M
MattJB
Guest
So… What about sex toys for anal stimulation of either partner? Is this sinful? (Not based upon your own personal opinion or interpretation, but upon what the Church teaches.)
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Any act that undermines the procreative or unitive is sinful. As Catholics this is basic knowledge.
Genital to genital intercourse is natural but an art that sometimes takes time patience and practice to master for the good of both spouses.
We need to be honest in our language here and say that foreplay should lead to intercourse and never to a simulation of intercourse that is being called foreplay. Intercourse is actually happening when the body is penetrated in some way with something. The only natural penetration is genital to genital. Foreplay ends and intercourse begins upon penetration.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Another aspect that I would like to address is this belief that all desires that arise between husband and wife must be ‘natural’ by virute of their being married. Desires are groomed in us. Even the desire for God has to be groomed in us because of Original sin.
Nearly all paedaphiles report that they were sexually abused as kids… hated being abused and many vowed never to treat kids that way themselves. But a disordered desire has been groomed in them by an abusive adult. When they experience the call to unity with another, it’s through the disordered desire that is powerful and difficult to overcome in the moment it rises.
It’s the same with all of us. Why groom in ourselves desires that call us towards unnatural acts when we know that disordered desire robs us of pleasure in ordered desires? When an alcoholic chooses to reject the desire to drink, it then takes time and patience to begin to feel the pleasure in more healthy pursuits. Most will agree that the simple joys aren’t of the same intense nature as drink induced pleasures, but there’s a deeper sense of overall gratification just in living.
What I’m saying is why groom a desire for anal pleasure or oral pleasure that can never be consumated in an of itself without being sinful? It makes me wonder whether many people who’ve incorporated these behaviours into the marriage bed at the green light by Christopher West and his diciples… will habitually halt mid penetration to finish the act in accordance with Church teaching? Or whether as with the boiling frog, they’ll come to justify the act in a dual morality that many live these day.
Nearly all paedaphiles report that they were sexually abused as kids… hated being abused and many vowed never to treat kids that way themselves. But a disordered desire has been groomed in them by an abusive adult. When they experience the call to unity with another, it’s through the disordered desire that is powerful and difficult to overcome in the moment it rises.
It’s the same with all of us. Why groom in ourselves desires that call us towards unnatural acts when we know that disordered desire robs us of pleasure in ordered desires? When an alcoholic chooses to reject the desire to drink, it then takes time and patience to begin to feel the pleasure in more healthy pursuits. Most will agree that the simple joys aren’t of the same intense nature as drink induced pleasures, but there’s a deeper sense of overall gratification just in living.
What I’m saying is why groom a desire for anal pleasure or oral pleasure that can never be consumated in an of itself without being sinful? It makes me wonder whether many people who’ve incorporated these behaviours into the marriage bed at the green light by Christopher West and his diciples… will habitually halt mid penetration to finish the act in accordance with Church teaching? Or whether as with the boiling frog, they’ll come to justify the act in a dual morality that many live these day.
S
SnakeMauler
Guest
Do whatever you have to do to please your woman man. And just be happy to be well, getting some.
M
Mickey
Guest
There are many Catholic and Orthodox clery and theologians who view oral stimulation as acts of sodomy…and therefore a sin…and an unnatural act.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif[/RIGHT]
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/misc_khaki/progress.gif[/RIGHT]
L
Lapey
Guest
AMEN! If you want to see proof, just look at couples who encounter impotence for what ever reason. If sex is about expressing free and truthful and faithful love, how does a marriage end when a man loses the ability to have an erection?
We put too much emphasis on sex and pleasure from it and not enough on relationship and love. A vigorous sex life in a married couple doesn’t make a happy and loving couple necessarily, nor does a simple and infrequent sex life in a marriage lead to unhappiness or lack of love.
Happiness should not depend on orgasm, that’s just silly. I too believe the writings of TOB and many other Church teachings have been misunderstood and changed to fit our hunger for sex.
