martial sex

[ValPal]

By the way, Fr Jone actually contradicts himself on the issue. Section 757 is contradicted by section 230.

Also, it amazing that you absolutely defend one priest then simply toss another (much more widely known) priest right out the window. This is why to understand an issue you have to look at the big picture, not simply at on particular person or document whose position you agree with.

 

[thewanderer]

I do not know this for a fact…perhaps you do. I am aware of certain extreme situations where things like birth control pills might be affirmed because of a medical condition. But I am not here to judge the priestly counsel in Holy Confession.

Search this forum as ahs suggested and you will see it for yourself. Priests are not infallible. Yes, they have received much more thoelogical training than the rest of us, but they are not infallible, not even in confession, it is wrong to accept the advice of a single priest over the actual teachings of the Church.

I would also like to add that I am not trying to judge anyone, merely trying to show you that telling someone to ask their confessor is not always a sufficient answer to a question.

 

[Portrait]

From Portrait:

Portrait, first please explain to us what is unnatural or detestable about oral stimulation of the genitalia that is not unnatural or detestable about me kissing my wife’s hand.

Second, please explain how stimulating a sexual organ is using it contrary to its purpose. Were these organs not made to be stimulated in order that they can then perform the reproductive act. One cannot very well engage in a sex act without the organs first being stimulated, can one?

Third, please cite an official Church teaching that backs up your position. The Church is very clear and precise on its teachings about sexuality and when sex is disordered. Please cite the part that supports you assertion that foreplay is illicit…a position I believe to be heretical if you mean to say that, therefore, no couple can engage in sex without sinning. Or how is it that you believe any couple can engage in sex without touching each other in the manner which you find sinful?

Your assertions have zero support from any official Catholic source. The old saying goes (in English) “…easily asserted, easily rejected…” I have provided you with an official Catholic position (see prior post). It is your turn to do likewise.

Dear ahs,

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

Kissing your wife’s hand, dear friend, would never be construed by any reasonable man as an unnatural and disordered act, no more than kissing your child goodnight would be. However, manual or oral stimulation of the reproductive organs is both deviant and unnatural, since it is using those organs for sexual arousal in a way for which they were clearly not intended.

Forgive me, dear friend, but it is somewhat surprising that you ask me to explain how the stimulation of a reproductive organ is contrary to its purpose. Biology itself surely teaches us that the vagina is intended to accommodate the male sexual organ, thus any stimulation occurs most naturally and exclusively during carnal copulation. Manual stimulation is an abuse of the reproductive organs since they are being used in an irregular manner, hence the Church’s veto on auto-eroticism (CCC, para. 2352). The Catechism states that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, for it is using the sexual faculty in an unnatural and deviant manner and this applies equally within and without the marriage union. An abuse of the reproductive organs will never cease to be an abuse of the reproductive organs, notwithststanding that the end of such activity will result in full carnal copulation.

The repoductive organs are aroused prior to full carnal copulation, dear friend, by other means, including passionate kissing and embracing and the very closeness of the spouses to each other within the marital bed. Clearly, they will already be physically attracted to one another and the very anticipation of carnal relations will be enough to excite them sexually, without having to resort to any deviant or unclean acts.

Our Church, dear friend, is not required to officially pronounce upon every single detail relating to morality, but expects the faithful to employ their prudential judgement based upon a properly formed conscience to guide them. However, a problem arises, as I have said previously, when men have a radically defective conscience that results from conformity to the godless standards of the world. In this instance, they are very likely to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgement on a whole range of issues upon which Holy Mother Church is silent, which is precisely what is happening in contemporary Catholicism, especially, though by no means exclusively, among the youth.

