What is the doctrinal value of this Monitum of Holy Office, 30 june 1952? How to understand it? Which interpretation?
An intrinsically evil act (an intrinsically wrong act, a wrong act in itself, an unnatural act, a wrong act in and of itself)???? Or not, if it is, only, in function of intentions and circumstances?
A NEW QUESTION???
On June 30, 1952 the Holy Office issued the following
statement concerning the practice of amplexus reseivatus;
Admonition
The Holy See has noted with grave concern that in recent
times not a few writers when treating of conjugal life have not
been ashamed to go into the details concerning it frequently,
openly and minutely: furthermore, that some of them describe,
praise and recommend a certain act called amplexus reservatus.
Lest it fail its duty in a matter of such great moment, which
concerns the sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls, the
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, at the express
command of His Holiness by Divine Providence Pope Pius XII,
seriously admonishes all the aforesaid writers to desist from such
a way of acting. And it earnestly exhorts the Bishops to exercise
careful vigilance in these matters and to make diligent use of
appropriate remedies.
Monitum S. Officii, sous Pie XII, 30 juin 1952
3907 2335 (Animadvertit Ap. Sedes non paucos hodiernos scriptores) de vita coniugali agentes, passim palam et minute ad singula eam spectantia inverecunde descendere; praeterea nonnullos actum quemdam, 'amplexum reservatum' nuncupatum, describere, laudare et suadere.
Ne in re tanti momenti, quae matrimonii sanctitatem et animarum salutem respicit, munere suo deficiat, S. Cgr. S. Officii, de expresso mandato Pii XII, omnes praedictos scriptores graviter monet, ut ab huiusmodi agendi ratione desistant. ... Sacerdotes autem, in cura animarum et in conscientiis dirigendis, numquam, sive sponte sive interrogati, ita loqui praesumant, quasi ex parte legis christianae contra 'amplexum reservatum' nihil esset obiiciendum.
An intrinsically evil act (an intrinsically wrong act, a wrong act in itself, an unnatural act, a wrong act in and of itself)???? Or not, if it is, only, in function of intentions and circumstances?
A NEW QUESTION???
On June 30, 1952 the Holy Office issued the following
statement concerning the practice of amplexus reseivatus;
Admonition
The Holy See has noted with grave concern that in recent
times not a few writers when treating of conjugal life have not
been ashamed to go into the details concerning it frequently,
openly and minutely: furthermore, that some of them describe,
praise and recommend a certain act called amplexus reservatus.
Lest it fail its duty in a matter of such great moment, which
concerns the sanctity of marriage and the salvation of souls, the
Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, at the express
command of His Holiness by Divine Providence Pope Pius XII,
seriously admonishes all the aforesaid writers to desist from such
a way of acting. And it earnestly exhorts the Bishops to exercise
careful vigilance in these matters and to make diligent use of
appropriate remedies.
Monitum S. Officii, sous Pie XII, 30 juin 1952
3907 2335 (Animadvertit Ap. Sedes non paucos hodiernos scriptores) de vita coniugali agentes, passim palam et minute ad singula eam spectantia inverecunde descendere; praeterea nonnullos actum quemdam, 'amplexum reservatum' nuncupatum, describere, laudare et suadere.
Ne in re tanti momenti, quae matrimonii sanctitatem et animarum salutem respicit, munere suo deficiat, S. Cgr. S. Officii, de expresso mandato Pii XII, omnes praedictos scriptores graviter monet, ut ab huiusmodi agendi ratione desistant. ... Sacerdotes autem, in cura animarum et in conscientiis dirigendis, numquam, sive sponte sive interrogati, ita loqui praesumant, quasi ex parte legis christianae contra 'amplexum reservatum' nihil esset obiiciendum.