N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
WHAT FOLLOWS IS A JOKE. A JOKE IS FORTHCOMING. DO NOT PANIC!
It doesn’t?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATRONAGE. THE JOKE HAS CONCLUDED. HAVE A NICE DAY!
- Status
It doesn’t?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATRONAGE. THE JOKE HAS CONCLUDED. HAVE A NICE DAY!
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
My inner scrupe has demanded that I defend **Portrait **and Ron Conte. :knight2:
The Bucket: This statement you’ve made misses the mark by a lot. I’m not going to break out my Encyclopedia of Theology or anything, but they’ve presented a pretty accurate telling of scholarly thought on this subject. Even if you (and others) disagree with them, they cannot be dismissed as completely as you say. They are not “professing things that have no basis in either doctrine or reality.” That’s an unresponsible exaggeration.
Despite what they’ve said, my experience with marital sex in concrete and not abstract, and sometimes one must pull away from the drawing board and…let’s just say, dabble.
ANOTHER JOKE. PREPARE YOURSELVES.
The “spirit” of the law sometimes supercedes the “letter” of the law. When dealing with women, it can be outright *deadly *not to know the difference.
THIS IS NOM THE WISE’S EXPERIENCE AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE VIEWS OF CAF, IT’S SPONSORS OR SUBSIDIARIES.
Also Sprach Inner Scrupe.
N
Nom_the_Wise
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8786644&highlight=oral+foreplay#post8786644 We’re putting a lot of stock in what the CAF apologist said.
Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law. (This is really a horribly sticky topic).
M
Mickey
Guest
Yeah. I do not accept that explanation.
You cannot perform an unnatural sex act (sodomy)…which is immoral and intrinsically disordered…and then call it okay because it is completed with an act of natural marital relations.
One does not justify the other.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The question, though, is who’s definition of sodomy is correct? No one is trying to defend sodomy. What is being questioned is the idea that manual or oral stimulation is necessarily sodomy. The only way to help further this is to find Church documents interpreting “Sodomy” to specifically either include or exclude those acts. Otherwise, it is up to people to use their best judgement as to whether or not they are included.
M
Mickey
Guest
Huh? You know of competing definitions of sodomy? As Portrait has indicated…surely we do not need a magisterial document or papal encyclical to guide our every moral thought. Surely our conscience can tell us when an act is morally unacceptable and intrisically disordered.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Wait, what? Am I actually reading that all oral and manual stimulation is wrong? Even if it ends with intercourse that has no impediments to conception?
How can that be unitive? Many, many women have a hard time getting aroused, much less finishing without manual or oral stimulation. That kind of neglect cannot be loving or unitive. It seems very cruel and selfish, in fact.
Besides, wasn’t JPII the one who wrote about how a man has a responsibility to make sure that his wife is sexually satisfied even after he’s finished?
How can that be unitive? Many, many women have a hard time getting aroused, much less finishing without manual or oral stimulation. That kind of neglect cannot be loving or unitive. It seems very cruel and selfish, in fact.
Besides, wasn’t JPII the one who wrote about how a man has a responsibility to make sure that his wife is sexually satisfied even after he’s finished?
V
ValPal
Guest
Sodomy has varying definitions, so I try to keep it simple by limiting it to a married man and woman. Sodomy in this instance implies “sex,” which (without being graphic) simply means the man completes the act in that way. “Sex” is to be differentiated from “stimulation.” Sex implies the completion of the sex act (such as in sodomy), whereas “stimulation” does not. The church has never taught that these act used as stimulation, that result in a unitive and procreative act, are prohibited. However, it has always taught that these acts used solely for pleasure (i.e, not ending in the usual unitive and procreative way) are prohibited.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m sorry, but the definition you put forward was not explicit, it could, very reasonably, be taken either way. Also, it is important to keep in mind that we must understand the word as used by the Church. There are plenty of people who think the Church’s position on Contraception and NFP is illogical and contradictory. The reason? They use a different deffinition of contraceptive than the Church does. So it all comes back to finding where the Church herself explicitly makes this distinction clear.
**ETA: **With respect to competing definitions, most certainly, the two that were presented on this thread. One being any kind of oral or manual stimulation of the genitals. The Other being replacing normal intercourse with oral or manual stimulation.
