martial sex

[thewanderer]

Micky, these quotes just prove my earlier point that argument from authority is the weaakest and that it is important to take what any individual person has to say with a grain of salt, no matter how holy they are. Some of these quotes are explicitly contradictory to official Church teaching and so are not to be taken as true.

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

This implies that marriage has only one end, procreation, which explicitly contradicts the Church’s official teaching of the dual end in marriage

from the CCC:

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life,** is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses** and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P50.HTM

“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

again, from the CCC:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

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).

First, please note that even here he is admitting that the sexual organs will be stimulated, thus assuring us that pleasure is an intrinsic part of this act.

Next, keep in mind that St. Augustine lived a life of very messed up sexuality. I have been assured by others on this website that when one has lived a life of lust it is very hard if not impossible to ever get to a stage of removing this completely from your sexual activities, or even your thoughts relating to sexual activities. It is important to realize that St Augustine’s view of sexuality is tinted by his own personal experience where he was not able to seperate healthy loving sexual activity from being caught up in a lustful passion. This means that his teachings on this subject are to be understood in light of this.

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)

Again, see my above quote. I could also give you this quote from the CCC

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

I’m sure I could find more references to this if I took the time to. Suffice it to say, there are many issues with these quotes.

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!

Lord have mercy!

As noted, there are serious problems with the above statements when taken at face value.

 

[thewanderer]

Catholics (lay or otherwise) expressing opinions like this really promote the idea that the Church thinks people (especially women) should not enjoy sex.

That sex is ONLY for procreation.

I know!! Which is completely contradictory to what the Church actually teaches, which is very frustrating. It turns many people away from the Church because of the misinformation they are given about this.

To be honest, I was blissfully ignorant of the fact that Catholics with such opinions even existed until I joined CAF, sure, I had heard that many people thought Catholics had an unhealthy view of sexuality, but I never dreamed it was because Catholics themselves were perpetuating these myths. sigh, I guess I should have realized that human nature to fall into ignorance and false reasoning would of coursse find its way here too. It certainly has been an eye opener.

 

[MarkInOregon]

*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?

That’s what I said. It’s basic. No one refutes this except ahs.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/552329/sodomy
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sodomy

These definitiions all seem to imply a completed act of intercourse/copulation – do they not? Or do you all define sex as any sexual activity? Is kissing sex by your definition? It seems that those engaged in this discussion are not talking about the same thing or are talking over each other. When you say intercourse–I envision a completed act–am I alone in that?
Can an agreement be reached on what these terms mean?

Peace,
Mark

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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!

Lord have mercy!

Wait a second. Surely you do not believe that these quotations accurately reflect Church teaching?

Please tell me you’re kidding. There is no way that the current or former Pope would have said things like this.

 

[ValPal]

red herring!!!

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

You didn’t mention it. I brought it up because it is a blatantly obvious example of a word that has two a different meaning depending on whether you referring to it in a Catholic sense or a secular sense.

“Secular definitions are not a substitute church definitions (direct or implied)” You’re kidding, right?

No I’m not; see my prior paragraph. Secular definitions and Catholic definitions (or implied understandings) are not the same. I can provide as many examples as you like. Another example: In the secular world the fertilized egg expelled prior to implantation is not considered an abortion. Try substituting that definition with the Church definition.

 

[ValPal]

I find it fascinating that so many Catholic attempt to support sodomy within the confines of the marital embrace.

Actually, you find it fascinating that so many Catholics won’t accept your definition of sodomy. Without your definition, the above statement is nonsensical. Sodomy has never been used in the context of marital embrace; i.e., leading to a unitive and procreative act, and you don’t have a single shred of Biblical evidence to prove otherwise. You only have your own opinion and select individuals that support your opinion.

Also note that in the Catechism, there is a section called “Offenses Against Chastity.” Sodomy, which has existed from the early days of OT history, is not mentioned. Are we to believe that the Church simply missed this, ESPECIALLY since the following section discusses homosexuality?

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

You didn’t mention it. I brought it up because it is a blatantly obvious example of a word that has two a different meaning depending on whether you referring to it in a Catholic sense or a secular sense.

No I’m not; see my prior paragraph. Secular definitions and Catholic definitions (or implied understandings) are not the same. I can provide as many examples as you like. Another example: In the secular world the fertilized egg expelled prior to implantation is not considered an abortion. Try substituting that definition with the Church definition.

