martial sex

[thewanderer]

How interesting…no real points to be made…just attack Ron Conte. Sheesh! Way to go guys.

Its interesting that you skipped my post wherein I made no attack on Ron Conte but instead was very fair with him and his argument but told you why I still do not agree with him despite his carefully reasoned post.

 

[thewanderer]

LOL! I’m not the one attempting to justify and defend sodomy.

No one on this thread has tried to defen any action to which sodomy correctly applies. The contention has always been about which acts can be considered sodomy. This has been pointed out to you multiple times yet you continue to ignore this.

 

[Mickey]

The anus is not a sex organ. Putting something in there for a non-medical purposes (such as something of a sexual nature) does go against the natural order.

And yet…the Roman Catholic “theologian” Jone…justifies this act of sodomy within marriage…and everyone seems to agree with him…how odd.

 

[The_Bucket]

LOL! I’m not the one attempting to justify and defend sodomy.

Leaving aside Contes self imprtant delusions, would you care to explain then what IS permissible in your eyes? Keep in mind that the guy youre appealing to says that any touching outside of genital to genital is disordered. And care to explain how any of this would work in the real world where men dont get always get immediate on demand erections and women certainly do not magically become fully receptive after a hug?

Like I asked many times before, have you actually you know, had marital relations?

 

[Mickey]

Leaving aside Contes self imprtant delusions, would you care to explain then what IS permissible in your eyes?

Care to explain why you support anal penetration (sodomy) within marriage?

Like I asked many times before, have you actually you know, had marital relations?

I’m married with children.

How does it feel to be an anonymous bully on a forum? Does that make you feel good?

Now you will be reported.

 

[thewanderer]

Its interesting that you skipped my post wherein I made no attack on Ron Conte but instead was very fair with him and his argument but told you why I still do not agree with him despite his carefully reasoned post.

That is, of course, unless you have blocked me and so can’t see my earlier post. In which case it is very interesting that you ended up blocking the one person who took a step towards actually talking about Ron’s arguments and why they seem inadequate. What is even more unfortunate is that after doing so you claim that Ron’s argument is clearly correct because noone you can see has made an attempt to engage his arguments.

Either way, I won’t be bussy this weekend and so unable to respond, but if you somehow end up seeing this post Micky, I am still willing to engage in an intellectual discussion about Ron’s arguments next week if you are actually interested in a sincere discussion rather than simply pushing your opinion on others.

Have a good weekend folks. :tiphat:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How interesting…no real points to be made…just attack Ron Conte. Sheesh! Way to go guys.

I simply used Ron Conte’s stated views to illustrate his position.
In Conte’s own words:

-God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.
-Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.
-But it is not right for a young woman to take a role teaching or leading much older women, (unless those older women are mentally-disabled).
-Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
-“Wives, be obedient to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.” (Colossians 3:18)

This passage is often rejected by Christians, because they are following the ideas of their culture rather than the ideas of Christ. Women sometimes say that marriage is a “50-50 partnership,” but such is not the teaching of Christ.
-It is shameful in God’s eyes for a woman to have any such role of leadership or teaching at holy Mass and at any time in the Sanctuary.

Link to source: : catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm).

P.S. I have repeatedly asked Conte (and his fan Portrait) if women would even be educated in his* ideal* world, and have never gotten a straight answer. I thought that was worth noting.

 

[LightBound]

I brought up Ron and his site to show how far he deviates from Church teaching, so using his theological interpretations are risky, at best.

 

[LucyLight]

Care to explain why you support anal penetration (sodomy) within marriage?
I’m married with children.

How does it feel to be an anonymous bully on a forum? Does that make you feel good?

Now you will be reported.

Not everything is black and white. Just because someone doesn’t condem something does not mean that they support it. Most of the teachings of the church regarding sexuality are guidelines with a few specifics.

What I think some posters, including myself, object to is to people declaring specific, non negotiable teachings that even the church is not speaking on.

Some specific teachings about sex: has to be consensual, procreative, loving(not objectifying or harmful).

