martial sex

[thewanderer]

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.

I am curious… what does make it… palatable?

I think this is the heart of the issue. How do people, whether ordained or lay, determine whether a particular opinion is in line with Church teaching?

 

[thewanderer]

Uh…because this is a forum for differing views?
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.

I am sorry if I misjudged you. I am not trying to be rude and I hope you can realize this.

Also I am sorry for talking of ceasing this discussion, I should really know better by now, I love intellectual discussion far to much to opt out of one just because I took what someone said in an offensive way. I’ve got a much thicker skin than that and far too much of a love of figuring out the truth with others through intellectual discussion. I was just frustrated that you still seemed to be ignoring the real centre of this whole debate by assuming that anyoone who does not hold your definition of sodomy is someone that is not even worth talking to. Seeing as that is what this whole discussion is centered around it seemed odd that you would be so dismissive of someone who expressed this opinion while still engaging others who hold it in discussion.

 

[ValPal]

Uh…because this is a forum for differing views?

No, it is a forum for correct views, so conform or stop posting.

Resistance if futile.

 

[fpt]

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.

Classically, the catholic moral theology makes a difference between:

In these cases, two men.

The perfect and complete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the male anus, with interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil.
The perfect and incomplete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the male anus without ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil.

In these cases, wife and husband (man with woman)

The imperfect and complete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, with interior ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil.
The imperfect and incomplete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, without ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil because, per se, this part is not in link the marital act and it is objectively dirty. Here, I am not okay with Christopher West. Imperfect and incomplete sodomy is not moral, it is morally wrong.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Let’s quote CCC #2352

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

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

Dear Val Pal,

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

That manual/oral stimulation may render a woman more responsive to coitus is wholly irrelevant since that cannot rationalize sexually deviant and unnatural vice. Sorry, dear friend, but that is nothing less than an ends justifies the means line of argumentation.

On the contrary, dear friend, my position is in full accord with the Catechism inasmuch as it describes auto-eroticism as “the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive pleasure” and this it goes on to describe as “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” (para. 2352). This surely must stand on its own and apply universally, irrespective of whether or not the context is within holy wedock. Manipulation of the genitalia is an “intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, full stop, and as such should not be engaged in by those who profess godliness. It cannot suddenly cease to be “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” simply because it is occuring within a marital setting, for that is plainly illogical.

Kissing on the mouth, dear friend, is hardly identical with oral stimulation of a reproductive organ, but it is quite true that the mouth also harbours germs. Moreover, the moral sense of the faithful has always seen passionate kissing as an acceptable expression of love between spouses, it has not held this to be the case with cunnilingus and fellatio. Thus it is surely important to distinguish between things which essentially differ.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[fpt]

in the context of marital act:
Oral sex is not oral stimulation of exterior genitalia.
Manual stimulation of external genitalia is not masturbation.

 

[fpt]

Next time, I will sent to each one a private message, with the black list of immoral acts, per se. And with the white list of moral acts, per se.

 

[ValPal]

On the contrary, dear friend, my position is in full accord with the Catechism inasmuch as it describes auto-eroticism as “the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive pleasure” and this it goes on to describe as “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” (para. 2352). This surely must stand on its own and apply universally, irrespective of whether or not the context is within holy wedock. Manipulation of the genitalia is an “intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, full stop, and as such should not be engaged in by those who profess godliness. It cannot suddenly cease to be “an intrinsically and gravely disordered action” simply because it is occuring within a marital setting, for that is plainly illogical.

The problem with taking a term like “auto-eroticism” and inserting it into the discussion is that it clearly include acts (or all acts depending on the interpretation) that don’t need a partner and are outside of marriage. These types of terms/acts can’t just be plopped into a discussion about marriage and expect to get meaningful results.

To take an obviously ridiculous example, and I choose this example because nobody will argue the definition of it, it would be like saying fornication between husband and wife is a grave sin. It makes no sense, as does inserting sodomy and auto-eroticism into marriage. By definition, both those terms include sex outside of marriage so it becomes self-contradictory when inserting those terms into a discussion within marriage.

Kissing on the mouth, dear friend, is hardly identical with oral stimulation of a reproductive organ,

Not to be crude, but my wife generally avoid passionately kissing me on the lips during the day just for this very reason.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Wow has this thread degenerated.

Anal has always always always been considered sodomy. There is no, NO ambiguity about that. Anal manipulation is actually *dangerous *because of the bacteria that lives down there, and penetration almost always causes anal pathologies that require a doctor’s treatment. It’s just common sense not to do that, but if you do, *definitely *seek out your confessor and make a doctor’s appointment.

Why are you still fighting about this? All non-vaginal sex (this is where oral gets thrown on the fire with anal) has also always been considered “sodomy,” despite debate.

**The point is **that married couples go into their bedrooms and do those things that they both agree will work for them, things that niether of them find degrading and both of them find pleasurable and “unitive.” This doesn’t mean *ignoring *church teaching, but it also doesn’t mean *asking a bishop to stand over their bed *to make sure that every touch is in accordance with the Magisterium.

When I was a seminarian I remember an OT class where we were studying Ruth, and there’s that line about Ruth laying at Boaz “feet.” “Feet” in that context was classically understood as “genitals.” Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Not to be crude, but my wife generally avoid passionately kissing me on the lips during the day just for this very reason.