Essentially, dear friend, this mindset is acutated by a desire to make our most holy religion less demanding and allowing it to co-exist with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice. Rather than asking what else can sacrificed to aid the pursuit of personal sanctity, it grudingly asks how much can one still cling on to without falling foul of official Church teaching. This is not the spirit of Catholicism, which does not legalistically insist on explicit standing Church teaching for every conceivable moral issue. An authentic Catholicism repairs to the moral sense of the faithful throughout the ages, not just in recent decades, it looks to the Christian consciousness to inform and enlighten prudential judgement and it looks to natural law reasoning, as in the topic currently under review, to decide whether or not something is morally permissible. Therefore, it does not unduly concern men that the Church has not declared her mind upon this matter of manual/oral stimulation of the reproductive organs. What I actually think speaks more loudly is that she has never in any authoritative magisterial teaching said that these unnatural and depraved acts are morally permissible within the marriage bed. This is hardly surprising, given that they are just that, unnatural and depraved acts, which should not be even once named among those that becometh saints.

Finally, dear friend, if men did entertain any lingering doubts about this manual/oral stimulation of private parts, then they need only consider for a moment that in the case of oral stimulation it is most unhygenic to place the mouth in close proximity to a region that harbours much bacteria. This per se ought to flash up the warning cones as regards the unnatural nature of such a gross act of indecency - our mouths should obviously not be in that area of the body.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mickey]

I would also like to add that I am not trying to judge anyone, merely trying to show you that telling someone to ask their confessor is not always a sufficient answer to a question.

All I am saying is…if you can’t trust your confessor…there are larger problems.

 

[Mickey]

Give it a rest. Just look up, say Webster’s definition, which is the commonly held definition. It doesn’t include genital stimulation,oral sex, etc. So if your argument is that there is only one definition, all your arguments in the context of stimulation just went right out the window.

If you think that anal penetration and oral “activities” are suddenly not considered to be sodomy…because there is no ejaculation…then I have nothing else to say to you…and I will indeed…give it a rest.

 

[Mickey]

the fact that his volume was placed in the seminaries for Priests to learn by since the 1920’s.

I know (and have known) many priests who have gone through seminary…and believe me…they are not defenders of some of the stuff that is thrust upon them.

Just because something is introduced to seminarians…does not make it palatable.

 

[Mickey]

It is not my intent to stir up controversy or denigrate priests with that information, especially since the priests were dealing with people in difficult situations (older couples with repeated miscarriages, etc.).

Yes. There are special circumstances. Sometimes the confessor will talk to his bishop first.

 

[thewanderer]

Mickey, I still want to see your references, because I like to look at all evidence for a particular matter to try to come to a conclusion which is not biased simply by my own prejudices, but I also want to point out that coming up with such references does not end this discussion. It merely brings in more information to deal with.

The fact of the matter is that where the Church has not explicitly taught something the faithful are allowed (and in fact encouraged) to use their reason to come to their own conclusions as to which of the various options are correct. So for instance in this matter, where the Church has not come out in her official capacity to say that by sodomy she means all stimulation and foreplay, the faithful are allowed to have differing opinions on this matter without sinning. St Thomas is the primary example of this, he publicly disagreed with what later became a dogmatic teaching of the Church, yet he is still a saint. The fact that there is disagreement over this issue among official, endorsed, Catholic theologians only emphasizes the fact that the faithful are allowed to disagree with you and act upon their disagreement without sinning, so long as they are honest about why they hold the opinion they do.

So, the next step in this discussion, and really the most important one, is to start addressing the fundamental principles behind these differing opinions and try to figure out what difference in principles and reasoning is leading to a difference in conclusion here. Without this step noone will ever fully convince someone who has already thought about this of their opinion. I just wanted to make sure that we all understand that this is the crux of the matter, what philosophical principles casue those on each side of this argument (not just on CAF, bu throughout the Church) to hold their different opinions.

 

[ValPal]

However, manual or oral stimulation of the reproductive organs is both deviant and unnatural, since it is using those organs for sexual arousal in a way for which they were clearly not intended.

Manual or oral stimulation often makes a woman more receptive to the sex act, in particular for setting up conditions allowing easier penetration, and also internally for the movement of sperm. The Church simply is not, and can not, prohibit such natural acts in the context of conjugal relations. A prohibition of such stimulation is a prohibition against the procreative nature of sex.

The Catechism states that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, for it is using the sexual faculty in an unnatural and deviant manner and this applies equally within and without the marriage union.

Let’s quote CCC #2352

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

Your opinion is clearly contrary to the Catechism which you cited.