I don’t care. I just don’t care anymore. There has been great resistance from several folks to understand what I’m talking about, and I know that I’m making sense. You’re all driving me crazy. Red herrings and hair splitting. That’s all that’s going on here. I’ve been making a point for mere common sense. Common f***ing sense.

I don’t get what you’re trying to lead me to. You’re certainly not interested in hearing what I actually have to say. All of you. You’re nuts. You’re all trying waaaay too hard to be clever at the expense of trying to come to an understanding. Maybe I’m an idiot. Who knows? I just don’t care anymore.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I *hate *these threads. They are so undignified. I’m with the first posters. To paraphrase a popular saying about Las Vegas **“What happens in [the bedroom] stays in [the bedroom].”

**Please don’t chase me with the theological arguments. Please don’t. I know what they are. I was married for 10 years (it is rapidy coming to an end) and I did what was required of me, and also what was *hinted *that was required of me .

We were “open to life” using that whole menstrual chart deal rather than ever using contraception, we reproduced once, and yes, along the way some things happened that the Magisterium might not have been overjoyed to hear about. Luckily there is nothing in scripture or canon law that says they must ever hear about it. (Fear not; my inner scrupe is whipping me as we speak.)

That being said, **if I *ever ***marry again, and if my new wife asks me to perform an act that I do not find humiliating or beyond my skill or stamina, then I will most likely acquiesce without dashing off a letter to the Vatican asking for their blessing.

So long as I and any spouse I may find in the future pray faithfully and remain in union with the church, we are allowed to rule our own destiny and exercise a responsible conscience.

I will not end this thread by attacking anyone, and it is doubtful that I will return here if attacked (that all depends, of course), but really at the end of the day, we do not have the clergy coming into our houses anymore to check our marital sheets for blood stains. It’s creepy. I know my theology and everyone just has to trust that. You have to, because if I’m making whoopy, you’re *not *allowed in my house!

This was the very first post I wrote in this thread. I’m sticking by this. I’m out. I’m all the way out of this ******* thread. Out, out, out!

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

These definitiions all seem to imply a completed act of intercourse/copulation – do they not?

I don’t think so. I think the slightest penetration constitutes the act. For example, if the penetration was unwanted, it would be considered **a rape **in the US judicial system, even the *slightest *penetration. But of course that’s not a Church defintion, so your guess is as good as mine.

Or do you all define sex as any sexual activity?

I’ve heard teenagers try to rationalize that they’ve never had sex, but they give oral sex to every date they have. Apparently, at 45 years old, I’m too far out of the loop to be able to tell.

Is kissing sex by your definition?

I was going to blast you for this, but I now believe it is a fair question. My answer is no. I feel confident about that.

It seems that those engaged in this discussion are not talking about the same thing or are talking over each other.

Ohhhhhh yes. Oh yes. That’s *exactly *what’s going on. Red herring jugglers the lot of us.

When you say intercourse–I envision a completed act–am I alone in that?

Probably. Who can tell?

Can an agreement be reached on what these terms mean?

My magic eight ball says: “Better not tell you now…”

 

[ValPal]

You’re all driving me crazy.

Nobody drives you crazy…you and only you are responsible for driving yourself crazy.

hair splitting.

The reason I split hairs is because the Church splits hairs. Since the Church set that stage, and I’m discussing things in the context in terms of the Church, I use the Church’s parameters for discussion.

I don’t get what you’re trying to lead me to.

I’m not leading you anywhere; nobody can. If you do not wish to see others POV, then you never understand what others are discussing, including the Church.

You’re certainly not interested in hearing what I actually have to say.

Actually we’ve all heard what you’ve said. What you probably mean is that we won’t agree you’re correct. You thought process is not framed in the same manner the Church frames such discussions, hence the reason you come to a different conclusion.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

**See post #285. **
Good bye and God bless. Really, we’re all dizzy on this thread and it needs to be stopped. I’ve forgotten what anyone’s point actually is. And the thing is, I’m a professional writer. I’ve taught argumentation on the college level. If I’m getting confused, it’s y’all’s problem.

No harm, no foul. You’re all my brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter how dizzy we are.

Peace, Nom the Wise. :banghead:

 

[ValPal]

For example, if the penetration was unwanted, it would be considered **a rape **in the US judicial system, even the *slightest *penetration. But of course that’s not a Church defintion, so your guess is as good as mine.