L
Lapey
Guest
If this is truly your concern, about “getting some”, then may I suggest to you Ephesians 5:25-27.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for hert 26to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,u 27that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
L
Lapey
Guest
What would be the purpose of the marital embrace with the “climax” purposely excluded? I can tell you, pleasure of the flesh, lust. I am truly amazed by some of the comments put forth by “Catholic” “men” on these threads. I see why I have stayed away from this particular forum. Sad…
Now you can choose to ridicule me and my words or you can take it as a challenge to go and learn the truth about marriage and sex in marriage, not what the world teaches you is “ok and you can get away with.” There are limits to what is meant by the phrase by Pope Pius XII that “nothing is shameful in marriage”. He also warned with this statement; “so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality.” This is lust.
S
Skye_Ariel
Guest
There are some couples who have certain situations either temporarily or permanently that makes having sex in the “normal” way not possible, so they have to find other ways to please each other, nothing wrong with that. Marriage should be based on love, not sex, and there should be no rules on what can and can’t be done within a marriage because some couples may be in situations where certain things have to be done certain ways. Some men may have problems getting and keeping an erection and may need to rely on outside tools or improvise with other methods during intimate times and some women during pregnancy may be advised to not have penetration and that’s when couples have to improvise also. There are many situations where improvising has to be done either temporarily or permanently which is why it’s not that simple to just say anything other than “normal” sex is a sin within marriage. Those things are definitely better than spouses being tempted to sin because of lack of sexual fulfillment when they really love their spouse and can simply work around certain situations.
F
feedmindanaochi
Guest
What about when impotence occurs in a marriage which even chemicals can not overcome. I have had two (non-Catholic) older friends ask me about this and I have urged them to keep their wives happy lest they become frustrated and the marriage ends. I find it difficult to believe that God would be unhappy with me for guiding a married couple to stay together (one has two small children so the impotence is a new occurrence).
A
ahs
Guest
If the husband becomes impotent and can not engage in the marital act, he cannot, instead, bring his wife to climax outside the marital act. That would be masturbation…and intrinsic evil. Frustration can be remedied in more ways than just sexual climax.
This assumes that the couple’s marriage is based solely on sex. It shouldn’t be. A couple can still stay together and remain married even if they are no longer able to have intercourse. Difficult, burdensome, trying, challenging, and a heavy cross to carry? You bet. But all things are possible with God.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
If you are referring to relying on masturbation or mutual masturbation, this would be sinful in the eyes of God.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138
(Of course, many situations in life can mitigate culpability and we are all subject to Gods mercy) But taking into account what sin means…
*CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121 *
… by definition it springs from Gods desire for our ultimate good. When we act sinfully, especially remaining stubborn and unrepentant for the act… we do harm to ourselves and by extension, to all humankind.
It’s not our place to make codicils to Church teachings. Even when our hearts are moved by someone experiencing a worst case scenario in life, we can only extend our compassion and leave the situation to the wisdom of the Church guides us and the mercy of God.
J
Joseph6279
Guest
There’s a fair amount of confusion in this thread.
- I want to say to the the person originating this post: you are doing well to be seeking the Church’s teaching to inform your entire life including the marital bed. I will say that anal penetration with a sex toy on both of you as a part of foreplay sounds like a real distortion of the true meaning of marital relations. I know you would like official Catholic teaching on the matter, but there is none on the topic. On most details on sexual practices we need to go on the teachings of moral theologians and moral teachers who are obedient to the Magisterium. You may want to consult a respected priest on the matter.
- I am not a fan of Christopher West, but if anyone thinks that the idea of oral stimulation being OK as forelay originated from West, they are wrong. He merely got that from his predecessors. Oral stimulation remains controversial, and my wife and I do not practice it. But the idea that it is OK started among orthodox Catholic theologians around the 1950s. Before that it was usually frowned upon (See Contemporary Moral Theology II; Ford and Kelly) If you were to ask most orthodox Catholic priests, moral teachers and orthodox moral theologians today (Germain Grisez, John Kippley, Fr. Peter Stravinskas to name a few), the answer is more often than not that it is OK. The Church has never made any official pronouncement on it, and likely never will.
