Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[fpt]

In the couple, each one has the right of using the touching and each one has the obligation of being okay with the touching in order to express the conjugal love: it is almost non-negotiable. Indeed, there is mutual and reciprocal donation/reception of bodies during the marital act and / or not in the context of the marital act, in link with the natural moral order.

If a fiancée is not okay with the fact of touching, in the human manner, the other and of being touched by the other, she is not ready for the marriage. If a fiancée is not okay with the fact of touching, in the human manner, the other corporeally, carnally, intimately, sensually, sexually and of being touched by the other corporeally, carnally, intimately, sensually, sexually, she is not ready for the marriage.

If a fiancé is not okay with the fact of touching, in the human manner, the other and of being touched by the other, he is not ready for the marriage. If a fiancé is not okay with the fact of touching, in the human manner, the other corporally, carnally, intimately, sensually, sexually and of being touched by the other corporally, carnally, intimately, sensually, sexually, he is not ready for the marriage.

The language of love by touching is directly linked to the marriage. The physical touch with sex or without sex is so important.

The other love languages (gifts, quality time, words of affirmation, acts of service) are very important because we are body, soul and heart. Each one has to try to agree with the other languages of love, that is an obligation of means. The conjugal charity is to try to offer and to receive all the love languages: sacrifices, efforts, communication, talks, information are very important within catholic couple.

In the couple, the talks about the conjugal sexuality and all the corollaries are natural, normal, helpful, useful, and are a right, an obligation and a duty, if there are issues. For solving issues the discussions, the debates, the conversations and the talks about the conjugal sex are necessary and compulsory: the first steps.

The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual covenant, a sexed and sexual alliance and a sexed and sexual consortium. One of objects of marriage is the union of bodies, in the human fashion, with a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable sexual cooperation .

 

[Simca]

I’ve tried to read through all this, but gave up around page 18. So please excuse me for intruding…

I was wondering about Song of Solomon 4:5-6.

‘‘Your breasts are perfect; they are twin deer feeding among lilies. I will hasten to those hills
sprinkled with sweet perfume and stay there till sunrise.’’

and so, if a woman’s breasts were created to be used for nursing children, any other purpose would be sinful? Men shouldn’t be attracted to, be intimate with… ? (I’m kind of being sarcastic here)

But I really did have a question: Let’s say an older couple…past child-bearing age, and the viagra just doesn’t work very well…so they’re just supposed to live ignoring that area of their lives forever? Other forms of mutual enjoyment would then be considered fulfilling the intimacy need, and although not open to life–because that possibility is zero, it is still an act of unity and of mutual love and a recognized need where one person seeks to fulfill the needs of the other. some things should just be left to a couples’ conscience.

 

[fpt]

One of ends of marriage and of the marital act is the fact avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence, thus each member of couple is for the other a conjugal nurse, a conjugal doctor, a medical lover and a medicinal beloved. The marital debt is helpful and useful for keeping the chastity. Each one must offer his or her body to the other, and to sacrifice, in the reason and the moderation, (rules of reason), in favor of the other in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. Yes, the practice of the marital act can be a moral treatment, a spiritual treatment and a physical treatment for each member of couple.

The marriage is a voluntary act of love, what means the will to love the other for all the life by the mechanism of the volition. This love is composed, materially speaking, by the body. **Thus, if you disagree with the fact of having to touch the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you, and if you disagree with the fact of having to be touched by the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you. **The marital act and Co is one of hard cores of marriage because *the marriage is a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual covenant and a sexed and sexual consortium: *a sexed and sexual donation, and a sexed and sexual reception, for all the life and for all the time, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.

