Nate is speaking only I think about such disordered desires. In particular the disordered seeking of pleasure as the purpose of life…in a kind of hedonistic philosophy. And of course contraception being an act contrary to marital chastity such too is included in what Paul is writing about.
Who ever said seeking pleasure as an end in itself was good? Please tell me? I’m not Bentham.Uh no I will not leave the Galatians passage alone because it encompasses this topic. Also, please understand this is not my interpretation of “unitive” it is the Church’s opinion reiterated in my own imperfect yet hopefully sufficient way. And yes I understand the passage condemns all seeking of pleasure as the purpose of life including sexual pleasure. Physical pleasure is never the purpose we do anything. Spiritual pleasure on the other hand is another thing entirely.
Scratch out physical and emotional and you got itNot a purpose of sex… Its a motivation…
Nope never said they weren’t of value, I said they are never the purpose of our actions. I can appreciate something and see it as a motivation for why I’m doing it but if I’m eating to gain pleasure its gluttony. When we lose sight of the purpose of eating we see the historic rates of obesity and heart disease in America. I don’t claim to follow this perfectly but I do claim to recognize the goal and strive for it. I currently have a problem with how much soda I drink because of stress haha. I use soda to help get rid of stress and if I don’t break the habit soon it will catch up with me later on, although soda is better than drugs or alcohol haha. The point is that we set our sights on the goal and go to confession when we fail but never take our eyes off the prize.Who ever said seeking pleasure as an end in itself was good? Please tell me? I’m not Bentham.
And so you are now saying physical and emotional pleasure are of no value whatever? Of no part or consequence in unifying two people and bringing them closer? Ok, whatever.
Tell you what: don’t preach it, live it. Sell everything you own, join a monastery, and live the rest of your days eating only bread and water, and I’ll say you’re being consistent at least with such an extreme and unnecessary view. After all, eating delicious food is tantamount to gluttony on your reasoning, and owning televisions, houses, cars, or anything really, might give pleasure, which is then automatically greed and avarice!
Blacksword;8239167:
I never said the purpose, I stated an obvious and undeniable fact of biology: sexual pleasure received in sex is part of the, or, if you like, promotes, the unity brought about by sex. And I am no Utilitarian. I, unlike you, in all likelihood, have a degree in Philosophy. I know what Utilitarianism is, thus the Bentham reference, and I assure you, I do not hold to it as an ethical framework. In fact, some comments here in that vein make it obvious that a number of posters don’t actually thoroughly understand what Utilitarianism is, but use the term a lot as a throw-away, kind of like how “socialist” is often used in politics by people who don’t really know what it actually is.
However in the interest of attaching labels, when we come to the point your perspective of holding only the spiritual of value and assigning none to physical things has a name: Gnosticism. The Gnostics assigned value to only spirit, and said all physical things were inherently evil, based in part on Platonic philosophy of forms v. particulars. I think we know how that philosophy was reacted to by St. Paul.
Blacksword;8239167:
You know something funny about analogies: they are meant to show a point, but always break down at some point. Your marriage can be analogous to the Church as bride in some respects, but not in all respects, and decidedly is dissimilar in others…unless you think every husband is actually Jesus that is!
The fact that Jesus loves his bride and accomplishes a spiritual end for her does not somehow mean there is no physical component to marital love and sex, or that pleasure is not a good and normal part of the unifying bonds of sex.
The unitive bond is a purpose of sex and your definition includes the physical and emotional effects of sex which implies that you see them as part of the purpose. If you have a Philosophy major I bet you do understand all of this better than me haha. Utilitarianism relates to when we make our ultimate goal in life to be pleasure. You are right in saying I went overboard in applying this term since you only see it as part of the goal of life I guess. However I believe the term still applies in some respect since you do in part from your definition see pleasure to be one of many things in which we order our life around. While you don’t fully embrace Utilitarianism you don’t fully embrace Personalism either.
Sigh, yeah, and I never said pleasure was the purpose of our actions either…going in circles!
at my posts. If you don’t like something I’m saying, please just tell me. We can discuss it rationally and maybe even come up with some ‘useful discourse’.Physically it’s not. The act can be identical, but Catholicism teaches for moral reasons that one is licit while the other isn’t.
My question was a simple one. Oral sex, by definition, may be performed on either sex by either sex. The act is the same, there is essentially no *physical *difference whether an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple does it, correct?Oral sex between you and your spouse is different from homosexual sex because you are YOU, you both are opposite sex married people, obviously. With that kind of generalization no sexual behavior is acceptable, or anything else. There’s always some way in which two totally different things are similar if we move to extremes of generality. Why is a raven like a writing desk? They’re both “things”, tangible solid objects after all, so totally the same!
I was asking about the acts at a specific level-the physical.
I’m not following you here. If it’s not important, we could move on, but if it is, would you restate this more clearly? I’m just a simple kind of girl.
Honestly, Blacksword, I was just asking a question about the physical similarity between an opposite-sex couple and a same-sex couple performing the same act to climax. Would you like to discuss the possibility of there being a moral difference between the two?Your argument implied in this question is that all sexual contact outside of intercourse is analogous to homosexual acts, and therefore immoral. This means though that ANY oral genital contact is immoral, even as foreplay, a position all on here say is not correct. For surely it’s not the question of whether a homosexual act is taken to completion that determines it’s immorality?