- I get a little uncomfortable when people speak negatively about Theology of the Body as I think many have heard it filtered through Christopher West and his followers. If you’ve read the actual text yourself, then good for you!! But if you have not, I would be careful about rejecting it as you might not know what you’re talking about.
- All sexual acts within marriage must be completed within intercourse (i.e., the husband reaching completion during intercourse). The Church is very clear on this and there are no exceptions to it. This is a difficult teaching for some who find themselves in difficult circumstances, like impotence, but it remains objective morality, and can’t be compromised.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Catholic sex would never be described as ‘anything goes.’
A list of forbidden practices that we can all agree on:
Anal sex to completion, probably anal stimulation as well
Manual sex to completion
Masturbation
Oral sex to completion
Contraception
Pornography involving others, pornography involving the couple itself, etc.
Ejaculation on face/chest/stomach/etc.
Use of most “objects”
I would not dare to guess how many couples engage in such practices, but that is quite an exhaustive list already! So, any accusation against faithful Catholic couples of an ‘anything goes’ mentality, when they already do not practice any of the common-enough activities describe above is… silly, in my opinion.
It’s tricky, because the “culture” promotes or at the very least does not forbid any of those things, so it’s easy for a faithful Catholic’s mind to become warped by that. When you add that influence from our “warped culture” to the fact that Catholics are all but forbidden from reading/studying the sexual act in any practical (as opposed to philosophical way), and we wonder why Catholic couples so quickly fall for the “sex is dirty, avoid it!” attitude.
I was very pleased, just three months previous, to observe the wedding of two faithful young Catholics of my age. While I can’t say that I “know” for sure anything about their intimate relationship, I have a very real confidence that these two remained abstinent throughout their dating and engagement period and I’m so very proud of them for that.
I say with revulsion and disgust that some of their family members do not respect the faith, and so one of the bride’s aunts gifted her with birth control… publicly. This aunt knew that the couple was against premarital sex and contraception and did it anyway, as a way to “shame” them. It was a nightmare, and she ought to be ashamed of herself.
Pardon me for that tangent, but, you see, I am quite concerned for couples such as this one. Beset on all sides by enemies, on the one hand, the perverted modern culture which glorifies lust. On the other, those who would shield them from guidance, and shame natural embraces such as the declaration that one spouse may only touch another here, here and there, or kiss another here and there, but not here or there, and so on.
The discussion of sexuality in our twisted modern culture would encourage them to engage in all kinds of depravities, and yet they resist. So what? So they turn to the teachings of West and the like, to receive some guidance that can clarify all which has been muddied by the culture. And so then, you say, no, how dare you, for I say West is and his ilk are depraved as well! Despite your best loving intentions, you may not touch here, nor kiss there, nor this–nor that, but where, my friend, is your practical guidance? Where is your work that explains ‘the right way’, according to you (not the Church itself, but what you claim to be holy in the eyes of the Church)?
How is it that you expect a genuine unity in the marital act to be achieved, and the false shame of sex and of the body denied, when a couple fights tooth and nail to deny the false teachings of the outside world, and turns to Catholic teachers for guidance and clarity and yet you tell them, “no, no, reject those teachers, and accept my Catholic teachers instead!”? When foreplay—and even the act itself becomes one never-ending battle to avoid perceived sins, to hide in the most conservative cubicles of marital love for fear of breaking vague commandments and for lack of any teaching that puts the heart at ease–then sex I say has become a curse, not a gift that God has given in marriage. A chore, a duty, a burden, not liberty in love but paranoia in shame.
No, my friend, you and Lapey and others—I reject what I understand of your positions. What is forbidden by the Church is forbidden, for good reason. What is not forbidden by the Church is for not forbidden, and for good reason as well. It is to each couple to discern, with both the procreative and unitive ends of marital sex in mind, the barriers of their bedroom. Beyond that which is expressly forbidden by the Church, what works for one couple might not for another and vice versa—what is pleasurable (yes, I said that word!) for one couple might not be for another and again, vice versa.