Finally, dear friend, if men did entertain any lingering doubts about this manual/oral stimulation of private parts, then they need only consider for a moment that in the case of oral stimulation it is most unhygenic to place the mouth in close proximity to a region that harbours much bacteria.

To be consistent, the mouth is an area that harbors a tremendous amount of bacteria, so one should not be kissing either.

 

[Mickey]

Uncover your eyes and unplug your ears.

Please…there is no need for ad hominems.

I’ve only been here a year and have encountered several people saying that their confessor told them they could use condoms and other contraceptives to avoid pregnancy if they had a just reason.

I will try to contribute if you would like to start a thread on contraception. I do not pass judgment on priests based on anonymous posters.

It was YOU who brought up the topic of confessors speaking as Christ and so we should adhere to what they say.

Yes…and then when I did that…everyone began attacking the priests (in their zeal to defend the practice of sodomy within marriage). How very sad.

Obedience is a virtue. But if you have some type of inside information that priests are abusing the confessional…then it is time to report it to the bishop.

 

[thewanderer]

If you think that anal penetration and oral “activities” are suddenly not considered to be sodomy…because there is no ejaculation…then I have nothing else to say to you…and I will indeed…give it a rest.

If that is your attitude then why are you still posting on this thread? It has been told to tyou many times that the people who disagree with you do so precisely because they do not consider these acts to be sodomy. This is a very condescending comment and is not appreciated. If this is your attitude towards those who have legitimately differing opinions than yours then I really don’t know if I want to continue this discussion with you, it is all too likely that at some point in the disagreement, instead of listening to the legitimate points I am trying to make you will instead result to condesnetion and insults. That is not the way to cunduct an intellectual discussion.

 

[ValPal]

If you think that anal penetration and oral “activities” are suddenly not considered to be sodomy…because there is no ejaculation…then I have nothing else to say to you…and I will indeed…give it a rest.

My opinion is based on the manner in which the Church has interpreted the various aspects of sex over time. I have never seen “sodomy” used in the context of marriage and acts that lead to the marital act. I have always seen this term used in terms of unmarried people, or married people performing acts with persons not their spouse, in the context of Church teachings.

 

[thewanderer]

All I am saying is…if you can’t trust your confessor…there are larger problems.

On the contrary, I do trust my confessor, very much. I also have no doubt but that he would disagree with you and your opinion on this matter. I just don’t trust him enough to put such faith in him as to believe that he will never give me incorrect advise. Even St. Thomas got some things wrong. So if his advice directly contradicts something which I am very strongly confident is true I will take it with a grain of salt and will not do a 180 on my understanding of the issue simply because my confessor disagrees with me. I would listen to what he has to say about the issue and give it the weight it deserves based on its authority, but I will not necessarily change my opinion just because one man, even a man that I trust, disagreed with me on it.

 

[Mickey]

The fact of the matter is that where the Church has not explicitly taught something the faithful are allowed (and in fact encouraged) to use their reason to come to their own conclusions as to which of the various options are correct.

Exactly. The Church does not release step-by-step manuals on every issue known to mankind. We are called to use our conscience on matters.

So for instance in this matter, where the Church has not come out in her official capacity to say that by sodomy she means all stimulation and foreplay, the faithful are allowed to have differing opinions on this matter without sinning.

I can’t fathom that anal penetration and oral activity would **not **be considered sodomy.

St Thomas is the primary example of this, he publicly disagreed with what later became a dogmatic teaching of the Church, yet he is still a saint.

He ultimately agreed with the Immaculate Conception.

Without this step noone will ever fully convince someone who has already thought about this of their opinion.

Actually…it is a matter of conscience (and for me…obedience to my confessor). I am not trying to convince you of anything. Let your conscience be your guide.

 

[Mickey]

On the contrary, I do trust my confessor, very much. I also have no doubt but that he would disagree with you and your opinion on this matter.

Then it might be wise to ask him next confession.

I just don’t trust him enough to put such faith in him as to believe that he will never give me incorrect advise.

Really?

Even St. Thomas got some things wrong.

Really?

