martial sex

[AngryAtheist8]

Wow. That sounds like a really, really messed p view of Eden before the fall… And not in line with what other mystics have explained aobut the Garden and how children woudl be begat.

Please tell me that it was much later (after more spiritual growth!) that St. Augustine said that “Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass.” That rings true to me. I how Mary bore Jesus is the same way Eve without the fall would have born children. Virginally, as Mary delivered. Instead, there was the Fall, and God commanded we go forth and bear children in the way we do now. [and all that God commands us to do is good…]

But as to was to happen in the garden had there not been a fall, that is for mystics to impart, and I am not one.

This is a very reasonable explanation of why St. Augustine made that statement. He had a life of immoral sex, and then he went right to celibacy [which was good, after all that, IMO, but doesn’t afford him a good perspective to teach on sex].

Commentary like this really promotes the view that Catholicism sees something inherently dirty and sinful about the normal human body (especially as it relates to sex and reproduction).

I don’t see why anyone should care whether the Virgin Mary (or any other woman for that matter) had an intact hymen or not. And I have frankly always found the way some Catholic theologians focus on it disturbing at best.

 

[ahs]

---

He doesn’t say anything about “foreplay”— because the act itself is wrong – irrelevant to whether it occurs as part of a couples sexual union.

And which part of Church teaching does foreplay offend against? For your convenience, I have provided the entirety (well, main points with link to entirety) of the portions of the Catechism that teach on marital relations, chastity, and the conjugal union. (see above) To say foreplay is wrong, you need to find which aspect of the teaching it is against. Otherwise, the most you can say is that the Church does not say it is wrong, nor that it is right.

For example…I can say homosexuality is wrong…and then point to the aspect of chastity that is violated by homosexuality using Church teaching. Please do the same for us with your claim that foreplay is wrong.

 

[Mickey]

It is YOUR assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy.

The Church is clear on it’s opinion of sodomy. The burden of proof is on you to show that they accept a new definition…a non-patrisitc definition…that was not introduced until the revisionist opinion of Jone. Because the Church has used his theology book in the oast does not mean that they accept his new theory on sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

because the act itself is wrong – irrelevant to whether it occurs as part of a couples sexual union.

Exactly!

 

[Mickey]

I don’t see why anyone should care whether the Virgin Mary (or any other woman for that matter) had an intact hymen or not. And I have frankly always found the way some Catholic theologians focus on it disturbing at best.

Hence the reason why you are the “AngryAtheist.”

 

[Mickey]

For anal penetration, they are not okay, of course.

Yes…that is correct my friend.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I don’t see why anyone should care whether the Virgin Mary (or any other woman for that matter) had an intact hymen or not. And I have frankly always found the way some Catholic theologians focus on it disturbing at best.

Hence the reason why you are the “AngryAtheist.”

Hardly

My issues with Catholicism don’t even BEGIN there.

 

[ahs]

$310 usually means it is out of print.

Book Description
Publication Date: May 1, 2009
A reprint of Jone’s classic 18th English edition. A handbook for the busy priest that will boggle the mind with its organization, thoroughness and detail. Hand pocket size. Every priest should have Jone at his fingertips. There is no other book like it! Impr.

Are you going to address this?

It is YOUR assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy. YOU provide the justification for YOUR assertion, or it rejected as easily as it is made.

“…Facile indicabat, facile reprobaverunt…”

 

[fpt]

Yes…that is correct my friend.

The oral stimulations of sexual organs, like foreplay, and the manual stimulations of sexual organs, like foreplay, are morally okay.

Sodomy is, by nature, wrong, of couse.

We are in the same line, he seems to me.!!!

 

[RB2]

I just went to find out if Jone was still in publication and still approved by the Church. Yes to both:

amazon.com/Moral-Theology-Heribert-Jone/dp/0895554720

$300 bucks new, out of print
but cheap used $12.60.

Dont forget Barnes and Noble, they’ve stepped up as an alternative to Amazon in the new and used category
barnesandnoble.com/w/moral-theology-heribert-jone/1000768589

only $50 bucks new, and no used ones.

 

[ahs]

$300 bucks new, out of print
but cheap used $12.60.

Dont forget Barnes and Noble, they’ve stepped up as an alternative to Amazon in the new and used category
barnesandnoble.com/w/moral-theology-heribert-jone/1000768589

only $50 bucks new, and no used ones.

Ooh! Ya know…I had a birthday recently. If anyone wanted to get me a belated gift…
Seriously though…I’d love the chance to read the preface/foreward/intro…whatever may be in there. I wonder if any of the CA staff have a copy?

 

[Walking_Home]

I actually completely agree with Faggioni…who has stated nothing contrary to Jone. Faggioni speaks of anal SEX when speaking about things contrary to nature. If you notice, he is careful to differentiate (see the first part of your source vs. the later) between “foreplay” and intercourse/sex. I do not see where Faggioni disagrees with Jone…whom the Church also does not disagree with (hence, his Moral Theology volume being used to teach seminarians moral theology since the 1920’s).