I hate to inform you that these definitions, as quoted by some anonymous person in this thread, are interchangeable:

“Secular definitions are not a substitute church definitions (direct or implied)” You’re kidding, right?

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I hate to inform you that these definitions, as quoted by some anonymous person in this thread, are interchangeable:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Peace and good things,

Sincerely, Nom the Wise

 

[ValPal]

And the thing is, I’m a professional writer. I’ve taught argumentation on the college level.

Drop the drum-beating on the qualifications…you’re going to lose on that one.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Drop the drum-beating on the qualifications…you’re going to lose on that one.

I never said I was *famous *writer. I’m not rich. I’m not asked to lead seminars. I don’t have a Ph.D (I have an MFAW). ValPal, why are you taunting me so? I’m trying ever so hard to bow out of this thread gracefully and with Christian charity. If you can wrap your curriculum vitae around the foot of the Washington Monument that’s your affair, but I am what I am and that’s all that I am. (Popeye). This doesn’t change the fact that this thread has turned my delicate psyche into a churning abattoir of failed attempts at communication.

Unless you can offer me a job, I bid you good day. :tiphat:

 

[fpt]

In the marriage, each one have rights on the body of the other. Rights on the body for making one flesh, in human fashion with sexual cooperation.

In the context of marital act:

Husband has the moral right to touch and to stimulate all the body of wife and even the exterior intimate parts.
Wife has the moral right to touch and to stimulate all the body of husband and even the exterior intimate parts.
The mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies in the human fashion.

 

[fpt]

If you do not want to be touched by a woman , or if you do not want to touch a woman, the marriage is not for you. If you do not want to be touched by a man , or if you do not want to touch a man, the marriage is not for you. Because the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract. The right on the body, the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies for making one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation.

The fact of refusing to be stimulated by his spouse can be morally wrong. The fact of refusing to stimulate his spouse can be morally wrong.

The question is the sexual cooperation in human fashion?? The question is, what is the stimulation in the human fashion, in the context of marital act?

 

[fpt]

Do you think really that in the context of marital act, it is morally wrong, by nature, to stimulate (oral or manual) the intimate exterior parts of the other for giving sexual pleasures and for preparing the carnal junction???

Are you sure to be human beings? Are you crazy? Are you moralist? Are you puritanist? Are you sedevacantist? Are you angels? Are you jansenist? Are you victorianist? Are you selfish? Are you apable to understand the nature of sex?

Your acception of the defintion of masturbation is wrong, illogic, not catholic, not natural.

Your acception of the defintion ofsodomy is wrong, illogic, not catholic, not natural.

Oral sex (wrong) is not oral stimulation (morally fair, good). It is different.

 

[ahs]

Allow me to bring it back to the forefront. We are dicussing whether, as you and others have asserted, oral stimulation of the genitals is “sodomy”. I have taken it a step further and said that even anal stimulation leading to natural intercourse is ont sodomy. So far, I have provided an authentic and official Catholic definition of sodomy that backs up the position of those who do not beleive suich acts are sodomy. You and others who believe such acts are sodomy have offered ZERO Catholic sources to support you position…only opinions and a secular definition. (This is where ValPal brought up the fact that we can’t rely always on secualr definitions and you called it a red herring.)

The poster fpt has asked some excellent questions that deserve careful consideration. I would suggest that if you are tired of arguing with me or ValPal or TheWanderer, or VertiasLuxMea, then you should focus on fpt’s questions.

And the thing is, I’m a professional writer. I’ve taught argumentation on the college level. If I’m getting confused, it’s y’all’s problem. No harm, no foul. You’re all my brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter how dizzy we are.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t care. I just don’t care anymore. There has been great resistance from several folks to understand what I’m talking about, and I know that I’m making sense. You’re all driving me crazy. Red herrings and hair splitting. That’s all that’s going on here. I’ve been making a point for mere common sense. Common f***ing sense.

I don’t get what you’re trying to lead me to. You’re certainly not interested in hearing what I actually have to say. All of you. You’re nuts. You’re all trying waaaay too hard to be clever at the expense of trying to come to an understanding. Maybe I’m an idiot. Who knows? I just don’t care anymore.

I am not trying to be particularly clever.

I’m just trying to illustrate what implementing positions like Portrait’s would mean in real life.