Marital, unitive, procreative

[PaulinVA]

Mere touching of private parts is not necessarily immoral. But any touching which is masturbatory, with or without climax, is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

…

The only moral** per se sexual act** is natural marital relations open to life (any sexual position that is inherently procreative) – Tab A in Slot B, as you put it. In other words, every use of the genital sexual faculty must be marital, unitive, procreative.

As someone posted in a thread on this subject that was deleted, Fr Kelly wrote “The Catholic Marriage Manual” in 1958 and said, with Cardinal Spellman’s Imprimatur, that “any physical stimulation a couple does” on the way to the ultimate act is basically okay as long as neither person is forced.

So, how can this be reconciled with the catechism?

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 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship* which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."*

Well, I would argue that “foreplay” on the road to the ultimate act is not solely for the purpose of “deriv[ing] sexual pleasure”. It’s to enable the ultimate act. For, the married couple is not seeking pleasure outside of the marriage, but is actually expressing mutual self giving on the way to the procreative act.

I don’t think that the catechism section applies to a married couple on the way to the ultimate act, and apparently Cardinal Spellman didn’t either.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Here is a post: Pornography is grave matter.

That is NOT my opinion so your claim that every post is an opinion is refuted.

Sin is a knowingly chosen immoral act. Grave matter refers to the matter of acts, not to tangible or intangible items. So pornography (the material) is not grave matter; the sinful acts associated with that material are grave matter. So you inadvertently gave a good example of what I was saying. A person thinks that a statement is the teaching of the Church and is beyond dispute, but he or she might have misunderstood some point.

Yes, there are teachings of the Church that should be above dispute. But a number of points of Church teaching in the current discussion also should be above dispute. In my opinion, others of these teachings are being misrepresented in some of the posts.

I did not mean to imply that it is not possible to make a post which is Church teaching, not opinion. I only meant that there is always a question as to whether or not a post that claims to present Church teaching actually does so.

 

[baylee]

I’m an unmarried, devout practicing Roman Catholic.

Ron, I was once unmarried and I can assure you that it’s much easier to pontificate on matters of sex within marriage when you are unmarried…and I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.”** For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship** which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

I don’t think that the catechism section applies to a married couple on the way to the ultimate act, and apparently Cardinal Spellman didn’t either.

The use of masturbation for the purpose of obtaining a sample for medical analysis is still immoral, even if the person does not seek sexual pleasure. The Catechism cites the most common reason that persons commit sexual sins, but this does not imply that the same intrinsically evil sexual acts, done for some other purpose, become moral. The purpose of an act is the first font of morality. The moral object is the second font. When an act, such as unnatural sexual acts, is intrinsically evil, a good purpose, such as preparing for the natural act, can never justify what is inherently immoral.

I don’t agree with the interpretation being given to Fr. Kelley’s words. And very often, when a Bishop or Cardinal gives an imprimatur, he has not read the book; he relies on the advice of the Census Librorum of the diocese. So the imprimatur on a book does not make it a definitive source of magisterial teaching.

See my original post for some relevant quotes from Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas, Pope Pius XI, Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II. The sources cited to make the contrary argument cannot compare to those sources. But as I said, there is always a question of proper interpretation.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t agree with the interpretation being given to Fr. Kelley’s words. And very often, when a Bishop or Cardinal gives an imprimatur, he has not read the book; he relies on the advice of the Census Librorum of the diocese. So the imprimatur on a book does not make it a definitive source of magisterial teaching.

Well, then, that’s it. The Imprimatur doesn’t mean anything because it doesn’t agree with your opinion.

If one can not trust the Imprimatur, then the cafeteria is indeed open, isn’t it?

But, once again, do you think that your example of the man who masturbates to completion to provide a sample for a doctor is the same as the couple who use genital stimulation as part of the ultimate act, with completion in the right place?

 

[baltobetsy]

Just wondering, Ron, do you have a spiritual director or priest or moral theologian to whom you submit your writings to make sure they are consistent with the teaching of the Church, or do you decide that for yourself?

