martial sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I fail to see how he is contradicting himself at all.
He is saying that it is sodomy even if semination does not take place, eh? This would include anal penetration amongst married couples…would it not?

Nevertheless, I sure wouldn’t hang my hat on the “theology” of one man from the 1920’s.

What do the Holy Fathers of the Church have to say about sexual relations within the marital bond.
 
now do the same with “procreative” and explain to me how sterile people have procreative sex, as the church has stated they do.

Secular definitions are not a substitute church definitions (direct or implied).
red herring!!!

When did I ever come at anyone about “procreative” sex between sterile people? When? Where does that come from?

“Secular definitions are not a substitute church definitions (direct or implied)” You’re kidding, right? The secular definition of pedophilia and it’s consequences is clear, and the church has gotten in plenty of trouble for ignoring the secular definition in favor of their own definition of what consequeces must be brought to bear against offending clergy.
 
Nevertheless, I sure wouldn’t hang my hat on the “theology” of one man from the 1920’s.
But you seem to have no hesitation relying on relying on the theology of a person from 2000 years ago. 😉

Seriously, that “theology” from the 1920s is still in active use today, so it can’t just be summarily discounted.
 
Now do the same with “procreative” and explain to me how sterile people have procreative sex, as the Church has stated they do.
And I’m *not *your secretary! :mad:

Who are the real trolls around here.
 
And I’m *not *your secretary! :mad:
You don’t have to…I already researched ad naseum, so I know the answer. I just like people to do their own research so that they understand how the Church interprets things.

Gotta go…the wife’s arriving home in a few and a passionate kiss in order 😉
 
He is saying that it is sodomy even if semination does not take place, eh? This would include anal penetration amongst married couples…would it not?

Nevertheless, I sure wouldn’t hang my hat on the “theology” of one man from the 1920’s.

What do the Holy Fathers of the Church have to say about sexual relations within the marital bond.
You didn’t read his definition of sodomy very carefully now did you? Here it is again
“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)
Because of the or he can refer to some acts of sodomy as occuring without semination, namely, those between people of the same sex. That does not mean that he has to claim that all acts involving the mouth are sodomy, but rather that those between persons of the same sex are still sodomy, whether or not they end in ejaculation.
 
Because of the or he can refer to some acts of sodomy as occuring without semination, namely, those between people of the same sex. That does not mean that he has to claim that all acts involving the mouth are sodomy, but rather that those between persons of the same sex are still sodomy, whether or not they end in ejaculation.
And you did not read 230 very well. Needless to say, I do not subscribe to his errors in this area of his theology.

What do the Holy Fathers say?
 
But you seem to have no hesitation relying on relying on the theology of a person from 2000 years ago.
And you can bet your bottom dollar that our Lord and Saviour would not condone these unnatural acts of sodomy within marriage that so many attempt to defend today.😦
 
What do the Holy Fathers say?
I’ll answer for you. They were very strict…even regarding normal relations between husband and wife. There is no way that they would subscribe to some of the odd theological sodomitical abominations that have been set forth from the likes of Jone and West. 🤷
 
Can you show where the Church says that anal penetration and/or genatalia-to-mouth stimulation is perfectly acceptable?
Now you clearly are just trolling because I’ve repeatedly stated that the Church is silent on the matter. I have posted quotations from Pope Pius XII, I have posted quotations from several well-regarded priests from EWTN.com. Christopher West’s books, whether you like them or not, carry the imprimatur and nihil obstat. Therefore, the Church has no objection to its contents.

The reality is that the Church has no objection to both people engaging in such acts and people not engaging in such acts. She also has no problem with people who say “I would never do that, period and full stop.” But where there is a problem is when people project their personal proclivities onto others and the Church. We get it. You don’t like it. That’s fine. You don’t have to like it and you can think it’s icky and weird and all kinds of stuff. But you do not have the right to take those feelings and make them into doctrine anymore than I can take my feelings that rapists should be burned at the stake in public and turn THAT into Church doctrine.

I personally feel, in my gut, that rapists and murderers should have fair trials and then swiftly be put to death if found guilty. The Church teaches that they are just as much children of God as I am. Guess which is right? It’s the Church, not my emotions. I must conform my conscience to her teachings regardless of what my gut reaction is. So must you.
 
I’ll answer for you. They were very strict…even regarding normal relations between husband and wife. There is no way that they would subscribe to some of the odd theological sodomitical abominations that have been set forth from the likes of Jone and West. 🤷
The ancient fathers of the Church were also at odds over the nature of the Trinity, whether one had to be circumcised first to be a Christian and struggled to fight Gnosticism given that so many individuals seen as holy in the first centuries AD lived violently ascetic lives. Suffice to say that they were not perfect.

Only the doctrine is perfect. And what you’re preaching ain’t doctrine.
 
I have been asked to counsel over a hundred married couples about oral sex as foreplay. After some time of discernment, not one has maintained that oral sex was a true expression of love. The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage.
Pray about this: “A man will reap only what he sows. If he sows in the field of the flesh, he will reap a harvest of corruption; but if his seed-ground is the Spirit, he will reap everlasting life” (Gal 6:7-8).

Nihil obstat: Rev. Robert J. Buschmiller, February 1, 1996
Imprimatur*:* † Most Rev. Carl K. Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, February 5, 1996
 
Mickey:
Nevertheless, I sure wouldn’t hang my hat on the “theology” of one man from the 1920’s…I do not subscribe to his errors in this area of his theology…
Well, the Church certainly did. Are you wiser than the Church? Are you more learned in moral theology than Jone, or than those Bishops who approved his work for the education of our Priests?

