F
Feanaro
Guest
No, we sin with our will.
- Status
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
Can you clarify this statement? Maybe I am reading it wrong.
C
chevalier
Guest
The man would need to confess it if it were a mortal sin and I really can’t see it as such. If there’s any sin in it (which is already hard to imagine), it’s venial. But at least in my reasoning, there would most probably be no sin there. Of course, once it starts happening, one should finish it in the right place - since that was what was intended in the first place.
Unless I’m wrong, Feanaro is saying that no Catholic should question the immorality of oral sex with purposefully intended ejaculation in the mouth.
@Feanaro: I’ve heard the three-purpose theory somewhere as well, but that’s probably something coming from the fact that apparently God intended “the act” to be pleasurable. Pleasure from a good act is good, we may intend it, we may give it, but it doesn’t seem to rise to the same level as unity or procreation as the purposes of the act. Pleasure is more accidental than those two, and less important. This, however, doesn’t mean the spouses should wait for a moment when they would rather play chess and skip the moment when they, “feel like it.” Definitely not.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
That is what I was thinking, I did not know if Feanaro was saying that oral sex was immoral (w/in the confides of marriage).
Gotcha!
B
bankerdavid
Guest
Personally, there is some aspect of perspective here. There are cases where the couple is not capable of having children, such as due to hysterectomy or tubal ligation, or nature. In these cases the only real reason for a married couple to have sex is the unitive aspect of it-there is no procreative aspect.
So the question becomes, in cases such as those mentioned above, if there is no degradation (in other words, the woman has no problems receiving semen into her mouth), is it then ok (not sinful) to engage in oral sex?
How about this-the couple is perfectly capable of producing children, but, as part of the act of making love, they engage in oral sex, to which the man accidentally ejaculates (whether in or out of the woman’s mouth is irrelevant). Of course, he could feel the signs that it was about to happen, but he couldn’t stop the feeling. Is it a mortal sin then?
So the question becomes, in cases such as those mentioned above, if there is no degradation (in other words, the woman has no problems receiving semen into her mouth), is it then ok (not sinful) to engage in oral sex?
How about this-the couple is perfectly capable of producing children, but, as part of the act of making love, they engage in oral sex, to which the man accidentally ejaculates (whether in or out of the woman’s mouth is irrelevant). Of course, he could feel the signs that it was about to happen, but he couldn’t stop the feeling. Is it a mortal sin then?
F
fix
Guest
If the sterlization was not intentional the act is objectively procreative.
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
No it is not okay. Even if the couple “thinks” that due to the circumstances that you mentioned the procreative aspect has been eliminated, they do not know. With God all things are possible. The procreative aspect still has to be present and it cannot be with oral sex to climax for the man.
If the ejaculation is accidental and the man did not intentionally have the orgasm outside of his wife’s vagina, then there is no mortal sin. If he is just “in the heat of the moment” and decides not to stop, then that is different. It is a thin line to walk and one should error on the side of caution and stop any stimulation that would cause that to happen.
F
Feanaro
Guest
M
Mirror_Mirror
Guest
That is what I thought you meant, I was just reading it wrong. Thanks for the clarification!
C
chevalier
Guest
Feanaro, it looks like the procreative trumps the unitive in the light of traditional moral theology, while sometimes even the opposite might be inferred from more modern works. However, even Aquinas said something along the lines of, “procreation and family life.” To complicate matters further, from reading what Aquinas wrote in those sections, I’m not so sure modern canonists would agree with him - but those are things outside the scope of this thread (slightly different subjects).
It seems evident that the unitive purpose can’t legitimatise something which defies procreation. However, I believe that whatever is anti-procreative is also anti-unitive (“artificial barrier” doesn’t seem to be exclusively a matter of procreation). At the same time, procreative desires don’t allow anyone to do anything anti-unitive - the only example I can think about is something which is intended to bring about offspring but which goes against the will of the spouses, so that would be undue pressure, psychological manipulation and the like. What else could go against unity without going against procreation? Don’t know… Guess whatever violates the dignity of one person hurts the other and the transgresses against the bond, but I can’t squeeze much out of my mind at the moment because I’ve spent many hours writing my thesis on the benefit of doubt today and I’m intellectually exhausted.
It seems evident that the unitive purpose can’t legitimatise something which defies procreation. However, I believe that whatever is anti-procreative is also anti-unitive (“artificial barrier” doesn’t seem to be exclusively a matter of procreation). At the same time, procreative desires don’t allow anyone to do anything anti-unitive - the only example I can think about is something which is intended to bring about offspring but which goes against the will of the spouses, so that would be undue pressure, psychological manipulation and the like. What else could go against unity without going against procreation? Don’t know… Guess whatever violates the dignity of one person hurts the other and the transgresses against the bond, but I can’t squeeze much out of my mind at the moment because I’ve spent many hours writing my thesis on the benefit of doubt today and I’m intellectually exhausted.
J
Jay2
Guest
“This is my blood…, drink it in memory of me… This is my body…, eat it in memory of me…”
Cannibalism??? If drinking blood & consuming flesh isn’t cannibalism I don’t know what is…
explain this one, that we willingly partake every Sunday.
