martial sex

[fpt]

The Song of Songs of Solomon. In reading, you can find out the foreplay (sensual touches and or sexual touches) that are morally okay:

May he kiss me with the kiss of his mouth.
His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me.
Your **cheeks **are beautiful, like those of a turtledove. Your **neck **is like a bejeweled collar.

So much better than wine are your breasts, fragranced with the finest perfumes.
We will exult and rejoice in you, remembering your breasts above wine.
My beloved is a bundle of myrrh to me. He shall abide between my breasts.
Your two breasts are like two young does, twins that pasture among the lilies.How beautiful are your** breasts,** my sister, my spouse!
Your breasts are more beautiful than wine, and the fragrance of your ointments is above all aromatic oils.
Your two breasts are like two young twin does.

While the king was taking his rest, my aromatic ointment sent forth its odor.
My beloved is a cluster of Cyprus grapes to me, in the vineyards of Engaddi.
I am a flower of the open field and a lily of the steep valleys.
Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat beneath the shadow of the one whom I desired, and his fruit was sweet to my palate.
He brought me into the storeroom of wine. He set charity in order within me.
Prop me up with flowers. Close me in with apples. For I languish through love.
His left hand is under my head, and his right hand shall embrace me.
The voice of my beloved! Behold, he arrives leaping along the mountains, jumping across the hills.
My beloved is like a doe and like a young stag.
Lo, my beloved speaks to me: Rise up, quickly, my love, my dove, my shapely one, and advance.
His hands are smoothed gold, full of hyacinths. **His abdomen **is ivory, accented with sapphires.

My beloved is for me, and I am for him. He pastures among the lilies, until the day rises and the shadows decline.
Your lips are like a scarlet ribbon, and your eloquence is sweetness. Like a piece of pomegranate, so are your cheeks, except for what is hidden within.
Your** neck **is like the tower of David, which was built with ramparts: a thousand shields are hanging from it, all the armor of the strong.

Your** lips,** my spouse, are a dripping honeycomb; honey and milk are under your tongue. And the fragrance of your garments is like the odor of frankincense.

**An enclosed garden is my sister, my spouse: an enclosed garden, a sealed fountain.
May my beloved enter into his garden, **and eat the fruit of his apple trees.
I have taken off my tunic; how shall I be clothed in it? I have washed my feet; how shall I spoil them?
My beloved put his hand through the window, and my inner self was moved by his touch.
I rose up in order to open to my beloved. My hands dripped with myrrh, and my fingers were full of the finest myrrh.
I am for my beloved, and my beloved is for me. He pastures among the lilies.
How beautiful are your footsteps in shoes, O daughter of a ruler! The joints of your thighs are like jewels, which have been fabricated by the hand of an artist.
Your **navel **is a round bowl, never lacking in curvature. Your abdomen is like a bundle of wheat, surrounded with lilies.

I said, I will ascend to the palm tree, and take hold of its fruit. And your breasts will be like clusters of grapes on the vine. And the fragrance of your mouth will be like apples.

 

[The_Bucket]

I see.
Really? Well you have free will to believe that if you wish.
Of course not. And as has been pointed out already…the Church is not a step-by-step manual to show people obvious sins against nature. Why would the Church have to tell you that anal penetration in the marital bed is sinful sodomy. The Church would surely expect you to know this.

The Church would surely expect us all to know that it’s wrong to go around shooting people in the face out of malice, and yet…

The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

You may contend what you wish to contend and speak like you are an authority on the matter, but that does not make it so. Your personal proclivities are not doctrine. You, I and everyone would be better served to note simply that the Church is silent on the matter and where the Church is silent we are called to follow our consciences, use our best judgment and to not assume the motives of anyone’s actions other than ourselves.

 

[ValPal]

Ha! Scripture and Tradition are so far from this warped marital sodomy teaching…that the Church was certain they would not have to spell it out for you.

Given the Church and Tradition have discussed sodomy outside of marriage for millenia, I can’t see where there is a shred of basis for you opinion. The Church discusses detailed sexual things all the time. There was even a recent opinion from the Vatican regarding couples having sex with the man intentionally not finishing (i.e., having sex solely for pleasure). Do you really believe that Church is afraid to discuss these issues.

Can you imagine Christ or the Apostles or the Church Fathers condoning Jone’s teaching.

