Augustine and theology of the body

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekingsynthesis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Without getting graphic, I don’t think we need to assume that the only way sex can be unitive, loving, and respectful of dignity is if it’s in the missionary position with the couple gazing soulfully into each other’s eyes.

I agree with your point that we need to view sex with our spouses as a loving act with another human being, not just a means to an orgasm. But I don’t think that precludes things like oral sex, assuming both spouses enjoy it and aren’t being pressured to do something they don’t want to do.
 
Sorry, that’s where I thought you were going with the movie example and the woman turning over to look the man in the eyes. I must have misunderstood you.
 
I don’t think, personally, that you can make a definitive, categorical statement on it one way or another. I can imagine scenarios in which oral sex is totally degrading and dehumanizing. I can also imagine scenarios where it’s loving and respectful of everyone’s human dignity. It’s not like it’s not also possible for vaginal intercourse to be dehumanizing.

I guess what I’m saying is I don’t think the act is inherently objectifying or degrading. It might become objectifying and degrading if someone approaches it with the wrong mindset.
 
kapp19 said:
That’s pretty weird. Just because someone was made the pope does not mean he is a better theologian than St. Augustine, even if canonized.
Click to expand...
Well why is Augustine the benchmark and JPII the one we’re measuring against Augustine?
 
Only because of my interests. Augustine happened to be someone I was more familiar with, then I started going to ToB talks and I’m having trouble seeing how they fit together.
 
LumineDiei said:
I don’t want to get graphic, but it was Christopher West who mentioned that anal foreplay (ummm gross) didn’t appear to go against the natural order of sex, because the man still finished vaginally in the woman. I think that’s what everyone is getting in a tizzy over.
Click to expand...
And to be fair to West, in his book “The Good News about Sex and Marriage” his whole point on that topic is that while maybe someone could try and justify it in an “abstract” or “legalistic application of the ‘so long as it leads to intercourse’ principle” he ultimately criticizes both the act and this kind of thinking on various grounds, concluding that it seems to ultimately stem from the disorder of lust. He also makes a similar argument against various positions that are “impersonal and animal-like.”

Maybe he says something different in another book, but at least in this one he does not condone it all.

I was able to see the passages at issue in this preview on Google books (although the pages available for preview sometimes change), but unfortunately there are no page numbers to point you to.
Good News About Sex & Marriage (Revised Edition): Answers to Your Honest ... - Christopher West - Google Books
 
Last edited:
LumineDiei said:
but it was Christopher West who mentioned that anal foreplay (ummm gross) didn’t appear to go against the natural order of sex
Click to expand...
Actually, Christopher West doesn’t teach that. He merely points out that there were pre-Vatican II theologians and moral theology manuals that taught that. He himself remains rather neutral on the issue (but leaning toward the “Ew gross”) stance.
 
Just to play devils advocate, the fact that some people react with “ew, gross” doesn’t itself prove that a sexual act is bad or unnatural.
 
There’s a million threads on this, so I don’t want bounce the same rubble, so to speak, but I find the arguments against oral sex for married couples phenomenally unpersuasive and always have. But that’s just me, you gotta obey your conscience.

It’s the opinion of one priest, who acknowledges in the article that there are other theologians who disagree with him. It’s fine if you buy the argument, but you’re not bound to, and plenty of people don’t.
 
Last edited:
seekingsynthesis said:
then I started going to ToB talks and I’m having trouble seeing how they fit together.
Click to expand...
I would suggest picking up the ToB itself and giving it a read (along with Love and Responsibility). There is much being said out there in the pop-ToB world/speaker’s circuit that is actually not in the ToB at all.

It’s often comparable to the “spirit of Vatican II” vs. what the Council actually said - “spirit of ToB” vs. the ToB itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top