martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to say that:

It is very presumptuous for some catholic theologians to affirm with force that the sexual preliminaries between wife and husband, in the context of marital act, before the union of bodies and during the union of bodies are immoral, per se, because they would be manual stimulations, or oral stimulations that should be qualified of masturbation (very strange acception of the defintion of masturbation, very large, this acception is not in link with the notion of sexual cooperation, in the human fashion – hands, fingers…–, and is without link with the Song of Songs);

The problem is to define the marital act, these steps, the roles and missions of each exterior organs. Human beings have the right, in the marriage, to practice the holy conjugal erotism in the respect of moral natural law.

The issue is about not to be too graphic and explicit. If you want to give a honest answer, it is very important to give a concret example with the constitutive elements of human act in situation. Then, to see if this act can be qualified of very wrong act by itself according to the official definition coming from the catholic church (all elements, active part, passive part…etc) with a principle, that the acception of unnatural act has to be defined stricto sensu, and not largo sensu.

If the official teaching is quiet, that means that this act is not, per se, immoral.
**Do you think that the Holy See will stay without reaction if in the world, many several priests or theologians state that that is okay, per se, in the context of marital act. No official reaction of the Holy See?
**

Some books of sexual ethic are analysed by the Congregation of doctrine of Faith, never an official sentence that says that the manual stimulations or oral stimulations as sexual foreplay, in the context of marital act for leading the union of bodies are immoral by principle and thus mean masturbation , per se.

Absurdism, puritanism, manicheism, jansenism, victorianism, anti-personalism primary, anti-phenomenology primary…etc!!! ARE NOT CATHOLIC.
 
Again, I am not, per se, against the intellectual point of view of Ronald Conte Jr. He asks some good questions, and responds with some nice reasonnings, but he is not realistic about the sexual foreplay, no definition in the details.

If you want to discuss about sexual foreplay, we need to be not prudish. The facts, the facts. Then a discussion.

I am waiting the black list of preliminaries that are, per se, immoral. Then, I am waiting the black list of sexual preliminaries that are , per se, immoral. Then, I am waiting the white list of preliminaries that are, per se, moral. Then, I am waiting he white list of sexual preliminaries that are, per se, moral.

Are you capable??? It is a challenge!!!

I want to understand your position who seems very odd. Do you want to put your books and documents about sexual foreplay in the hands of the congegation of the doctrine of Faith in order to know who is right???
 
I would think there would be things like bringing another partner into the marital act of sex that would be illict as far as the church would believe. Or an animal surely. But as far as NFP you say there are conditions attached to this form of birth control accepted by the church?

Bill
 
fpt said:
**The catholic theologians or the catholic moralists have as mission to explain, to improve the understanding of the catholic official teaching (catholic doctrine from the magisterium of Popes, of Councils), in the details, without to be more liberal or more rigid. **Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less. The fact of putting more is not very honest, and the fact of putting less is not honest.

For responding about the marital act, we have to use the following academic sciences:
  1. The theology of the body of human beings that has three parts:
    The theology of the body of male;
    The theology of the body of female;
    Thus, the theology of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion (the theology of the marital act);
    And
  2. The objective and realistic philosophy of body of human beings that has also three parts:
    The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of male [The metaphysics of the body of male];
    The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of female [the metaphysics of the body of female];
    Thus, the objective and realistic philosophy of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion [The objective and realistic philosophy of the marital act with personalist approach with the phenomenology].
The Theology is coming from the Faith and the Philosophy is coming from the Reason. Faith and Reason, and Reason and Faith are very important for the understanding. The couple " Faith and Reason" is the principle of all reasonnings for understanding really the natural moral law of the human beings (dual humanity, male and female with body and soul with their corollaries) and thus for understanding the natural moral order of the marital act.
Click to expand...
Who teaches these doctrines? I only read Thomas Aquinas honestly 😉

Bill
 
billcu1 said:
Who teaches these doctrines? I only read Thomas Aquinas honestly 😉

Bill
Click to expand...
If you discuss with a catholic priest with a very orthodox in his thought, he will say to you that the methods of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, of Holy Tradition, of Official Magisterium of Catholic Church (ordinary, extraordinary, commun) have to be seen in link with the official methods recognised by the Church, directly (officialy) or indirectly (unofficial, the good sense).

The wrong intellectual approaches, that are very often banned, are heresies (religious idelogies) or philosophies (philosophical heresies). Sometimes, it is very difficult to make the diffirence between a heresy and an ideology: one nature or both.

Sometimes, that is the essence of the heretical or philosophical thought that is not , per se, catholic, other times it is, only, that one part that is very wrong. In addition, each time, we need to understand the reasons of ban, the banned elements, and the context (Faith and reason, Reason and Faith).

