Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Sarcelle]

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.

Okay. Got you.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Rau]

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.

While I generally agree with your broad point, what you write above is odd. Anal sex or oral sex to completion would evidently be wrong as not procreative, and the issue of substitution does not need to be invoked,

Anal or oral sex but not to completion, ie. as a form of touching, stimulation, pleasuring, etc. does not seem objectively different to use of the hand. (I find the idea of anal revolting, and I presume the health implications alone should render it immoral.)

From where comes this doctrine about “substitution”?

 

[fpt]

While I generally agree with your broad point, what you write above is odd. Anal sex or oral sex to completion would evidently be wrong as not procreative, and the issue of substitution does not need to be invoked,

Anal or oral sex but not to completion, ie. as a form of touching, stimulation, pleasuring, etc. does not seem objectively different to use of the hand. (I find the idea of anal revolting, and I presume the health implications alone should render it immoral.)

From where comes this doctrine about “substitution”?

The oral sex and the anal sex are always morally wrong, because the end of the marital act is changed by a voluntary deposit of male seed, not in the good place. There are a substitution and a replacement concerning the ending of the male sexuality. The male ejaculation is not inside the natural organ of woman. Here, the vagina is replaced and substituted by the anus or the mouth.

 

[fpt]

While I generally agree with your broad point, what you write above is odd. Anal sex or oral sex to completion would evidently be wrong as not procreative, and the issue of substitution does not need to be invoked,

Anal or oral sex but not to completion, ie. as a form of touching, stimulation, pleasuring, etc. does not seem objectively different to use of the hand. (I find the idea of anal revolting, and I presume the health implications alone should render it immoral.)

From where comes this doctrine about “substitution”?

The issues are about the roles, the functions and the ends of sexual organs.

 

[Emily2014]

Reading through this thread, or at least some of such a lengthy thread, it all seems a bit like a lot of hot air about very private personal interactions. Why does anything to do with sex provoke such screeds?

 

[fpt]

While I generally agree with your broad point, what you write above is odd. Anal sex or oral sex to completion would evidently be wrong as not procreative, and the issue of substitution does not need to be invoked,

Anal or oral sex but not to completion, ie. as a form of touching, stimulation, pleasuring, etc. does not seem objectively different to use of the hand. (I find the idea of anal revolting, and I presume the health implications alone should render it immoral.)

From where comes this doctrine about “substitution”?

According to the classical theology the imperfect and complete sodomy is always morally wrong. The same thing for the imperfect and incomplete sodomy, like foreplay. The anal stimulation, in the human manner, is objectively dirty and co, in the power. And in addition the anus is not linked to the conjugal erotism, objectively speaking in the catholic meaning.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Reading through this thread, or at least some of such a lengthy thread, it all seems a bit like a lot of hot air about very private personal interactions. Why does anything to do with sex provoke such screeds?

I don’t know but that is something you could ask the entirety of mankind throughout the entirety of history. Sexual morality is not new. It is not something that only our generation is titillated by. But I do wonder what you mean about “private personal interactions” Sometimes that argument is used to defend sodomy or homosexual or any deviant relations.

is that what you mean to do?

 

[Emily2014]

I don’t know but that is something you could ask the entirety of mankind throughout the entirety of history. Sexual morality is not new. It is not something that only our generation is titillated by. But I do wonder what you mean about “private personal interactions” Sometimes that argument is used to defend sodomy or homosexual or any deviant relations.is that what you mean to do?

I just cannot understand why people seem so interested in the intimacies of other peoples’ lives. Don’t you find it strange and intrusive?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I just cannot understand why people seem so interested in the intimacies of other peoples’ lives. Don’t you find it strange and intrusive?

No, I find it a part of human nature from Adam and Eve to now. Human sexuality has always been a part of history, morality, theology, and neighborhood conversations. Any glance at the media will tell you that! I wonder why you find it so odd or puzzling when it is the norm for so many?

But honestly, you do understand why the immorality and disorder of certain sexual practices are discussed right?

 

[Rau]

The oral sex and the anal sex are always morally wrong, because the end of the marital act is changed by a voluntary deposit of male seed, not in the good place. There are a substitution and a replacement concerning the ending of the male sexuality. The male ejaculation is not inside the natural organ of woman. Here, the vagina is replaced and substituted by the anus or the mouth.

Ok, this is clear, and we agree.

The open question then is the acceptability of those acts, when not to completion, as part of foreplay.

