martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ahs said:
As to oral stimulation, as the Popes have affirmed that such questions of morality are founded on the Church’s teaching on the 2-fold end of marriage
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I have never seen a teaching from a pope which condones the placing of the genitalia in the mouth as a precurser to natural intercourse.
 
ValPal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Coitus reservatus is not, per se, immoral. The coitus reservatus, for making love very long time, before the total union of bodies, is not morally wrong, per se. The coitus reservatus, like foreplay, is morally okay, per se.
 
Ive said little other than noting that the Church is silent on everything as it pertains to the ins and outs of individual couples’ sexual lives other than insisting that both spouses respect each other and that the acts are done in ways that orient themselves towards procreativity and unity.

That she does speak specifically about pornography, fornication, masturbation to completion, adultery and even about how the intent of each sexual union must be that it is completed in a very specific way underscores the fact that she is not shy about speaking on the matter. Where she is silent we must not speak for her.

The Church has said nothing about dressing up, sexual messages to one another, lining beds with rose petals, playful spanking, hair pulling, positions, places or anything else and yes, that includes manual, oral and anal stimulation. But I didn’t specifically defend, attack or promote or attany particular action. I said the Church is silent and we should not substitute our proclivities for the doctrine, couples should use their best judgment and no one should assume motives behind anyone’s actions except our own.

Mickey does indeed seem to be particularly obsessed with one area and that’s quite curious. My basic point on him and Portrait was that they were falling in line with a guy who is delusional. I mean, there is no other way to describe Ron Conte other than he is delusional and has an incredibly distorted view of his importance. His “theology” will never be rebuked by anyone other than random people on the Internet because that’s what he amounts to. Another random dude on the Internet saying crazy stuff, the vast majority of which have no place in the Church’s doctrine.
 
ahs said:
Source please that indicates that the Early Fathers would be appalled at Jone’s definition of sodomy.
Click to expand...
LOL! You have read some of the fathers…many of them speak about intercourse for procreation only. Do you really think that because they have never written anything against the blasphemies that Jone teaches…that they condone it?

Now you are just fooling around I think.
 
Hey Mickey, where has any pope condoned a wife dressing in lingerie for her husband? Where has any pope condoned eating chocolate strawberries while engaged in sexual congress? Where has any pope condoned taking your wife on a weekend getaway?

Heck, where has any pope specifically condoned eating a steak without a knife and fork? I mean, I once dunked a steak in A1 sauce and ate it without utensils. In public no less! I’ve seen no writings by any holy father, past or present, that says I’m allowed to do this. Have I gravely endangered my soul?
 
What about oral stimulation of the nipples? That’s an erogenous area. Where is that condoned? How about stimulation of the husband by his wife’s breasts? That’s not remotely close to anything you’ve called (incorrectly) sodomy. Is that unnatural and against natural law? I’ve never seen the Church say word one about that?

Again, heck, what about toe-sucking or necking or anything of that nature? Is that unnatural? These are pressing questions.
 
Mickey said:
Nonsense. I have never seen a teaching from a pope which condones the placing of the genitalia in the mouth as a precurser to natural intercourse.
Click to expand...
Proper context…you’ll see I was not making any such claim:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9917034&postcount=487
Mickey said:
LOL! You have read some of the fathers…many of them speak about intercourse for procreation only. Do you really think that because they have never written anything against the blasphemies that Jone teaches…that they condone it?

Now you are just fooling around I think.
Click to expand...
I never said they condone it. I asked you to support your assertions (see post 489)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9917069&postcount=489

If you cannot support them, that’s okay. I won’t point any fingers at you nor claim that it means you are wrong. But if you want to maintain any credibility, you either need to support your assertions or admit that you cannot.
 
ValPal said:
Why would the Magisterium have to show something is not sodomy when it was never understood to be sodomy in the first place.
Click to expand...
You got that backwards Val. Why would the magisterium have to show something is not sodomy when it has always been understood as sodomy.
 
ahs said:
Proper context…you’ll see I was not making any such claim:
Click to expand...
If you read the Fathers and study the Sacred Tradition of the Church, you will see that they do not support such disoredered thinking. So far, I have only seen West and Jone as supporting such nonsense. 🤷
 
Portrait said:
Dear Ron Conte,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Your remarks above are bang on target and the article by Alice von Hildebrand evinces most clearly how to think with an authentic Catholic mind. Every viewer of this thread ought to read and ponder it jolly carefully.