Utilitarianism holds that maximization of pleasure and/or minimization of pain, are the only and sole considerations in determining the morality of actions. Thus, what I’ve said in appropriately pointing out that physical pleasure and emotional bonding are part of the unitive ends of sex is not utilitarian at all. The ordering of our lives to pleasure IS one of the many considerations we consider in determining our actions in life. It is not the ultimate goal, and thus not utilitarian, nor do I hold that it is even of primary importance in life, but obviously it is a consideration in determining actions and mority, yes. Or do you go out of your way to hurt yourself or cause pain? Who burns themselves on a hot stove purposefully repeatedly so as to not order their lives unduly to easier? We go to amusement parks, see movies we enjoy (we don’t generally torture ourselves watching bad movies on purpose after all!), and generally do take pleasure as A (not THE) consideration, or pain of an action. No one jumps at the chance to be waterboarded or racked! Except Bill Murray’s character in Little Shop of Horrors I guess…anyway, good night to you.
I wasn’t determining the morality of anything, just making an observation.
I agree. Of course, that doesn’t apply to acts that are intrinsically disordered, right?
Oddly, I still knew exactly what you meant, even with the typo.
Your context made sense. 
Sure, I’ll certainly provide such as much as I am able.Hey Blacksword
I respect what you have to say, so I’m going to request that you not
The point here is that the fact that oral sex CAN be performed by any two people on each other of either gender configuration you like is NOT relevant to determining its morality. I can participate in oral sex with someone other than my wife, the fact that we are of opposite genders does not affect the morality of that action. It would be wrong regardless as that person is NOT my wife.
No, you were making a comparison between two very different things, a husband and wife having oral sex v. two unmarried homosexuals having sex of really any sort. These are not analogous UNLESS you first move the comparison to such a general level that you have thereby removed the very specific factors that differentiate the two things. A dog is just like a cat when move to a general level of comparison wherein we purposely take out the differentiating things about them.
No, this is kind of important, since it’s a basic logical fallacy in your argument.I’m not following you here. If it’s not important, we could move on, but if it is, would you restate this more clearly? I’m just a simple kind of girl.
Your argument, from the question you posed, essentially seeks to establish that oral sex to completion is intrinsically disordered and evil because it is analogous to or possible to be participated in by people of any gender configuration by first assuming the very intrinsic evil of oral sex you are arguing for.As I said before, the argument you put forward would render ANY oral/genital contact, as foreplay or otherwise, immoral. Homosexual acts, or homosexuals participating in oral sex, are not considered disordered and immoral because they are taken to completion, they are considered disordered because they are between two unmarried persons who are of the same gender! So, my point is, if you are saying oral sex between spouses is essentially the same as it would be as between a homosexual couple, then it is essentially equally as immoral to participate in at all! The things that make there a clear moral difference between these two things clearly have nothing to do with completion in of itself, but rather the specifics of WHO is participating in the act, chiefly. Sexual contact between married spouses is different than between homosexuals or unmarried people, clearly. Again, unless you want to somehow argue that homosexuals having oral sex but stopping short of climax are somehow committing less of a sin?
If you want to make that argument, go for it, but I think that’s a tough one to make!This actually brings up one of the things about NFP and HV that simply does not make sense to me. If someone can explain this to me, please do. I really want to figure this out. Simply quoting Church documents at me doesn’t really EXPLAIN the logic to me. This is why I have a hard time with this teaching (keeping in mind I still practice it). If you can’t explain it to me other than “the Church says so,” well, that’s fine too. But I’m really hoping for more.Sigh, yeah, and I never said pleasure was the purpose of our actions either…going in circles!
You bring up a salient point here though: all those holding an extreme, border-line ascetic view on this issue, when you see someone eating an Oreo, do you tell them they are sinning and to get to confession? That they are in grave win of gluttony? Because there is absolutely NO reason to EVER eat a candy bar other than pleasure-seeking. In fact, this seems a much more clear cut case of pleasure-seeking as an end in itself!
As you said, there’s nothing illicit about the end of avoiding pregnancy if the reasoning is sound. What is questionable is the means.
What is meant when it’s said that the act must be open to life is that it must conform to the procreative end of the sexual act – i.e., with intravaginal ejaculation. That’s all.
But it does make sense (and with due respect, it’s difficult to see how you’re not endorsing relativism if you think that’s a convincing argument against natural law).
I can sympathize, but I think you’re wrong. It is not true that there is no reason ever to eat a candy bar. A candy bar has calories. Calories are one of the purposes of eating. So, even though you may say that a person doesn’t need those calories, and those calories are unhealthy, and I’d even give you that we’re all probably committing more acts of gluttony more than we realize–it’s still arguably different.Sigh, yeah, and I never said pleasure was the purpose of our actions either…going in circles!
You bring up a salient point here though: all those holding an extreme, border-line ascetic view on this issue, when you see someone eating an Oreo, do you tell them they are sinning and to get to confession? That they are in grave win of gluttony? Because there is absolutely NO reason to EVER eat a candy bar other than pleasure-seeking. In fact, this seems a much more clear cut case of pleasure-seeking as an end in itself!
As an observation, is there any other area in Catholic teaching where the physical is absolutized? I can’t think of any. I think this is why most people have so many questions about sexual morality–Catholic spirituality seems inherently less concerned with physicality in every other area.