Holy Name.
I thought it was sarcasm at first!Holy Name.
Was the exclamation mark after “Yes” wishful thinking?
You aren’t correct on this. The question concerned oral stimulation.This is non debatable. God made what He made, to be used the way He made him. That is an unnatural, disgusting act of lust, even if “seed isn’t spilt”.
spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/CatholicismOralSex.htmlThe acts by which spouses lovingly …
Well for anyone who can’t understand it within their consciences, let them have it infallibly declared so that they can amend themselves or be thrown from Catholicism. I don’t care for anyone who says or thinks otherwise, it is an absolute disgrace.You aren’t correct on this. The question concerned oral stimulation.
The article is long but eventually it gets to martial acts:
spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/CatholicismOralSex.html
Not tough questions whatsoever. This is non debatable. God made what He made, to be used the way He made him. That is an unnatural, disgusting act of lust, even if “seed isn’t spilt”.
I honestly feel sick reading this on ask an apologist. I trust that it is removed before it causes grievous damage.
Not tough questions whatsoever. This is non debatable. God made what He made, to be used the way He made him. That is an unnatural, disgusting act of lust, even if “seed isn’t spilt”.
I honestly feel sick reading this on ask an apologist. I trust that it is removed before it causes grievous damage.
Sorry, but that isn’t Catholic teaching. Mark stated it accurately:Well for anyone who can’t understand it within their consciences, let them have it infallibly declared so that they can amend themselves or be thrown from Catholicism. I don’t care for anyone who says or thinks otherwise, it is an absolute disgrace.
[Matt Fradd]"…[Marriage] by its nature [is] ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. …"
As a form of foreplay, it is not immoral. You are, of course, free to feel disgusted by it, or to consider it disgraceful or whatever; but your dislike of the act is irrelevant to the morality or immorality of it. And it’s not a matter of not understanding; the theology is actually quite clear. So long as the spouses are acting consensually within the two-fold purpose of marriage (which includes avoiding Onanistic behavior), they are not sinning.As long as the two-fold purpose of marriage is not subverted - such as when Onan “…spilled the semen on the ground (Gen 38:9)”, clearly violating the second purpose stated above, there is nothing immoral with oral sex within marriage.
It is entirely immoral. You are using a part created for one socket, and using it in another for reason of satisfaction only. There isn’t Catechis on this nonsense, quite frankly there doesn’t need to be.Sorry, but that isn’t Catholic teaching. Mark stated it accurately:
As a form of foreplay, it is not immoral. You are, of course, free to feel disgusted by it, or to consider it disgraceful or whatever; but your dislike of the act is irrelevant to the morality or immorality of it. And it’s not a matter of not understanding; the theology is actually quite clear. So long as the spouses are acting consensually within the two-fold purpose of marriage (which includes avoiding Onanistic behavior), they are not sinning.
OR . . . .It is entirely immoral. You are using a part created for one socket, and using it in another for reason of satisfaction only. There isn’t Catechis on this nonsense, quite frankly there doesn’t need to be.
I am disgusted, I am disgusted 1000x moreso because Catholics can’t recognise it as sin. Wise up for God sake.
It seems there are plenty of things in the world that are disgusting, I would have thought that it would be someway different on these forums! You say nothing declares it to be prohibited, when nature itself says so? Some things are so strikingly obvious that they need not be explained, nor would they have even been a problem outside of the current times of sexual corruption left right and centre. Isn’t it funny how a minor defends his business!OR . . . .
There isn’t catechesis on this because you’re wrong. Remove the disgust you feel from your theological analysis. There are actually quite a few questions here:
Is it pleasurable? (obviously not for you, though equally obviously it is for others).
Is it prohibited? (show me a source; God isn’t in the habit of punishing us for sins that we haven’t been warned we can’t do).
Is it recommended? (that depends on the couple, I suppose; again, I wouldn’t recommend it to you because of your obvious feelings about it).
For it to be a sin, it has to be prohibited. Nothing in God’s law – nothing in Scripture, nothing in Sacred Tradition, nothing from the Magisterium – declares it to be prohibited. Ergo, it isn’t. Q.E.D.
The other questions, while relevant to a particular couple considering the act, are not relevant to the question of whether it’s a sin. Call it disgusting as much as you like; that doesn’t make it sinful. There are lots of things in this world that are disgusting but perfectly legitimate before God.
This doesn’t sound like satan? If there is no Catechis on it you can’t prove me to be wrong either.OR . . . .
There isn’t catechesis on this because you’re wrong. Remove the disgust you feel from your theological analysis.
It’s not a recent invention. Oral sex has been around for millennia. So don’t blame it on the current times of sexual corruption.It seems there are plenty of things in the world that are disgusting, I would have thought that it would be someway different on these forums! You say nothing declares it to be prohibited, when nature itself says so? Some things are so strikingly obvious that they need not be explained, nor would they have even been a problem outside of the current times of sexual corruption left right and centre. Isn’t it funny how a minor defends his business!
I would prefer this thread to be closed. Quite frankly, I demand it - either it closes or I will be sick or have a heart attack because of lukewarm Catholics supporting this fecking filth.
How does nature NOT say it’s wrong? A penis has one place to go, not anywhere else. In no way will I find myself supporting gay rights, you should rather query this yourself as you both have something in common, sticking something somewhere it isn’t intended by nature. If there are animals that are gay, well then they’ll be the ones that die off, despite them not having a rational mind - that argument does not stand.You have yet to point to any authority supporting your position. Nature itself says it’s wrong? How? And be careful with that argument, because you’ll find yourself supporting the gay rights movement (they keep pointing to homosexual activities among animals as proof that it’s “natural”).
I should have spelt, “miner”.Afraid I didn’t understand your comment about “a minor defends his business;” sorry. I’m not a minor, so it didn’t seem to make sense. Perhaps I missed something?
As for your comment that some things are so obvious that they need not be explained, let’s explore that.
Is it moral to kill?
What about capital punishment?
What about defense of others?
What about defense of property?
What about preemptive strikes?
What about preemptive strikes that kill civilians?
What about nuclear weapons against cities?
Actually the commandments read “murder” in Hebrew, not killing. They were suffice for millenia, if someone can’t recognise in their conscience the answer to these things, that is their problem. Saying that just because people have trouble understanding another area of morals, doesn’t exclude liability or blame for this one. You say nothing is written on it, then you CANNOT conclude it not to be sinful.There’s a wealth of theological debate on these subjects, because they aren’t “so strikingly obvious that they need not be explained.” And that involves killing, the subject of one of the Ten Commandments.
Show us where the Church states this is immoral and is forbidden. Your personal opinion does not count as a Church teaching.It is entirely immoral. You are using a part created for one socket, and using it in another for reason of satisfaction only. There isn’t Catechis on this nonsense, quite frankly there doesn’t need to be.
I am disgusted, I am disgusted 1000x moreso because Catholics can’t recognise it as sin. Wise up for God sake.