Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[ahs]

Even if we suppose that oral or anal penetration between a married couple, isn’t sinful, isn’t it still the case that oral and anal penetration is an activity that places one in near occasion of grave sin?

Maybe. But we can’t know the heart and mind of every person who would engage in such an act. There may be, however unlikely, some people who genuinely feel that such are acts of love in preparation for the marital act and attach no feelings of concupiscence to those acts. Only God and the individual can know that.

Also, if the question of whether such activity is in-itself sinful, is an open question, then it can be argued that even if the act is not intended as an end, and that the intended end is natural intercourse, we still have to consider the basic principle that ends don’t justify the means.

No. Being “an open question” necessarily makes it subjective. By claiming “the ends don’t justify the means”, in this case, would be begging the question (circular reasoning). You don’t actually know what “the end” is in this case. In the case of proponents, the “end” would be “to show mutual love and affection in which the totality of the person enters”. So, the means suits the end perfectly in their case.

So even if the end in mind is unitive and procreative, if the means to that end is intrinsically evil [insert here certain types of foreplay or stimulation], then said means are not permissible.

Correct, if the means are really intrinsically evil. But what is being discussed (oral stimulation, for example) isn’t “intrinsically evil”.

 

[fpt]

The marital act, in the human fashion, with a sexual cooperation (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries) with acts of love and of tenderness on the body of the other is a right for each one, is a contractual obligation for each one, is an institutional duty for each one, and it is absolutely no a concession. The preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries in the context of the marital act are not tolerated by the catholic moral, they are not linked to notion of tolerance and or of concession.

 

[fpt]

Corrections and a plus

The marital act, in the human fashion, with a sexual cooperation (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries) with acts of love and of tenderness on the body of the other is a right for each one, is a contractual obligation for each one, is an institutional duty for each one, and it is absolutely **not **a concession. The preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries in the context of the marital act are not tolerated by the catholic moral, they are not linked to notion of tolerance and or of concession.

The preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries to give or to receive, in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation, in the context of the marital act, are:

some acts of the conjugal love; some acts of the conjugal tenderness; some acts for expressing the conjugal love; some acts of conjugal friendship; some acts of conjugal faith; some acts of conjugal confidence;

some acts expressing the donation of the body; some acts expressing the reception of body;

some acts refusing to promote the doctrinal reductionism of the marital act to a simple coitus.

 

[edlinked]

The approach of sexual matters have to be correctly ordered through love, if not, it will never be true love (meaning Gods love).

I would say that if there is an act that increases the possibility that the spouse be made an object of use, a wise option would be to refrain from that certain act. As I assume that someone in love would not take additional risks of making the spouse an object of use. I think that way you are making a decision to clearly affirm the value of the person.

Fpt, What I am saying about love and the corrected direction of sexual matters is not my personal opinion or conclusions, see Love and responsibility by Karol Wojtyla. If you want to study and analyze the person (this include sexual morality and especially sexual morality) you have to start from love, if not, the analysis and deductions will not be correct (in case you want the catholic view off course). Just look at all the saints. Well, we’ve just celebrated Christmas, see the Virgin Mary and saint Joseph.

Here is something about self mastery
"Every man in himself must appropriately manage the energies that are latent in his sensuality and affectivity so that they become allies in pursuing true love for they can also be, as is well known, its enemies.
The reason directly founding the fact of moral duty, is the dignity of the person.
Continence is the habit of restraining the concupiscence of the flesh by the will, the ability to moderate effectively the sensations connected with the reactions of sensuality and even of affectivity, is an indispensable method of self mastery, although it does not yet determine the full realization of virtue, as it cannot be an end in itself.
Objectivization without continence by no means could one be called self possessed or chaste.
Objectivization: acknowledging the objective order connected with the lived experience of truth about values. The lived experience of truth in relation to values.
This mastery not only aims at the perfection of the person who pursues it, but also at the realization of love in the world of persons and above all in the reciprocal relation between persons of different sex.
The very essence of moderation is unequivocal : whoever has not attained it is not self-possessed and temperate- therefore is not chaste.

There is no mature abstinence without acknowledging the objective order of values: the value of the person stands above the values of the sexus. The point here is practical acknowledgement , i.e., one that influence action."

Mastering the concupiscence of the flesh is worthy of the person. If he does not do this he jeopardizes his natural perfection; he allows what is inferior to and dependent on him to act in him, and even more, he subjects himself to it.

