martial sex

[The_Bucket]

I mean, you can read what Pope Pius XII said in one of those EWTN replies…

“Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.”

I mean, that was pre-Vatican II folks. That’s 1956. It’s quite clear. Nothing is shameful if there is mutual agreement and the act is completed properly.

I don’t know how much more definitive it could be.

 

[thewanderer]

Those who demand explicit Church teaching condemning such vile practices are approaching this whole issue from** very legalistic standpoint** and need to read and mark what St. Paul, for example, says about impurity and uncleaness as regards sexual morality. This I have referenced in a previous post today. Purity necessarily involves the control and direction of sexual powers and impulses in accordance with the natural law and purpose of God. It is, dear friend, manifiestly incongruous for those who profess Christ’s holy religion to condone or indulge in filthy and deviant sexual practices. Moreover, that they occur within the context of the marriage bed, is wholly immaterial.

To be honest, I am seriously offended by this. I have thought about this question honestly and sincerely and I am led to the opposite conclusion as you. If I am wrong about this I would certainly like to know so that I can change my reasoning about it. Beccause of this I would like you to actually argue for your position by finding official teaching on this matter, or at the very least a teaching that is as widespread as that brought up by ahs. This is not a matter of being legalistic, but of someone who honestly wants to have their conscience correctly formed and so is interested in discovering the reasons why people disagree with them. It is extremely offensive that you, (and Mickey who agreed with you) claim otherwise.

 

[The_Bucket]

thewanderer, here’s a protip. If you want your conscience to be well-formed, don’t take advice about doctrine from random people on the Internet. And that includes me. Talk to your spiritual adviser or pastor. Or read the words of previous popes on the matter. Read Theology of the Body, not just the writings of West or others who have boiled it down.

Don’t get in the weeds about what various theologians have said. Don’t get bogged down by people trying to debate what is or is not immoral on the grounds of “natural law” even if the Church is silent. Read the plain words of JPII and Pius XII. They’re not terribly difficult to understand. Well, TOTB is tough to understand, but speeches and encyclicals on the matter are not.

 

[ValPal]

The Church has taken a position that sodomy is a sin. The onus is on you.

Yes, but your definition of sodomy is an all-encompassing definition that includes and makes no differentiation off: sex, stimulation, married, unmarried, etc. The Church does not take this position. You have to take this position, though, because without it you have no argument.

The priest represents the bishop who represents Christ.

Ask your confessor about this issue…or ask your bishop.

Asked the question properly to my confessor…in great detail. I received a proper answer. Glory be to God!

The problem with issues like this is there is no official Church position, and everyone has their own opinions. Other priests have entirely different positions, readily found by doing a simple google search. In just a few minutes, I found positions contrary to yours by priests from etwn, seminaries, etc.

Furthermore, when it comes to discussions between two parties, such as penitent and confessor, we do not know exactly what was stated. Information often gets left out that is pertinent to the discussion.

 

[fpt]

I was under the impression that we disagreed on “perfect” vs. “imperfect” sodomy…where Jone provides the definition of sodomy and states that couples using forplay in the rectal manner, then completing the act naturally, are not guilty of sodomy. Perhaps we do agree here?

For responding about that, I need time. I have to search in my books and in my own writings and to translate very carefully, in order to keep the subtility of my thought: the balance, the moderation.

See you next time, with my complete answer.

 

[ahs]

thewanderer, here’s a protip. If you want your conscience to be well-formed, don’t take advice about doctrine from random people on the Internet. And that includes me. Talk to your spiritual adviser or pastor. Or read the words of previous popes on the matter. Read Theology of the Body, not just the writings of West or others who have boiled it down.

Don’t get in the weeds about what various theologians have said. Don’t get bogged down by people trying to debate what is or is not immoral on the grounds of “natural law” even if the Church is silent. Read the plain words of JPII and Pius XII. They’re not terribly difficult to understand. Well, TOTB is tough to understand, but speeches and encyclicals on the matter are not.

