martial sex

[fpt]

If you do not want to have the erotism in your conjugal life, it is your personal business.

If you want to do nothing, no sexual touch, no sexual kiss, it is your private life.

If you do not want to have the sexual pleasures and the orgasms in the respect of natural moral law, it is your private choice.

The refusal of maximization of sexual pleasures and of orgasms is a personal view.

 

[Mickey]

I would like to quote Mickey again, just so we’re all clear where he is coming from.

I can come up with 1000 quotes from 1000 different Church fathers who taught this way. And I can show you other Fathers who were not as strict…and taught that husband and wife enjoy each others union beyond procreation.

“If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want” (St John Chrysostom On Virginity).

We take the Fathers in their entirety. But I can tell you this much…NO father ever taught that anal penetration was fine and dandy within the marital embrace. NEVER! They would be appalled at such a teaching. You may not like it…but these are the saints and fathers of the Church who sat on the Great Councils, compiled the New Testament, interpreted Scripture, and whose relics perform miracles. And you will denigrate their writings at the drop of a hat because you want sodomy within marriage to be A-OK.

Then along comes a man in the 1920’s who claims that anal penetration within marriage is okay…and you defend him with zeal and vigor. How very sad. How very backward.

So, I’m going to have a hard time receiving a lecture from you on this subject, Mickey,when you’re this far off base on the basics.

Then by all means ignore my posts. I categorically reject what you are attempting to put forth…and I stand with the holy fathers.

This is not a minor thing here, it’s pretty important.

You bet. I urge any lurkers to follow their conscience on this matter.

“The goal of sex in marriage is spiritual union. Through the joining of two physical bodies in marital love comes a unique oneness of soul. Their intercourse accomplishes the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment” (St John Chrysostom 12th Homily on Colossians).

Procreation is the fruit of the union of marriage and an expression of man’s participation in God’s creative work.

 

[fpt]

Before the wedding, a big talk about this topic is necessary and compulsory in order to avoid problems in the conjugal life: to be on the same line.

What is morally okay or not? What i want, what i do not want? What you want, what you do not want?

 

[Mickey]

I’ve asked you to share the relevant expression and you have not.

And I have asked you to show me the patrisitc…or Roman Catholic magiterial evidence that mouth to mouth genitalia exchange is NOT sodomy…you cannot.

 

[fpt]

I can come up with 1000 quotes from 1000 different Church fathers who taught this way. And I can show you other Fathers who were not as strict…and taught that husband and wife enjoy each others union beyond procreation.

“If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want” (St John Chrysostom On Virginity).

We take the Fathers in their entirety. But I can tell you this much…NO father ever taught that anal penetration was fine and dandy within the marital embrace. NEVER! They would be appalled at such a teaching. You may not like it…but these are the saints and fathers of the Church who sat on the Great Councils, compiled the New Testament, interpreted Scripture, and whose relics perform miracles. And you will denigrate their writings at the drop of a hat because you want sodomy within marriage to be A-OK.

Then along comes a man in the 1920’s who claims that anal penetration within marriage is okay…and you defend him with zeal and vigor. How very sad. How very backward.
Then by all means ignore my posts. I categorically reject what you are attempting to put forth…and I stand with the holy fathers.
You bet. I urge any lurkers to follow their conscience on this matter.

“The goal of sex in marriage is spiritual union. Through the joining of two physical bodies in marital love comes a unique oneness of soul. Their intercourse accomplishes the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment” (St John Chrysostom 12th Homily on Colossians).

Procreation is the fruit of the union of marriage and an expression of man’s participation in God’s creative work.

Are you catholic or orthodox???

 

[Mickey]

Unitive *and *procreative. This is obvious.

You would think.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

You would think.

If it’s “obvious” that the marital embrace is to be pro-creative and unitive, then I still don’t get why you’re quoting those who have claimed that it is only pro-creative?

 

[Mickey]

If it’s “obvious” that the marital embrace is to be pro-creative and unitive, then I still don’t get why you’re quoting those who have claimed that it is only pro-creative?

I quoted some that say that…and other that are less strict…as you can see from my other post. But you can bet they would be horrified by the genital-in-mouth/anal penetration argument y’all have been trying to put forth for hundreds of posts now.

 

[fpt]

Are you catholic or orthodox???

Mickey seems to be a orthodox lay person, what can explain one part of his point of view about foreplay, in the context of marital act.

