanctity had already died, Baptism has still made you sons and daughters of God, of the Holy of holies, and thus you can always say that you are the children of saints—of the Holy One—and be guided by this. You will then have descendants in whom the name of the Lord will be blessed, and they will live in his Law.

And when the children live in the divine Law, the parents reap the benefits, for it teaches virtues, respect, and love, and the first to benefit therefrom, after God, are the fortunate parents, the holy spouses who have managed to make marriage a perpetual rite and not a dishonorable vice. (The Notebooks: 1944)

May He be heard, because He speaks out of love for you.

Oh here we go again with Maria Valtorta ; )

Sorry, I do not believe that God was talking to her. I believe she believed God was talking to her. I believe you believe God was talking to her. I believe Joseph Smith believed he was a Prophet too, but I do not believe he was a prophet.

I caution you on elevating the writings of this Maria Valtorta above Sacred Scripture.

I get that you feel a connection to her, because she, like you, was unMarried and had no children. I believe this might have influenced her ideas on this topic. I’d also like to know about her relationship with her father. I’m getting the sense that there might have been some issues there.

I understand. There will always be those who disbelieve, just as there will always be those who become believers.

if you were me, and you recognized that Maria Valtorta truly received visions and dictations from God and other heavenly persons, wouldn’t you listen to them, and share the visions and dictations that she received from them?

I share visions and dictations that Maria Valtorta received because they come from God and other heavenly persons.

What kind of “issues”? And, she actually was close with her father from what I remember reading. You should read her autobiography. It’s available to read online for free if you’re genuinely curious about their relationship.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith during his “First Vision” and other Heavenly beings in later visions. Why should we believe Maria Valtrorta and not Joseph Smith? Both claim to have had visions. Or should we believe both? I believe in private revelation, but I get a little nervous when individuals are trying to push private revelation as public revelation.

I view you as I do my LDS friends. If this belief in the visions and or prophesy of individuals in recent history moves you to a deeper relationship with the real Jesus, then I view this as a good.

So, I skimmed her autobiography and here are some things that relate to her relationship with her father and I think the issue was more with her mother:

  • Maria loved her father very much, was deeply grieved by his absence at her First Holy Communion. She blames her mother for him not being there.
  • Her father developed some health issues and retired from active Military. As is common of Military Families, they moved around quite a bit.
  • She describes her father as patient, sweet, loving, forgiving offenses, and who endured sorrows caused by others who misjudged him (as I have done ; ) I am curious by what these misjudgments were. How did others perceive him I wonder? Did they view him as a push-over? Someone who was weak, because his wife would sting him with words and try to control him.
  • When her father died, Maria took it very hard (as I did the death of my own father). It pained her that she was not able to be there in his final moments.
  • After his death, her mother became even more callous.
  • She described her mother as extremely severe, despotic, ill-tempered, religiously indifferent, selfish, and jealously possessive.
  • Her mother treated he more like a servant, expecting her to care for her. Her mom was a bit of a hypochondriac who often believe she had illnesses (something that often happens when you lose someone close to you).
  • Her mother would cut off her relationships with friends out of control or jealousy.
  • But, she loved her Mom, “with a love that not even her harshness had been able to tire or diminish.”

So, it sounds like her mom was crazy. Her Dad actually sounds like a pretty good dude.

There are true and false spokespersons of God in the world, because both God and Satan are at work in the world. Satan tries to imitate God and deceive, but he can’t imitate perfectly. So, we have to discern and Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruits” because “a good tree cannot bear evil fruit, and an evil tree cannot bear good fruit”. God will always make known who His true spokespersons are, just as He always has, but all the proof in the world will not move hearts without absolute Faith and good will. We see this throughout Jesus’s ministry, where He would tell someone they will be healed if they have Faith that He can heal, or that they have been healed because they had Faith that He could. Another example, Jesus gave many proofs that He’s God in the flesh, and yet there were many who still didn’t believe that He was, because they lacked what was necessary to believe.

Was Joseph Smith a true spokesperson of God? I say no for quite a few reasons, one of them being that he has many failed prophecies. Using our God-given reason, would a true spokesperson of God have even one failed prophecy? No.

Regarding Maria Valtorta, have you read A Summa and Encyclopedia to Maria Valtorta’s Extraordinary Work? If not, you should, especially the chapters on proofs in support of her writings having a supernatural origin. I sent that link to a Protestant on another forum, and after reviewing the proofs, even he couldn’t deny that they clearly have a supernatural origin, which I praise God for, though he refuses to say it’s of God’s work, but that’s because the Blessed Virgin Mary is spoken about in ways he doesn’t already believe. So, we have to pray for him.

What do you mean by “push private revelation as public revelation”? I’m just sharing the visions and dictations that Maria Valtorta received from God and other heavenly persons. Wouldn’t you do the same if you recognized that her writings are God’s Work?