Each spouse has to try to satisfy the legitimate sexual hopes, the legitimate sexual needs, the legitimate sexual desires and the legitimate sexual rights of the other, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. The married male, who is the husband, has to understand the normal sexuality of his female: husband is the teacher of the sexuality of his wife, he is also the professor of the sexuality of his wife, and then he is the doctor and love’s master of the sexuality of his wife. The married female, who is the wife has to understand the normal sexuality of her male: wife is the teacher of the sexuality of her husband, she is also the professor of the sexuality of her husband, and then she is the doctress and the master of love of the sexuality of her husband.
*
The rules of reason, the reasonability, the fair rationality, the objectivity, the justice, the natural goodness, the Charity, the natural love, the supernatural love, the moderation, the balance, the efforts and the sacrifices, the principle of practice of the marital act and the exception of un-practice of the marital act are the rules of marriage.*

Love is the source of all things. Love is also the ends of all things. Only love is important and essential.

The marital act for expressing the conjugal love;
The marital act for bonding of the conjugal love;
The marital act for making a baby, the opening to the life;
The marital act for staying chaste within the marriage (for avoiding the personal sexual sins, for keeping her husband or his wife in the conjugal fidelity), the meritorious act of the marital act: the marital act for avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence;
The marital act for giving his or her own body to the other and for receiving the body of the other and thus for expressing, a new time, the vows of marriage ;

The practice of the marital act has to be done in the love and in the tenderness, and in the alterity and the complementarity with the masculinity (the manhood, the virility) and with the femininity (the womanhood);

The supranatural virtue of Charity has to be the cause, the reason, the motivation, the goal, the intention, the purpose, the objective and the end. Only, the Love and the Catholic Charity are totally fair and holy.

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles are attached to the human nature of each member of couple, in the equity, in the equality, in the difference, in the alterity and in the complementarity.

The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward the spouse;
The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward himself or herself;
The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward the couple;
The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward the family;
The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward the children;
The rights, the obligations, the duties, the debts, the competences, the functions and the roles toward God;

The rights/obligations/duties/debts/functions/roles/competencies are directly linked to the human person.

The mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable donations/ receptions of sexed and sexual human persons for all the life and for a total consortium of the life (physical, physiological, mental, psychological, psychical, moral, intellectual, cultural, spiritual, religious, sensible, affective, educational, sexed, sexual, erotic) in all the dimensions: body, soul and heart with the verticality and the horizontality.

 

[fpt]

Morally speaking, in the context of the marital act:

Does she have the right to use foreplay on the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to use foreplay on the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to see the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to see the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to look at the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to look at the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to stare the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to stare the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to see / to look at / to stare the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to see / to look at / to stare the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Is there the opposable right to see / to look at / to stare the nudity of the other, in the love and in the tenderness?? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to listen the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to listen the body of his wife,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to hear the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to hear the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to touch the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to touch the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to kiss the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to kiss the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to caresse the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to caresse the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to massage the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to massage the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to lick the body of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to lick the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does she have the right to suck the body of her husband,in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Does he have the right to suck the body of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.
Are there opposable rights to the other in link with the intimacy, in the love and in the tenderness? Of course yes.

What is the list of those rights!!! I am ready to write this list.

 

[fpt]

Again,*** all in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.***

If the fiancée does not want to be touched** in the love and the tenderness,** sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want to receive the masculinity of her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage.

If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want to receive the feminity of his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.

The right on the body, the right of the body, the right to the body, the conjugal sexual debts, the conjugal sexual rights, the conjugal sexual obligations, the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral donation / reception of sexed and sexual bodies (to take, to receive, to give, to do - to kiss, to massage, to lick, to suck, to caresse, to touch -, to act, to donate), the fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation (activity and passivity)??? The right of caresses, the obligation of caresses, the duty of caresses, the Holy erotism within marriage, the fact of giving the body, and the fact of receiving the body, the Song of Songs???

In the context of marital act, the massages in human fashion, the caresses in human fashion, the kisses in human fashion, the suctions in human fashion, the touchings in human fashion, the licks in human fashion and all the stimulations (in the human fashion) on all the body of the other, even on the sexual exterior parts of the other, are morally permissible, by nature and by essence. All her body, her erogenous parts and even her external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by her husband; all his body, his erogenous parts and even his external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by his wife.

The right to give caresses to the other, the right to receive caresses from the other.