The body of female is not dirty, not unclean. The periods of woman are not unclean or dirty, like in the old testament. Making love, during periods, during breastfeeding, during pregnancy, before mass, after mass, is morally okay: no issue in catholicism.

The notion of " Porneia" is not the same. The objectivation of sex and of the sexuality is not the same.

The orthodoxy is not the catholicism, we are not in the same line about sex.

 

[ValPal]

And I have asked you to show me the patrisitc…or Roman Catholic magiterial evidence that mouth to mouth genitalia exchange is NOT sodomy…you cannot.

Nobody here has shown that drinking beer while singing Irish folk songs isn’t sodomy either.

Why would the Magisterium have to show something is not sodomy when it was never understood to be sodomy in the first place.

First, you tell us that the Church doesn’t have to address the obvious.

Now, your requiring that the Church address everything as not part of a definition, which requires an all-encompassing, incredibly intensive effort.

You really need to focus your arguments. There is no logical consistency in them.

 

[fpt]

A guess, i am not sure

For some orthodoxs, NFP is not natural, it is unnatural, or almost unnatural. The objectivation of sexuality and of sexual organs is not very natural for some of them. The intellectual approach is not the same than in catholicism.

 

[ahs]

In order to understand these questions, one needs “an integral vision of man”. “It is precisely by moving from ‘an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation’ (Humanae Vitae, 7), that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church ‘is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.’” (Familiaris Consortio, 32)

(Mark Waldstein, Introduction of “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body”, p107)

This is the translator of JPII’s theology of the body (Wednesday Audiences) quoting Pope JPII…quoting Pope Paul VI.

So, in the spirit of what one Pope affirmed, and another re-affirmed, let us evaluate foreplay in terms of the two meanings if the conjugal act. Several pages of posts ago I provided (both in quotes and in links) the entirety of the Church’s teaching within the Catechism on the meaning of marriage, the conjugal union, chastity, and the offenses against those.

Please show, using actual Church teaching, where the sin is regarding foreplay. Is it a sin against the 2-fold end of marriage…or against chastity…or the meaning of the marital act…? And if so, please quote/cite the corresponding teaching so we can see it.

 

[fpt]

As husband I have rights on the body of my wife. As wife, I have rights on the body of my husband.

In the context of marital act, each has the right to see, to kiss, to touch, to stimulate, to massage,…etc all erogenous parts (exterior parts of all body, even sexual organs) in the human fashion, the with sexual cooperartion (work together, the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies).

 

[ahs]

Nom the wise, it’d good to hear form you again. Are you going to address Post #306 where I pointed out that you misrepresented the truth in an attempt to draw out an apology from me?

Mickey, were you able to find any source to support you assertion that the Church rejects Jone’s definition of sodomy?

And now it seems you have another assertion to support (please make sure the blue text I added in brackets is true to your meaning…if not, then please correct or ignore as you desire):

…They the Church Fathers] would be appalled at such a teaching as Jone’s definition of sodomy].

Source please that indicates that the Early Fathers would be appalled at Jone’s definition of sodomy. Of those I have read, I have not seen anything that would support that the ECF’s had a definition of sodomy contrary to Jone’s. So, since you seem to assert that they did, please provide some support for this assertion.

 

[ahs]

I quoted some that say that…and other that are less strict…as you can see from my other post. But you can bet they would be horrified by the genital-in-mouth/anal penetration argument y’all have been trying to put forth for hundreds of posts now.

You’re arguing a strawman with the “anal penetration” argument. To my knowledge, I was the only one arguing that such was not sodomy, when done within the conjugal act and such act is completed in the normal way…as understood in the context of Jone’s definition. However, as I stated 2 or 3 times now, I have conceded that the Church is silent on that issue.

As to oral stimulation, as the Popes have affirmed that such questions of morality are founded on the Church’s teaching on the 2-fold end of marriage (see quote in Post 487 from TOB intro)…let us evaluate foreplay in terms of the two meanings if the conjugal act. Several pages of posts ago I provided (both in quotes and in links) the entirety of the Church’s teaching within the Catechism on the meaning of marriage, the conjugal union, chastity, and the offenses against those.

Please show, using actual Church teaching, where the sin is regarding foreplay… quotes/citations please.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Commentary like this really promotes the view that Catholicism sees something inherently dirty and sinful about the normal human body (especially as it relates to sex and reproduction).