Btw, West does not support it either he just stops short of condemning it.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

I cringe at the thought of typing in here again.

• Sodomy has always been “classically” understood as anal penetration by a phallus. It is of course possible to be sodomized by an object, but there has *never *been an understanding that anal penetration of a human or animal oriface by a penis is *not *sodomy.
• The Song of Songs, as has been presented here, is often the biblical evidence used to support the mutual “oral stimulation” of the genitals between a man and woman, not necessarily the penetration of genitals *into *a non-vaginal oriface.
• Because of the pronouncement that marital sex must be 1. unitive and 2. procreative, from a purely logical standpoint, any non-vaginal *penetration *of the penis (*into *a mouth or an anus) could be sodomy, and several sources with Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs have been published and cited here. It doesn’t matter if the act is “completed” or not (no male orgasm needs to happen) in order for such an act (the non-vaginal penile penetration of a human or animal oriface) to be considered sodomy.
• MY POSITION REMAINS that a married couple, forearmed with this knowledge, must exercise good conscience when they go into their bedroom, lock the door, and tell everybody to mind their business while they do their business.

If you disagree, you’re welcome to, and God bless. The fruit of my loins is visiting for the weekend, and I’m going to go play with him. Peace

 

[Mickey]

Just because someone doesn’t condem something does not mean that they support it.

Exactly!!! Just because the Church does not formally condemn anal penetration in a marriage as sodomy…does not mean that the Church supports it…or thinks that it is not sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

Btw, West does not support it either he just stops short of condemning it.

West said this: *“There’s nothing inherently wrong with anal penetration as foreplay to normal intercourse.” *

 

[Mickey]

• Sodomy has always been “classically” understood as anal penetration by a phallus. It is of course possible to be sodomized by an object, but there has *never *been an understanding that anal penetration of a human or animal oriface by a penis is *not *sodomy.
• The Song of Songs, as has been presented here, is often the biblical evidence used to support the mutual “oral stimulation” of the genitals between a man and woman, not necessarily the penetration of genitals *into *a non-vaginal oriface.
• Because of the pronouncement that marital sex must be 1. unitive and 2. procreative, from a purely logical standpoint, any non-vaginal *penetration *of the penis (*into *a mouth or an anus) could be sodomy, and several sources with Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs have been published and cited here. It doesn’t matter if the act is “completed” or not (no male orgasm needs to happen) in order for such an act (the non-vaginal penile penetration of a human or animal oriface) to be considered sodomy.
• MY POSITION REMAINS that a married couple, forearmed with this knowledge, must exercise good conscience when they go into their bedroom, lock the door, and tell everybody to mind their business while they do their business.

:tiphat:

 

[ahs]

All the body is sexed and sexual, by nature, except the anus.

Please explain. How is the mouth sexed, that the anus is not?

Thus, in the context of marital act, all touch (oral or manual) on all the body and even on the exterior sexual organs is morally licit in order to lead the union of bodies. For anus, it is wrong.

How is anal stimulation excluded?

CCC 2360-2363…love of husband and wife…begins:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the **conjugal love **of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion…

What is meant by “conjugal love” here? We turn to CCC 1643-1654…goods and requirements of conjugal love:

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility…

Understanding conjugal love (click the hyperlink for more), we continue with the love of husband and wife:

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love…Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such…(click the hyperlink provided above for more)

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. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145

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.
**

I see no mention of whether or not a “natural” or non-“dirty” part of the body is licit or not. **In what way is any act of foreplay, including anal, contrary to the above? **(Links to source provided)

But then we look to the offenses against marriage in CCC 2380-2391. All listed are: Adultery, Divorce, Polygamy, Incest, Pedophilia (it talks of adult/child), Free Union, Trial “Marriages”.

Which of these does any act of foreplay go against…whether anal or oral or manual?

But surely it offends against chastity?! CCC 2337-2359

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

(Click the link to read more)

But let’s look at offenses against Chastity…they are Lust, Masturbation, Fornication, Pornography, Prostitution, Rape, Homosexuality.

Wait…not sodomy?! Why not sodomy? Hmmmmm.