 

[Rau]

According to the classical theology the imperfect and complete sodomy is always morally wrong. The same thing for the imperfect and incomplete sodomy, like foreplay. The anal stimulation, in the human manner, is objectively dirty and co, in the power. And in addition the anus is not linked to the conjugal erotism, objectively speaking in the catholic meaning.

Indeed, unclean, unhealthy is perhaps the basis of the immorality of (incomplete) sodomy.

 

[Rau]

Reading through this thread, or at least some of such a lengthy thread, it all seems a bit like a lot of hot air about very private personal interactions. Why does anything to do with sex provoke such screeds?

The discussion is not about the acts of “specific” other people, but about certain specific human Acts. The fact that they may be personal or intimate to “someone” does not render them beyond discussion.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Reading through this thread, or at least some of such a lengthy thread, it all seems a bit like a lot of hot air about very private personal interactions. Why does anything to do with sex provoke such screeds?

It is very easy to pass judgement on the spec in the eye of another; it takes effort to think about the beam in our own eye.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is very easy to pass judgement on the spec in the eye of another; it takes effort to think about the beam in our own eye.

But isn’t the point of that phrase to remove your own beam then help your brother remove the speck?

Oh well, in the grand scheme of beams and specks I think my issues are probably specks compared to homosexual relations…

 

[clem456]

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.

Of course, Catholic teaching does not justify any practice for any reason. Even a legitimate form can be used in an immoral way. Any action must have respect for the human person.

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.

BZZZZZZT. Not Catholic teaching. Please quote the chapter and verse to support your assertion. (take your time )
You would have us believe that spouses should have intercourse without intimate preparation like kissing, touching, stimulation of the sexual organs etc…It’s a nonsensical assertion that has absolutely no backing in Catholic theology.

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…”

ok…so?

“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.”

Yes…and?

“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.”

Yes, beautiful stuff from the Pope. Unfortunately it does not begin to support your assertion above.

Procreation is (one of) 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).

So I am not to touch my wife’s genitals then, with my hands or mouth. Is that correct?
Seriously, do you think even one human being could have been conceived within the moral scenario you have invented, where a couple cannot touch one another other outside of vaginal intercourse? What you say is laughable.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

But isn’t the point of that phrase to remove your own beam then help your brother remove the speck?

Oh well, in the grand scheme of beams and specks I think my issues are probably specks compared to homosexual relations…

And this is the big problem I have with many Catholic attitudes toward “homosexual relations”, that having gay sex is SO much more sinful than any sin a heterosexual could commit. So easy to condemn a sin that you know you’ll never be tempted to commit yourself, isn’t it?

At least you’re being honest about it, which most people aren’t. But I doubt that, say, Pope Francis, would agree with you.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And this is the big problem I have with many Catholic attitudes toward “homosexual relations”, that having gay sex is SO much more sinful than any sin a heterosexual could commit. So easy to condemn a sin that you know you’ll never be tempted to commit yourself, isn’t it?

At least you’re being honest about it, which most people aren’t. But I doubt that, say, Pope Francis, would agree with you.

I did not say they were worse. My point is that I do not have a sin on my soul that compares to homosexual acts. I also do not have murder, adultery, ABC, or masturbation on my soul either.

I actually think Pope Francis would agree with me should I be fortunate enough to be in his confession line…

You completely misunderstood. I have committed sodomy before many times…

The difference is that I repented and sin no more.

 

[clem456]

And this is the big problem I have with many Catholic attitudes toward “homosexual relations”, that having gay sex is SO much more sinful than any sin a heterosexual could commit. So easy to condemn a sin that you know you’ll never be tempted to commit yourself, isn’t it?

At least you’re being honest about it, which most people aren’t. But I doubt that, say, Pope Francis, would agree with you.

You have a good point.

'God, I thank You that I am not like other people:

Catholicism proposes a humility that encourages a person to ask, in the words of Pope Francis,
“Who am I…”
It’s hard for all of us to live it.

 

[Emily2014]

No, I find it a part of human nature from Adam and Eve to now. Human sexuality has always been a part of history, morality, theology, and neighborhood conversations. Any glance at the media will tell you that! I wonder why you find it so odd or puzzling when it is the norm for so many?

But honestly, you do understand why the immorality and disorder of certain sexual practices are discussed right?

No - you know from previous threads that I think we should each respect the privacy of others and that I will never understand why the Church (mainly run by celibate men) insists on creating rules about matters which should remain outside its remit.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No - you know from previous threads that I think we should each respect the privacy of others and that I will never understand why the Church (mainly run by celibate men) insists on creating rules about matters which should remain outside its remit.

I think that is an area of human nature that we will never achieve.