If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch in the love and the tenderness, the marriage is not for you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’ve tried to read through all this, but gave up around page 18. So please excuse me for intruding…

I was wondering about Song of Solomon 4:5-6.

‘‘Your breasts are perfect; they are twin deer feeding among lilies. I will hasten to those hills
sprinkled with sweet perfume and stay there till sunrise.’’

and so, if a woman’s breasts were created to be used for nursing children, any other purpose would be sinful? Men shouldn’t be attracted to, be intimate with… ? (I’m kind of being sarcastic here)

I’m not sure who said that body parts only have one purpose. I certainly didn’t.

But I really did have a question: Let’s say an older couple…past child-bearing age, and the viagra just doesn’t work very well…so they’re just supposed to live ignoring that area of their lives forever? Other forms of mutual enjoyment would then be considered fulfilling the intimacy need, and although not open to life–because that possibility is zero, it is still an act of unity and of mutual love and a recognized need where one person seeks to fulfill the needs of the other. some things should just be left to a couples’ conscience.

Does one-sided oral sex fulfill an *intimacy *need? Aren’t we confusing pleasure with intimacy here?

What would you say if I said that we should “leave things up to” a gay couple’s conscience, and not discuss the potential sins they might engage in?

The marital embrace is not a “get out of sin free” card.

 

[bobballen_18]

I’ve tried to read through all this, but gave up around page 18. So please excuse me for intruding…

Well, you made it a lot further than me - I quit after page 2! Hahaha.

You know, this probably won’t be a help to anyone, but I just wanted to make a short comment. This comment may flow from the fact that I am really naive, meaning, I have never experienced sex, nor have I ever truly been in love with a woman, but you know what, just the idea of oral and anal sex seem to me quite repulsive. I guess there are other sexual acts that probably happen during the marital act that I would probably think are gross, too, at least in my current state of life, but it seems to me that it could be argued that anal and oral sex are against the natural law. Although I guess I can see how as long as the seed is not released into the anus or mouth it would be permissible. Maybe you just really have to be in love and it would be a heat of the moment thing…but really, it sounds gross to me.

 

[fpt]

Well, you made it a lot further than me - I quit after page 2! Hahaha.

You know, this probably won’t be a help to anyone, but I just wanted to make a short comment. This comment may flow from the fact that I am really naive, meaning, I have never experienced sex, nor have I ever truly been in love with a woman, but you know what, just the idea of oral and anal sex seem to me quite repulsive. I guess there are other sexual acts that probably happen during the marital act that I would probably think are gross, too, at least in my current state of life, but it seems to me that it could be argued that anal and oral sex are against the natural law. Although I guess I can see how as long as the seed is not released into the anus or mouth it would be permissible. Maybe you just really have to be in love and it would be a heat of the moment thing…but really, it sounds gross to me.

In the marriage, between wife and husband, when you are really in love, in the context of the marital act, you want to give many caresses to the other, in the human manner and in the tenderness, for provoking some sexual pleasures and some orgasms. And you desire to receive many caresses coming from the other, in the human manner and in the tenderness, for having some sexual pleasures and some orgasms: to give and to receive. The caresses can be manual and digital (with hands and with fingers for touchings, for massages), with the lips of the mouth, with the tongue of the mouth (to kiss, to lick, to suck)…etc. All the body can be stimulated like foreplay , the erogenous parts and even the external sexual organs, except of the anus. Oral sex is always morally wrong and anal sex is always morally wrong. But we have to have the good definition. They are always wrong, because they are substitutions and replacements.

If the fiancée does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all her body, by her future husband (her present fiancé), she is not ready for the marriage: she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the husband of being a conjugal active lover on her body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on her top parts and on her intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If she does not want to receive the masculinity of her future husband, she is not capable to enter into the marriage.