Most excellent advice!! And I’ll second TOB being a tough read…but it is SOOOOO wonderfully deep that it’s hard to put down. My wife and I take 1 Wednesday Audience per night…and not every night either…to digest it all. And the Introduction in the new edition sheds immennse light on JPII’s philosophy.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer, here’s a protip. If you want your conscience to be well-formed, don’t take advice about doctrine from random people on the Internet. And that includes me. Talk to your spiritual adviser or pastor. Or read the words of previous popes on the matter. Read Theology of the Body, not just the writings of West or others who have boiled it down.

Don’t get in the weeds about what various theologians have said. Don’t get bogged down by people trying to debate what is or is not immoral on the grounds of “natural law” even if the Church is silent. Read the plain words of JPII and Pius XII. They’re not terribly difficult to understand. Well, TOTB is tough to understand, but speeches and encyclicals on the matter are not.

Don’t worry, I have my opinion and am currently convinced of it. My point is to say that the reason I aminterested in this conversation is not out of some legalistic interest, but rather a desire to get at the truth of the matter. I am pretty convinced that Mickey and Portrait have absolutely nothing to back up their position, but if they actually did I would want to see it so that I could factor it into my own understanding of Church doctrine. The fact that they claim that this sincere desire for truth is just some legalistic mindset is extremely offensive and I think it is important for them to realize this. Also, if they are convinced they are right and so want to help others see what they see as the truth then they ought to be going out of their way to help answer other people’s questions, instead they refuse to address the questions people present them with or the points others make against their position and continue to repeat soething which was never in question, that sodomy is a sin.

Thanks for the concern, but don’t worry, I am not someone who will be convinced by some random person on the internet asserting that they are correct over and over again without giving any evidence for their position and refusing to address the evidence against their position.

**ETA: **And if you add to their insults the fact that they refuse to answer any of your posts… well, it is more than a little frustrating.

 

[Mickey]

Mr. West’s books have been approved by the Church,

Catholics should read his “interpretations” with a grain of salt.

Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the “tremendous dangers” of concupiscence.

Also cautious of West’s remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary Shivanandan and Fr. José Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.
The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete “what the sexual revolution began.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/

In Chapter Five of his book “Good News About Sex & Marriage”, West says:

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.”

That is a false teaching.

In his revised edition, after talking about the uncleanliness of the act…West states:

“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… 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.”

He still has not corrected his error. I would stay very far from West’s teachings.

Saint Paul tells us that the Law of God is written on our hearts.

 

[Mickey]

I am pretty convinced that Mickey and Portrait have absolutely nothing to back up their position

I feel it would be extremely beneficial for everyone to approach their confessor with this issue.

 

[ValPal]

However, as regards fellatio/cunnilingus these are manifestly not procreative and are therefore aberrant and unclean acts of depravity and should accordingly be avoided by the faithful. That they occur within the marriage bed, dear friend, is wholly irrelevant since that does not render them any less deviant or intrinsically disordered. An unnatural and deviant action cannot be rationalized upon the basis that is a prelude to natural licit coitus. That is not consistent with the thinking that one normally associated with an authentic Catholic mind.

I’m a reasonable person, and can actually see that legitimate arguments can be made against certain acts. However, oral or other types of stimulation to the woman would most definitely not be included amongst them. As noted earlier, these acts can, and in many case most definitely do, help the woman to become pregnant (I’ll avoid the graphic details, but any married person knows what they are). If there is anything the Church hammers home about marriage, it is the unitive and procreative nature of sex. The Church will not, and can not because She cannot err on a matter of morals, create doctrine that interferes with the procreative nature on sex in a natural, God-given way.

 

[thewanderer]

Catholics should read his “interpretations” with a grain of salt.

Renowned Catholic thinker Dr. Alice von Hildebrand has criticized Theology of the Body speaker Christopher West, saying his approach has become too self-assured. She criticized his presentations as irreverent and insensitive to the “tremendous dangers” of concupiscence.