So, using actual Church teaching…please show me where foreplay (oral, manual, anal…) between two consenting spouses who find joy in such as part of the conjugal union is contrary to Church teaching…where is the sin involved?

 

[ahs]

@Mickey,

In case you have thewanderer blocked…he’d like to engage in fair and even-handed discussion with you. He wrote:

Its interesting that you skipped my post wherein I made no attack on Ron Conte but instead was very fair with him and his argument but told you why I still do not agree with him despite his carefully reasoned post.

That is, of course, unless you have blocked me and so can’t see my earlier post. In which case it is very interesting that you ended up blocking the one person who took a step towards actually talking about Ron’s arguments and why they seem inadequate. What is even more unfortunate is that after doing so you claim that Ron’s argument is clearly correct because noone you can see has made an attempt to engage his arguments.

Either way, I won’t be bussy this weekend and so unable to respond, but if you somehow end up seeing this post Micky, I am still willing to engage in an intellectual discussion about Ron’s arguments next week if you are actually interested in a sincere discussion rather than simply pushing your opinion on others.

Have a good weekend folks. :tiphat:

 

[ahs]

But let’s look at offenses against Chastity…they are Lust, Masturbation, Fornication, Pornography, Prostitution, Rape, Homosexuality.

Wait…not sodomy?! Why not sodomy? Hmmmmm.

It’s because it is already covered. Sodomy is understood as 1) same-sex acts (homosexuality) and/or 2) the penetration of an anus where the semen is wasted (masturbation/onanism). In other words…sterile sex.

I agree with Jone, whose Moral Theology volume was approved by the Church and used as THE moral theology text (besides the Latin volume) in our seminaries to educate our Priests on moral theology. Shall we presume to be wiser than the Church that so valued Jone’s theology?

---

Here is the Definition of sodomy that was provided to all the world’s Priests starting in the 1920’s by the renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time, Heribert Jone. His volume was printed in at least 8 languages and used as the vernacular Moral Theology text for seminarians who were not fluent enough in Latin for the Latin volumes.
This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.
There is a section on sodomy. Jone distinguishes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

**“Perfect Sodomy” is 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.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true**.

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

"it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner" (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

Here we have the approved Catholic definition of sodomy, by a renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time. You will find nothing in Church Doctrine that conflicts with Jone’s. (see post 370 if you think I’m soley relying on Jone)

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s because it is already covered. Sodomy is understood as 1) same-sex acts (homosexuality) and/or 2) the penetration of an anus where the semen is wasted (masturbation/onanism). In other words…sterile sex.

**I agree with Jone, whose Moral Theology volume was approved by the Church and used as THE moral theology text (besides the Latin volume) in our seminaries to educate our Priests on moral theology. Shall we presume to be wiser than the Church that so valued Jone’s theology?
**

---

Here is the Definition of sodomy that was provided to all the world’s Priests starting in the 1920’s by the renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time, Heribert Jone. His volume was printed in at least 8 languages and used as the vernacular Moral Theology text for seminarians who were not fluent enough in Latin for the Latin volumes.
This was one of the most common Pre-Vatican II Moral Theology text books.

It is set up as a confessional aid for priests, so it’s indexed by sin or potential sin and describes any mitigating factors and how serious the sin is.
There is a section on sodomy. Jone distinguishes between what is called ‘perfect sodomy’ and 'imperfect sodomy".

**“Perfect Sodomy” is 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.

“Imperfect Sodomy” is when neither of the above conditions are true**.

Jone had this to to say about “Imperfect Sodomy”

"it is neither sodomy nor a sin if intercourse is begun in the rectal manner with the intention of completing it in the natural manner" (Jone “Moral Theology” 757)

Here we have the approved Catholic definition of sodomy, by a renowned and orthodox moral theologian of his time. You will find nothing in Church Doctrine that conflicts with Jone’s. (see post 370 if you think I’m soley relying on Jone)

---

It doesn’t look like anal sex – is as “approved” by the Church. A man’s penis and a woman’s anus – do not fit as being naturaly complementary.

