Help!

[vluvski]

jegow:

vluvski:

Here are the arguments that have been posted in favor of OS as being always immoral:

1. because it is a separate act

TRUE

Yet you have failed to show two things. How is it a separate act? Why does being a so-called separate act make it immoral?

jegow:

vluvski:

When we show using CCC quotes that actS make up the “marital embrace,” the argument becomes

Already commented on that.

I recall some dialog about a “marital embrace umbrella.” What evidence do you have to refute the understanding of the “marital embrace” as a sort of umbrella for physical affection?

jegow:

vluvski:

2a. It is not included in this unpublished list of licit acts because it involves the genitals

TRUE, it is seperate from other actions which are considered licit.

What sets this act apart from those that are considered licit?
In one place you claim it is because it must lead to intercourse; in another place you claim it is because it involves the genitals.

jegow:

vluvski:

3b. now we’re back to the “separate act” argument. At which point we challenge why other separate acts are not immoral (the same ones that allegedly do not lead to climax, or cannot by their nature lead to illicit climax- refer to jegow’s post that any climax acheived by non-genital stimulation is accidental.

jegow:

(what I really said)
4) I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. **If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. **

Pretty good how you misquote me…

For one thing, I did not quote you; I asked readers to refer back to your post. For another, your original statement includes “ANYone” (which I assume is a typo since the word anyone is illogical here). You did not specify that the climax is unintentional, so my interpretation, though not your intended one, is still sound. Thank you for the clarification, and I apologize for the confusion.
When you say “the nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate…” what evidence do you have to support this claim?
Why are kissing et al by their nature not intended to stimulate?

Now that we have the misquotings dealt with, perhaps you will address the direct questions posted here.

 

[vluvski]

jegow:

I really appreciate you putting those back up, seriously, however I’m pretty sure I am not going to be taking into full consideration the words of Fr. Vincent Genovesi regarding sexual morality if he is really attributed to this:

RAINBOW WEEK AT ST. JOSEPH’S U.
A Mass was celebrated at St. Joseph’s University on October 10 to kick off Rainbow Week, a celebration of gay rights. Events included a panel discussion on “Perspectives on Gay Marriage: Personal, Legal and Religious” featuring a homosexual couple and two “civil rights” advocates. Also participating was Rev. Vincent Genovesi, S.J., a theology professor and director of Pre-Cana programs on campus.

cardinalnewmansociety.org/Publications/CHEA/CHEA_2004_11_01.htm

You are rightly skeptical, but it does not indicate which point Fr. Genovesi argued. For all we know (and I certainly hope that is the case), he could have been defending the Church’s position on gay marriage and gay civil unions!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

vluvski:

You are rightly skeptical, but it does not indicate which point Fr. Genovesi argued. For all we know (and I certainly hope that is the case), he could have been defending the Church’s position on gay marriage and gay civil unions!

I agree, we cannot know what his intentions were in saying mass. We can only assume. Or you can twist it into something different.

You are very good at researching, therefore, again, I ask you to show me where it says that oral stimulation within the marital embrace is wrong. Where? Specifically.

 

[vluvski]

Here is jegow’s exact statement:

"If the other partner reaches climax by anyone of these then it is merely an accident. "

I can also invert the statment to read:
“It is merely an accident if the other partner reaches climax by any one of these.”
It refers to climax, so I can swap those, resulting in:
“The climax is merely an accident if the other partner reaches it by any one of these.”
Note that this time I did not add the word “any” to modify climax, yet the meaning is identical to what I posted, just less emphatic.
For clarity, I will replace “any one of these” with “kissing et all” for:
"The climax is merely an accident if the other partner reaches it by kissing et al.
Using your own words, an exception is necessary to accomodate your assertion that an intentional climax is not accidental. You provided none, so my logic is sound.

 

[frogman80]

I think he is legit:
sju.edu/ucomm/archives/2001/october/highlight102201.htm

The first panelist, Vincent Genovesi, S.J., professor of theology and member of the Campus Ministry staff at Saint Joseph’s, gave a comprehensive overview of the Catholic Church’s teaching related to homosexuality. He began by differentiating the two moral voices of Catholics.

“In our commitment to living good Christian lives, we Catholics are guided by two moral voices—one of which is external to us as individuals, while the other is internal and personal," said Father Genovesi. "The external voice is that of the Magisterium, or hierarchy, whose official authoritative teaching may never be casually disregarded, simply ignored or easily dismissed. The internal voice is a person’s well-informed conscience, which is always deserving of proper recognition and respect.”