If the fiancé does not want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sexually speaking on all his body, by his future wife (her present fiancée), he is not ready for the marriage: he has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal passive lover and she has to agree with the fact of being a conjugal active lover. The sexed and sexual contract and the sexed and sexual institution imply the right / obligation for the wife of being a conjugal active lover on his body: massages, kisses, touchings, licks, suctions on his top parts and on his intimate parts, before, during and after the complete union of bodies. If he does not want to receive the feminity of his future wife, he is not capable to enter into the marriage.

By principle, the foreplay and the sexual foreplay are rights, obligations and duties to give and to receive.

 

[fpt]

Well, you made it a lot further than me - I quit after page 2! Hahaha.

You know, this probably won’t be a help to anyone, but I just wanted to make a short comment. This comment may flow from the fact that I am really naive, meaning, I have never experienced sex, nor have I ever truly been in love with a woman, but you know what, just the idea of oral and anal sex seem to me quite repulsive. I guess there are other sexual acts that probably happen during the marital act that I would probably think are gross, too, at least in my current state of life, but it seems to me that it could be argued that anal and oral sex are against the natural law. Although I guess I can see how as long as the seed is not released into the anus or mouth it would be permissible. Maybe you just really have to be in love and it would be a heat of the moment thing…but really, it sounds gross to me.

In the context of marital act, the massages in human fashion, the caresses in human fashion, the kisses in human fashion, the suctions in human fashion, the touchings in human fashion, the licks in human fashion and all the stimulations (in the human fashion) on all the body of the other, even on the sexual exterior parts of the other, are morally permissible, by nature and by essence. All her body, her erogenous parts and even her external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by her husband; all his body, his erogenous parts and even his external sexual organs, can be kissed, caressed, touched, massaged, licked, sucked with love and with tenderness by his wife.

The right on the body, the right of the body, the right to the body, the conjugal sexual debt, the conjugal sexual right, the conjugal sexual obligation, the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral donation / reception of sexed and sexual bodies, the conjugal sexual privileges, the fact of making one flesh, the sexual cooperation, the fact of giving the body, and the fact of receiving the body???

If you don’t want to be touched in the love and the tenderness, sensually and sexually, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, the marriage isn’t for you. If you do not want to touch, sensually and sexually, in the love and the tenderness, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act, *the marriage is not for you. *

 

[fpt]

Well, you made it a lot further than me - I quit after page 2! Hahaha.

You know, this probably won’t be a help to anyone, but I just wanted to make a short comment. This comment may flow from the fact that I am really naive, meaning, I have never experienced sex, nor have I ever truly been in love with a woman, but you know what, just the idea of oral and anal sex seem to me quite repulsive. I guess there are other sexual acts that probably happen during the marital act that I would probably think are gross, too, at least in my current state of life, but it seems to me that it could be argued that anal and oral sex are against the natural law. Although I guess I can see how as long as the seed is not released into the anus or mouth it would be permissible. Maybe you just really have to be in love and it would be a heat of the moment thing…but really, it sounds gross to me.

Only, for information on the topic: ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/0…d-sexual-acts/

Here, for the first time, **this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on the non-sexual organs. The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good exception of definition of masturbation, the wrong understanding of the reality and the objectivity of the marital act, The Song of Songs. It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.

**
If you are one of his followers, there is a big work to do.**

The body is not gross (disgusting), the sexual caresses and co are not gross (disgusting), the intimate parts are not gross (disgusting).

 

[fpt]

A correction:

Only, for information on the topic:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/ The Distinction between Ordinary Foreplay and Sexual Acts

Here, for the first time, **this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on the non-sexual organs. The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good acception of definition of masturbation, the wrong understanding of **the **reality and the objectivity of the marital act, The Song of Songs. It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.

**
If you are one of his followers, there is a big work to do.**

The body is not gross (disgusting), the sexual caresses and co are not gross (disgusting), the intimate parts are not gross (disgusting).

Of course, I can not be on the same view than Ronald Conte Jr about this topic.

