martial sex

[ValPal]

Of course not. That is why sodomy within marriage is also…sodomy.

I did some research on the matter. At its most basic level, sodomy refers to sexual relations, or attempted sexual relations, between persons of the same sex. Bestiality is often included in this definition for Christians.

The phrase “unnatural sexual relations” is used in general terms, typically followed by (paraphrasing) “in particular, relations between persons of the same sex.”

Acts like oral sex, etc. are not mentioned or included in any common definition. These acts seem to be included by persons who take “unnatural sexual relations” to mean these things. “Unnatural sexual relations” clearly refers to same-sex, or animal relations, in any common definition.

The very strong emphasis of all these definitions is “same-sex,” with no mention anywhere of “opposite sex.” This would clearly explain why this term, the concept of which is as old as human history, is not included in the “Offenses Against the Dignity of Marriage.”

Now, continue on with your definition that is contrary to the Church’s position…

 

[Mickey]

At its most basic level, sodomy refers to sexual relations, or attempted sexual relations, between persons of the same sex.

Nonsense. For example, anal penetration between the opposite sex is sodomy. Anal penetration is a form of activity most often used between homosexual men. For a heterosexual couple to imitate homosexual activity is unconsionable.

May I ask why you are so adament in defending the practice of anal penetration within the bond of marriage?

 

[ValPal]

The Church is clear on it’s opinion of sodomy.

That’s true, because sodomy refers to same-sex relations and neither I nor you have found any support to the contrary.

 

[ValPal]

Genitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

No common definition of sodomy includes this act, nor does the Church refer to this as such. Some people include it as a matter of personal opinion.

 

[ValPal]

Nonsense. For example, anal penetration between the opposite sex is sodomy. Anal penetration is a form of activity most often used between homosexual men. For a heterosexual couple to imitate homosexual activity is unconsionable.

This is not the position of the Church, and you have no support to the contrary. This is your personal opinion.

May I ask why you are so adament in defending the practice of anal penetration within the bond of marriage?

I have not defended this act, nor have rendered any public opinion about it. You are confusion a discussion about whether or not Church prohibits a certain act in a certain context, versus a personal opinion on the matter. You posts indicate that you conflate the two, which is why you can’t see the forest through the trees on the matter.

If you can’t understanding the reasoning behind this, you will not be able to understand why the Church takes the positions on certain matters.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You will need to clarify. Anal penetration and gentitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

No, it’s not, and we’ve been waiting about 30 pages for you to post any evidence of this at all. We have asked for it for 30 pages, and you haven’t given it to us.

What kind of touching are you referring to? Mutual masturbation? Sex toys? There are many subjects on this issue.

Touching as a part of foreplay. There is nothing immoral, per se, about such activity.

I suggest that you first attempt to let your fellow Catholics know that anal penetration within marriage is sodomy. That’s a good starting point.

No, that’s alright. I’m focusing on your views because I think they’re more dangerous.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Mickey: You will need to clarify. Anal penetration and gentitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

VeritasLusMea: No, it’s not, and we’ve been waiting about 30 pages for you to post any evidence of this at all. We have asked for it for 30 pages, and you haven’t given it to us.

Nom the Wise: There are no ovaries in the mouth or anus to provide an ovum for the sperm to fertilize, therefore–non procreative.

Unitive *and *procreative. This is obvious. If that doesn’t work for you, then nothing will.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Mickey: You will need to clarify. Anal penetration and gentitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

VeritasLusMea: No, it’s not, and we’ve been waiting about 30 pages for you to post any evidence of this at all. We have asked for it for 30 pages, and you haven’t given it to us.

Nom the Wise: There are no ovaries in the mouth or anus to provide an ovum for the sperm to fertilize, therefore–non procreative.

Unitive *and *procreative. This is obvious. If that doesn’t work for you, then nothing will.

Unity and pro-creation are the desired ends of sexual activity.

This does not mean that all acts within the bedroom must be both unitive and pro-creative but that the end goals of both unity and pro-creation must be served in the completed act, and never thwarted.

Foreplay, as a whole, cannot create life. Ever.

Yet, God made foreplay necessary - God made it a necessary component to serve the unitive and pro-creative ends of sex. Man and wife require foreplay to complete the act. FACT.

So if you have a problem with foreplay, take it up with the big guy.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I would like to quote Mickey again, just so we’re all clear where he is coming from.

I find it fascinating that so many Catholic attempt to support sodomy within the confines of the marital embrace. We have seen for almost two thousand years that no such teaching exsists. On the contrary, we have quotes from the fathers which are very strict. They would never have supported such a philosophy. And yet so many people are so quick to cling to one man’s (Jone) revisionist theology from the 1920’s!

We see quotes such as:

We Christians marry only to produce children" - Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) .

or

“If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.” - Clement of Alexandria

and

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" - Saint Augustine, 354 – 430 (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26).

or perhaps

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” (St Jerome)

Can you imagine the Holy Father’s horror if they would have read the revisionist theology of Jone, which seems to condone anal penetration (sodomy) within the confines of marriage?!? I am certain that he would have been deposed!

By and large, his selection of quotations indicates that there is a single purpose to sex within marriage: pro-creation.

This is **NOT **the teaching of the Church.

So, I’m going to have a hard time receiving a lecture from you on this subject, Mickey, when you’re this far off base on the basics.

This is not a minor thing here, it’s pretty important.