Fr. Genovesi continued by stating clearly the doctrines of the Church regarding homosexual orientation, same gender sexual activity, and the human and civil rights of homosexuals.

 

[frogman80]

jegow, I am still waiting for response to this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1152630&postcount=94

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

I really appreciate you putting those back up, seriously, however I’m pretty sure I am not going to be taking into full consideration the words of Fr. Vincent Genovesi regarding sexual morality if he is really attributed to this:

RAINBOW WEEK AT ST. JOSEPH’S U.
A Mass was celebrated at St. Joseph’s University on October 10 to kick off Rainbow Week, a celebration of gay rights. Events included a panel discussion on “Perspectives on Gay Marriage: Personal, Legal and Religious” featuring a homosexual couple and two “civil rights” advocates. Also participating was Rev. Vincent Genovesi, S.J., a theology professor and director of Pre-Cana programs on campus.

cardinalnewmansociety.org/Publications/CHEA/CHEA_2004_11_01.htm

Jegow,

Many of us have mentioned that we have wives, husbands, fiances throughout this discussion. However, you have not mentioned what your status is. Are you married? Engaged? Have a girlfriend?

 

[Dmitri451]

jegow:

Besides, I am still waiting for people to show me where the Church teaches that it is not sinful.

And this is the flaw in your argument! There are all sorts of moral actions that the Church has never pronounced as “not sinful”. The church has never pronounced, for example, that drinking decaffeinated coffee is “not sinful”.

The real burden is on you to show that the Church has said that the intentional stimulation of a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is a sin. I don’t think you can do that.

On the contrary, the Church has repeatedly pronounced that the intentional stimulation a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is not only permissible, but laudable.

And if you agree that it is morally permissible to intentionally stimulate a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse, then you have to explain why using your hands to do so is permissible, but not the use of your lips or tongue.

The burden really is on you.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Dmitri451:

And this is the flaw in your argument! There are all sorts of moral actions that the Church has never pronounced as “not sinful”. The church has never pronounced, for example, that drinking decaffeinated coffee is “not sinful”.

The real burden is on you to show that the Church has said that the intentional stimulation of a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is a sin. I don’t think you can do that.

On the contrary, the Church has repeatedly pronounced that the intentional stimulation a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is not only permissible, but laudable.

And if you agree that it is morally permissible to intentionally stimulate a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse, then you have to explain why using your hands to do so is permissible, but not the use of your lips or tongue.

The burden really is on you.

:tiphat: :dancing:

Thank you!

 

[jegow]

frogman80:

I think he is legit:
sju.edu/ucomm/archives/2001/october/highlight102201.htm

Thank you … I didn’t have a ton of time to do a huge search for more stuff.

 

[frogman80]

Dmitri451:

The real burden is on you to show …

Not that I disagree with dmitri451…

I see this written on the forum a lot. I do not know what the basis for the claim is… but regardless of who’s burden it is… out of charity, both sides of the argument should take the time to provide information to help everyone figure this all out.

 

[jegow]

Dmitri451:

The real burden is on you to show that the Church has said that the intentional stimulation of a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is a sin. I don’t think you can do that.

Oral sex is not the same as intentional stimulation which has many licit forms that it can take place under. Yes, intentional stimulation will happen in oral sex - the argument is that oral sex, unlike the other licit forms, is sinful. I have already said that there are most certainly things that occur before sexual intercourse. Your other points that follow then also miss the point.
No. The burden is on those who have repeatedly misunderstood my examples, have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said and asked for, accused me repeatedly of going against Church teaching. If I am going against Church teaching would it surprise you that no one has been able to show me anything from any Magisterial document that tells me that I am. Hey, if you find one why don’t you post it hear so I can read it. This is a thread forum and no burden. In fact you have just received an invitation from your’s truly too. If the Church definitively said oral sex is ok, then ……

SHOW ME!

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

Oral sex is not the same as intentional stimulation which has many licit forms that it can take place under. Yes, intentional stimulation will happen in oral sex - the argument is that oral sex, unlike the other licit forms, is sinful. I have already said that there are most certainly things that occur before sexual intercourse. Your other points that follow then also miss the point.
No. The burden is on those who have repeatedly misunderstood my examples, have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said and asked for, accused me repeatedly of going against Church teaching. If I am going against Church teaching would it surprise you that no one has been able to show me anything from any Magisterial document that tells me that I am. Hey, if you find one why don’t you post it hear so I can read it. This is a thread forum and no burden. In fact you have just received an invitation from your’s truly too. If the Church definitively said oral sex is ok, then ……

SHOW ME!

If they have said that oral sex within the marital embrace is wrong then you…

SHOW ME!

