L
larkin31
Guest
The RCC accepts oral sex.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
PassingThru
*Who said it was, exactly? *
You seem to be O.K. with it. Haven’t you been defending homosexual sex?
*Who said it was, exactly? *
You seem to be O.K. with it. Haven’t you been defending homosexual sex?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Larkin
*The RCC accepts oral sex. *
Your source?
*The RCC accepts oral sex. *
Your source?
A
Abu
Guest
How crass. It is Jesus of Nazareth, God Himself, who chose continence as the apostolic norm, and gave His authority to bind and to loose to His Church. Such a failure to understand God-given human nature, His natural moral law, and His authority, precludes sensible thought on the subject – as evidenced.
Onanism is against the natural moral law as affirmed by Pope Pius IX in a decision of the Holy Office in 1856.[Fr John A Hardon, S.J., *The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 371].
Pope Pius XI quoted St Augustine in Casti Connubii, the 1930 encyclical in which he reaffirmed the Christian Tradition shortly after the bishops of the Church of England accepted marital contraception.
Under the Levirate law at the time, Onan was asked to marry his bother’s widow, Tamar, in order to procreate offspring in his brother’s name. Onan married her but when he had intercourse, he went through the motions, then spilled his seed on the ground. Onan was not killed because he did not want to marry Tamar. The punishment for not marrying Tamar (see Deut 25) was not death. If he chose not to marry Tamar, she could remove his sandal and spit in his face publicly, thereby humiliating him. [See www.godsplanforlife.org ].
Catholics don’t rely on “theologians” against Christ’s Church.
For the facts see nfpandmore.org/2007%20May%20%20SIN%20OF%20ONAN.pdf
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
EWTN’s take
ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557&Pg=Forum11&Pgnu=1&recnu=2
How do we distinguish oral sex from masturbating someone else? Masturbation is a purely pleasure-seeking behavior, whether we do it for ourselves, or whether we do it by hand or mouth for someone else (male or female). As such the sex organ is perverted from its normal function and sinks to the level of pure self serving lust.
Google oral sex and pornography and see all the evidence that young teens are not only awash in pornography, but a large percent are now also engaging in oral sex. How sick our society has become, and how sick the perverts are who defend it.
ewtn.org/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501557&Pg=Forum11&Pgnu=1&recnu=2
How do we distinguish oral sex from masturbating someone else? Masturbation is a purely pleasure-seeking behavior, whether we do it for ourselves, or whether we do it by hand or mouth for someone else (male or female). As such the sex organ is perverted from its normal function and sinks to the level of pure self serving lust.
Google oral sex and pornography and see all the evidence that young teens are not only awash in pornography, but a large percent are now also engaging in oral sex. How sick our society has become, and how sick the perverts are who defend it.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I am beginning to think you are just having fun. You first said “Still think the penis is for anal sex”, implying that was my point. It is not. I have only said that it is rather daft to tell others in a blanket statement what is “pleasurable”. You countered with some AIDs statistics, which are beside the point. And which also show that oral sex by far the safest form. And oral sex is, in practice, condoned by the Church. And it is un-natural. And, like anal sex, it is “not what the penis is for”, to use your language. Are you connecting these dots, or do you want me to repeat them?PassingThru
*Who said it was, exactly? *
You seem to be O.K. with it. Haven’t you been defending homosexual sex?
You still dont make a point. And you make up ones for me.
A
Abu
Guest
False. You don’t know what “unnatural” is.
What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving. A true marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society.
The late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN puts it succinctly.
marital sex
Question on June-08-2006:
Between a husband and wife, is oral sex a sin if it is performed as part of foreplay and culminates in intercourse?
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June-08-2006: **The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212.
In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, *Love and Responsibility *(Ignatius Press, 1993).
[ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=471626&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=oral+sex&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=30&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=]](http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showre...RDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=])
[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].
L
larkin31
Guest
I recommend the “ignore” feature for that poster. Other posters here are much more sincere and honest in their approach.
L
larkin31
Guest
The RCC uses language like this. What is the big deal?
So, Jesus did care about methods of sex between married couples? And you state your argument this way?----> The RCC represents Jesus’ word on earth…The RCC cares about marital sex acts…Therefore Jesus did too.
This works backwards from the RCC, ascribing to Jesus what the RCC cares about. That argument is dubious, IMO.
] Onan is killed for disobedience, failure to follow the law. And the law, in this case, is not that all marital sexual acts must be procreative. The “law” here is simply God’s will and the Levirate law. God had slain the former husband specifically and personally. God was invested in this family and had a plan and was carrying it out. Onan then refuses to do his part, which is was simply to impregnate his childless sister-in-law, according to religious law.
To take this case and to then say that it serves as a moral model of sexuality for ALL marriages (Onan’s case isn’t about “marriage” at all) and ALL sexuality is a logically groundless supposition.
S
susej7
Guest
How is homosexuality a choice? It’s not. It’s a personal preference and does not in any way affect the way a catholic/christian/religious persons see God.