Thanks.

 

[Major_Tom]

My posts are my own theological understanding. I do not need to add a disclaimer saying that my posts are my opinion because all members’ posts are their opinion.

Agreed.

My opinion: likening oral sex (for a married couple) to ‘grave’ sin is such an extraordinary over-reach, I hardly know where to begin, other than to say I flatly and categorically disgree with it. In my opinion, this is a textbook example of ‘missing the forest for the trees’.

Are Catholics encouraged to be ‘open to charity’? Why such a litany of detail on EXACTLY how Catholics are supposed to be ‘open to life’, when the requirements for being ‘open to charity’ are so slim?

My first reality-check on teachings is to imagine Jesus huddling up the Apostles and reciting the ‘rule’ or ‘teaching’ under discussion. I imagine Jesus rounding up the Apostles 'round a campfire to tell them that oral sex for married couples is a grave issue… and I can’t decide if the Apostles would laugh, or simply sit there dumbfounded with quizzical looks on their faces.

 

[teachccd]

Very Nice Teach, You renew my faith in human nature:thumbsup:

Thank you, I think…

 

[Ron_Conte]

[Ephesians]
{5:5} For know and understand this: no one who is a fornicator, or lustful, or rapacious (for these are a kind of service to idols) holds an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
{5:6} Let no one seduce you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God was sent upon the sons of unbelief.
{5:7} Therefore, do not choose to become participants with them.
{5:8} For you were darkness, in times past, but now you are light, in the Lord. So then, walk as sons of the light.
{5:9} For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth,
{5:10} affirming what is well-pleasing to God.
{5:11} And so, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead, refute them.
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

 

[teachccd]

Most Catholics are clueless about their faith, most of them dont even know why they are sitting in Church, they are clueless & even if they know, they are going to do it their way anyhow. 80% of Catholics across the world don`t even practice their religion at all, the other 20% that do, probably 2% know or care anything about the laws of the Church, or live them

If I follow your stats correctly you are admitting that less that one Catholic out of 100 knows anything about the laws of the Church or lives them. So that would be 400 out of every 100,000 Catholics or 4000 out of every million. If there are 1 billion Catholics in the world then we have 4 million real Catholics in the world. That’s less than all of the Catholics in the Los Angeles Archdiocese alone. Either that is a very sad state of affairs or your stats are off.

Where are these stats published? Was this a pew study? It’s amazing how so many clueless Catholics maintain such a rich 2000 year tradition. Obviously you are in the 2% of the 20%… teachccd

 

[Seatuck]

Are You a ccd teacher, if so, I think You better give it up, Look at the way Your judging Ron, & I believe he is the smartest most devout Catholic who comes oin this forum

But he doesn’t speak with the authority of the church and the vast majority within the church including members of the magisterium speak a different teaching than he does on may points.

 

[Antrim]

Two good sources of information on this suibject is to go on google and put in Oral Stimulation and the Catholic Church and click on Notra Dame. one is The morality of Oral Sex within Sacramental Marriage.
The other is Sensus Traditionis put that on the WEb and you wil get. Father Chad Ripperger. He gives talks on this subject.

Antrim

 

[teachccd]

Most Catholics are clueless about their faith, most of them dont even know why they are sitting in Church, they are clueless & even if they know, they are going to do it their way anyhow. 80% of Catholics across the world don`t even practice their religion at all, the other 20% that do, probably 2% know or care anything about the laws of the Church, or live them

On another thread you state that masturbation is as normal as picking your nose and that you don’t see it as sinful. Now I can see what you mean… teachccd

 

[Major_Tom]

[Ephesians]
{5:5} For know and understand this: no one who is a fornicator, or lustful, or rapacious (for these are a kind of service to idols) holds an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
{5:6} Let no one seduce you with empty words. For because of these things, the wrath of God was sent upon the sons of unbelief.
{5:7} Therefore, do not choose to become participants with them.
{5:8} For you were darkness, in times past, but now you are light, in the Lord. So then, walk as sons of the light.
{5:9} For the fruit of the light is in all goodness and justice and truth,
{5:10} affirming what is well-pleasing to God.
{5:11} And so, have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead, refute them.
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

I must have missed it… was ‘oral sex’ in the list…?

