B
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
If someone wants to read the CCC they will go look it up. You are in a conversation with a real person. It’s not good personal skills to respond to a real persons questions by directing your answers to the crowd. You should be assuming that the only readers of this thread are you, Evania, Debora, and me. We are the only ones participating, so we are the only ones who exist within the context of this thread. If someone else wants to jump in then they will be part of it.I think you are not the only reader here
As for my own words – why spend time reinventing the wheel? It has already been summarized well by the link I linked…
B
Bookcat
Guest
This is a forum that is read by many many eyes (this thread 3,143 views thus far).
Yes it is true I do not post only for those who are in posting in the thread but often for the readers of the thread.
J
jimmy
Guest
3140 of those views are by me. If you can’t have a real discussion with real people then this is pointless.
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is not pointless and for my part I sought to provide good information the person was seeking who started the thread. I do not need to reinvent the wheel all the time – these kinds of questions get asked and if there are ready resources --such I find to be good to provide.
J
jimmy
Guest
The thread belongs to no one. It is a discussion between different people. And just because you want to make it a soap box from which you can pontificate, you have made it pointless.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No I have answered his question.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I do not see any soap or boxes.
My decision to provide the sources I did is my own and it is really not the subject of this thread.
E
Evania
Guest
Certainly we should have real discussions, but it doesn’t hurt anything if a poster decides to post info from the CCC. The whole argument is pointless. Let those who want to read it, read. For those who are put off, skip over it. Just keep it relevant to the topic at hand.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Bookcat, my main question with the article you provided has to do with the distinction between direct and indirectly stimulating actions.
For one, I am interested in understanding what this distinction is based upon (ie, what Church teachings is this based upon) so that it is possible to get a better idea of, first, whether or not this is an accurate portrayel of actual Church teaching, and second, if this is actually based on Church teaching to gain a better understanding of how to determine whether an action is directly or indirectly stimulating.
Now, looking at how the article defines directly stimulating actions, it seems as though the real distinction here lies in whether or not an action can have a purpose beyond sexual arousal.
This article has a serious failing in that it first, simply asserts that such a distinction exists, and then second fails to give a clear explanation of what the distinguishing feature is between the supposedly directly and indirectly stimulating acts.
This article neither argues from Church authority (it does not cite Church teaching) nor does it make a clear argument to convince people by reason but appears to just blindly assert that things are the way it claims them to be. That is frustrating to those of us who like to actually understand the reasons behind principles before accepting them as true. And, Bookcat, the fact that you are willing to claim that others are wrong by presenting this article without being willing to engage in a discussion with them is just as frustrating. I don’t see how Jimmy or Debora’s position contradicts Church teaching in any way, if you believe it does then I would appreciate you actually explaining how it contradicts Church teaching rather than simply insisting that they are wrong. And referring back to this article is not helpful, as it does not explain itself, it simply asserts that its position is true. Please, if you are going to make assertions be willing to back them up or further explain them when questioned about them.
For one, I am interested in understanding what this distinction is based upon (ie, what Church teachings is this based upon) so that it is possible to get a better idea of, first, whether or not this is an accurate portrayel of actual Church teaching, and second, if this is actually based on Church teaching to gain a better understanding of how to determine whether an action is directly or indirectly stimulating.
Now, looking at how the article defines directly stimulating actions, it seems as though the real distinction here lies in whether or not an action can have a purpose beyond sexual arousal.
which sounds really convincing actually, and I almost agreed with it, until I thought about the fact that even the actual act of sex itself, when properly engaged in, is not something whose sole purpose is to stimulate and arouse those involved.
This article has a serious failing in that it first, simply asserts that such a distinction exists, and then second fails to give a clear explanation of what the distinguishing feature is between the supposedly directly and indirectly stimulating acts.
This article neither argues from Church authority (it does not cite Church teaching) nor does it make a clear argument to convince people by reason but appears to just blindly assert that things are the way it claims them to be. That is frustrating to those of us who like to actually understand the reasons behind principles before accepting them as true. And, Bookcat, the fact that you are willing to claim that others are wrong by presenting this article without being willing to engage in a discussion with them is just as frustrating. I don’t see how Jimmy or Debora’s position contradicts Church teaching in any way, if you believe it does then I would appreciate you actually explaining how it contradicts Church teaching rather than simply insisting that they are wrong. And referring back to this article is not helpful, as it does not explain itself, it simply asserts that its position is true. Please, if you are going to make assertions be willing to back them up or further explain them when questioned about them.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is not seeking to give an explanation of the nature of the martial act --such is presumed. Such is dealing rather with* actions of those persons outside of marriage*.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I was presenting resources concerning the moral theology involved --hence the nature of many of my posts. Providing a resource that can be helpful to readers in approaching the subject – not seeking to get into any long discussions with any particular persons.