Also cautious of West’s remarks on his recent interview with ABC television were Mary Shivanandan and Fr. José Granados, both Catholic authors and theologians.
The news segment showed him calling for Catholics to complete “what the sexual revolution began.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/

In Chapter Five of his book “Good News About Sex & Marriage”, West says:

“There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.”

That is a false teaching.

In his revised edition, after talking about the uncleanliness of the act…West states:

“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… 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.”

He still has not corrected his error. I would stay very far from West’s teachings.

Saint Paul tells us that the Law of God is written on our hearts.

So ther are some Catholics who agree with him and some who don’t. I don’t see how this matters as disagreement among Catholics does not settle an issue. More is needed than just disagreement. Will you please address the Thoelogian Jones from the 20’s that ahs brought up who explicitly says that your definition of sodomy is not the one used by the Church?

 

[ValPal]

I feel it would be extremely beneficial for everyone to approach their confessor with this issue.

I already read the guide for confessors, so there is no need to attempt to find a confessor that disagrees with that guide.

 

[ahs]

For responding about that, I need time. I have to search in my books and in my own writings and to translate very carefully, in order to keep the subtility of my thought: the balance, the moderation.

See you next time, with my complete answer.

Okay. I look forward to learning with you and I appreciate your indepth knowledge on the subject.

 

[thewanderer]

I feel it would be extremely beneficial for everyone to approach their confessor with this issue.

Which I have nothing against doing, however, since it is possible for a single priest to be wrong, even if he were to agree with your position, which I highly doubt, I know for a fact that I would still not be convinced because of everything I have learned about in studying the faith, and especially since it was so widely taught in the past, before the sexual revolution or the issues that came with VII, that such things are totally fine. I am not going to accept the opinion of one priest over what seems to be the opinion of the Catholic Church. Which is why I ask for an actual argument or document or even a prominant theologian of the Church who holds your definition of sodomy to be that used by the Church. Even sinlge priests can err, we must be careful to side with what the Church actually teaches. (By the way, this is exactly the same as I would treat advice from a priest that it is fine to use contraceptives because of some difficult situation in marriage, everything I have read or seen of Church teaching tells me the exact opposite, so I will accept that over the opinion of a single priest, even if he is my confessor)

 

[Mickey]

Furthermore, when it comes to discussions between two parties, such as penitent and confessor, we do not know exactly what was stated. Information often gets left out that is pertinent to the discussion.

I was told point blank that oral and anal sex is sodomy. I was also told that oral and anal stimulation, when done as foreplay as a precurser to the unitive marital embrace…is also sodomy.

I am obedient to my spiritual father/confessor…and my conscience.

I highly recommend that you speak to your confessor.

 

[thewanderer]

I was told point blank that oral and anal sex is sodomy. I was also told that oral and anal stimulation, when when done as foreplay as a precurser to the unitive marital embrace…is also sodomy.

I am obedient to my spiritual father/confessor…and my conscience.

I highly recommend that you speak to your confessor.

Did you specifically make a distinction between sex and stimulation as others asked you to?

 

[Mickey]

Which I have nothing against doing, however, since it is possible for a single priest to be wrong,

If I thought that my confessor could be “wrong” when advising me during the sacrament of Holy Confession…when the priest is speaking as Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit…then I’d be in dire straits!

 

[Mickey]

Did you specifically make a distinction between sex and stimulation as others asked you to?

Absolutely. Read my post again.

 

[thewanderer]

Absolutely. Read my post again.

Sorry, for some reason I missed that.

 

[thewanderer]

If I thought that my confessor could be “wrong” when advising me during the sacrament of Holy Confession…when the priest is speaking as Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit…then I’d be in dire straits!

So I’m just curious, do you think that all those whose priests have counselled them in cofession to use contraceptives should just go ahead and do it?