For instance, were officially recognised as not catholic:
The Manicheism, the catharism, the Jansenism, the puritanism, the Modernism, the Progressism, the Relativism, the Atheism, the Fideism, the Absolute rationalism…etc.

For example, were indirectly (unofficially) recognised as not catholic:

the neo- jansenism, the victorianism, the dolorism, the moralism…etc.

FAITH and RESAON, REASON and FAITH is the key.

If the HOLY does not prohibit, what does it mean?
 
billcu1 said:
I would think there would be things like bringing another partner into the marital act of sex that would be illict as far as the church would believe. Or an animal surely. But as far as NFP you say there are conditions attached to this form of birth control accepted by the church?

Bill
Click to expand...
I would think there would be things like bringing another partner into the marital act of sex that would be illict as far as the church would believe. Totally okay. In the context of marital act, between wife and husband, only one male (husband) and one female (wife): no other person. Otherwise, that is immoral and is so sinful.

Or an animal surely. Of course, that is against the natural moral law: no sexual cooperation in the human fashion. Bestiality is by essence very immoral, that is an unnatural sexual act.

But as far as NFP you say there are conditions attached to this form of birth control accepted by the church? What do you want to know?
What is your question???
 
**Each catholic lay person has the moral right and the moral obligation to use his reason, his intellect, his thought in order to discern and to make his choices: his actions (the human acts), his thinkings, his omissions.
**
You have the right to work on the catholic doctrine in order to understand better your obligations, your rights, in the respect of the intellectual approaches, that are not banned by the catholic Church.

Only, the moral doctrine, only the true moral doctrine, with the whole message of the Church:** not more, not less.** After, if you want to be stricter in your personal life, because you need that, that is your personal business with you, with God and with your priest (confessor, spiritual director).
**
No theologian has right of wanting to impose, (go further), more than the official catholic teaching about the moral natural law of the marital act. If, this theologian wants, he can ask the congregation of the doctrine of faith, or the Pope, via the local bishop, or by the normal ways (see the canon law).**
 
I thought that oral sex was considered to be sodomy…and sodomy is considered to be a sin. 🤷
 
DaddyGirl said:
Um. If you do intend to get married, I’d be sure to give your future wife a heads up about the things you are “not interested” in. Because fyi, many women require that specific act to…ya know. But if you’ve never had sex before, you might not know that, so…just sayin’.
Click to expand...
Hum no I didn’t know that. Before I was baptised I did a little sex. Never cunniligus though. I had a chance and didn’t want to expose myself to bodily fluids that way. Though I have had intercourse so go figure. I’m pretty much retired now and want a relationship that might lead to marriage. If I know there’s no STDs it might be alright. Maybe one day.

Bill
 
fpt said:
But as far as NFP you say there are conditions attached to this form of birth control accepted by the church? What do you want to know?
What is your question???
Click to expand...
I know what the rhythm method is. Involving a basal thermometer and such. Is NFP the only church approved method of birth control then?

Bill
 
I hate this.

I try to be a good catholic. I go to mass and don’t use contraceptives. I despise the fact that the way I have sex (well not that this is a problem for me right now) is dictated. Yuck.

I think a couple have every right to have sex the way they choose as long as it doesn’t involve contraceptives.
 
The marital act is the fact of making one flesh, with the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. We are body and soul, thus we have to respect the natural moral order of the union of bodies wanted by God. The sexual union between spouses (wife and husband) can be erotic, like in the Song of Songs. Each couple has right to search the holy conjugal erotism during the complete marital act, that, per se, is an act of love. The end of marital act has to be unitive and procreative. But, this act of love is composed by three steps (before, during and after), say the contrary is absurd. In consequence, during each step there are special rules before the union of bodies (the preliminaries, the sexual preliminaries) during the union of bodies (…) and the after (…).

I cannot understand why some persons refuse the metaphysic of the body of human beings, the metaphysic of male body, the metaphysic of body of female, the metaphysic of sex of male, metaphysic of the sex of female and thus the metaphysic of marital act.

The reasonning is the same for the theology. The theology of sex is the theology of the body. The alterity and the complementarity mean that the theology of sex of female, and that the theology of sex of male are not totally the same (equity and equality). These are the theology of orgasm of male, and the theology of orgasm of female.

Of course, there are evil sexual acts, per se, the unnatural acts, but their definitions have to be seen in strict acception (stricto sensu), and in the context.

In conclusion, the sexual preliminaries are wrong sometimes , but only in function of circunstances and because of a wrong intention (excess). But this issue is different. There is no presumption of excess, per se.
 
Lol - cunnilingus is a sin but fellatio isn’t? That’s like the news article I read that semen makes women younger.
 