At any rate, I’ll concede that the Church is silent here and I won’t push further than to say that if one wishes to call “n” a sin, and the Church is silent on it, one needs to use Church teaching to show where the offense is. I have provided such just a few posts above, and in Post #370.

---

Nice try here ahs — but Fr. Faggioni is not “differentiating”. What he says about anal sex being against nature— and not respecting the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman— is within the context of “foreplay”.

Rome, Italy, Jul 3, 2009 / 02:33 pm (CNA).- Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a professor at the top pontifical institute for moral theology, the Pontifical Academy “Alphonsianum,” said in a recent interview with Catholic News Agency that the teachings of the Church suggest “far more prudence” in approaching some of the issues raised by Christopher West in his presentation of the Theology of the Body.

Faggioni, a Franciscan who teaches at the Alphonsianum, an academy named upon the father of modern Moral theology, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, is one of the most consulted moral theologians and is an advisor to several Vatican dicasteries.

In a conversation with CNA**, Fr. Faggioni explained that some of the issues discussed publicly by West**, such as the appropriateness of anal sex or other forms of sexual “foreplay” in married relationships, have to be dealt with using great care, since “the risk is of displacing the attention from marital love and the anthropologic meaning of lovely gestures to merely the genital aspects.”

“Sexuality,” Fr. Faggioni said, launching into his analysis of West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, “is the language of love and this language is authentic only when it is respectful of the meaning of human love.”

According to the moral theologian, “the traditional moral theology certainly does not prohibit intimacy among spouses, but it never regards them as a substitute for the marital embrace and accepts intimacy only as a path toward a complete sexual union.”

Moreover, Fr. Faggioni said that** “it is simply not true that the traditional Catholic moral supports the use of acts that Thomas Aquinas call contra naturam -against nature- (such as anal sex) as something ordinary.**”

“Catholic moral theology calls us to be very discrete in discussing these issues, and encourages being particularly respectful to the sensibilities of persons and couples,” the Italian Franciscan explained.

“Regarding this type of intercourse or others, no one can pretend to accept from another person something that offends that person’s sensibility on sexual issues or that does not respect the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman.”

catholicnewsagency.com/ne…e_body_debate/

 

[Mickey]

The oral stimulations of sexual organs,

Genitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

Are you going to address this?

Address this opinion of Jone’s book? There’s nothing to address. Jone is not infallible…and the IMP does not mean that he is.

His blasphemous opinion on anal penetration is unfortunate. And you seem to be alone in your defense of his opinion…with the possible exception of ValPal.

 

[ahs]

Address this opinion of Jone’s book?

No, not the opinion. Are you going to address your assertion:

It is YOUR assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy. YOU provide the justification for YOUR assertion, or it rejected as easily as it is made.

“…Facile indicabat, facile reprobaverunt…”

If you can’t defend it, that’s okay…you’ll get no finger pointing from me or anyone else. But the assertion is rejected as easily as it was made when you provide zero defense of it.

 

[Mickey]

It is YOUR assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy. YOU provide the justification for YOUR assertion, or it rejected as easily as it is made.

If you think that the Church condones anal penetration within marriage as a form of foreplay, for the reason that She does not tell you that it is wrong…then…well…I’m not sure what to tell you.

The law of God is written on our hearts.

 

[ahs]

---

Nice try here ahs — but Fr. Faggioni is not “differentiating”. What he says about anal sex being against nature— and not respecting the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman— is within the context of “foreplay”.

I respect your view on this, but I don’t think you are correct. I actually completely agree with Faggioni…who has stated nothing contrary to Jone. Faggioni speaks of anal SEX when speaking about things contrary to nature. If you notice, he is careful to differentiate (see the first part of your source vs. the later) between “foreplay” and “intercourse”/sex. I do not see where Faggioni disagrees with Jone…whom the Church also does not disagree with (hence, his Moral Theology volume being used to teach seminarians moral theology since the 1920’s).

At any rate, I’ll concede that the Church is silent here and I won’t push further than to say that if one wishes to call “n” a sin, and the Church is silent on it, one needs to use Church teaching to show where the offense is. I have provided such just a few posts above, and in Post #370.

Back to your assertion that foreplay is a sin:
…which part of Church teaching does foreplay offend against? For your convenience, I have provided the entirety (well, main points with link to entirety) of the portions of the Catechism that teach on marital relations, chastity, and the conjugal union. (see above) To say foreplay is wrong, you need to find which aspect of the teaching it is against. Otherwise, the most you can say is that the Church does not say it is wrong, nor that it is right.

For example…I can say homosexuality is wrong…and then point to the aspect of chastity that is violated by homosexuality using Church teaching. Please do the same for us with your claim that foreplay is wrong.

 

[ahs]

If you think that the Church condones anal penetration within marriage as a form of foreplay, for the reason that She does not tell you that it is wrong…then…well…I’m not sure what to tell you.

The law of God is written on our hearts.

How exactly does this support your assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Genitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

So you are against foreplay then.

 

[Mickey]

How exactly does this support your assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy?

I understand that you have no evidence that the Church supports the unfortunate theology of Jone on this issue. I also find it unfortunate that you place all your hope in this one man’s error for your defense of sodomitical practices within marriage.

But then…you have free will.