Forest. trees.

 

[Lauds]

On another thread you state that masturbation is as normal as picking your nose and that you don’t see it as sinful. Now I can see what you mean… teachccd

Masturbation is normal, everyone knows that , its inborn, it hurts no one, its impossible to ignore your sex urges especially when You are very young, God meant it as a sublimation until marriage or whatever,But oral sex & anal sex within marriage is degrading, its filthy pure lust the marriage bed should be undefiled, if married people can get away with doing anything they want to sexually then certainly masturbation should be no sin at all, but mind you, if I do masturbate, I will confess it I would never go to the altar like so many many do without reconciliation. I only confess it because the Church says it is a sin, I personally dont believe it is . & guess what, we are all confused, you included, none of us really know anything, we only think we do

 

[baltobetsy]

I must have missed it… was ‘oral sex’ in the list…?

Forest. trees.

 

[teachccd]

Masturbation is normal, everyone knows that , its inborn, it hurts no one, its impossible to ignore your sex urges especially when You are very young, God meant it as a sublimation until marriage or whatever,But oral sex & anal sex within marriage is degrading, its filthy pure lust the marriage bed should be undefiled, if married people can get away with doing anything they want to sexually then certainly masturbation should be no sin at all, but mind you, if I do masturbate, I will confess it I would never go to the altar like so many many do without reconciliation. I only confess it because the Church says it is a sin, I personally dont believe it is . & guess what, we are all confused, you included, none of us really know anything, we only think we do

Speak for yourself, my friend… speak for yourself…

 

[Sure]

Ron,

You do not understand how certain circumstances and intentions can become part of the object of the act. Please review St. Thomas Aquinas and the numerous other examples of this in the thread on NFP question and “The Pill.”

Also, please note the fact that numerous theology texts which have nihil obstat and imprimatur directly contradict your assertions.

As a personal recommendation, perhaps when your assertions are completely shredded by those posting here, you could attempt to defend your position or alter it accordingly instead of merely leaving to start more threads filled with your flawed views. By all means, go ahead and debate your position. But merely restating your position over and over despite the fact that it has been refuted begins to grow tiresome.

God bless!

 

[Lauds]

Nobody knows really what they are talking about here, there is no way we can know that the Bible is accurate, all we know is that there is a God who created all this after that we know nothing, except the ten commandments he gave us which have been twisted & turned every which way by theologians & are still being twisted & turned. Since I am catholic, I do try to live up to my faith, yes I have doubts & so do we all at times, God or Jesus Or even Mary are not something we can touch or see, so sometime we have doubt or maybe a lot of time we have doubt & wonder where God is. Religion is supernatural, we are natural, we tend to put are faith in things we can see & touch. If everyone of us were really sure about all this, WE WOULD NEVER SIN, NEVER, but none of us are sure. If I ever placed my bet on a true Devout Catholic, It would be Ron Conte

 

[teachccd]

Nobody knows really what they are talking about here, there is no way we can know that the Bible is accurate, all we know is that there is a God who created all this after that we know nothing, except the ten commandments he gave us which have been twisted & turned every which way by theologians & are still being twisted & turned. Since I am catholic, I do try to live up to my faith, yes I have doubts & so do we all at times, God or Jesus Or even Mary are not something we can touch or see, so sometime we have doubt or maybe a lot of time we have doubt & wonder where God is. Religion is supernatural, we are natural, we tend to put are faith in things we can see & touch. If everyone of us were really sure about all this, WE WOULD NEVER SIN, NEVER, but none of us are sure. If I ever placed my bet on a true Devout Catholic, It would be Ron Conte

But then you don’t really know what you are talking about.