If that is the case, then why have sex, considering onanism requires you to actually be having sex? If you are going to have sex anyway, then there is no difference (in regards to pain) in ejaculating within the woman or outside. It is going to hurt either way.when the wife had surgery, for example, and it is painful to have vaginal penentration
Masturbation means there is one person present. Onanism doesn’t necessarily mean vaginal penetration has occured, at least in use hereIt seems your definition of onanism differs from everyone else’s. Onanism implies that vaginal penetration has already occurred. Are you talking about masturbation?
I don’t want to be disrespectful or crude, but it seems that you, not the Church, are in need of more precise definition of terms. Just come out and say what act you’re talking about. We’re all adults.Masturbation means there is one person present. Onanism doesn’t necessarily mean vaginal penetration has occured, at least in use here
Colloquially, onanism is called “pulling out”. So, yes, it does imply penetration. Otherwise it is called either masturbation (if done to self), or mutual stimulation/masturbation, if a partner is involved in the stimulation.Masturbation means there is one person present. Onanism doesn’t necessarily mean vaginal penetration has occured, at least in use here
well I included “onanism” in “mutual stimulation” I see, but that’s just semantics. In use nowadays, masturbation ALWAYS implies “doing it to yourself”Colloquially, onanism is called “pulling out”. So, yes, it does imply penetration. Otherwise it is called either masturbation (if done to self), or mutual stimulation/masturbation, if a partner is involved in the stimulation.
I’d say the word masturbation is used to also mean stimulation by means other than penetration, usually done by oneself. So, it seems that definitions have been off.In use nowadays, masturbation ALWAYS implies “doing it to yourself”
I agree that clarification is needed. Let’s bring it to the Vatican! lolI’ve never discussed this with anyone before. It just came up on this thread, and I pointed out, after looking at the Church statements, that there reallys seems to be a need for clarification on this issue.
I think paragraph 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear.I agree that clarification is needed. Let’s bring it to the Vatican! lol
I agree with that too, but it might not be clear to all.I think paragraph 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is pretty clear.
When talking about masturbation here, it references it in regards to being outside of marriage. The Church seems to allow for masturbation (or rather mutual stimulation) when used as foreplay that ends in intercourse. If there is this kind of exemption, then it shows that more clarification is needed for some.By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”
Read the document referenced in the footnote.paragraph 2352 doesn’t really define masturbation: By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. That could apply to marital intercourse! Again, masturbation has always meant “by oneself” are far as I know
The OP seems to be suggesting that the procreative significance is irrelevant if the woman is infertile/sterile.CCC quoting Casti Connubii: This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act
A lot of people suggest that, that’s why I’ve suggestive that the speeches/documents/etc. were framed in the context of couples that can procreate, and the rest added later. Furthermore, when the original “rules” on the matter was formulated, it was not possible to determine if a couple was/was not procreative, unlike in modern times. The problems with applying “procreative” in the context of objectively sterile couples should be obvious.The OP seems to be suggesting that the procreative significance is irrelevant if the woman is infertile/sterile.
Regardless of what various papal encyclicals and speeches have confirmed, there comes a time when, not only is the woman infertile, but the man has trouble finishing…no matter how Catholic his intentions are. Take it from someone who is almost there. I dare anyone to tell me where the Church say’s I shouldn’t have started because I may not be able to finish. People seem to be hung up on the source of a statement…show me!!This is actually correct, and part of the confusion on the matter. IMHO, and my interpretation, the theory was formulated with the thought of fertile couples in mind, and the rest added later as these questions arose.
However, the Church has been clear on how the couple finishes the act, regardless of the confusing reasoning to get there. Various papal encyclicals and speeches have confirmed this.