The Church, dear friend, is not necessarily required to officially pronounce upon an act which is so obviously contrary to the natural law and right reason. To demand some magisterial declaration upon a matter such as oral stimulation of the genitals is, quite frankly, jolly absurd and bizzare and evidence of a want of spiritual immaturity that cannot discriminate between what is good and what is wrong and, in this case, manifestly unnatural. A properly formed conscience ought to enable a man to make a correct prudential judgment respecting such a matter, especially when the unnaturalness of the said vice is taken into account and carefully weighed.

Regardless of whether a man holds to the authority of Sacred Scripture or the Church, dear friend, he does have a basic ethical intuition that certain conduct is wrong because it is unnatural. Thus he perceives that the natural sex companion of a human being is another human being and not an animal, he does not need an official pronouncement by the Church to tell him this. By parity of reasoning the same applies to cunnilingus/fellatio, which are downright perverted and vile acts, which ought to make a pious Catholic recoil in disgust.

It is, dear friend, quite correct for us to make an appeal to the natural order of things to aid us in our decision making upon diverse moral issues. Thus if we consider the mouth we can plainly see that it is not designed for the purpose of oral stimulation of the sex organs, no more than the anus, for example, is designed to accomodate the male organ of copulation. This is why sodomy is wrong, even from natural law reasoning, because it is impossible for such an aberrant act, contrary to nature, to fulfill the purpose ‘written’ into man’s physical form. Now the very same thing can be said as regards oral stimulation of the sex organs, even if it is a prelude to full carnal copulation. The point is that it is, as you quite rightly say, an unnatural sexual act, regardless of whether natural coitus occurs before or after such a perverted practice; it is, notwithstanding, to turn aside from the proper use of our sexual organs.

Incontrovertably, dear friend, cunnilingus/fellatio are shameful acts against nature and should never be indulged in by those who profess the holy religion of Christ. The moral act is always one which is consonant with right reason, being directed to its proper end in a fitting manner. Now in the case of the venereal act the proper end is procreation and the only fitting act is natural heterosexual copulation, to the exclusion of any other sort of perverted venereal pleasure, euphemistically termed ‘foreplay’ by our sexually saturated Western culture.

Unfortunately, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics have become imbued with the moral degeneracy of our age and have gradually adopted some of the debased practices of the ungodly with whom they are surrounded, practices which are objectively unnatural and cannot reasonably be regarded otherwise. Moreover, no amount of specious argumentation will ever make objectively unnatural practices normal and acceptable, even within the marriage bed.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
👍
 
Before this thread is closed I would like to clarify something. Christopher West in no way endorses anal sex and it is misleading to claim that he does. Here are his words on the subject.

"Again, a husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. What, then, are we to say about anal penetration as a form of foreplay to normal intercourse?
Some might conclude based on a legalistic application of the “so long as it leads to intercourse” principle that anything goes when it comes to foreplay. But spouse who truly love each other aren’t looking to get away with as much as possible efore “breaking the rules”. They’re looking to symbolize and renew their marriage commitment as sincerely as possible.
For those who would seek to justify anal penetration as a form of foreplay to intercourse, there are some important considerations that can’t be overlooked. To begin with, the rectum is full of bacteria, which are dangerous to both the male and female reproductive organs. Futhermore, since the anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis, penetration can cause temporary or permanent harm.
Aesthetically speaking, such behavior involves contact with human waste, which is tolerated when necessary but not something joyful, beautiful., and pleasing. Marital intimacy is meant to be joyful, beautiful, and pleasing to both spouses. Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife the health risks, not to mention the discomfort or even pain associated with such behavior?
Perhaps in some abstract, objective sense there is nothing to condemn mere penetration of the anus as absolutely and in every case immoral. But subjectively speaking, for all of the above reasons it is very difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to symbolize and renew the marriage commitment."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top