Rome, Italy, Jul 3, 2009 / 02:33 pm (CNA).- Fr. Maurizio Faggioni, OFM, a professor at the top pontifical institute for moral theology, the Pontifical Academy “Alphonsianum,” said in a recent interview with Catholic News Agency that the teachings of the Church suggest “far more prudence” in approaching some of the issues raised by Christopher West in his presentation of the Theology of the Body.

Faggioni, a Franciscan who teaches at the Alphonsianum, an academy named upon the father of modern Moral theology, St. Alphonsus of Liguori, is one of the most consulted moral theologians and is an advisor to several Vatican dicasteries.

In a conversation with CNA, Fr. Faggioni explained that some of the issues discussed publicly by West, such as the appropriateness of anal sex or other forms of sexual “foreplay” in married relationships, have to be dealt with using great care, since “the risk is of displacing the attention from marital love and the anthropologic meaning of lovely gestures to merely the genital aspects.”

“Sexuality,” Fr. Faggioni said, launching into his analysis of West’s presentation of the Theology of the Body, “is the language of love and this language is authentic only when it is respectful of the meaning of human love.”

According to the moral theologian, “the traditional moral theology certainly does not prohibit intimacy among spouses, but it never regards them as a substitute for the marital embrace and accepts intimacy only as a path toward a complete sexual union.”

**Moreover, Fr. Faggioni said that “it is simply not true that the traditional Catholic moral supports the use of acts that Thomas Aquinas call contra naturam -against nature- (such as anal sex) as something ordinary.”
**
“Catholic moral theology calls us to be very discrete in discussing these issues, and encourages being particularly respectful to the sensibilities of persons and couples,” the Italian Franciscan explained.

“Regarding this type of intercourse or others, no one can pretend to accept from another person something that offends that person’s sensibility on sexual issues or that does not respect the structure and natural complementarity of the bodies of man and woman.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/renowned_moral_theologian_weighsin_on_theology_of_the_body_debate/

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

[Ron Contes words about himself]:
The next Pope (the one after Pope Benedict XVI, whom I believe will be Cardinal Arinze/Pope Pius XIII) will give an order constraining me concerning my writings in eschatology. But this will not prevent the dissemination of these ideas, and it will be only for a limited time."

…

Wow. Thanks for telling us all we need to know about Ron Conte.

One thing I have learned over the years is the way the evil one works: he will give you lots of truth, and inject just enough falsehood in it to infect the truth. So if this is all Conte said (but there is plenty other questionable) it would be enough to completely ignore him (in order to be safe!). And I am glad I can completely ignore his stressfully strange comments about proper marital sex [don’t we all agree on this?] since I may, Lord-willing, marry soon, and want to enjoy my husband in every natural way.

I assume all the reasonable people* on this threat are against sodomy as its normally understood. We can agree that’s not natural. As any honest doctor will attest… [Google it if you need more info on that because no way am I going to discuss that one].

[In my opinion, what fpt said here makes sense, what Mickey says makes no sense but then he defends Conte so for me that explains it, and I don’t remember the others but I am going to read more…]

 

[ValPal]

But when a group of Catholics come out and say that anal penetration (within the confines of marriage) is suddenly not sodomy (if and only if) the man finishes in the vagina (which is a recipe for some terrible bacterial problems if one follows the other), then I have to say that y’all are…delusional at best.

You can call us delusional if you wish, but after 25 pages, you’ve yet to show a single example in the Bible or Tradition where the term sodomy is used in the context of marital relations ending in the normal way. If being delusion means not accepting personal opinion utterly devoid of any supporting authoritative proof, I’m as delusional as can be.

 

[ValPal]

Care to explain why you support anal penetration (sodomy) within marriage?

Nobody has to support anything. We know as a fact that it is not prohibited, and someone on some internet forum believing it is a sin won’t change that. Furthermore, are we really to believe that somehow the Church has accidentally overlooked one of the oldest know sexual acts to man for millenia? You may believe that the Church is utterly careless in this regard, but others of us don’t.