martial sex

[AngryAtheist8]

Unity and pro-creation are the desired ends of sexual activity.

This does not mean that all acts within the bedroom must be both unitive and pro-creative but that the end goals of both unity and pro-creation must be served in the completed act, and never thwarted.

Foreplay, as a whole, cannot create life. Ever.

Yet, God made foreplay necessary - God made it a necessary component to serve the unitive and pro-creative ends of sex. Man and wife require foreplay to complete the act. FACT.

So if you have a problem with foreplay, take it up with the big guy.

Its worth noting that kissing itself is non-procreative.

 

[Oh_Charlotte]

Who told you the reason why it was changed? And it wasn’t “changed”. The sentence was completely removed.

Whatever the reason, it was removed, and on purpose. The reason Bucket gave makes sense, particularly in the context of how West writes.

But now that he does not have that sentence in there, it is wrong and calumniating (a serious sin!) for you to preach that West promotes that. Reading his book in full, you would know that, first or 2nd edition! When you pull quotes out of context, you can paint strange pictures. (People do it with scripture all the time!) Now, certainly because of people who do what you did here, he took it out, to be certain that no one misstates his stand on that. So, you should not misstate his stand!

…No, no period. The Church teaches about moderation. So saying that couples can do whatever they like as long as the man completes in the woman is contrary to moderation…
And let me also repeat this for the billionth time: One cannot do whatever they like for 99.9% of what is supposed to be the marital act and use the remaining 0.1% to complete in the woman.

We can trick ourselves but we can’t trick God…

No Church teaching does not take away prudence and moderation.

You are preaching to the choir here.

 

[kelvinf]

Whatever the reason, it was removed, and on purpose. The reason Bucket gave makes sense, particularly in the context of how West writes.

But now that he does not have that sentence in there, it is wrong and calumniating (a serious sin!) for you to preach that West promotes that. Reading his book in full, you would know that, first or 2nd edition! When you pull quotes out of context, you can paint strange pictures. (People do it with scripture all the time!) Now, certainly because of people who do what you did here, he took it out, to be certain that no one misstates his stand on that. So, you should not misstate his stand!

You are preaching to the choir here.

The Church does not change her teaching, okay. The version of God News About Sex and Marriage that most older folks here have, contains what West originally said. This has been widely propagated. It has been cited in a wide range of online resources. It is contained on Popcak book for instance.

If West has changed his “teaching”, then he has a lot of work to do: He has to ensure that all materials containing his opinion about anal penetration are edited accordingly!

It is also important for folks to know what he originally said so that they can make a judgment about the author. This is history; history has been made and you cannot do anything about it.

That’s why people should be very, very careful before trying to break with Catholic tradition re the secrecy of the marital act, which was preserved until the sexual revolution in the 60’s.

Look at the claim about oral sex in Songs of Songs. Now I understand that should be coming from Popcak’s book. He quoted a verse from Songs of Songs and immediately after, started talking about oral stimulation but he didn’t claim that the verse was referring to oral stimulation (depending on how you read it.)

Now, a good number of people are claiming that Songs of Songs contains oral-genital contact.

What seems to have become of Catholic marriages is very sad.

 

[ValPal]

Look at the claim about oral sex in Songs of Songs. Now I understand that should be coming from Popcak’s book. He quoted a verse from Songs of Songs and immediately after, started talking about oral stimulation but he didn’t claim that the verse was referring to oral stimulation (depending on how you read it.)

Now, a good number of people are claiming that Songs of Songs contains oral-genital contact.

It should be obvious that the manner that sexual acts were described when they were written are not the same as they would be described today. If the same standard were applied to the Song of Songs were applied to the passages about Sodom and Gommorrah, you’d have no support that they were committing “sodomy” as we understand it today.

What seems to have become of Catholic marriages is very sad.

Subject matter aside, it is really nobody’s business what happens in the bedroom provided the act is ultimately unitive and creative. If the Catholics are have unitive and procreative relations, having children as a result, go to Church, etc., I see nothing sad in that.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

There is nothing immoral, per se, about oral-genital or manual-genital contact between husband and wife.

I have yet to see any evidence that the Church prohibits either of these acts, per se, and I’m skeptical that She would deny couples the right to foreplay to such an extent.