 

[Ron_Conte]

In other words “If it feels good do it” lol. The duty of a husband is to respect his wife’s body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.The same goes for a wife. The mentality of “anything goes” may lead to some serious repercussions especially when a couple whose sex life has become routine and boring engages in practices the bible has considered depraved. When people are engaged in sexual intercourse part of the physiology leads to a sort of dulling of the mind and often times being overcome by lust and the seeking of the pleasure of orgasm people could seek eroticism just for its own sake.

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

 

[Sarcelle]

A correction:

Only, for information on the topic:

ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/ The Distinction between Ordinary Foreplay and Sexual Acts

Here, for the first time, **this “particular theologian” seems to agree with the fact that it is totally moral and normal, for the wife and the husband in the marriage and in the context of the marital act, of touching in the erotic way, the erogenous top parts of the other and the non sexual parts, in the human fashion, in love and in the tenderness. The touchings, the fingerings, the kissings, the suctions, the massages, the caresses, the strokes, the lickings, the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations, the oral stimulations… are moral , but only on the top parts and on the non-sexual organs. The right of seeing, of watching and of staring the nudity of the other. The right of touching, in different manners in the human fashion, all the body of the spouse, but not the exterior sexual organs.

Here, his intellectual approach is against: the temporality and the phenomenology of the marital act, the female sexology, the male sexology, the sexology of the marital act, the good acception of definition of masturbation, the wrong understanding of **the **reality and the objectivity of the marital act, The Song of Songs. It is so sad and this is a sad understanding.

**
If you are one of his followers, there is a big work to do.**

The body is not gross (disgusting), the sexual caresses and co are not gross (disgusting), the intimate parts are not gross (disgusting).

I agree overall but let me add that anal sex does present some very real health concerns. A wife who will not consent to this should not be blamed as not “being ready for marriage” and should not be forced to participate by her husband.

The anus is designed for egress not ingress.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she receives a masturbation from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for her.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he receives a masturbation from his wife. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him.

If you agree with that, there is a big issue. As catholic, I can not and I do not have to be on the same line. Your catholic moral on the definition of the sin of masturbation is totally wrong and very not natural. It is very … no word.

 

[fpt]

I agree overall but let me add that anal sex does present some very real health concerns. A wife who will not consent to this should not be blamed as not “being ready for marriage” and should not be forced to participate by her husband.

The anus is designed for egress not ingress.

Please, read me.

All the body can be stimulated like foreplay , the erogenous parts and even the external sexual organs, except of the anus. Oral sex is always morally wrong and anal sex is always morally wrong. But we have to have the good definition. They are always wrong, because they are substitutions and replacements.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

Your intellectual approach about the definition of sexual sins between wife and husband in the context of the marital act is polluted by all the christian heresies, by all the ideologies and by all the “praxis” concerning the human nature. In my humble opinion, your “theology” on this particular subtopic is touched by the great disease of the intelligence, philosophically speaking, and theologically speaking. You need to purify your manner of understanding the catholic moral concerning the natural moral order of the marital act. Yes, your theology is wrong about this very special topic, in my humble opinion.

You deny the natural rights of each member of the couple in the context of the marital act: the sexual rights on the body of the other and the reserved sexual acts to the spouses. Your moral theology is unacceptable and she is very dangerous for the couples. As catholic, I own the natural right to critique your theology and your thinking. You can disagree with me, of course. But, for the moment, you do not respond to my questions and my arguments.

Do you know priests who ask to spouses to confess the sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, as sexual sins of masturbation?

 

[fpt]

In other words “If it feels good do it” lol. The duty of a husband is to respect his wife’s body as a temple of the Holy Spirit.The same goes for a wife. The mentality of “anything goes” may lead to some serious repercussions especially when a couple whose sex life has become routine and boring engages in practices the bible has considered depraved. When people are engaged in sexual intercourse part of the physiology leads to a sort of dulling of the mind and often times being overcome by lust and the seeking of the pleasure of orgasm people could seek eroticism just for its own sake.

The conjugal sexual pleasures are morally good. The conjugal sexual orgasms are morally good. The conjugal erotism is morally good.

The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual pleasures, is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal sexual orgasms is, per se, morally good. The fact of seeking the conjugal erotism, per se, is morally good.