 

[ValPal]

Unity and pro-creation are the desired ends of sexual activity.

This does not mean that all acts within the bedroom must be both unitive and pro-creative but that the end goals of both unity and pro-creation must be served in the completed act, and never thwarted.

This is correct. In fact, it can be clearly demonstrated by something I mentioned earlier. Coitus reservatus means having sex in the “normal” way, but the man does not intentionally ejaculate. The Church has spoken against this. The Church is clearly interested in the way the act finishes, but not what happens before.

 

[Mickey]

No, it’s not, and we’ve been waiting about 30 pages for you to post any evidence of this at all.

You’re kidding, right? You are waiting for evidence to prove that anal penetration is sodomy?

I’m focusing on your views because I think they’re more dangerous.

I see. My view that anal penetration within marriage…no matter where it ends…is sodomy. This is dangerous, eh?

I think your view is devastating. To attempt to justify sodomy within marriage…this is a travesty. Lord have mercy.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Unity and pro-creation are the desired ends of sexual activity.

This does not mean that all acts within the bedroom must be both unitive and pro-creative but that the end goals of both unity and pro-creation must be served in the completed act, and never thwarted.

Foreplay, as a whole, cannot create life. Ever.

Yet, God made foreplay necessary - God made it a necessary component to serve the unitive and pro-creative ends of sex. Man and wife require foreplay to complete the act. FACT.

So if you have a problem with foreplay, take it up with the big guy.

Are you saying that I can say to the next woman I may marry "Hey, you might want to think about allowing me to penetrate your mouth and anus (in that order) so that I might finish in your vagina? C’mon honey, these guys on CAF said that it’s foreplay and if you don’t like it you better “take it up with the big guy?”

I’m not accusing you of this. I’m asking for clarification. If this were true, every Catholic church around the country would have masses of young men signing up for RCIA.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This is correct. In fact, it can be clearly demonstrated by something I mentioned earlier. Coitus reservatus means having sex in the “normal” way, but the man does not intentionally ejaculate. The Church has spoken against this. The Church is clearly interested in the way the act finishes, but not what happens before.

I agree, in general.

I’m sorry to nitpick, but just to clarify: each specific moment in the act need not be pro-creative, nor must it be unitive. But no moments within the act may be *anti-*pro-creative or anti-unitive.

So, for example, a man kissing upon his wife’s breast during foreplay or during the sexual act is not pro-creative, but it is not anti-pro-creative, and thus, there is no problem here, per se.

Many acts may serve the pro-creative end without being pro-creative. Many acts may serve the unitive end without being unitive.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Many acts may serve the pro-creative end without being pro-creative. Many acts may serve the unitive end without being unitive.

Like penetrating my spouse’s mouth and/or anus before proceeding to the checkout counter of the vagina? If that’s what you’re saying, I just want to be clear.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You’re kidding, right? You are waiting for evidence to prove that anal penetration is sodomy?

No. Oral stimulation, and perhaps manual, though again it’s not clear where you end up on the latter.

I see. My view that anal penetration within marriage…no matter where it ends…is sodomy. This is dangerous, eh?

No. Your view that oral stimulation is sodomy is never expressed in Church teaching, to my knowledge. I’ve asked you to share the relevant expression and you have not.

I think your view is devastating. To attempt to justify sodomy within marriage…this is a travesty. Lord have mercy.

I have said nothing with regards to anal sex nor with regards to anal penetration.

 

[fpt]

The fact of making one flesh, with sexual cooperation, in the human fashion.

Making one flesh?
Sexual cooperation?
In the human fashion?

A thesis, a dissertation???

 

[fpt]

By definition, the marital act, without foreplay, is not very human.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Are you saying that I can say to the next woman I may marry "Hey, you might want to think about allowing me to penetrate your mouth and anus (in that order) so that I might finish in your vagina? C’mon honey, these guys on CAF said that it’s foreplay and if you don’t like it you better “take it up with the big guy?”

I don’t know where to start.

First of all, I have said nothing with regards to the anus.

Secondly, yes, you should try to reach a common understanding of sexual desires, limitations, and ethics before you marry.

Thirdly, again, I find nothing awkward or wrong about foreplay. It is obvious that God intended for it to occur, as he would not have made it so difficult to arouse a woman otherwise. God wants the unitive and pro-creative ends of sex to be served, absolutely He does, and I know you agree.

I’m not accusing you of this. I’m asking for clarification. If this were true, every Catholic church around the country would have masses of young men signing up for RCIA.

I doubt it. I suspect that in many (if not most) Protestant churches, there’s nothing wrong with oral sex and manual sex, even.

You make it sound as if this is some kind of decadent thing, per se, to engage in foreplay at all. Many churches are much more “liberal” in this respect. So I doubt we’re going to get conversions by saying that oral and manual foreplay is alright.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

By definition, the marital act, without foreplay, is not very human.

Exactly. By definition, by biological fact.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Like penetrating my spouse’s mouth and/or anus before proceeding to the checkout counter of the vagina? If that’s what you’re saying, I just want to be clear.

By oral or manual stimulation, amongst other things.

If you’re going to call the vagina the “checkout counter,” again, I refer you to the big guy. I’m not the one who made the vagina the “checkout counter,” He did.

If sex was a cold, unfeeling process, like assembling a motor vehicle and if women were naturally lubricated all the time, then foreplay would not be necessary.