P
patsa
Guest
Right. So, are we in agreement then that the Church leaves this issue open to personal judgement and that your personal opinion and my personal opinion on the morality of this act are therefore allowed to be opposite?
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
You are reducing the Church to a shelf of rule books as the source of all authority and wisdom of the Spirit, when in fact we all share in the priesthood.
1Peter2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
*“Priesthood: (1) Of the faithful: The priestly people of God. Christ has made of his Church a “kingdom of priests,” and gives the faithful a share in his priesthood through the sacraments of baptism and confirmation.” * (As distinguished from the Ministerial priesthood) (Cardinal Levada’s glossary)
By drawing on the importance of taboos and the facts that support those taboos in service to the wellbeing of humanity, I’m presenting more than opinion. I recently debated a fellow who’s Catholic argument for the retention of capital punishment, was that even the Popes teachings against it were his ‘opinion’ and therefore devoid of authority or the movement of the Holy Spirit among us.
There are millions of things that the Church has made no specific mention of and that does not mean that they have no moral quality at all. You can’t possibly believe that.
P
patsa
Guest
How am I reducing anything, exactly?
The Church has not disclosed any official position on oral stimulation. Fact
Many theologians have said it’s licit, and their books have received imprimaturs. Fact
Other theologians have said it’s not licit. Fact (don’t know if their books have received imprimaturs or not though, feel free to provide if you’d like).
We are therefore allowed to use our well formed consciences to discern whether or not we believe this act to be sinful or not sinful… and if we reach different conclusions, it’s ok… neither one of us is going against Church teaching. Fact
Yes, ok blah blah blah… this is all repetitive stuff that you’ve already explained… yes, we know you think it’s wrong and we know why you think it’s wrong, yes, we get it… No, we don’t agree with it…
Moving on.
You are correct, I don’t believe that. I also don’t believe oral stimulation falls in that category. Your point?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m sorry but I have to pass over your posts. They are just like biting into a lemon for me. So not conducive to people discussing godly things. Best of luck to you anyway.
P
patsa
Guest
Sorry, I get frustrated when people don’t make any sense.
Bottom line:
Church has no teaching on this. We are allowed to use our well formed consciences to discern and go with what we see fit… whether that be that oral stimulation is a sin, or that it is morally neutral. Either way is fine.
P
patsa
Guest
L
LongingSoul
Guest
If someone is not making sense to you it doesn’t mean they are not making sense in general.
Let me try and put the issue into the microcosm. The Church does not specifically say that naturism is sinful. (I live in the tropics so the topic is relevant here)
Your 12 year old daughter befriends the child of a naturist family and wants to start having visits and sleepovers there. Do you feel that beyond a simple difference of opinion or just general prejudice against the naturist lifestyle… you have no moral quandry about letting your daughter stay with the naturists? Or do you sense inside yourself that there are moral aspects that support the taboo around the naturist lifestyle?
P
patsa
Guest
Longing Soul, why are you making this so difficult? It really is not that difficult. It really really isn’t. I don’t know how else to explain this to you. It is extremely frustrating. And the reason you are not making any sense it that you are not willing to grasp the crux of the issue here.
- There is no Church teaching that says oral stimulation as foreplay between consenting spouses is illicit. Do you understand that? That is not an opinion. That is not a theory. That is fact. THERE IS NO CHURCH TEACHING THAT PROHIBITS THIS ACT. Got it? Do you understand that?
- Since there is no Church teaching that says oral stimulation as foreplay between consenting spouses is illicit , each individual person is ALLOWED to use his or her prudential judgement and well formed conscience to discern for his or her self the morality of this act. This means that Catholics can think about it, pray about it, and reach either conclusion without going against Church teaching… since there is no Church teaching on this. Do you understand that?
- As testimony of the above, that is, as testimony that we are allowed to come up with our own conclusions on this, there have been many theologians who have come to the conclusion that oral stimulation as foreplay between consenting spouses is licit. Some of those theologians have published their beliefs that this act is licit, in their books. Their books have then received imprimaturs. Do you know what it means for a book to have an imprimatur? It means that the Church has reviewed the book and has decided that it is FREE of errors that go against Church teaching. Do you know what this means? This means that a person is allowed to believe that oral stimulation as foreplay between consenting spouses is licit. If this were not allowed, and if this act were indeed against Church teaching, books which say this act is licit would not have received imprimatur… because they would be going against Church teaching. Do you understand that?
- You believe that oral stimulation as foreplay between consenting spouses is a sin. You have explained over and over and over again WHY you think this is a sin. Listen, THAT IS FINE. Did you get that? You are ALLOWED to think this act is a sin. However, I am also ALLOWED to disagree with you. Do you know why I am allowed to disagree with you? Well, this goes back to #1 here. I am allowed to disagree with you because the Church has no teaching on this. What is the cold, hard proof that I am perfectly allowed to disagree with you even though the Church has no teaching on this? That would be #3. The fact that books which clearly state that this act is licit have received imprimaturs, is “proof” that I am not going against Church teaching by disagreeing with you and believing that this act is licit.