C
chevalier
Guest
In case of the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain, such as looks or taste, which is sufficient to avoid canibalism. Hosts from Eucharistic miracles which turn into meat (heart muscle) or show blood stains are not actually consumed.
Therefore receiving the Eucharist is not canibalism. I’m sure you didn’t really think it was on par with the kind of canibalism that one would be jailed for.
Neither does the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ imply that one can eat substances from the body of his fellow man.
Aquinas:
F
Feanaro
Guest
I started another thread on food to help clarify the question of pleasure in sex. This is the result of that question:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2173406#post2173406
**I think I’ll start a new thread on the roll of pleasure in sex since that is not the exact subject of this thread.
Good answer chevalier on the Eucharist. I don’t even know how someone can make that comparison. On the other hand, I’m not entirely convinced that swallowing semen is on the level of cannibalism either, and will need more convincing.**
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2173406#post2173406
**I think I’ll start a new thread on the roll of pleasure in sex since that is not the exact subject of this thread.
Good answer chevalier on the Eucharist. I don’t even know how someone can make that comparison. On the other hand, I’m not entirely convinced that swallowing semen is on the level of cannibalism either, and will need more convincing.**
C
chevalier
Guest
It’s not on the same level as eating manflesh, sure, but how far is it removed from drinking human blood, which is considered cannibalism?
J
johntkd
Guest
Lets not forget saliva during a kiss,
C
chevalier
Guest
There’s a difference between saliva and sperm. Saliva is not gametes and it’s not like we actually sip and swallow it. Swallowing the gametes of one’s own species is on a whole different level than the contact with saliva even in the sloppiest of kisses.Lets not forget saliva during a kiss,
J
johntkd
Guest
is that a personal opinion or a fact? its a Bodily fluid! same as blood,urine,tears,the list goes on and on
C
chevalier
Guest
What would be a personal opinion or not? If you call it a personal opinion that seed is gametes, then you should probably consult an elementary school biology coursebook.
The sperm cells join with the eggs and zygotes form. In that, seed is different from just a bodily fluid. Besides, everyone gets the difference between tears and urine, it’s just some people will insists that there’s none because it’s about as easy to prove as that the grass is green.
Sure, you can call it a personal opinion that swallowing urine would be yucky, why not. Just wonder what you’re going to achieve that way. As for the seed being human gametes and thus different from just any bodily fluid, you’re out of luck, I’m afraid. That’s a fact. Unless you’re going to question the fact that a sperm cell is a gamete, but you won’t probably go that far.
J
johntkd
Guest
show me an “elementary school” biology book please
last I knew was only called “science” in elementary. or was that just another one of your many cutdowns directed to make people look stupid?
Bodily fluid is Bodily fluid, I aint going to argue what the makeups of each are Because I am sure you know each Fluid has its own make up, but to call one or two cannibalism and not the rest shows a real lack of biological understanding.
I understand your views on a biblical view, because when most of the “seed” rules were placed on us they actually assumed male sperm was in fact babies that needed to be placed inside the vagina in order to grow, but of course with Modern science we know this is just not the case, also these “rules” were placed in effect Long after Christ was crucified,
we do not have to agree on the so called rules, they were placed on us by a reformed “whoremonger” so its highly possible what he thought to be fine some of us may think is out there, and vice verse.
But how you get cannibalism is beyond me, thats what the Jehovas witnesses believe as well and why so many of them basically commit suicide every year by not accepting Blood when its needed.
C
chevalier
Guest
Don’t know, I didn’t go to elementary school in your country. Here, biology, physics, chemistry etc were separate subjects. There, they might be one. You must have thought I was American too. You obviously weren’t implying that I would be stupid enough somehow to ignore the subjects I went through at school.
You can use wikipedia if you prefer, anyway. Or grab the relevant elementary school book to prove that seed contains sperm cells.
Nope, sorry. Your reluctance to accept the fact that seed contains gametes betrays not even a misunderstanding, but a rejection of biology. Here’s the news: saliva doesn’t contain gametes. Sperm does. There’s nothing in saliva that joins together with something else from other person’s body to create a new life.
Firstly, with modern science, we know that seed contains sperm cells. Secondly, I wonder what we know from your “modern” with a capital letter.
Wrong. The idea that seed contained it all and needed only to grow in the mother is as old as the world itself. Obviously, ancient peoples didn’t know about eggs and how sperm and egg joined. By the way, it was an offence already in the OT times to spill seed.
Waitasec, some people have not enough experience to talk about it, some others have too much experience to talk about it, so what’s the right amount of experience to talk about it?
St. Augustine is a saint of the Church, by the way, and he didn’t quite invent it, plus not all of the magisterium agrees with all of his ideas.
Yes, I see that.
Oh please…
For your information: There’s no analogy between blood transfusion and seed consumption. Blood (human) consumption is wrong, blood transfusion is okay. Seed placement in the vagina and moving in is good, seed placement in the mouth and swallowing is bad (spitting out too, anyway). There’s also no analogy between transfusion or depisition of seed in the vagina, and canibalism, either. Not to mention that not swallowing seed will not make anyone die.
- Status