Women do not magically become lubricated. Such is God’s design.
Val Pal:

Subject matter aside, it is really nobody’s business what happens in the bedroom provided the act is ultimately unitive and creative. If the Catholics are have unitive and procreative relations, having children as a result, go to Church, etc., I see nothing sad in that.

Agreed.

 

[ahs]

Amen to Bucket…the Church is silent on the topic. Therefore, before anyone can go out and accuse anyone else of sin for a particular act, or deem a particular act sinful, one needs to be able to show where the sin is:

(Hyperlinks provided in the “CCC” numbers for full context. etc…)
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, 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.

But 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?

 

[kelvinf]

It should be obvious that the manner that sexual acts were described when they were written are not the same as they would be described today. If the same standard were applied to the Song of Songs were applied to the passages about Sodom and Gommorrah, you’d have no support that they were committing “sodomy” as we understand it today.

The Song of Songs is a poem that can be interpreted. One of our greatest Saints and Doctor of the Church has already done a great job in this direction. Show me where Bernard of Clairvaux ever mentioned oral stimulation in his sermons on the Song of Songs.

Subject matter aside, it is really nobody’s business what happens in the bedroom provided the act is ultimately unitive and creative. If the Catholics are have unitive and procreative relations, having children as a result, go to Church, etc., I see nothing sad in that.

Ya, whatever people do in their bedrooms is their business. What’s sad is when people try to justify certain acts in public that are not generally acceptable.

 

[ahs]

Oh you make me laugh Mickey

According to your logic if we see gays and lesbians kissing we shouldn’t kiss because that would be imitating them

Yes…and this is where some people miss the mark. ““x” is a sin because it’s a homosexual act.” Yet they fail to understand what is wrong with a homosexual act. It’s not wrong because part of the skin is touching the wrong part of other skin. It’s wrong because

1. it is not ordered to unification (of spouses…in the proper understanding of marriage…man and woman in the image and likeness of God) and
2. it is not ordered toward procreation (a sterile act, inherently sterile no matter what).

A homosexual act is one that is between same-sex persons…resulting in an act closed to the gift of life and does not proceed from a genuine and affective sexual complementarity. Any mention of “homosexual” within a debate about a heterosexual married couple is a strawman…has no place in the debate at all.

 

[ahs]

What’s sad is when people try to justify certain acts in public that are not generally acceptable.

Or when people condemn something as sinful based on their own opinions with no Church teaching to back it up.

Before anyone can go out and accuse anyone else of sin for a particular act, or deem a particular act sinful, one needs to be able to show where the sin is:

(Hyperlinks provided above)
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, 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.

But 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?

 

[ValPal]

The Song of Songs is a poem that can be interpreted. One of our greatest Saints and Doctor of the Church has already done a great job in this direction. Show me where Bernard of Clairvaux ever mentioned oral stimulation in his sermons on the Song of Songs.

Other people interpret it differently. People tend to pick and choose the interpretation that fits there views, at the same time ignoring the fact that the interpretation is not an official Church opinion.

Ultimately, whatever anyone stated in this thread, myself included, is simply personal opinion and not authoritative.

Ya, whatever people do in their bedrooms is their business. What’s sad is when people try to justify certain acts in public that are not generally acceptable.

“Not generally acceptable” is relative. With regard to “justification,” those of us that are having a serious discussion are not justifying anything (keeping in mind that we don’t have to, since there is no prohibition). We’re simply having a discussion. Some people in this thread have wrongly assumed that the noting of that fact that there is no prohibition of an act means they support the act. Don’t conflate the two.

 

[kelvinf]

Or when people condemn something as sinful based on their own opinions with no Church teaching to back it up.

Before anyone can go out and accuse anyone else of sin for a particular act, or deem a particular act sinful, one needs to be able to show where the sin is:

…

You know, I try to talk about the fundamental problem of oral-genital contact, that is, it is nasty and disgusting and that I will soon prove. And I will see who can disprove me.

Catholic theologians can hold their different opinons re the sinfulness.

 

[ahs]

You know, I try to talk about the fundamental problem of oral-genital contact, that is, it is nasty and disgusting and that I will soon prove. And I will see who can disprove me.

Catholic theologians can hold their different opinons re the sinfulness.