(Now, for arguments sake, to answer your question about this “naturist” thing…
The exact SAME rules apply. There is no Church teaching that says “it is wrong to visit and have sleepover with a naturists.” Therefore, each Catholic is ALLOWED to use their own prudential judgement and well formed conscience to discern whether or not the act of visiting/sleeping over with naturists is licit. Some Catholics may think it’s ok. Others may think it is sinful. Others may think it is not sinful, but perhaps not a very good idea, and should be avoided. Neither is going against Church teaching, because the Church has not spoken on the issue of visiting/sleeping over with naturists. I personally have no idea which way I would go because I don’t know anything about naturists, I don’t have children, I haven’t put in the time and prayer to properly discern, and I don’t anticipate to ever be put in that position in the future.)
P
patsa
Guest
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’d thought I’d give you another shot, but no… you’re just so inordinately condescending it’s ugly. I’ll leave you well to it rather than encourage your rubbish further.
M
MJJean
Guest
Must be a dog person thing. I use my towels and dish cloths on my dogs and then wash them with hot water to later be used by whoever grabs them for bathing and drying, too. I also kiss my dogs and let them kiss me. A lot of people would faint at the sight!I have done both of those things.Then I throw the towel or dish cloth in the washer. Problem solved.
P
patsa
Guest
Would you mind telling me what it was that I said that was “rubbish?”
Was it…
- The part where I told you the Church has no teaching on this?
- The part where I told you there are Catholic moral theology books out there with imprimaturs that specifically say this act is licit?
- The part where I told you you have the right to your opinion, since the Church has no teaching on this?
- The part where I told you I am allowed to disagree with you on your views, and take the views of many notable theologians who’s books on the subject have obtained imprimaturs?
Call me condescending all you want. But keep in mind, YOU were the one who claimed MY opinion on the issue is “rubbish.” As much as I disagree with YOUR opinion, I NEVER said it was rubbish. I said the opposite. I said you are allowed to have those opinions. So maybe the rude, condescending person here is YOU.
But whatever. There is obviously no reasoning with someone who absolutely refuses to see reason, so looks like I just wasted my time.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I did not call your opinion rubbish. I’ve never been so rude to anyone. Your vile condescension, contempt and completely unnecessary snarkiness are rubbish. You do realise we are Catholics talking about the things that are paving our way to heaven?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The point that I was trying to make with that was the value of the ‘general rule’. I was trying to show how ‘general rules’ protect society in important ways. If you have your dish cloth, its normally fine to use it to wash up, let it dry and the next person doing the dishes can use the same dish cloth without any need to wash or disinfect it first. It just needs its go through the wash every few days.Must be a dog person thing. I use my towels and dish cloths on my dogs and then wash them with hot water to later be used by whoever grabs them for bathing and drying, too. I also kiss my dogs and let them kiss me. A lot of people would faint at the sight!
If the cloth is known for being a dish cloth, come floor rag, come face cloth, come dog cloth etc… the fact that no general rule governs it means it has to be treated to very careful hygiene rules. It has to be disinfected between each use and be subject to an important list of cautions. As a ‘general rule’ that the whole house follows, something is less vulnerable to being a source of poisoning the family if one person forgets that this is not a ‘dedicated’ cloth for doing dishes but a cloth for all manner of things. General rules serve the common good of the family.
I was relating that to the way the societal taboos, in this case, taboos around oral and anal sex, served society. We can say that all we have to do is subject these practices to severe hygiene treatment but that no longer means it is part of the general rule. The fact is despite all the hygiene warnings, how many people really subject these practices to any different treatment than those that apply to the ‘general rule’ ie. normal sexual intercourse in the way of nature?
So what I’m saying that I see as the problem is that a lot of Catholics are saying the Church doesn’t specify oral sex or anal sex is a sin, so therefore it is morally permissable. I’m saying that there are many, many things the Church doesn’t list on it’s list of sins, that are still subject to moral examination for their effect on the common good. There are objections to people living as nudists even within their own properties. Some people will do it of course, but as a general rule, it is not wise to promote this as a general rule. We feel that way because of many considerations from ascetic ones to the dangers of subjecting the younger members of society to increased risks in various ways. We have this sense that fostering more modest ways of living… overall ensures the safety and quality of life of the more vulnerable in society. The common good of the family or the common good of society is more than just a theory. It is a vitally important thing to consider in our determination of societies norms. It isn’t good enough simply to say, ‘well I do it this way and I haven’t had any problems so that makes it right for everyone’. Having a dedicated dishcloth or having standards of modesty to live by, aren’t there to step on our rights to do whatever we like. They serve the common good and especially the vulnerable within our societies or families, that might otherwise fall through the cracks.
Thats the way I was approaching the taboo around our sexual behaviours… even those done in private. People can and will do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes, but it isn’t wise to say that the Catholic Church has no moral position on this act specifically, so it isn’t subject to any moral considerations and should not be subject to societal taboos. The Church is one of the main forces behind important societal taboos and we shouldn’t be using her to break them down without really considered reasons.