To disagree is to say ‘anything goes’? No, no, my friend, no. To disagree here means give each couple the liberty provided to them by God, delivered to us by the Church, for the fulfillment of the procreative and unitive ends of this act intended by God.
I apologize if you think I’ve gone overboard, but I’ve had about enough of this act.
T
techcare0001
Guest
L
LongingSoul
Guest
VeritasLuxMea , People are endlessly concerned about the Catholic perspectives on married sexual relations precisely because the hedonistic secular perspective prevails in society and they are looking for the support to be counter cultural in their sexual life.
The Church is clear about having a chaste attitude in this part of the marital relationship and though not resorting to a list of deeds with ticks and crosses, charges us with being alert to what genuinely constitutes lust as we engage with each other in the marital bed.
Pius XII wrote most clearly on the subject in this 1951 Discourse to midwives who at the time were looked upon by Catholic women for guidance in this matter . It bears reading with an open honesty.
*Human dignity in the conjugal act
This explanation of Ours on the functions of your professional apostolate would be incomplete, if We did not add further a few more words about the defense of human dignity in the use of the procreative faculty.
The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them.
Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God and not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive act. In addition there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature in the place of the moral obligations to dominate passions; and this sooner or later cannot but turn out to be a danger to morals, conscience and human dignity.*
…continued…
The Church is clear about having a chaste attitude in this part of the marital relationship and though not resorting to a list of deeds with ticks and crosses, charges us with being alert to what genuinely constitutes lust as we engage with each other in the marital bed.
Pius XII wrote most clearly on the subject in this 1951 Discourse to midwives who at the time were looked upon by Catholic women for guidance in this matter . It bears reading with an open honesty.
*Human dignity in the conjugal act
This explanation of Ours on the functions of your professional apostolate would be incomplete, if We did not add further a few more words about the defense of human dignity in the use of the procreative faculty.
The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has destined for them.
Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the action whence it derives, and not vice versa—the action to the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God and not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive act. In addition there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature in the place of the moral obligations to dominate passions; and this sooner or later cannot but turn out to be a danger to morals, conscience and human dignity.*
…continued…
L
LongingSoul
Guest
*If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now, instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique, great law of the “<generatio et educatio prolix,>” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.
Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts the whole marital life, not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were to be justified by the expression of mutual affection, sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian—a dignity—which restrains the excess of sensuality.
No; the gravity and sanctity of the Christian moral law do not admit an unchecked satisfaction of the sexual instinct tending only to pleasure and enjoyment; they do not permit rational man to let himself be mastered to such an extent, neither as regards the substance nor the circumstances of the act.
There are some who would allege that happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the reciprocal enjoyment in conjugal relations. It is not so: indeed, happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the mutual respect of the partners, even in their intimate relations; not that they regard as immoral and refuse what nature offers and what the Creator has given, but because this respect, and the mutual esteem which it produces, is one of the strongest elements of a pure love, and for this reason all the more tender.
In the performance of your profession, do your utmost to repel the attack of this refined hedonism void of spiritual values and thus unworthy of Christian married couples. Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life. Banish from your heart that cult of pleasure, and do your best to prevent the spreading of a literature which considers as its duty the description in full of the intimacies of married life under the pretext of instructing, guiding and reassuring. In general, common sense, natural instinct and a brief instruction on the clear and simple maxims of Christian moral law, are sufficient to give peace to the tender conscience of married people. If, in certain circumstances, a fiancée or a young married woman were in need of further enlightenment on some particular point, it is your duty to give them tactfully an explanation in conformity with natural law and with a healthy Christian conscience.
This teaching of Ours has nothing to do with Manichaeism and Jansenism, as some would have people believe in order to justify themselves. It is only a defense of the honor of Christian matrimony and of the personal dignity of the married couple.*
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts the whole marital life, not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were to be justified by the expression of mutual affection, sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian—a dignity—which restrains the excess of sensuality.
No; the gravity and sanctity of the Christian moral law do not admit an unchecked satisfaction of the sexual instinct tending only to pleasure and enjoyment; they do not permit rational man to let himself be mastered to such an extent, neither as regards the substance nor the circumstances of the act.