 

[ValPal]

All non-vaginal sex

Repeat: Sex and stimulation are not the same thing.

 

[thewanderer]

Wow has this thread degenerated.

Anal has always always always been considered sodomy. There is no, NO ambiguity about that. Anal manipulation is actually *dangerous *because of the bacteria that lives down there, and penetration almost always causes anal pathologies that require a doctor’s treatment. It’s just common sense not to do that, but if you do, *definitely *seek out your confessor and make a doctor’s appointment.

Why are you still fighting about this? All non-vaginal sex (this is where oral gets thrown on the fire with anal) has also always been considered “sodomy,” despite debate.

And this is where the debate comes in. Some people make a moral distinction between sex and stimulation, after all, there is a huge difference between the two and some don’t. I think you’re right that we should keep away from bringing in anal sex though, that will just confuse the question.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Repeat: Sex and stimulation are not the same thing.

The insertion of the erect penis into A. an anus and/or B. a mouth has classically been understood as sodomy.

Why are we splitting hairs?

 

[thewanderer]

Originally Posted by ValPal

I know, right? I’m glad somebody brought this up. How in the world is passionate kissing not a matter of arousal using ones mouth? So why in the world is such kissing allowed?

 

[ahs]

…The imperfect and incomplete sodomy that means the penetration of penis in the female anus, without ejaculation: by nature, it is immoral. Per se, an unnatural act, it is evil because, per se, this part is not in link the marital act and it is objectively dirty. Here, I am not okay with Christopher West. Imperfect and incomplete sodomy is not moral, it is morally wrong.

(I agreed with everything else…and the Church actually teaches just as you have posted those.)

Onthis particular point, however, the Church does not teach such, and Fr. Jone teaches the opposite…and it is his work that has been in place since the 1920’s, by the Church, in the seminaries.

I don’t see how it is not in link with the marital act any less than oral stimluation is. And being “dirty” is irrelevant to moral theology.

Wow has this thread degenerated.

Anal has always always always been considered sodomy. There is no, NO ambiguity about that.

And your sources are…? (And please don’t provide all the evidence against sodomy, which no none is arguing for, while negelcting the reality of “sex” vs “foreplay”.)

Anal manipulation is actually *dangerous *because of the bacteria that lives down there, and penetration almost always causes anal pathologies that require a doctor’s treatment. It’s just common sense not to do that, but if you do, *definitely *seek out your confessor and make a doctor’s appointment.

Hygiene is a factor indeterming the sinfulness of an act? Where has this ever been taught by the Church?

Why are you still fighting about this? All non-vaginal sex (this is where oral gets thrown on the fire with anal) has also always been considered “sodomy,” despite debate.

According to whom? What sources do you provide? I have provided the official Catholic definition which is directly contrary to what you are saying. (see posts 96 and 135)

When I was a seminarian I…

Do you happen to be familiar with Jone’s Moral Theology? Perhaps you can verify if this book is still used today (depending on when you were there)? My Priest (in seminary in the early 1950’s) said that Jone’s (pronouned Yo-nay) was the English text for those less learned in Latin. They called it the “pony book”…as a means of poking fun at the fella’s who needed to “easy” version (vernacular). He said that Jone was a very orthodox moral theologian…and this Priest happens to be the most orthodox that I have ever met.

 

[thewanderer]

The insertion of the erect penis into A. an anus and/or B. a mouth has classically been understood as sodomy.

Why are we splitting hairs?

Because when it comes to morality such distinctions make all the difference in the world. It is a distinction such as this which made the Church conclude that contraception is wrong but NFP is fine. Distinctions matter.

 

[Mickey]

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.

Amen!

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.

Yes. The Magisterium does not have to spell out every form of forbidden sexual behaviour like the Book of Leviticus under the Old Covenant. Prayer, conscience and mutual respect will bring the married couple to the truth on this issue.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

And your sources are…? (And please don’t provide all the evidence against sodomy, which no none is arguing for, while negelcting the reality of “sex” vs “foreplay”.)

.

You’re joking, right? You’re going to give me that high-handed “And you’re sources are?” as if I’m suggesting something clear out of the blue?

You’ve GOT to be kidding. How do you not know? How?

 

[ahs]

The insertion of the erect penis into A. an anus and/or B. a mouth has classically been understood as sodomy.

Why are we splitting hairs?

Not according to the Priest who wrote THE moral theology volume used in seminaris to teach moral theology to Priests since the 1920’s…until what date I am uncertain…past the 1960’s…and some still use his book to this day as a confessional guide.

By what authority do you suggest that the Churhc is wrong? What I mean is that, you implicitly find fault with the Church, who approved of Jone’s work to the extent that it was used for the formal education of Priests since the 1920’s. Are you more learned that Jone was? Are you more wise than the Bishops who stamped his volume wiht approval?

 

[ahs]

You’re joking, right? You’re going to give me that high-handed “And you’re sources are?” as if I’m suggesting something clear out of the blue?

You’ve GOT to be kidding. How do you not know? How?

I’m dead serious. If you make an assertion, you defend it. If you cannot, it is rejected as easliy as it is asserted. My Preist taught me that.

I have provided evidence to support my position. You have not.