If a homosexual loves and cherishes God as much as you, then why do you care who he lays with?
If a homosexual loves and cherishes God as much as you, then why do you care who he lays with?
M
ManOnFire
Guest
First you say it’s not a choice. Then you say it’s a preference. Which is it?
Homosexuals will never know the joy of transforming the love between 2 people into new life. It’s like finishing in second place but never being allowed to finish in first place. WHy would anyone choose this? WHy would anyone want to eliminate this experience from his/her life “IF” the causes of homosexuality can be learned, promoted to the general public, then the individual homosexual can decide for him/herself what is best for his/her life? Why would any parent want to see his/her child be restricted in his /her life’s experiences if the parent had the option developmentally early in the child’s life that could make a difference in their sexuality? The Amer. Psych. Assoc. stopped looking for causes in 1973, apparently because homosexuality is a free will choice for some people, and as long as it’s a choice for some, then there’s no reason to look for causes or cures. If you feel soceity should keep learning more in order to foster understanding, then please create a petition to increase learning and understanding.
C
colmcille1
Guest
Excellent post, sir!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
PassingThru
I am beginning to think you are just having fun. You first said “Still think the penis is for anal sex”, implying that was my point. It is not. I have only said that it is rather daft to tell others in a blanket statement what is “pleasurable”. You countered with some AIDs statistics, which are beside the point. And which also show that oral sex by far the safest form. And oral sex is, in practice, condoned by the Church. And it is un-natural. And, like anal sex, it is “not what the penis is for”, to use your language. Are you connecting these dots, or do you want me to repeat them?
Please cite the post where I said that. I asked how it could be pleasurable, because I can’t imagine how it can be, especially for the man playing the female part. Would you explain to me how it can be pleasurable when the parts don’t even fit except by the greatest tension possible, so great that it has to be a threat the health of the anal membrane?
Also, you keep saying it is the official position of the Church that oral sex is permissible in marital sex. I asked you to provide a citation for this and you couldn’t, or wouldn’t. Yet you seem to be rather sure of that. How can you be sure of it if you don’t even have a source?
So who’s being disingenuous here?
I am beginning to think you are just having fun. You first said “Still think the penis is for anal sex”, implying that was my point. It is not. I have only said that it is rather daft to tell others in a blanket statement what is “pleasurable”. You countered with some AIDs statistics, which are beside the point. And which also show that oral sex by far the safest form. And oral sex is, in practice, condoned by the Church. And it is un-natural. And, like anal sex, it is “not what the penis is for”, to use your language. Are you connecting these dots, or do you want me to repeat them?
Please cite the post where I said that. I asked how it could be pleasurable, because I can’t imagine how it can be, especially for the man playing the female part. Would you explain to me how it can be pleasurable when the parts don’t even fit except by the greatest tension possible, so great that it has to be a threat the health of the anal membrane?
Also, you keep saying it is the official position of the Church that oral sex is permissible in marital sex. I asked you to provide a citation for this and you couldn’t, or wouldn’t. Yet you seem to be rather sure of that. How can you be sure of it if you don’t even have a source?
So who’s being disingenuous here?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
larkin
*I recommend the “ignore” feature for that poster. Other posters here are much more sincere and honest in their approach. *
You are using that feature? How brave of you!
And what is your source that the Catholic Church approves oral sex? If you can’t provide one, how sincere and honest does that make you?
*I recommend the “ignore” feature for that poster. Other posters here are much more sincere and honest in their approach. *
You are using that feature? How brave of you!
And what is your source that the Catholic Church approves oral sex? If you can’t provide one, how sincere and honest does that make you?
P
PassingThru
Guest
OK, maybe your arent just having fun with me. Apparently you are about as bright as a telephone pole. Everything you just asked is pretty apparent. But you appear slow, so I will recap that which is already posted.
“Still think the penis was made for anal sex?”
Again, as I just explained to you,* I did not in any way make that point.
Really starting to feel like I am talking to a post now.
And stop comparing relative risks here. If that were the case, we should only have oral sex, as you proved earlier. No one is talking about it.
Sorry so harsh, but your lack of basic comprehension is painful to deal with.
Easy enough. Go read your post 834. Here is a straight quote from your post:
“Still think the penis was made for anal sex?”
Again, as I just explained to you,* I did not in any way make that point.
- I explained this slowly and carefully to you. How are you mis-understanding this?
I DONT HAVE TO! And it is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Millions of gay and straight couples enjoy the hell out of it. Your assertion that they are ALL WRONG is what is unsupported here. It does not mean I like it, or I agree with it. They are separate issues. I also can’t imagine how it is enjoyable. But, my opinion does not matter. Neither does yours, as it relates to what you do, or do not, find pleasure in!!!
Really starting to feel like I am talking to a post now.
And stop comparing relative risks here. If that were the case, we should only have oral sex, as you proved earlier. No one is talking about it.