Well in part it was like arriving at a meeting in which various persons are discussing things from differing positions – and you provide further information to all involved in the discussion and others who may join it. You do not wish to get really into some long discussion with various persons or others that may join --but you do wish to offer a paper for all to read that summarizes the principles that would be involved in the subject.
These topics can get rather too involved – and I prefer at times to give the principles and direct readers to such than get too much into a discussion.
B
Bookcat
Guest
- Here is what a Catholic Answers Apologist noted:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37374&highlight=kissing
- And from the Examination of Conscience in the Handbook of Prayers 2011 pg 285. Midwest Theological Forum Edited by Fr. Jim Socias
- Also helpful and expanded into other things: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10403092&postcount=68
J
jimmy
Guest
If someone wants resources they will look for resources. They will go to vatican.va or to newadvent, or to the ccc. People go to forums to have a discussion, or atleast read one. Continually pointing us to outside sources, rather than making a well thought out response is frustrating to say the least, and at worst it means you haven’t given any of this a thought yourself.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Person asked a question:
Hence
I bid you a splendid Tuesday
(no frustration intended)
T
thewanderer
Guest
I knkow that your article was not speaking about this point. However, even outside of marriage it just is not true to say that even the act of sex is always and everywhere solely about arousal and stimulation. However the article claims that the difference between directly and indirectly stimulating acts is that directly stimulating acts only havve one purpose, to arouse and stimulate. In other words, if this article is correctt about directly and indirectly stimulating actions then no action, not even premarital sex can be labelled as being always a directly stimulating action. Now, of course premarital sex would still be wrong, I’m not trying to argue that it wouldn’t, but the point is that this article does not give any reasonable explanation as to what the difference between directly and idirectly stimulating actions are. The one claim it makes about what distinguishes one from the other falls flat as I have shown above, so, if the claims the article is making are to stand there has to be some other explanation given as to what the difference is between directly and indirectly stimulating actions.
Honestly, the best way I can read the article is to accept its division of directly and indirectly stimulating actions, but to reject the idea that the division is not really a division between certain kinds of acts (such as holding hands vs making out) but between the purposes and intent behind the actions involved. In other words, that making out falls into directly stimulating when its sole purpose is to arouse and stimulate but that it falls into indirectly stimulating when it does not. However, that is clearly not what the article means and if we were to read the article as saying that it would clearly do a very poor job at explaining the morality of actions for unmarried couples because then it would seem to allow even premarital sex, which is very clearly sinful. This article just doesn’t hold together.
I do agree that those who read it and are persuaded to follow its guidelines are going to be much better off than those who read what I have been saying and decide that anything is ok (which is absolutely not what I am saying). So if anybody reading this is wondering where to draw the line, if you can’t figure it out I would go with what this article suggests to be safe, because open-mouthed kissing and making out is problematic for many, many people.
T
thewanderer
Guest
But thats exactly my point. I am frustrated with your article precisely because it does not give clear principles, that article just doesn’t hold together as a coherent argument, not when thoughtfully examined. It just falls apart. Yes, it does list some examples of what it thinks are sinful vs moral premarital actions which are probably prudent for most people to follow, but that article, as an argument, just doesn’t make sense! And some kid reading it is going to realize that it doesn’t make sense and then reject it completely because of that. If you want to help any young people who read that article and realize that its argument doesn’t make sense then you are going to have to be willing to give a better argument for the division made in the article than the article itself does.
B
Bookcat
Guest
That is simply not the point. One who is not married may not engage in that which is for marriage. Sexual pleasure is only for marriage.
The distinction between direct and indirect is important.
As is the distinction with the “indirect” of the intent and the near occasion etc.
Can it happen that some unwanted indirect sexual arousal/pleasure happens during otherwise good acts? --Like a chaste kiss or holding hands? Yes that can happen.
And much could be said on the subject but often the advice of ones confessor who can deal directly with the particular person involved.
T
thewanderer
Guest
:banghead: My point is that the distinction the article makes, at least as it is made in the article, does not make sense. Your response is simply to say “What you are saying isn’t relevant, the distinction made in the article is important” If its so darn important then it should be explainable and you should be willing to explain it.
Look, I agree that the guidelines set out in that article will help many people remain chaste if they follow them, I am not arguing that, I am not trying to come to the conclusion that anything and everything is allowed, its just that I am not in the habit of accepting something that doesn’t make any sense to me just because somebody else insisted that it was correct. The argument in that article does not make any sense to me, and I have explained why. I happen to be an unmarried person, and I am positive that I am not the only unmarried person reading this who does not understand how that article makes sense, so if you want to help us unmarried people you should be willing to address our concerns with respect to the article when we bring them up rather than just brushing them aside as “irrelevant”.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I deleted the above post – for revision --but I see it was too late.
- Status