Who knows? I’m actually surprised how little Christ spoke directly on sex, given that the issues have always existed.

 

[LightBound]

Respectful and loving husbands and fathers
If wife needs to have anal penetration to be happy…then perhaps wife has other issues.

Excuse me, but what is your problem? You seem to have an obsession with anal activities, as that is what you are constantly bringing up on here!! Had you actually read my posts on this thread, you’d see my comments stating there is nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching that forbids touching, kissing, or caressing of the sexual organs of one’s spouse prior to, during, or immediately after intercourse, regardless of what jolly good Portrait or Ron Conte seem to think. The anus is NOT a sexual organ, not matter how much you seem to think that it is (given your redundant posting about it). Oh Charlotte was commenting on my post about how “certain members” on this thread seem to think that placing the penis in the vagina, being careful not to touch anything else with hands, mouth, or skin to skin contact, seems to be what some people qualify as lovemaking. That doesn’t sound like the kind of lovemaking a husband and wife should have- it sounds more like a couple of animals mating in the woods just to get it over with!!
I wish this absurd thread would be closed, removed, and the subject banned on CAF!

 

[kelvinf]

1. Why oral genital contact, that is, oral sex or oral stimulation (or call it whatever you like) is unnatural, nasty, and hence degrading, is basics of high school biology. I would have thought that this is obvious. But based on the number of folks that have given in to such a disgusting act, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Well, in due course, I will present scientific evidence to back my point.

1. There is another Catholic source that basically states that, standalone acts that are contraceptive by their very nature, have no place in a Catholic marriage.

And I will be fair when I bring up that source. You will see.

More later.

 

[ValPal]

1. Why oral genital contact, that is, oral sex or oral stimulation (or call it whatever you like) is unnatural, nasty, and hence degrading, is basics of high school biology. I would have thought that this is obvious. But based on the number of folks that have given in to such a disgusting act, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

I guess it’s time to remove the Song of Songs from the Bible.

Words like “nasty” and “degrading” are subjective. Some people describe the sex act itself this way. Others think it is nasty until they start having sex. These are solely subjective, not objective, opinions.

1. There is another Catholic source that basically states that, standalone acts that are contraceptive by their very nature, have no place in a Catholic marriage.

Surgically examining a particular element is the wrong way to go about it, and leads to the wrong conclusions. It is clear the Church looks at the big picture.

“Normal relations” can also be abused, and the Church has spoken on it. Such an example would be coitus/amplexus reservatus. BTW, the fact that the Church has spoken on such detailed matters like this is another example that the Church simple didn’t miss the larger issues that Mickey is talking about.

 

[Mickey]

I made it clear I think that act is not natural

Great! Another on the side of reason!

 

[Mickey]

It gets a little confusing here, because you have said this decrying oral stimulation:

You will need to clarify. Anal penetration and gentitalia in the mouth is sodomy.

What kind of touching are you referring to? Mutual masturbation? Sex toys? There are many subjects on this issue.

I suggest that you first attempt to let your fellow Catholics know that anal penetration within marriage is sodomy. That’s a good starting point.

 

[Mickey]

Oral stimulation is moral, and it is not sodomy

Here we will disagree. But at least we agree on the issue of anal penetration.

 

[Mickey]

The Song of Songs of Solomon. In reading, you can find out the foreplay (sensual touches and or sexual touches) that are morally okay.

I think it is shameful that people use Scripture (Song of Songs) to somehow justify cunnilingus and felatio.

 

[Mickey]

where the Church is silent we are called to follow our consciences

Amen. And it is wise to speak with one’s confessor and/or bishop.

 

[fpt]

I think it is shameful that people use Scripture (Song of Songs) to somehow justify cunnilingus and felatio.

I think that it is shameful of not wanting to use the Song of Songs for understanding that the oral stimulations and the manual stimulations of exterior sex organs of female are moral, useful, very lovable, very erotic and in favor of the conjugal physical love. Cunnilingus on his wife is totally okay.

The active fellatio is wrong, because the husband is active in the mouth of the wife, wife is passive: there are a replacement and a subsitution.

The passive fellatio is morally okay, because wife is active, she is kissing, husband is passive, no replacement and no subsitution.

 

[ahs]

Sort of like Jone trying to justify anal penetration in the marital act as NOT being sodomy.
ftp also rejects Jone’s sodomital meanderings.