 

[ahs]

Kissing your wife’s hand, dear friend, would never be construed by any reasonable man as an unnatural and disordered act, no more than kissing your child goodnight would be. However, manual or oral stimulation of the reproductive organs is both deviant and unnatural, since it is using those organs for sexual arousal in a way for which they were clearly not intended.

And you have it on what authority that whether any reasonable man construes something as an unnatural and disordered act is what determines sin? And how is kissing my wife’s hand using her hand in the way in which it is intended? And how does this specifically conflict with kissing, say, her other parts?

Forgive me, dear friend, but it is somewhat surprising that you ask me to explain how the stimulation of a reproductive organ is contrary to its purpose.

You are surprised that I ask you to justify your position which is directly contrary to the moral theologian whose volume has been used since the 1920’s to teach our Priests moral theology!?

Biology itself surely teaches us that the vagina is intended to accommodate the male sexual organ, thus any stimulation occurs most naturally and exclusively during carnal copulation.

No argument there…emphasis on “most naturally”. I fail to see where this means that manual or oral stimulation is unnatural.

Manual stimulation is an abuse of the reproductive organs since they are being used in an irregular manner,

How is it irregular?

hence the Church’s veto on auto-eroticism (CCC, para. 2352). The Catechism states that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, for it is using the sexual faculty in an unnatural and deviant manner and this applies equally within and without the marriage union. An abuse of the reproductive will never cease to be an abuse of the reproductive organs, notwithststanding that the end of such activity will result in full carnal copulation.

By masturbation, the Church is speaking of manual stimulation to completion…not in regards to foreplay as preparation to natural sex. You must read the whole paragraph to gather the proper context. The Catechism states:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” **For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”**138
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

Touching and manually stimulating the genitals is not masturbation unless the goal is to derive sexual pleasure from that (within the context of the Church’s definition of “sex”). Manual stimulation is for preparing the couple to derive sexual pleasure from a natural sex act.

The repoductive organs are aroused prior to full carnal copulation, dear friend, by other means, including passionate kissing and embracing and the very closeness of the spouses to each other within the marital bed. Clearly, they will already be physically attracted to one another and the very anticipation of carnal relations will be enough to excite them sexually, without having to resort to

And you know this how? I happen to know of several couples who do not experience this fantasy of yours.

any deviant or unclean acts.

Before you proclaim something as deviant or unclean, you need to back up your assertion with actual Catholic teaching. You have yet to do this.

And by what authority do you claim that YOUR prudential judgment is the correct one that all others should adhere to? I have provided you with a renowned moral theologian from the 1920’s who disagrees with you. The Church also disagrees with you, evidenced by the fact that his volume has been used in seminaries to educate our Priests on moral theology and not one Bishop or Pope or credible theologian (one who has the stamp of Nihil Obstat and/or Imprimitur) has disagreed with him.

I do not recall any expression of any credible Catholic source saying that a lack of hygiene is an indicator for the sinfulness of an act.
In fact, I recall Christ stating that we should not be so concerned about outward cleanliness as we should inward. I happen to agree with you that oral stimulation is unhygienic…but such is not the business of moral theology.

 

[thewanderer]

Dear ahs,

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

Kissing your wife’s hand, dear friend, would never be construed by any reasonable man as an unnatural and disordered act, no more than kissing your child goodnight would be. However, manual or oral stimulation of the reproductive organs is both deviant and unnatural, since it is using those organs for sexual arousal in a way for which they were clearly not intended.

Forgive me, dear friend, but it is somewhat surprising that you ask me to explain how the stimulation of a reproductive organ is contrary to its purpose. Biology itself surely teaches us that the vagina is intended to accommodate the male sexual organ, thus any stimulation occurs most naturally and exclusively during carnal copulation. Manual stimulation is an abuse of the reproductive organs since they are being used in an irregular manner, hence the Church’s veto on auto-eroticism (CCC, para. 2352). The Catechism states that “masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, for it is using the sexual faculty in an unnatural and deviant manner and this applies equally within and without the marriage union. An abuse of the reproductive organs will never cease to be an abuse of the reproductive organs, notwithststanding that the end of such activity will result in full carnal copulation.