The fact of wanting to receive the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism from the other is, per se, morally good. The fact of wanting to give the conjugal sexual pleasures, the conjugal sexual orgasms and the conjugal erotism to the other is, per se, morally good.

 

[kozlosap]

Please, read me.

All the body can be stimulated like foreplay , the erogenous parts and even the external sexual organs, except of the anus. Oral sex is always morally wrong and anal sex is always morally wrong. But we have to have the good definition. They are always wrong, because they are substitutions and replacements.

Aren’t we all thrilled that the vast majority of priests would consider your sex life to be you and your partner’s private concern and not the Church’s.

A few years ago our Pastor was speaking to a study group I was lucky to belong to. We were discussing reconciliation and he told us that more and more often he is hearing confessions of people that are asking for forgiveness for being mean, judgemental and even homophobic or racist. He said that his heart soars when he hears these kinds of confessions concerning living out the gift of the Gospels Our Lord gave us instead of the endless laundry list of social dogma sins such as using the pill or condoms. I was blown away by that observation. Yes, Father is a member of the Jesuits and has taught in Rome, Florence and here in the States. If we, as Catholics, would all focus more on living out the Gospels and less on obsessing about others sex lives, we would all be a better place!

 

[fpt]

Aren’t we all thrilled that the vast majority of priests would consider your sex life to be you and your partner’s private concern and not the Church’s.

A few years ago our Pastor was speaking to a study group I was lucky to belong to. We were discussing reconciliation and he told us that more and more often he is hearing confessions of people that are asking for forgiveness for being mean, judgemental and even homophobic or racist. He said that his heart soars when he hears these kinds of confessions concerning living out the gift of the Gospels Our Lord gave us instead of the endless laundry list of social dogma sins such as using the pill or condoms. I was blown away by that observation. Yes, Father is a member of the Jesuits and has taught in Rome, Florence and here in the States. If we, as Catholics, would all focus more on living out the Gospels and less on obsessing about others sex lives, we would all be a better place!

What is the good definition of the sin of racism? The racialism is not the racism.

What are the good definitions of any sins against the homosexual persons? As catholic, I have to refuse to use the word “homophobic” because this term is not quite formal and is coming from the gay groups and co. Per se, the fact of being homophobic is not sinful. Before all, the “homophobia” is not a sin because that can be a disease.

The fact of thinking and of saying, that the “homosexual acts” are unnatural, are always morally wrong and are always naturally disordered, is not sinful;

The fact of thinking and saying, that the “marriage” between two persons of the same sex can not be called marriage and that, objectively speaking, it is not a marriage, is not sinful;

The fact of thinking and of saying that the couple is, only, constituted by a human male and human female is not sinful;

The fact of struggling against the gay lobbies, that want to normalize the homosexuality like a social norm and a moral norm, is not sinful;

The fact of wanting to protect his family against the gay lobbies is not sinful.

 

[fpt]

Well said.

By the way, the “release of seed”, as one poster above put it, is not the sole basis for determining if a sexual act in marriage is moral. There is no basis in Catholic moral theology for the claim that, as long as the husband completes the act within natural intercourse, that all else is moral.

Each and every sexual act in a marriage needs to be open to the possibility of conceiving a child. In other words, each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. So sexual acts that are inherently non-procreative are inherently immoral.

As Pope Pius XII so aptly said (in address to midwives) –
“the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses…”

“The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself… And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.”

“If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.”

Procreation is the primary end of marriage and the marital act. Marital sexual acts must be of the procreative type; otherwise, the substance of the act is morally disordered (i.e. the act is intrinsically evil).

Your definition of masturbation is totally wrong.

“Non possumus” is my catholic cry. I do not agree with your statement. Your moral view is totally crazy, foolish, wrong, stupid, irreal, unrealistic, irrational and unfair. This “theology” is totally… no word!!! : that is shameful , in my humble opinion. I must fight this moral stupidity. As catholic, that is my moral right, my moral duty and my moral obligation.