martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My line is to respect the Holy See, and his official teaching in the respect of intellectual approaches that are classical: realistic and objective philosophy ( personalism, phenomenology, metaphysics, epistemology), and the theology of body (theology of body of male, the theology of body of woman, the theology of the marital act, the theology of the orgasm of woman, the theology of the orgasm of man, the theology of the sexual alterity, the theology of sexual complementarity).

The fact of elaborating a very deep thought about the marital act is very difficult, not simple. With documents from Vatican I to now, with the official teachings, it is easier. We have a large doctrine, very spiritual, very physical (body and soul). We need to respect the teaching, only the teaching. If a theologian wants to be stricter about the conjugal moral, he can give his books, his documents in order to be judged by the congregation for the doctrine of the Faith or by the Pope.

An unitary academical work on the marital act is my dream. What would be the best doctorate for responding to these conjugal questions: a Canonical doctorate in Canon law, a Canonical doctorate in Philosophy, or a Canonical doctorate in Theology from a catholic university that respects truly the catholic teaching, because today there are many catholic universities that are very far away of the official catholic doxa? The three doctorates would be very useful.

The title could be: The natural moral order of the marital act according to the catholic doctrine, (Pie IX to Benedict XVI)???
 
Ron_Conte said:
There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”
Click to expand...
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
 
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...
Great post Portrait! Spot on!

Even within the marriage bed…sodomy is sodomy…and is always gravely disordered and sinful.
 
Portrait said:
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.
Click to expand...
The hand is plainly not designed for the purpose of manual stimulation of the sex organs (at least not solely). Does this mean that my wife and I can’t touch one another’s genitals leading up to vaginal intercourse?

Does my question just prove that I’m “imbued with the moral degeneracy of our age?”
 
paulrus said:
The hand is plainly not designed for the purpose of manual stimulation of the sex organs (at least not solely). Does this mean that my wife and I can’t touch one another’s genitals leading up to vaginal intercourse?

Does my question just prove that I’m “imbued with the moral degeneracy of our age?”
Click to expand...
Dear paulrus,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

There are, dear friend, other ways for spouses to express their love and affection for one another, within the marriage bed, without having to touch or stroke each others private parts. They can cuddle and tenderly caress one another and they can passionately kiss prior to carnal copulation. Moreover, touching each other in these erogenous areas can all too easily result in manual and/or oral stimulation of the sexual organs, which is indisputably perverted and indecent, especially for those who supposedly profess godliness. There is really little point in touching the genitalia, except for arousal by manipulation, which is, as I have stated, plainly wrong and unnatural.

The hand is not designed, dear friend, for the purpose of manual sexual stimulation of the reproductive organs, fulls stop. Such an action will always be aberrant since it is unnatural and therefore an abuse of those organs, even if it is preliminary to coitus.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
Portrait said:
Dear paulrus,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

There are, dear friend, other ways for spouses to express their love and affection for one another, within the marriage bed, without having to touch or stroke each others private parts. They can cuddle and tenderly caress one another and they can passionately kiss prior to carnal copulation. Moreover, touching each other in these erogenous areas can all too easily result in manual and/or oral stimulation of the sexual organs, which is indisputably perverted and indecent, especially for those who supposedly profess godliness. There is really little point in touching the genitalia, except for arousal by manipulation, which is, as I have stated, plainly wrong and unnatural.

The hand is not designed, dear friend, for the purpose of manual sexual stimulation of the reproductive organs, fulls stop. Such an action will always be aberrant since it is unnatural and therefore an abuse of those organs, even if it is preliminary to coitus.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
In other words, anything other than a direct hit of the penis into the vagina is disordered. If you are about to engage in the conjugal act, you r wife must assume the position, and if you miss an dhit her thigh, you have done something disordered.

Ludicrous.

Portrait, please explain to us what is unnatural or detestable about oral stimlation of the genitalia (and please recognize the distinction between that and “oral sex”) that is *not *unnatural or detestable about me kissing my wife’s hand.

Please also keep in mind that the Church is VERY specific about what is disordered, and why.

ETA: “…sodomy is sodomy…and is always gravely disordered and sinful…” Would anyone care to give the official Catholic Church’s definition of sodomy? I believe what is being missed here is the difference between “foreplay” and “sex”. But I do think it would be a good idea if we are all on the same page as far as definitions go. I too believe sodomy is disordered/depraved…and is defined as the act of anal intercourse taken to completion rectally or where semen is spilled. But if someone could please provide the official Catholic definiiton, it would be most helpful.
 
I feel very bad for the wives of men who are against cunnilingus. It is very likely that they frequently go to bed frustrated and unsatisfied.
 
Oh hey cool it’s Portrait and Ron Conte, who, once again, are professing things that have no basis in either doctrine or reality.

Hey Ron, care to regal us again with your end time predictions about how there’s going to be a global catastrophe after Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2008?

Get real.

Only one point of clarification BlueEyedLady, you’re making a broad generalization. Plenty of women are capable of orgasm from penetration. Though I think you’re well aware of that and instead are providing snark where snark is due. There’s absolutely no reason to take anything Portrait, Ron Conte or Mickey say seriously. None.

This thread should be locked for promoting grave doctrinal error in a very sensitive area. (see what I did there?!)
 
ahs said:
I too believe sodomy is disordered/depraved…and is defined as the act of anal intercourse taken to completion rectally or where semen is spilled. But if someone could please provide the official Catholic definiiton, it would be most helpful.
Click to expand...
Well…Merriam-Webster (and most other dictionaries) says this:

**: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal **

Why would the Catholic Church somehow have a different defintion of sodomy?
 
ahs said:
In other words, anything other than a direct hit of the penis into the vagina is disordered. If you are about to engage in the conjugal act, you r wife must assume the position, and if you miss an dhit her thigh, you have done something disordered.