I don’t see why anyone should care whether the Virgin Mary (or any other woman for that matter) had an intact hymen or not. And I have frankly always found the way some Catholic theologians focus on it disturbing at best.

The Blessed Mother was a Virgin before and after the Birth of Jesus, as well as all of her life. Jesus was born not like any other was born, He is not like any other because his father is God. That the Church values the virginity of Mary does not mean it does not value sex. It values BOTH. its not an either/or thing.

People these days only value active sexuality, and they do not value virginity. But the fact is, both have an inherent value. (in the right context!)

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

I would like this thread to be about what the OP asked about. Instead, it has become Mickey’s thread, and Mickey is completely obsessed with anal penetration [does anyone want to count how many times Mickey has said these two words on this thread, and how many times he has said sodomy???] He never tires of talking about it here, but what is by far the most offensive repeated act of Mickey on this thread it to accuse anyone and everyone of being in support of sodomy (including me - as soon as I got on this thread, *right after I said its unnatural and I want nothing to do with a discussion on it!!! *Yes, right after that he accused me of having an interest in supporting acts of sodomy at least THREE TIMES! I am offended! And I said so! Did Mickey apologize? No, he did not.

The last accusation of his I read was in post #466, but really, there are tons of his accusations here. In fact, is there anyone on this thread other than Ron Conte that has not been accused by Mickey of supporting sodomy?? Is that not bullying and harassment? Why does Mickey continue to be allowed to post on this thread??

Mickey is ruining this thread with his exhausting obsession with anal sex. And Mickey is bullying all the readers of this thread with his constant and continual reassertion that “sodomy is anal penetration!” WHEN WE ALL KNOW THAT and NO ONE IS ASKING!!! Enough already, Mickey!

Am I not right? Is Mickey the only one obsessed with this topic???

Because for all the post after post after post by Mickey on this subject, page after page after page, I am looking for the person here he is fighting who supports it. But I have found no one! Does such a person exist, or is Mickey battling windmills here?

I think he is. He is wasting all our time.

Mickey is further muddying the waters here by coming up with his own definition: oral stimulation of genitals within the confines of sacramental marriage is in fact sodomy, he insists. But he is the only one defining it that way here, and he is taking over the thread.

This was not any concern of the OP.

I suggest Mickey start his OWN thread on the forum all about anal penetration and lets see who cares to write on it. He will probably have to go outside Catholic Answers and find some secular blog to get anyone to take an interest in his favorite topic.

Furthermore, Mickey should also start his own thread about his extra-inclusive unique definition of sodomy. Because it does not belong on this thread. None of us speak his language.

Can we just get back to the original topic??

Can you just LEAVE, Mickey?? I have had enough, and I don’t think I am alone here.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

I’m not married but I just wanted to check on a couple of sexual acts that people (preferably married) happen. Cunnilingus and felatio. I myself am not interested in cunnilingus but is it a forbidden act in accordance with any church teachings?

Bill

There you go. That’s the original post to this thread. Mickey’s beloved topic does not belong. He should take it elsewhere. And his disrespectful nagging bullying posting style does not belong on this forum anyway.

 

[ahs]

Oh Charlotte,

I agree it is wrong for Mickey to be projecting the argument about anal penetration onto everyone that does not agree with his position on foreplay.

However, at least for a time, he did have a legitimate argument…he was just arguing with the wrong people…those who had not even mentioned it. I was arguing that anal stimulation in preparation to natural intercourse is not sodomy, according to Jone’s definition of sodomy that appears in Moral Theology which was used in seminaries from the 1920’s through the 60’s…possibly even to this day .This tied into the OP because I was arguing toward ALL forms of foreplay…if one is licit, so is the other, etc…

**However, I also finally conceded, for a fourth time now, that the Church is silent on that so I stopped arguing toward it. ** The reason he continues to bring it up is because he believes that even oral foreplay is also sodomy…so Mickey equates oral with anal. That is how is becomes a topic in synch with the OP.

But, no, at this moment, no one is arguing for anal stimulation. As to oral, I have asked if anyone can cite the Chruch teaching within the Catechism that is violated by foreplay…and such has not been done.

 

[Mickey]

I was arguing that anal stimulation in preparation to natural intercourse is not sodomy,

And you are wrong. And virtually no one agrees with you…except maybe the late Jone.

But, no, at this moment, no one is arguing for anal stimulation.

Excellent!