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

For one thing, I did not quote you; I asked readers to refer back to your post. For another, your original statement includes “ANYone” (which I assume is a typo since the word anyone is illogical here).

Sorry I meant any one; as in the word ‘any’ and the word ‘one’ - that was a typo. And you did misquote me.

At which point we challenge why other separate acts are not immoral (the same ones that allegedly do not lead to climax, or cannot by their nature lead to illicit climax- refer to jegow’s post that any climax acheived by non-genital stimulation is accidental)

jegow (post72):

1. I agree that there are certain forms of foreplay, such as kissing, touching and etc. The nature of these forms of foreplay is not to deliberately stimulate the genitalia of the other partner. **If the other partner reaches climax by any ]one of these then it is merely an accident. **

Kissing, touching and etc. are what I would call natural forms of foreplay because by their nature they are only unitive. Oral sex however is what I would consider unnatural because it uses faculties that are meant for unitive and procreative purposes i.e. in the conjugal act, in an act that is only unitive. By the fact that this act lacks that inseparable connection is unnatural and wrong. Hence it is not part of the conjugal act either.I am all for the sport of having good discussion over this point. Regardless of where each of us is coming from, if you are going to say that I had said something that contradicted myself , could you at least mention the post number for a reference? Otherwise don’t even bother saying that I contradicted myself.

 

[jegow]

Mirror Mirror:

SHOW ME!

Post 71 and 72, and all the other examples that I have given that stem from those documents.

 

[Dmitri451]

jegow:

Oral sex is not the same as intentional stimulation which has many licit forms that it can take place under. Yes, intentional stimulation will happen in oral sex - the argument is that oral sex, unlike the other licit forms, is sinful.

Why is the use of one’s lips or tongue to stimulate your spouse’s genitals qualitatively different from using one’s hands? You have simply made an assertion that it is different, and therefore does not fall under the Church’s numerous declarations that direct, intentional stimulation of a spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is not only permissible, but a positive good. Yet you have not been able to demonstrate why one’s lips and tongue are not covered by those declarations, except to say that they weren’t on “the list”, as if there is an official list of body parts that are licit to use for this purpose.

If there is such an official list of Church-approved body parts that may be used to stimulate a spouse’s genitals in preparation for sexual intercourse, please share it with us.

jegow:

No. The burden is on those who have repeatedly misunderstood my examples, have repeatedly misinterpreted what I have said and asked for, accused me repeatedly of going against Church teaching. If I am going against Church teaching would it surprise you that no one has been able to show me anything from any Magisterial document that tells me that I am. Hey, if you find one why don’t you post it hear so I can read it. This is a thread forum and no burden. In fact you have just received an invitation from your’s truly too. If the Church definitively said oral sex is ok, then…

Multiple posters have repeatedly quoted authoritative church documents, including the CCC, and asserted that these statements implicitly include include one’s mouth. You have failed to show why their assertion that the mouth is implicitly included is wrong.

Further, you have failed to produce a single quote from an authoritative church document or teaching that says that using one’s mouth to directly and intentionally stimulate one’s spouse’s genitals in anticipation of sexual intercourse is sinful. Yet, you repeatedly assert that it is sinful.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

jegow:

Post 71 and 72, and all the other examples that I have given that stem from those documents.

Sorry, wrong answer. Show me in this post (specifically) where it states that “ORAL STIMULATION (SEX) IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN MARRIAGE”

Show Me that. You have not been able to do that.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Mirror Mirror:

Jegow,

Many of us have mentioned that we have wives, husbands, fiances throughout this discussion. However, you have not mentioned what your status is. Are you married? Engaged? Have a girlfriend?

Did you have an answer?

 

[Dmitri451]

Mirror Mirror:

Did you have an answer?

In the interest of full disclosure, I am happily married for over 15 years. My wife and I do not use this technique because she doesn’t like it. She has no moral objection to it. She simply doesn’t like it. In our case, of course, if I were to do it, it would hardly be an act of love, and therefore would not be permissible. But if both husband and wife would like to do it, there is no teaching that says it’s wrong.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Dmitri451:

In the interest of full disclosure, I am happily married for over 15 years. My wife and I do not use this technique because she doesn’t like it. She has no moral objection to it. She simply doesn’t like it. In our case, of course, if I were to do it, it would hardly be an act of love, and therefore would not be permissible. But if both husband and wife would like to do it, there is no teaching that says it’s wrong.

I am happily married with 3 beautiful children. My wife and I are on the same page as it relates to oral sex.

Dmitri - congrats on 15 years!