John Paul II may be your authority; however, he is not mine. As for the “procreative nature” of sex, I’m 48 years old and had to have a hysterectomy 8 years ago, so that is not even an issue for us. My point is this: Why does the Catholic Church have all of these man made rules regarding what a married couple does in their bedroom?
That some other forums are marked by a trend to favour the expedient over the moral?
Swallowing the seed is canablism? That’s a new one! Now I’ve heard it all!
Likewise.
oh i see where you are coming from now… about 17 hundred years ago when most of the “sex rules” were handed down to us by a "whore monger "who changed his ways, they still believed that sperm was a baby that needed to be placed inside the Vagina to grow, well its not a baby till it unites with the egg
It’s a substance originating in the human body and used in reproduction, i.e. creating a new life together with the egg. Just because it’s not a living and kicking baby that would run from you doesn’t mean it’s for eating. Additionally, apart from this, swallowing is still contraceptive because it prevents the seed from possibly uniting with the egg. The only place to ejaculate in for the husband is the wife’s vagina.
Spit is not sperm and you know the difference between accidental contact with a bodily fluid and the actual and purposeful consumption of seed, so this is pointless.
You’re missing the part about breast milk being ordered for the feeding of infants, whereas the sperm is not ordered for consumption.
I’m afraid you have yourself to ask that.
At least that’s something you admit. Why, therefore, insist on defending it? Oh, and it’s against the teaching also if it’s not intended as a part of a larger act encompassing a vaginal intercourse. You forgot to add, probably.
I don’t think that part of your post requires comment.
Allow me to reiterate the suggestion that you read up on exactly what you talk about. That could help you stop jumping between consumption of seed and the highs and lows of marriage, creating illogical claims or throwing names around when it turns out you’re in the wrong. Catechism, Canon Law, JP2’s Theology of the Body, whatever comes your way will be beneficial.
And you got there from the consumption of seed. Cut the jumping please and decide whether you accept the teaching or not.
Matt 10, 37.
I have read much of this thread and I do not get the impression anyone is beating up another. I think presenting the Church’s teaching is great. Whether we choose to submit is another issue.
You can agree to disagree on a matter of taste, not a moral one.
God established the Church. The Church interprets the Scripture and tradition. There is where you will find that not everything goes.
Sanctimonious because I don’t agree or because I don’t add the standard “but your opinion is as good as mine” relativist play-down-er? An opinion, so far as it were a matter of opinion, would be worth as much. The thing is, however, that you cannot decide that so far as the couple are married everything goes. Read the words of God and the Church, not my words, but if you choose to disagree with the former two, then spell it out. I can be wrong, the Church can’t.
Yes, whereas in fact, the aspects of unity and procreation are objective, as is human dignity. Our conscience may guide us but it is not the determinant.
Well, at least that is something we can agree upon. And maybe all of this is because of definitions or semantics. No, our conscience is not the “determinant”, by definition. Never said it was. But in the end, it is the individual who makes any final decision using an educated mind, heart, and their conscience. You may not like, agree with, understand, etc. someone making such a decision; they could be dead wrong, too- but it is their decision on how to act.
I totally agree with you here except for one major point. If someone is in my reach and is about to run headlong into traffic it is my moral obligation to pull him back. If it is really bad, my moral obligation is to yank him back. If he slips from my fingers then I bow to God’s will.
It’s hard for me to see where you get the judgement impression, while declaring that I sit in judgement of people moves quite far into that field already, I think.
It is not up to them in any sense implying an objective legitimacy of their choice possibly being derived from a subjective education. I may pray that they aren’t judged and I’m certainly not biting my knuckles in expectation of any such judgement, but you can’t use the universal “we’re all sinners” kind of statement to silence down all criticism of certain acts or reminders of obligations.
If someone claims that he gets the teaching right, while he also claims that said teaching says the human dignity is subjectively determined, that person is logically wrong. No moral judgement in this. Violating the human dignity constitutes matter for sin, though.
You seem to be hard on the judgement part, though once again, it’s beyond me where you get it and it seems to be an impression rather than anything concrete. All I do is reiterating over and over that the couple are not limitless in their decisions, that they have to respect each other’s dignity as well as the unitive and procreative nature of the marital act. This is what seems to be causing anguish, even if I don’t provide any specifics. Out of the things which LittleDeb quotes, the idea that a partner may not be used as an object or tool doesn’t seem to catch too well, either. Especially the latter is something not even a Christian, but actually any secular humanist and in fact even a relativist grounded in Kant’s doctrines should readily agree with. It looks like my being judgemental consists mostly in pointing out that pleasure must take a back seat to these.
Yup, that’s possible. But you seem a bit reluctant to accept the existence of objective, external factors, which are independent from the couple’s knowledge or will.
Same can be said about anything - following that logic, there should be no prohibitions whatsoever, no laws, no authoritative teaching on morality. There are limits to decisions of individuals. Those limits come in the form of laws and authority, as well as in the form of legitimacy, moral correctness or whatever you want to call it. While in the former case enforcement comes into play, in the latter there is no enforcement, but having the faculty to make a choice does not automatically make legitimate whichever option is chosen. Basically, it seems to me that your arguments overemphasise the subjective and downplay the objective.
Nope. No evil can be done so good would come out of it. Double effect is when you want to do something which is good, but an evil side-effect is attached to it regardless of your will. That is, an action which is not wrong of itself but will bring about good results as well as evil results, may be performed as long as you don’t intend the evil result or it’s not the evil result which causes the good one, and the good result is proportionate. In this case, no such excuse applies, as the release of seed outside the vagina would be directly intended for itself, the action would be morally wrong of itself, whatever good results should come out of it, would come directly from the evil result, lastly, there is no proportionate good to come out of it. All in all, nope.
What’s intended is the climax. The releasing of seed might be an unintended but foreseen effect of the climax. I think there’s a distinction between the climax and the releasing of seed even though they coincide in time.
In the light of what I know about the teaching of the Church, it seems to be wrong to intend male climax outside of vaginal intercourse.