V
ValPal
Guest
To reiterate, sodomy implies “sex,” not “stimulation.”
No, but in a case like this, which has been well known for all time, if there was a problem there is no doubt it would have been addressed. The Church has never prohibited the “stimulation” aspect.
M
Mickey
Guest
What other way?
There are many instances where the Church does not give you a step-by-step manual…because She expects you to think for yourself on issues that are evident regarding morality. Again I will say…ask your confessor if you are not certain.
No…that’s not correct. You were talking about the definition of sodomy. Oral and anal sexual activity is considered to be sodomy…I have never heard alternate definitions.
M
Mickey
Guest
No. If you engage in the act of sodomy…it makes no difference if you finish with an act of natural marital relations. You have still committed the intrinsically disordered act. Ask your confessor about this.
The Church has never justified sodomy within the marital embrace!
V
ValPal
Guest
An act of sodomy is in the context of husband and wife means anal sex to completion. It DOES NOT mean simple anal penetration.
I don’t need to. I assume the priest follows the official guide regarding confession then this type of stimulation is simply not a sin.
That is correct because anal “sex” is prohibited. However, anal “stimulation” is not. Anal “stimulation” is not considered sodomy by the Church.The Church has never justified sodomy within the marital embrace!
You have to be careful with the meaning of words. Example: Masturbation is sinful. However, stimulating one’s wife to orgasm in the context of “normal” sexual relations, even if the man finishes first, is absolutely allowed (with Papal approval). Many would consider this act “masturbation.” However, it is not because of the way masturbation is defined.
The biggest difficulty I’ve had with understanding Catholicism are the nuances in wording and definitions. It took me quite a while to figure out what the Church meant regarding some of these issues. Sometimes the Church’s interpretation differs slightly from common language.
T
thewanderer
Guest
But heres the thing, I am quite certain in my opinion. And it is not one based out of ignorance or simple preference. I am a very reasonable person who is well-versed in Catholic Sexual teachings, not only in the conclusions but also in the real philosophical reasons behind them and everything I have read and understood about Catholic sexual teaching leads me to my conclusion. Your conclusion is by no means anywhere as obvious a matter as you assume. In which case if the Church thought it was wrong I am perfectly confidant that she would have explicitly said so by now… after all, the Church hardly refrains from speaking her mind with respect to sexual morality.
Heres the thing, I had never heard of your definition of sodomy until I came onto CAF. Again, it is not nearly as clear-cut as you seem to think. We need to make sure that we use the words as the Church uses them or we will not understand the Church’s teachings.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
The view that you cannot even touch your spouse… yikes. That’s all, just… yikes!
That is such an enormous impediment to sex.
Getting a man aroused is easy enough. Getting a woman aroused just by kissing her?
Come on now.
What in the world is permitted now? Just kissing and missionary?
Honestly, I would like someone to walk me through what a “holy” episode of Catholic sex is supposed to look like, because I really don’t get how it is supposed to be passionate… at all.
That is such an enormous impediment to sex.
Getting a man aroused is easy enough. Getting a woman aroused just by kissing her?
Come on now.
What in the world is permitted now? Just kissing and missionary?
Honestly, I would like someone to walk me through what a “holy” episode of Catholic sex is supposed to look like, because I really don’t get how it is supposed to be passionate… at all.
A
ATeutonicKnight
Guest
I think the fact I had to Google the meaning of these words shows we should really stop being stingy and just say oral stimulation. It’s not a bad word, I promise you.
The consensus by theologians such as Christopher West and I believe even Pope John Paul II is that oral stimulation is okay as a means of foreplay, and is in fact necessary a lot of the times for the woman. Arousing a woman for sex is not like arousing a man for it, and it takes time and effort. This is an easy and moral means to do so.
The consensus by theologians such as Christopher West and I believe even Pope John Paul II is that oral stimulation is okay as a means of foreplay, and is in fact necessary a lot of the times for the woman. Arousing a woman for sex is not like arousing a man for it, and it takes time and effort. This is an easy and moral means to do so.
A
ahs
Guest
The onus is on you to show that foreplay is an unnatural sex act. Approved Catholic document that says this please.