And no, he does not contradict himself. He does however contradict your view. His view is accepted by the Church and this has been demonstrated. You view has been supported by nothing except your own opinion and a secular definition.

How do you justify calling his theology “his errors” when the Church approved them for use, in the education of Priests on moral theology? Are you asserting the Church is wrong?
…the Church sides with the Fathers.
You have that backwards. The Fathers sided with the Church. The Church came first.
I have been asked to counsel over a hundred married couples about oral sex as foreplay. After some time of discernment, not one has maintained that oral sex was a true expression of love. The motivation behind oral sex is often lust. The spouse is not the focus of the sexual foreplay; rather, sexual stimulation is the focus. It could almost be said that one spouse is having sex with sex rather than with the other spouse. This focus on sex rather than on the spouse is a poison to love and marriage.
Pray about this: “A man will reap only what he sows. If he sows in the field of the flesh, he will reap a harvest of corruption; but if his seed-ground is the Spirit, he will reap everlasting life” (Gal 6:7-8).
Nihil obstat: Rev. Robert J. Buschmiller, February 1, 1996
Imprimatur: † Most Rev. Carl K. Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, February 5, 1996
Wonderful quote! Yet, this does not at all support your assertion that oral stimulation is sodomy.

So, here we are several pages of posts later, and we still see the following:

-Ahs has provided an authentic and approved Catholic definition of sodomy to support his position.

-Mickey, Nom the Wise, Portrait have provided ZERO Catholic source to support their definition of sodomy.
 
Well, the Church certainly did.
The Church is not bound by this man’s theology. The seminarians can take it or leave. However…the Holy Fathers are not taken with such a grain of salt.
And no, he does not contradict himself.
I think he does.
How do you justify calling his theology “his errors”
Becuase it is not supported patristically or Scripturally…that is your first clue. But hey, if your whole argument hinges on this man’s theology…so be it.
The Fathers sided with the Church.
Exactly! Now you are understanding.
 
Amen!
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.
Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings.

A hearty Amen to the above remarks, my dear chap.

Certainly the Catholic Church declares universally valid teachings, not admitting any exceptions, but she also expects the faithful to use some jolly good old fashioned sanctified common sense as regards their decision making upon matters upon which she has chosen, for whatever reason, to remain silent. The present topic is a case in point and we must therefore use our prudential judgement to aid us in arriving at the truth on this matter. However, if our conscience is radically defective then our decisions will necessarily be wide of the mark, for how could it be otherwise. There is, dear friend, nothing uncharitable in making such a comment, it is simply stating an obvious and undeniable fact, especially given the Laodicean times in which our lot is now cast. Worldly conformity is an immense problem, not only within Catholicism, but also within the other mainline Christian churches as well. Christians of all people ought to refuse to descend to the level of those whose minds are blinded by the god of this world and who’s outlook is consequently circumscribed by that which is transient, but this is not what is happening in modern Christendom, unfortunately. However. that is another topic for another day.

Since the permissive revolution of the Sixties we have witnessed the moral deterioration of Western society and, sadly, many contemporary Catholics have not remained impervious to the wide-spread moral decay that has engulfed us. Alas, dear friend, multitudes have embraced the spirit of the age to such an extent that they are hardly distinguishable from their pagan neighbours. There is this half-hearted ‘Catholicism Lite’ approach to relgion, which allows men to rationalize activities which our forefathers would have recoiled in disgust from, such as manual and oral stimulation of the genetalia by spouses. Unfortunately, there are those who will take refuge in the fact that Holy Mother Church has not declared her mind explicitly on certain matters pertaining to morality; their slogan is, dublis libertas (where doubt exists freedom should be granted), which sounds jolly plausible but is in fact very flawed reasoning because it completely disregards the role of a well-formed conscience in correctly discerning what is morally permissible and acceptable. The result is a relativisic mindset where an everybody is right and nobody is wrong mentality prevails, especially upon matters where the Church has not issued some official magisterial pronouncement. This is a very sad state of affairs and hardly good for the Church’s credibility in the eyes of the watching world.

God bless and goodbye to you, dear friend, and all other contributors to this current thread. Have a very pleasant day.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:
 
I find it fascinating that so many Catholic attempt to support sodomy within the confines of the marital embrace. We have seen for almost two thousand years that no such teaching exsists. On the contrary, we have quotes from the fathers which are very strict. They would never have supported such a philosophy. And yet so many people are so quick to cling to one man’s (Jone) revisionist theology from the 1920’s!

We see quotes such as:

We Christians marry only to produce children" - Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) .

or

“If a man marries in order to have children, he ought not to have a sexual desire for his wife. He ought to produce children by a reverent, disciplined act of will.” - Clement of Alexandria

and

In Eden, it would have been possible to beget offspring without foul lust. The sexual organs would have been stimulated into necessary activity by will-power alone, just as the will controls other organs. Then, without being goaded on by the allurement of passion, the husband could have relaxed upon his wife’s breasts with complete peace of mind and bodily tranquility, that part of his body not activated by tumultuous passion, but brought into service by the deliberate use of power when the need arose, the seed dispatched into the womb with no loss of his wife’s virginity. So, the two sexes could have come together for impregnation and conception by an act of will, rather than by lustful cravings" - Saint Augustine, 354 – 430 (City of God, Book 14, Chapter 26).

or perhaps

“Do you imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children? He who is too ardent a lover of his own wife is an adulterer.” (St Jerome)

Can you imagine the Holy Father’s horror if they would have read the revisionist theology of Jone, which seems to condone anal penetration (sodomy) within the confines of marriage?!? I am certain that he would have been deposed! :eek:

Lord have mercy!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top