Ludicrous.

Portrait, please explain to us what is unnatural or detestable about oral stimlation of the genitalia (and please recognize the distinction between that and “oral sex”) that is *not *unnatural or detestable about me kissing my wife’s hand.

Please also keep in mind that the Church is VERY specific about what is disordered, and why.

ETA: “…sodomy is sodomy…and is always gravely disordered and sinful…” Would anyone care to give the official Catholic Church’s definition of sodomy? I believe what is being missed here is the difference between “foreplay” and “sex”. But I do think it would be a good idea if we are all on the same page as far as definitions go. I too believe sodomy is disordered/depraved…and is defined as the act of anal intercourse taken to completion rectally or where semen is spilled. But if someone could please provide the official Catholic definiiton, it would be most helpful.
Click to expand...
In addition to the above, I think the position taken by Portrait, is, at the least, uncharitable when it comes to women. Many women would not be adequately prepared for sexual relations, which can make intercourse painful even if she greatly desires to be with her husband.

Of course spouses were meant to touch each other! And in the marital bed, I don’t think there is any reason that a body part should be off limits to touch (or dare I say) kiss. Or, since mouths are only meant for consuming food, does that mean that kissing is an improper and perverse use of my mouth?

We are not speaking of substituting the use of hands or mouth for the marital act, but the importance of spouses respecting and cherishing each others’ bodies, which will, by necessity, mean that they touch each other and enjoy it. This is not perversity. This is not using a spouse as an object. This is God’s plan for our sexuality, and it is good!
 
Mickey said:
Well…merriams dictionary (and most other dictionaries) says this:

: anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also: copulation with an animal

Why would the Catholic Church somehow have a different defintion of sodomy?
Click to expand...
The use of the word “copulation” seems to suggest that it is done as a substitute for regular intercourse, and not the use of touch (by hands, or mouth) to please one’s spouse as a prelude to intercourse.
 
silicasandra said:
The use of the word “copulation” seems to suggest that it is done as a substitute for regular intercourse, and not the use of touch (by hands, or mouth) to please one’s spouse as a prelude to intercourse.
Click to expand...
So if there was anal penetration without finishing the act…it would not be sodomy?

No. Oral (or anal) sexual activity (whether finishing or not) is called sodomy. Ask your confessor about this. He’ll tell you.
 
I am sad to see that you (some catholic lay persons) are not capable to try to understand my questions concerning the very strange acception of the definition of masturbation of Ronlad Conte Jr in the context of marital act like preliminaries.

Are you serious when you say that the manual stimulation of exterior organs of each one done by the other is the masturbation? Are you serious? Are you sexed and sexual humans? Do you want to be angels in the marriage? Do you have a problem with your sexed body? Are you…etc.???

Your theology is very poor, very simple: no link with sexual cooperation in the human fashion (see the canon law) and the Song of Songs. The puritanist from USA or from the English speaking countries is so great. It is sad.
 
The oral sex is wrong, per se, because there are a substitution and a replacement. The oral stimulation is a sexual kiss on genitals as foreplay, where is the problem?

The manual stimulation on genitals as foreplay is wrong??? Are you serious?
 
Sodomy is wrong, per se. It is evil, by nature, even like foreplay: The sodomy is a replacement and a substitution. In addition, it is an interior organ that is not in link with the marital act. Sodomy is immoral of course.

Oral kiss or manual stimulation on the all body of the other and even on the exterior intimate parts of the other as foreplay, in the context of marital act, is not masturbation.
 
I *hate *these threads. They are so undignified. I’m with the first posters. To paraphrase a popular saying about Las Vegas **“What happens in [the bedroom] stays in [the bedroom].”

**Please don’t chase me with the theological arguments. Please don’t. I know what they are. I was married for 10 years (it is rapidy coming to an end) and I did what was required of me, and also what was *hinted *that was required of me :cool:.

We were “open to life” using that whole menstrual chart deal rather than ever using contraception, we reproduced once, and yes, along the way some things happened that the Magisterium might not have been overjoyed to hear about. Luckily there is nothing in scripture or canon law that says they must ever hear about it. 😊 (Fear not; my inner scrupe is whipping me as we speak.)

That being said, if I *ever *marry again, and if my new wife asks me to perform an act that I do not find humiliating or beyond my skill or stamina, then I will most likely acquiesce without dashing off a letter to the Vatican asking for their blessing.

So long as I and any spouse I may find in the future pray faithfully and remain in union with the church, we are allowed to rule our own destiny and exercise a responsible conscience.

I will not end this thread by attacking anyone, and it is doubtful that I will return here if attacked (that all depends, of course), but really at the end of the day, we do not have the clergy coming into our houses anymore to check our marital sheets for blood stains. It’s creepy. I know my theology and everyone just has to trust that. You have to, because if I’m making whoopy, you’re *not *allowed in my house!
 
If you think that manual or oral stimulations of external genitalias done by the other is the masturbation, in the context of marital act, you have to be against, in all logic:

The tampons for woman periods;
The methods of NFP with the focus on the mucus, the cervix, and the temperature of vagina;
The perineal reeducation after childbirth;
The plastic surgery for woman without exterior intimate part, because of the awful excision (sexual mutilation);
The medical treatment for avoiding the male impotency, the female frigidity and vaginismus;
The surgeries on the intimate parts;

ETC.

Read Song of Songs, read the official documents of Church, read the story of some catholic couples, read the catholic doctors and the catholic theologians, avoid wrong interpretations. You need to purify your intellectual approach on this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top