There are some who would allege that happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the reciprocal enjoyment in conjugal relations. It is not so: indeed, happiness in marriage is in direct proportion to the mutual respect of the partners, even in their intimate relations; not that they regard as immoral and refuse what nature offers and what the Creator has given, but because this respect, and the mutual esteem which it produces, is one of the strongest elements of a pure love, and for this reason all the more tender.
In the performance of your profession, do your utmost to repel the attack of this refined hedonism void of spiritual values and thus unworthy of Christian married couples. Show how nature has given, truly, the instinctive desire for pleasure and sanctions it in the lawful marriage, not as an end in itself, but rather for the service of life. Banish from your heart that cult of pleasure, and do your best to prevent the spreading of a literature which considers as its duty the description in full of the intimacies of married life under the pretext of instructing, guiding and reassuring. In general, common sense, natural instinct and a brief instruction on the clear and simple maxims of Christian moral law, are sufficient to give peace to the tender conscience of married people. If, in certain circumstances, a fiancée or a young married woman were in need of further enlightenment on some particular point, it is your duty to give them tactfully an explanation in conformity with natural law and with a healthy Christian conscience.
This teaching of Ours has nothing to do with Manichaeism and Jansenism, as some would have people believe in order to justify themselves. It is only a defense of the honor of Christian matrimony and of the personal dignity of the married couple.*
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
L
Lapey
Guest
You would also be very pleased to see the statistics of couples just like the one you speak of. The facts support the thoughts you have. The numbers of teens waiting until marriage for giving up their virginity is going up, not just slightly but quite a bit in the last 30 or so years. There is a movement among the youth to seek out the truth and I believe it has much to do with TOB and Christopher West’s work in this field. Also, people like Jason Everett and his wife Crystalina, Jackie Francois and many others who have brought the truth of human relations straight to our kids. There are some great works being done with our youth…PRAISE GOD!
But this does not come at the price of the truth in these matters. Sex is not evil and nasty and dirty, it is beautiful; we humans make it dirty and nasty.
This aunt is quite wrong and should be told why she is and made aware of her mistake. I’m not sure how you equate this to us though. I teach in youth ministry on a diocesan level and never shy away from these topics, birth control, masturbation, same sex attraction, marital sex, etc. There are many who have their own views and want them to be the view of all but this is not acceptable.
I’m not sure how you see my points as “shielding them from guidance”. My wife and I together teach these topics whenever we have the chance. We teach it in a positive manner, not a negative and distrusting manner like you describe. We trust our kids in youth ministry to listen to the Word of God and TOB in the context of Catholic teaching. We give them the entire truth, not just the part that says “oral sex is technically ok”. There has been no shame from me about the natural marital embrace. In all of the sources that have been provided to me since I jumped in on this and the other thread, none have done anything except to further my understanding that there are multiple sides of this truth; on one side, oral stimulation is technically ok (a quote from one of the sources and backed up in all of them, not my choice of words), we must use moderation not to become slaves of the sensual and therefore subject to the sin of lust.
This is my stance, we must give people the whole story, we cannot simply say, “yes” this is okay. We do injustice to truth if we do that. People, adults and teens, can handle the truth; they may not want to hear it, especially adults, but it does not change the truth.
I have not ever dismissed CW’s work as “ilk”. But again, his teaching and all of this needs to be presented in such a manner that there is a complete work as to what is truth, not a simple endorsement. I applaud CW’s work; he puts things in words that make it easier for me and my wife, the deacon and the coordinator of youth ministry for our parish, who are primarily charged with youth ministry in the parish and diocesan level.
My response is too long…there is a part two.
L
Lapey
Guest
You are guilty of painting me with the extreme brush just as you accuse me of doing to you. I do not think you say anything goes, nor do I advocate nothing goes. There must be a balance!
I totally agree with you here but there is something missing; to avoid immoderate actions that can lead to slavery of the sensual and therefore lust.
No need to apologize and I do not believe you have gone overboard; to me it appears we are on the same team!
- Status