You can state your subjective opinions all you want. If you want to call it a sin, show where the sin is involved from Church teaching. Otherwise, it’s jut your opinion.

By the way, is it a sin to kiss one’s spouse’s hand?

ETA: One could argue that it is also nasty and disgusting to have to wipe a baby’s bum and have it end up on one’s hand. But the nastiness and disgustingness of that does not make it sinful.

 

[kelvinf]

Other people interpret it differently. People tend to pick and choose the interpretation that fits there views, at the same time ignoring the fact that the interpretation is not an official Church opinion.

Ultimately, whatever anyone stated in this thread, myself included, is simply personal opinion and not authoritative.
.

Other people like who? There are things in the CCC that come from Bernard of Clairvaux. His interpretations can also be found in Bible commentaries.

Sure, there is relativism. People interpret things differently and that’s why we have to be careful. So whose interpretation of the Song of Songs would you want me to see?

 

[ValPal]

Other people like who? There are things in the CCC that come from Bernard of Clairvaux. His interpretations can also be found in Bible commentaries.

Exactly where in the Catechism is Bernard of Clairvaux’s prohibition on this particular matter mentioned? If it isn’t there, then it is not an official teaching of the Church.

Furthermore, just because the Church has used a person’s opinion as the basis of an authoritative teaching does not mean all of that person’s teachings/opinions are authoritative. Certain opinions of the “great” saint’s like St. Augustine aren’t necessarily authoritative; the Church has chosen not to adopt certain things.

 

[fpt]

Do you agree with the theology of body of John-Paul II? Do you know his theology?

 

[ValPal]

ETA: One could argue that it is also nasty and disgusting to have to wipe a baby’s bum and have it end up on one’s hand. But the nastiness and disgustingness of that does not make it sinful.

Many things associated with sex are “disgusting.” Anyone ever see a baby born? The fact that a baby is born is a glorious and wonderful thing, but the actual birth is gross to any casual observer. However, the parents could care less…barring the occasional fainting father. Same with sex; what is disgusting to the outside observer is not viewed that way to the couple involved.

 

[fpt]

By nature, the marital act is sacred. Without preliminary and without sexual preliminary, the fact of making one flesh is not human, it is an insult to the human intelligence. Foreplay are totally human.

What is the sexual cooperation in the human fashion during the marital act (before during and after)? I wish a very deep answer. **Could you give the white list what is morally moral, by nature, and the black list of what is not moral, by nature? **Otherwise, I can not understand the position of some posters of this thread? You can send to me a private message, if you prefer for avoiding the graphic texts.

 

[fpt]

What do think of starting another thread, in the section of moral theology of this forum.

The topic: The natural moral order of preliminaries (preliminaries and sexual preliminaries), in the context of marital act , according to the teaching of the Roman catholic Church. Only the acts before,during and after the union of bodies between the wife and her husband.

No talk about the imperfect and incomplete sodomy, even, as foreplay, because we are sure ( i am sure) or almost sure that is morally wrong, per se. Only the other acts. Do you agree with? Do you want? Do you wish? Useful or not?

 

[ahs]

What do think of starting another thread, in the section of moral theology of this forum.

The topic: The natural moral order of preliminaries (preliminaries and sexual preliminaries), in the context of marital act , according to the teaching of the Roman catholic Church. Only the acts before,during and after the union of bodies between the wife and her husband.

No talk about the imperfect and incomplete sodomy, even, as foreplay, because we are sure ( i am sure) or almost sure that is morally wrong, per se. Only the other acts. Do you agree with? Do you want? Do you wish? Useful or not?

Sure. Perhaps that would be a better place for one to answer my question, “Is it a sin to kiss one’s spouse’s hand?”. I believe the answer to this naturally is the same answer to “is foreplay a sin?”.

 

[kelvinf]

You can state your subjective opinions all you want. If you want to call it a sin, show where the sin is involved from Church teaching. Otherwise, it’s jut your opinion.

By the way, is it a sin to kiss one’s spouse’s hand?

ETA: One could argue that it is also nasty and disgusting to have to wipe a baby’s bum and have it end up on one’s hand. But the nastiness and disgustingness of that does not make it sinful.

So do you agree that oral sex is nasty? When we deal with this basic, then we can discuss the sinfulness.