A well-informed conscience can inform us of such. We form our conscience on Church teaching, not merriam’s dictionary or Mickey’s or Portrait’s or Ron Conte’s opinions.
You definition of sodomy is based on the merriam dictionary and your own personal opinion. However, there is a more accurate definition that was provided to all the world’s Priests starting in the 1920’s by the renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time, Heribert Jone. His volume was printed in at least 8 languages and used as the vernacular Moral Theology text for seminarians who were not fluent enough in Latin for the Latin volumes.
This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.
It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.
There is a section on sodomy. Jone distinguishes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".
“Perfect Sodomy” is when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.
“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true.
Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”
"it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner" (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)
Here we have the approved Catholic definition of sodomy, by a renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time vs. Mickey’s personal opinion+secular dictionary version. I have found nothing in Church teaching that conflicts with Jone’s. Perhaps Mickey would like to point us all to an official Catholic teaching that conflicts with that?
According to whom? Please cite the official Catholic teaching that states that all oral or anal sexual activity is sodomy. I believe you are confusing “sex” with “preparation for sex” (aka foreplay).
A
ahs
Guest
You are correct here, except that you have an incorrect definition of sodomy. Sodomy, that is, “when it occurs between two members of the same sex or when the act results in the waste of seminal fluid. It is always gravely sinful.” (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)
However, when neither of the above conditions are true, “it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner”. (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)
I challenge you to take your own advice. I went and found the most orthodox Priest I know of, who was in the seminary in the 50’s (and very familiar with Jone and the Moral Theology book) and asked him about this very subject. Though he had never encountered the topic of anal stimulation as an act of foreplay (and I fully expected to get lambasted by him over this) he said that Jone’s explanation makes perfect sense, as did my understanding of it. So, YOU go ask your confessor as well, and tell us all how it goes. Make sure you don’t forget to differentiate between “sex” and “foreplay”…as these are VERY different things.
Strawman. No one is arguing that sodomy has ever been justified. You are simply ignoring the fact that “foreplay” is not “sodomy”. Since you continue to insist that it is, you need to provide the Catholic teaching that leads you to this conclusion. I have provided you with a Catholic source, your turn to do likewise. Otherwise, we all have no choice but to assume that Mickey bases his understanding of moral theology on his own opinions rather than Church teaching.The Church has never justified sodomy within the marital embrace!
F
fpt
Guest
In order to discern about morality of an act, we have to use the Reason and the Faith (Faith and Reason). That means the using of the theology and of the philosophy. The theology is the science on Holy Scripture and the Philosophy is the sciencce on the state of nature of human beings. The Bible is the anthropology that was revealed. The philosophy is the using of human intelligencce. We have to read Bible and documents at the light of the Reason.
Sodomy is wrong, by nature, in itself, of itself, from itself, by itself, for itself. It is evil, it is unnatural act. Sodomy, as foreplay is wrong. I am not okay with Christopher West on this topic, because this part of body is not in link with the marital act, per se. In addition, the moral points of view from theologian seem very unitary. And more, it is objectively dirty.
In the context of marital act:
The fact of touching, of caressing, of stroking, of stimulating (massage) all body of the other, even the intimate exterior parts is not the masturbation: If you are not okay with my sentence, that means a wrong acception of the definition of masturbation.
The fact of kissing, of… etc all body of the other, even the intimate exterior parts is not the sodomy: If you are not okay with my sentence, that means a wrong acception of the definition of sodomy.
The rule is: the sexual cooperation in the human fashion
Sodomy is wrong, by nature, in itself, of itself, from itself, by itself, for itself. It is evil, it is unnatural act. Sodomy, as foreplay is wrong. I am not okay with Christopher West on this topic, because this part of body is not in link with the marital act, per se. In addition, the moral points of view from theologian seem very unitary. And more, it is objectively dirty.
In the context of marital act:
The fact of touching, of caressing, of stroking, of stimulating (massage) all body of the other, even the intimate exterior parts is not the masturbation: If you are not okay with my sentence, that means a wrong acception of the definition of masturbation.
The fact of kissing, of… etc all body of the other, even the intimate exterior parts is not the sodomy: If you are not okay with my sentence, that means a wrong acception of the definition of sodomy.
The rule is: the sexual cooperation in the human fashion
- Status