P
patsa
Guest
The ironic thing about all this is that YOU are the one who is personally attacking ME by throwing around words like rubbish, vile, contempt, and condescending. And then blaming ME for being the rude one.
It’s also ironic because while the rest of us understand that the Church has no teaching on this and we can therefore disagree with each other’s opinion, YOU are the one who seems to think you are above all that… and that even though the Church has no teaching on this, it’s still your way or the high way… and the rest of us who disagree are being blamed by you for doing something that is, in your opinion, equivalent to eating out of a toilet or brushing our teeth with a toilet brush.
Yet I’m the one who is supposedly being rude and condescending.
M
MJJean
Guest
The point I was making is that the only “general rule” to this “taboo” is cleanliness. And, honestly, considering how widespread the practice of oral sex and/or oral stimulation is, it’s not a taboo and hasn’t been a general societal taboo for a very long time. A personal taboo for some, certainly, but not for the majority. According to Kinsey research dated 2012 and the CDC’s research also dated 2012, approximately 80% of men and women have given and received oral sex by the time they are 25 years old. This makes oral stimulation one of the most common sexual practices and hardly a taboo.
F
fpt
Guest
The natural moral order of the “modus operandi” of the marital act??? *That is the question!!! *
How do we have to define the marital act? What are the natural constitutive elements of the marital act? Are there natural moments in the marital act? What are the natural moments of the marital act?
What are the rights of the husband on the body of his wife? What are the rights of the wife on the body of her husband? How do we have to define the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion? How do we have to define the human fashion?
The good acception of words!!! The good definition of each sin (the material elements and the intentional elements)??? The notion of substitution and the notion of replacement???
The moral theology of the marital act means to use:
The moral theology of the female sexuality and the moral theology of the male sexuality, and the moral philosophy of the female sexuality and the moral philosophy of the male sexuality (personalism, phenomenology, natural female sexology and the natural male sexology, physical alterity, the physical complementarity, the carnal passivity and the carnal activity, the physical tenderness, the physical love, the physical caresses, the teleology, the metaphysics, the epistemology of sciences, the roles and functions of intimate organs, the liberty and the creativity in the expression of the physical love in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act, the refusal of reducing the marital act to a simple coitus, like in the world of animals …etc, the human fashion, not the animal fashion!!!).
How do we have to define the marital act? What are the natural constitutive elements of the marital act? Are there natural moments in the marital act? What are the natural moments of the marital act?
What are the rights of the husband on the body of his wife? What are the rights of the wife on the body of her husband? How do we have to define the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion? How do we have to define the human fashion?
The good acception of words!!! The good definition of each sin (the material elements and the intentional elements)??? The notion of substitution and the notion of replacement???
The moral theology of the marital act means to use:
The moral theology of the female sexuality and the moral theology of the male sexuality, and the moral philosophy of the female sexuality and the moral philosophy of the male sexuality (personalism, phenomenology, natural female sexology and the natural male sexology, physical alterity, the physical complementarity, the carnal passivity and the carnal activity, the physical tenderness, the physical love, the physical caresses, the teleology, the metaphysics, the epistemology of sciences, the roles and functions of intimate organs, the liberty and the creativity in the expression of the physical love in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act, the refusal of reducing the marital act to a simple coitus, like in the world of animals …etc, the human fashion, not the animal fashion!!!).
F
fpt
Guest
Each spouse is a donor and each spouse is a receiver: the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral donation of bodies. Each spouse is an active agent and a passive agent. In the couple, the husband and the wife are the actors of the marital act. Wife has her own rights, her own functions, her own roles, her own duties, her own obligations on him. The husband has his own rights, his own functions, his own roles, his own duties, his own obligations on her (the marital debt, the marital obligation!!!). WHY??? Because the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract, and a sexed and sexual institution: the donation of persons that implies the donation of bodies for the carnal junction of two human beings (one male and one female). The marital act is a phenomenom, it is a process with different moments (steps): before, during and after the union of bodies.
The time of the preparation of each one by the other;
The time of the carnal junction, per se;
The time after the carnal junction;
The marital act has to be done, in the human fashion, with the sexual cooperation (each spouse has to work with the other, the passivity and the activity, to give and to receive)
The time of the preparation of each one by the other;
The time of the carnal junction, per se;
The time after the carnal junction;
The marital act has to be done, in the human fashion, with the sexual cooperation (each spouse has to work with the other, the passivity and the activity, to give and to receive)
K
kalbertone
Guest
If its mutually consenting & in the oneness of married love its morally licit.Most moral theologians & common sense dictate this.Even if it doesn’t involve intercourse. Most of the time marital acts are non procreative because the egg is present for such a short time.Hence married couples have sex many times without conception possible.Scripture says nothing,the Onan story had to be abandoned because the sin involved refusal to foster a child for his deceased brothers wife.The Church(the people of god) have long rejected foolish,ignorant views from the hierarchy on sex that are non biblical & go against their experience
A
Aunt_Jan_LBC
Guest
I say it’s ok. Go ahead and give her a facial!
- Status