Yet the Church does not. Let’s refer to the Church’s teaching on the marital union to understand why. (Posts 370 and 372)

If wife needs to have anal penetration to be happy…then perhaps wife has other issues.

Mickey and I actually agree here, at least on the psychological level. However, this is not an indicator that such is a sin. To call it a sin, we are obliged to say where the sin is…what is being offended. I posted a great deal of the Church’s teaching on marital sex in #370 and placed links to take us to the rest (the Catechism). If you can find the area which such an act offends and is therefore sinful, please show us all which part of the Church’s teaching is being countered by such an act.

For being totally honest, a theologian has to respect the catholic methods and the official doctrine, not more and not less.

Amen. Hence my reliance on the Catechism and on one Priest whose theology is accepted by the Church. Since it seems most are uncomfortable with anal stimulation as a topic…I will drop that and concede that the Church is silent on the matter, and therefore we have no right to proclaim one way or the other…“not more and not less.”

So…let’s hone in on oral and manual stimulation of the genitals as foreplay or during the conjugal act.

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.
**

**In what way is any act of foreplay contrary to the above? **

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?

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.

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

So, using actual Church teaching…please show me where foreplay 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?

 

[Mickey]

Do you really believe that Church is afraid to discuss these issues.

Of course not. That is why sodomy within marriage is also…sodomy.

 

[Mickey]

Yet the Church does not.

She surely does. Nothing…I repeat…nothing that you have posted here condones the act of anal penetration within marriage. God forbid!

 

[fpt]

I think that it is shameful of not wanting to use the Song of Songs for understanding that the oral stimulations and the manual stimulations of exterior sex organs of female are moral, useful, very lovable, very erotic and in favor of the conjugal physical love. Cunnilingus on his wife is totally okay.

The active fellatio is wrong, because the husband is active in the mouth of the wife, wife is passive: there are a replacement and a substitution

The passive fellatio is morally okay, because wife is active, she is kissing, husband is passive, no replacement and no substitution.

In philosophy, we use the concepts of activity and of passivity. During the marital act, wife has to be active on her husband and the husband has to be active on his wife, but also each one has to be passive in order to avoid replacements and substitutions

Before, during and after the union of bodies, at each time, there are special rules. And the rules of man are not the rules of woman (alterity and complementarity).

Each act has to be defined, analysed, understood, and studied, in the detail, in order to know if it is moral, per se or not.

 

[ahs]

---

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.

I actually completely agree with Faggioni…who has stated nothing contrary to Jone. Faggioni speaks of anal SEX when speaking about things contrary to nature. If you notice, he is careful to differentiate (see the first part of your source vs. the later) between “foreplay” and intercourse/sex. I do not see where Faggioni disagrees with Jone…whom the Church also does not disagree with (hence, his Moral Theology volume being used to teach seminarians moral theology since the 1920’s).

At any rate, I’ll concede that the Church is silent here and I won’t push further than to say that if one wishes to call “n” a sin, and the Church is silent on it, one needs to use Church teaching to show where the offense is. I have provided such just a few posts above, and in Post #370.

 

[Mickey]

I think that it is shameful of not wanting to use the Song of Songs for understanding that the oral stimulations and the manual stimulations of exterior sex organs of female are moral, useful, very lovable, very erotic and in favor of the conjugal physical love.

Nonsense. Song of Songs is not talking about fellation and cunnilingus and you know it.

Cunnilingus on his wife is totally okay.

It is grossly disordered and unnatural.

The active fellatio is wrong,

Yes…whether the act is finished through natural intrercourse or not.

The passive fellatio is morally okay,

Passive fellation?!? Pu–lease.

 

[Mickey]

(hence, his Moral Theology volume being used to teach seminarians moral theology since the 1920’s).

I am very curious as to whether or not it is still used…and if it is…if it is mandatory reading. I have heard that it is out of print. I am going to ask the monks at a nearby monastery to see if they know…and if they do…what they think of Jone’s blasphemous opinions on anal penetration.

I think I know what they will say.

 

[Mickey]

1. Why oral genital contact, that is, oral sex or oral stimulation (or call it whatever you like) is unnatural, nasty, and hence degrading, is basics of high school biology. I would have thought that this is obvious.

Go figure.