I have already posted this, but Ill repeat it again, as you are slow. Ill make a list, maybe that will help you.
- My own Catholic Church provided me a marriage book by West about sex and marriage, that explicitly lays out that it is acceptable.
- My priest, father Nick, explained the same.
- Same goes for the Deacon
- Same goes for the leaders of our Pre-Cana class
- Here is a good one for you, as you have trouble reading. Look up. Abu just posted supporting evidence that the Church does indeed condone oral sex.
- Learn to use Google. The very first article I found was written by a Father at NOTRE DAME. I dont even want to find more for you. Do it yourself.
I am not. I thought you were. Now I just think you are the dim bulb in the pack.So who’s being disingenuous here?
Sorry so harsh, but your lack of basic comprehension is painful to deal with.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
PassingTHru
*I am not. I thought you were. Now I just think you are the dim bulb in the pack.
Sorry so harsh, but your lack of basic comprehension is painful to deal with. *
With these kinds of hateful insults, I’m afraid you won’t last long at Catholic Answers. I’m through with you.
When, and if, you ever take a course in logic, one of the first things you will learn is the fallacy called ad hominem. Learn it well.
*I am not. I thought you were. Now I just think you are the dim bulb in the pack.
Sorry so harsh, but your lack of basic comprehension is painful to deal with. *
With these kinds of hateful insults, I’m afraid you won’t last long at Catholic Answers. I’m through with you.
When, and if, you ever take a course in logic, one of the first things you will learn is the fallacy called ad hominem. Learn it well.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Fair enough. I answered your questions with extreme detail in a very simple and straight forward way. But by all means, say your feelings are hurt and leave as a way to avoid my answers.PassingTHru
*I am not. I thought you were. Now I just think you are the dim bulb in the pack.
Sorry so harsh, but your lack of basic comprehension is painful to deal with. *
With these kinds of hateful insults, I’m afraid you won’t last long at Catholic Answers. I’m through with you.
When, and if, you ever take a course in logic, one of the first things you will learn is the fallacy called ad hominem. Learn it well.
BTW, weren’t you just insinuating I must be gay, or was sexually abused as a child? Nice one kettle.
L
larkin31
Guest
As I said, I recommend the ignore function for this kettle-black poster. He/she will continue to ascribe to you positions that you never take, and will change the line of reasoning as often as suits him/her, and commit the very transgressions he/she accuses you of.
Clearly, and explicitly, representatives of the RCC make full acceptance of oral sex into the erotic love life of a married couple as long as the act is in itself not consuming and as long as the sexual encounter results in vaginal completion open to life (pregnancy). And, clearly, this oral sex, although not completed with orgasm (at least not for the male), is only a secondary function of the mouth for which it is not primarily designed in terms of functionality and as such strictly and consistently viewed is against what persons call “Natural Law.”
So the RCC is picking and choosing its acceptable erotic non-reproductive and “non-natural” behaviors without strict adherence to “Natural Law.”
And there ya go.
C
CradleCath
Guest
No. The Leverite law called for public humiliation for a man who refused to impregnate his dead brother’s wife.
See above:
In Genesis, we find the story of Onan, the second son of Judah, who married Tamar, the widow of his older brother Er. (The Levirate law of Judaism prescribed that if the oldest brother died, the next oldest, single brother would marry his widow to preserve the family line.) The Bible reads, “Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life.” (Cf. Genesis 38:1ff). Here is a basic form of contraception — withdrawal, and clearly a sin in the eyes of God.
What is interesting to me is that both Luther & Calvin taught that Onan’s sin…one of contraception…just as we teach it.
"Interestingly, the Protestant tradition cited this story as a basis for condemning any form of contraception. Luther commented, “Onan…spilled his seed. That was a sin greater than adultery or incest, and it provoked God to such fierce wrath that He destroyed him immediately” (Commentary on Genesis). In another work, he wrote, “For Onan goes in to her, that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed” (Works).
Calvin also commented on the story of Onan: “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born and hoped-for offspring” (Commentary on Genesis). Interestingly, two of the leaders of the Protestant movement both condemned a practice which suppressed the procreative dimension of marital love."
Your correct in that Onan’s story is not about marriage. It is about contraception…it is about having sexual relations & subverting it’s purpose.
L
larkin31
Guest
You left out the disobeying God part. God kills Onan, not the local constabulary. Besides, there are other punishments (washing and celibacy) for non-vaginal ejaculation in the Hebrew law. God never had a practice of this, nor do any of the books of laws suggest death as a punishment for it. ONLY this passage, which is primarily about God’s wish to establish the tribes of Judea and the importance of heeding the words of his plan and our obligations to follow his requests about providing important heirs to family lines.
There is no Biblical edict that one must ejaculate in a woman’s vagina. The onan story is the only reference, and the issue is disobedience to God and subversion of his Levirate law. God then kills Onan, as he had killed his brother too.
- Status