The repoductive organs are aroused prior to full carnal copulation, dear friend, by other means, including passionate kissing and embracing and the very closeness of the spouses to each other within the marital bed. Clearly, they will already be physically attracted to one another and the very anticipation of carnal relations will be enough to excite them sexually, without having to resort to any deviant or unclean acts.

Our Church, dear friend, is not required to officially pronounce upon every single detail relating to morality, but expects the faithful to employ their prudential judgement based upon a properly formed conscience to guide them. However, a problem arises, as I have said previously, when men have a radically defective conscience that results from conformity to the godless standards of the world. In this instance, they are very likely to make catastrophic errors of prudential judgement on a whole range of issues upon which Holy Mother Church is silent, which is precisely what is happening in contemporary Catholicism, especially, though by no means exclusively, among the youth.

Essentially, dear friend, this mindset is acutated by a desire to make our most holy religion less demanding and allowing it to co-exist with a hand in hand with the world type of religious practice. Rather than asking what else can sacrificed to aid the pursuit of personal sanctity, it grudingly asks how much can one still cling on to without falling foul of official Church teaching. This is not the spirit of Catholicism, which does not legalistically insist on explicit standing Church teaching for every conceivable moral issue. An authentic Catholicism repairs to the moral sense of the faithful throughout the ages, not just in recent decades, it looks to the Christian consciousness to inform and enlighten prudential judgement and it looks to natural law reasoning, as in the topic currently under review, to decide whether or not something is morally permissible. Therefore, it does not unduly concern men that the Church has not declared her mind upon this matter of manual/oral stimulation of the reproductive organs. What I actually think speaks more loudly is that she has never in any authoritative magisterial teaching said that these unnatural and depraved acts are morally permissible within the marriage bed. This is hardly surprising, given that they are just that, unnatural and depraved acts, which should not be even once named among those that becometh saints.

Finally, dear friend, if men did entertain any lingering doubts about this manual/oral stimulation of private parts, then they need only consider for a moment that in the case of oral stimulation it is most unhygenic to place the mouth in close proximity to a region that harbours much bacteria. This per se ought to flash up the warning cones as regards the unnatural nature of such a gross act of indecency - our mouths should obviously not be in that area of the body.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Claiming that something is known* per se *i while at the same time dismissing all those who do not see it as such as people with radically defective consciensouses is not helpful to anyone. It is rhetoric, smoke and mirrors, used to avoid getting to the heart of this issue, which is what the actual principles behind this all are.

I would also like to note, that, as I previously mentioned, on matters where the Church has not made an explicit declaration the faithful are allowed to disagree and even act on their differing opinions, without sinning so long as they are honestly doing their best to discern the truth.

 

[Mickey]

If that is your attitude then why are you still posting on this thread?

Uh…because this is a forum for differing views?

If this is your attitude towards those who have legitimately differing opinions than yours then I really don’t know if I want to continue this discussion with you, it is all too likely that at some point in the disagreement, instead of listening to the legitimate points I am trying to make you will instead result to condesnetion and insults. That is not the way to cunduct an intellectual discussion.

I am not meaning to be condescending. I am sorry if this is how you have interpreted it. Please forgive me. I will cease my discussion with you.

 

[thewanderer]

Then it might be wise to ask him next confession.
Really?
Really?

lol, yes to both! No man is infallible except the Pope, and even he is not always infallible. And since we are all human it is very, very, unlikely that any of us will ever be 100% correct about everything while still on this earth. It is wise to remember this.

As for St. Thomas, YES, he was not always correct. He publicly taught that Mary was not immaculately conceived which is now an infallible dogma of the Church. He was clearly wrong with respect to this issue.

 

[ahs]

I can’t fathom that anal penetration and oral activity would **not **be considered sodomy.

I think this is where the problem is. You are trying to define Catholic teaching based on whay YOU can fathom. But what you or I can understand or relate to is irrelevant to whether or not something is so.

I have provided an authentic Catholic definition from a real moral theologian whose work is approved by the Church, so much so, that since the 1920’s his volume has been THE moral theology instruction for Priests in the seminary. There is NOTHING in Church doctrine that contradicts his words.

By contrast, you have provided your opinions and a secular definition of sodomy and have offered ZERO Church teaching to back up your assertions.