Support my work in Theology

Please consider supporting my work in theology:
* SubscribeStar
* Patreon
* BitBacker
* Tipeee

Support Tiers:
$4/month — Receive a once monthly newsletter with Catholic news commentary, theology articles, reader Q&A, and more. (Twice monthly, if it becomes popular)

$8/month — can receive answers to theological questions from me by e-mail at any time, and also receive the newsletter (above). May suggest topics for posts and receive more lengthy answers to questions they pose in comments on my blogs (The Reproach of Christ and Catholicism.io).

$20/month — Benefits of lower tiers, plus receive a free copy of each of my new books, as they are published, for as long as you are a Benefactor, in Kindle format. Current free book is: The Indefectibility of the Pope.

My work: 22 theology books, 17 theology booklets, 2 collections of blog posts, a modern English translation of the Clementine Vulgate (Latin) Bible, thousands of blog posts and other online articles, and answers to your questions on a wide range of theology topics. My writings propose theological insights on biblical chronology, Mariology, salvation, the papacy, eschatology, ethics, and other topics.

If you cannot afford the lowest tier ($4/month), let me know and I’ll send you the newsletter for free.

Gallery | This entry was posted in commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Support my work in Theology

  1. Paul M says:

    Ron, can you make those three options into hyperlinks? There’s no other links obvious on my phone.

  2. Matt says:

    I just got a copy of Denzinger!!! Originally, I was hesitant to believe what you said, until I read it Denzinger with my own eyes. But I read it, and It confirms your translations on your website. Your work should be supported!!! IT IS AWESOME.

    In particular, your debate with Trent Horn on Denzinger 3638, which got you banned from Catholic Answers. The text is black and white and contradicts what Trent Horn says. The only remaining question is whether it is indeed an authoritative decree. If it is, then Trent Horn is contradicting the non-infallible Magisterium, and should get intense ridicule.

    QUESTION: is it enough to say Denzinger 3638 says it, implies it is part of the non-infallible Magisterium? Or is more required to determine whether this decree is part of the Magisterium? For example, I read that if it was posed in a question, it may not be authoritative. Or if it is only specificially addressed to a king or ruler of a country, and not to the entire body of the faithful, it might not be authoritative. Is this true? Are there other requirements as well for a decree to part of the non-infallible Magesterium?

    • Ron Conte says:

      When a response of the Holy See is published by the Holy See, it is binding on all the faithful. In one case, an ordinary layman asked a question of the Holy See (a dubium) on communion and the SSPX, and he received an answer; the answer was published in the official acts of the Holy See, so it is authoritative (no matter who asked the question). The text in Denz. 3638 was published in the official acts of the Sacred Penitentiary, so it is a non-infallible teaching. But there are other teachings that apply, such as the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium that each sexual act in a marriage must be unitive and procreative. Acts with sex toys are not procreative, so they are condemned under that infallible teaching. Of course, the Denz. text more directly answers the question, and the infallible teaching indirectly implies the answer, but both answers are the same: no non-procreative sexual acts are permitted, even in marriage (and esp. not with an artificial instrument).

    • Matt says:

      Okay, as a quick followup. An act is always ordered towards a proximate end. When considering the physical process of cause and effect deriving from the act willed, I have heard two theories.
      1. New Natural Law (John Finnis of Oxford, Edward Feser, Germain Grisez), say that the proximate effect is the man giving his seed, and a woman receiving it, so all concrete acts, with this proximate effect, are ordered towards procreation.
      2. Old Natural Law, used by Aquinas and Alphonsus, use perverted faculty arguments. It says that for a sexual act to be moral, it must be intercourse, the faculty ordained by God for procreation.

      So here is my question. What is the proximate effect of unnatural acts? What is the proximate effect of the conjugal act? (If Old Natural Law is correct, “perverting the faculty” would be the proximate effect of unnatural acts, right?)

    • Ron Conte says:

      I don’t agree with either of those assertions, 1 and 2. Artificial procreation is the man giving his seed and the woman receiving it, and yet is condemned by the Church as intrinsically evil. So #1 can’t be right. And I don’t believe that Finnis taught that. Grisez’ teaching is disordered and mostly ignores the moral object. The Magisterium teaches that the only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life, which has the marital, unitive, and procreative objects. These objects are proximate “ends”, not “effects”. The effects are in the third font; the objects are in the second font.

  3. erm6 says:

    Hi Ron,

    I signed up on Patreon page.

    I then tried asking a question on the St. Francis de Sales article. WordPress required me to create a WordPress account in order to comment on the St. Francis de Sales article, I don’t know why.

    Now it’s not requiring me to use a WordPress account to comment here. Not sure how all this WordPress stuff is supposed to work together with the subscriber-only stuff.

Comments are closed.