The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife , not on intimate parts, done by her husband, in the context of marital act, before the union of bodies and for preparing his wife are not evil, per se.
The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife on intimate exteriors parts, done by her husband, in the context of marital act,** before the union of bodies and for preparing his wife, are not evil, per se.**

The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife , not on intimate parts, done by her husband, in the context of marital act, during the union of bodies for improving and reaching the orgasm of wife are not evil, per se.
The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife on intimate exteriors parts, done by her husband, in the context of marital act, during the union of bodies for improving and reaching the orgasm of wife, are not evil, per se.

The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife , not on intimate parts, done by her husband via the caresses, strokes…etc for a sexual appeasement, in the context of marital act, after the union of bodies are not evil, per se.
The oral stimulations or the manual stimulations on the body of wife on intimate exteriors parts, done by her husband, in the context of marital act, after the union of bodies for giving her, at least, the third type of female climax or at least one (charity, a right of her and may be a moral obligation (obligation of means in the human manner) for her lover, in the human fashion), are not evil, per se.

Are you against the catholic sexology of female (the natural sexology of orgasm of wife)??? If yes, there is a problematic???
 
If your are against the manual stimulation of the oral stimulations on the body of wife done by the husband in this special context, in logic, you should be against:

The tampons for woman periods;
The method of NFP with the focus on the mucus, the cervix, and the temperature of vagina;
The perineal reeducation;
The plastic surgery for woman without exterior intimate part, because of the awful excision (sexual mutilation);

ETC.

Are you serious? Your type of moral theology is weird, simple, not very human, without charity, not natural, and very against the human fashion of making one flesh.

Your view on the mutual donation of bodies is very simplistic.
 
In formation:

In the official story, there are 8 catholic persons, very well known:

1.The King of France, Louis the IX (Saint Louis) and her wife;

2.The King of France Louis XIV and his second wife ( Françoise d’Aubigné, the Scarron’s widow, Madame de Maintenon);
  1. The Queen of France, Marie-Antoinette from Austria and her husband (Louis the XVI);
4.The mother of Marie-Antoinette, the empress of Austria, Maria Theresa and her husband;

According to the historians:

1.The Pope knew for this second secret marriage, and knew that the wife of Louis XIV were taking care of the intimate parts of her husband, for the conjugal love, and for the intimate diseases.
  1. Saint Louis and his wife, during the marital act, were very in love. The king was very caressing toward his wife (not avaricious in the caresses). As catholic, do you want to be against that? Already, at this time, some people are against, in reality they were jealous about this wonderful tenderness in the respect of natural law (Song of Songs).
  2. The empress of Austria,( Maria Theresa, Marie-Thérèse), who, in private messages, for her daughter gave information for the sexual stimulation of the intimate parts of Louis XVI for leading the union of bodies (in french —" caresses, cajolis “---- in english —” caress, cajolery " —). Do you want to say that this couple and this empress were in favor of the evil acts, per se? Are you serious???
  3. Marie-Thérèse of Austria (Maria Theresa), was very in love for her husband, they had 16 children, but she loved very much the marital act with her husband in the human fashion in the respect of the natural moral law. Do you think that it was very wrong, per se?
 
The day of wedding, there is a mutual, reciprocal and complete donation of bodies, in order to make one flesh, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation. What does it means?

The only rule is the respect of the moral natural law of the marital act of human beings (male and female) with corollaries: (unitive and procreative). Do you want a partial donation of bodies? Do you want to exclude, by principle, the natural moral order of the union of human bodies (male and female, alterity and complementarity)?

If yes, your answer is yes, I am very afraid by this very poor theology, by your lack of thought, by your lack of commun sense, by those signs of puritanism, of victorianism, of jansenism, of prudishness, of catharism…etc. and by the lack of positive thought on the holy conjugal erotism in the couple during the complete marital act (before during and after).

The point of view against the true sexual preliminaries are very dangerous for the couples: it is going against the rights and their obligations toward each other concerning the natural union of bodies, not like the other animals.

Read the Song of Songs, read truly the catholic doctrine from Vatican I to now, read the true catholic sexology, read the true philosophy of medical sciences about sex (epistomology). Faith and reason, reason and faith. We are sexed and sexual, the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, and also a sexed and sexual contract.

Of course, there are evil acts by nature (unnatural act, by itself, in itself, of itself, from itself, for itself). You know them, like me. The black list is easy to do.
 
Hi fpt,

I just wanted to say that I have a growing appreciation for your contributions to these threads about the marital embrace. I admit that I struggled with comprehension of some of your posts when I first started reading them a couple of months ago, but I am now beginning to understand you better. I can tell by your questions and your comments that you have done a lot of research and pondering of the goodness of the physical love between husband and wife. Much of what you say is beautiful and inspiring.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top