 

[edlinked]

Something about tenderness in love:
“Accordingly, it is necessary to call for even greater responsibility in granting a woman and a man the “right to tenderness”, both with regard to receiving as well as showing it. A tendency certainly exists – especially in some people— to widen these rights, to take premature advantage of them, while we are presented in both persons merely with the arousal of affectivity and sensuality with it, yet the objective profile of love and the union of persons are still missing. This premature tenderness in interaction between X and Y at times even destroys love or at least does not allow it to be developed in full, in all its interior as well as objective truth…

Without the virtue of temperance, without chastity and self mastery, it is impossible to educate and develop tenderness in man, so that it does not hinder love but serves it. For a serious danger occurs of some shallow, superficial lived experience of love and at the same time its “consumption” (i.e., using up the material from which love is formed in a woman and a man). Within limits of such lived experience both persons will fail in the effort to reach love’s objective profile and the proper good, but will remain with purely subjective manifestations, deriving from them merely ephemeral pleasures. Then love, instead of constantly beginning anew and constantly growing between them, quite the contrary, constantly, so to speak, ends and breaks off. Let us add that among other things a great deal depends here on the correct education of tenderness, on the responsibility for its manifestations….

Tenderness has an enormous role to fulfill here. When thoroughly joined with true love of the person, and being disinterested, it is capable of leading love out of various dangers of egoism of the senses, out of the dangers of the attitude to use. Tenderness is the ability to feel the whole man, the whole person, in all, even the most hidden movements of his soul, but always bearing in mind the true good of that person….

It may seem strange that the reflections on tenderness are located in this part of the chapter, which speaks of the problem of abstinence. (This chapter is The Person and Chastity)
However, there is a close connection and the reflections here are in their proper place. There can be no true tenderness without mature continence, which has its source in the will that is always ready to love, thus consistently overcoming the attitude to use imposed by sensuality and the concupiscence of the flesh. Without this continence the natural energies of sensuality and the energies of affectivity absorbed in their orbit will become mere material for egoism of the senses, and eventually for egoism of affection. This must be clearly and explicitly stated. Life teaches this at every step. The faithful know that behind this lies the mystery of original sin, whose consequences weigh in some particular way on the sphere of sexus and threatens the person, the greatest good among those of the created universe. This danger in a sense borders on love: what can be developed on the basis of the same material is true love, a union of persons, as well as ostensible “love”, which merely provides a cover for the interior attitude to use, for egoism that contradicts love. How enormous and in effect how positive a role abstinence fulfills here, for it liberates from that attitude and from egoism, and thereby indirectly forms love. The love of a woman and a man cannot be built otherwise than through a certain sacrifice and denial of oneself. We find the formula for this denial in the Gospel, in the words of Christ: “Whoever wishes to come after me, let him deny himself….” (see Mt 16:24, Mk 8:34, or Lk 9:23) The Gospel teaches abstinence as a way of loving.”

 

[fpt]

In my humble opinion, during the preparation of marriage, the fiancée and the fiancé should have* great talks* about all the particular topics, in link with the conjugal sexuality for identifying the* theoretical compatibilities, and the theoretical incompatibilities* in order to avoid the deep future difficulties.
The purpose is to permit, as possible as, a theoretical harmony about the marital act and Co.

Are they compatible, theoretically speaking, about the sexual morality of the marriage? Are they on the same page, theoretically speaking, concerning: the right on the body, the right to the body, the right of the body, the conjugal debt, the conjugal obligation, the conjugal duty, the modus operandi of the marital act, the existence or not of the sexual preliminaries, the acception of the definition of each sexual sin, the 4 ends of the marital act, the list of physical rights of each one on the body of the other, the list of physical rights of the other on my own body??? * The sexed and sexual moral order of the formation of the catholic marriage?* The moral order of the practice of the marital act?

For instance:

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the notion of the conjugal debt and Co, is a great issue!!! The doctrinal refusal of the existence of sexual preliminaries to the marital act to give and to receive, is a great issue!!! The doctrinal definition of the sin of masturbation seen like Ronald Conte, is a great issue!!! In those 3 cases, there are some effects on the validity of the marriage, *in my humble opinion.
*

 

[fpt]

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the sexual yoke is a great problematic!!!

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the natural right to require to touch the other (to give), sexually speaking, and / or to require to be touched by the other (to receive), sexually speaking, in the human fashion in conjugal love and in the conjugal tenderness, during the session of the marital act, is a very great problematic!!!

What are the effects (the consequences)???

The effects about the validity of marriage!!!
Or
The effects about the morality of the conjugal life (to be a good spouse)!!!

The effects on the validity of marriage and on the morality of the conjugal life!!!

 

[fpt]

By sexual yoke, I want to say the sexual link or the sexual tie: it is the sexual conjugality.

See merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yoke

3
a (1) : an oppressive agency (2) : servitude, bondage
b : tie, link; especially : marriage

Origin of YOKE
Middle English yok, from Old English geoc; akin to Old High German joh yoke, Latin jugum, Greek zygon, Sanskrit yuga, Latin jungere to join
First Known Use: before 12th century

 

[edlinked]

Fpt, now I understand, so you don’t care about the correct catholic view, you should have stated that from the beginning.

 

[Allegra]

Actually, I think it makes the argument against homosexuality stronger because it removes the “ewww factor” from the argument. Homosexual relations are not sinful because most people find them repulsive and degrading. They are sinful primarily for the reason that they are outside of the marital bond, and because by their nature they are neither procreative nor unitive. In the case of a married couple doing the same act in the context of foreplay, they are not sinning because their actions ultimately lead to a procreative and unitive (albeit nasty) climax. I think this argument is very clear and eliminates the notion that homosexual acts are wrong because God thinks they are icky.

Although, I do think there is a strong argument against the act of anal sex in that it disregards the health and wellbeing of the (ahem) recipient in favor of sexual stimulation, which risks objectifying the person.

 

[Allegra]

Actually, I think it makes the argument against homosexuality stronger because it removes the “ewww factor” from the argument. Homosexual relations are not sinful because most people find them repulsive and degrading. They are sinful primarily for the reason that they are outside of the marital bond, and because by their nature they are neither procreative nor unitive. In the case of a married couple doing the same act in the context of foreplay, they are not sinning because their actions ultimately lead to a procreative and unitive (albeit nasty) climax. I think this argument is very clear and eliminates the notion that homosexual acts are wrong because God thinks they are icky.

Although, I do think there is a strong argument against the act of anal sex in that it disregards the health and wellbeing of the (ahem) recipient in favor of sexual stimulation, which risks objectifying the person.

Sorry, I didn’t realize there were already 50 pages of comments on this before I started to respond. My computer is slow.

 

[fpt]

Fpt, now I understand, so you don’t care about the correct catholic view, you should have stated that from the beginning.

Could you explain this sentence? Why do you say that? Which are the reasons that are at the spring of your particular understanding concerning all my messages??? What are the causes of this analysis???

 

[fpt]

Fpt, now I understand, so you don’t care about the correct catholic view, you should have stated that from the beginning.

According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in the details with all the subtleties and with an unitary view of this global teaching (from Saint Peter to the Pope Francis), as catholic lay person, I can state that:

The catholic marriage is in the same time, an institution, a contract, a covenant, an alliance and a consortium between a man and a woman via a donation and a reception for all the life. *This institution / contract / covenant / alliance / consortium *is sexed and sexual, unitive, procreative, complementary, mutual, bilateral, reciprocal, equal, equitable, material (physical, physiological, carnal, sexual) and immaterial (sensible, affective, emotional, spiritual, religious, psychical, psychological and mental): the donation / reception of the body, of the soul and of the heart.

One of objects of this institution / contract / covenant / alliance / consortium is the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable donation / reception of the bodies in order to make one flesh in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation, in the unity and in the potential procreativity. The wife receives the body of her husband, the husband receives the body of his wife. The wife gives her body to her husband and the husband gives his body to his wife. *The body of the wife is the husband body and the body of the husband is the body of the wife. *Thus, the notions of right on the body, the right to the body, the right of the body on the body of the other exists. In addition, there are the notions of the conjugal debt, of the conjugal obligation, of conjugal sexual privileges and of reserved acts to spouses. and of the sexual yoke (sexal tie and sexual link). There is a mutual, reciprocal and bilateral submission concerning the conjugal sexuality.

The marital act act is a material thing what means that his practice is linked to the human body. The body of woman is made for the body of man and the body of the man is made for the body of the woman. Those human bodies are made for the union of bodies, the sexual carnal junction, the fact of making one flesh in the human fashion within the marriage (the God’s design). Each organ has some roles, some functions, some abilities, some skills, some competences, some competencies, some ends and some finalities: the teleology of the organs.

Do you refuse that?

 

[fpt]

Fpt, now I understand, so you don’t care about the correct catholic view, you should have stated that from the beginning.

According to your understanding of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, 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 and co* is totally wrong and very not natural. It is very … no word.

Do you deny the physical rights of each one on the body of the other during a session of the marital act? Do you refuse the existence of those sexual carnal rights to give and to receive, in love and the tenderness during a session of the marital act? Do you support to the acception of the definition of sexual sin of masturbation seen at the manner of Ronald Conte Jr?

 

[bisco1]

the old testament forbids a ‘man lying with a man, as he would with a woman.’ all church teaching on homosexuality comes from this law. and sodom was about the practice of homosexuality. none of the has anything to do with sex between a husband and wife. the church’s only teaching is that the man must ‘finish inside the wifes vagina’. to allow for conception, if it is God’s will. everything else is just projecting from posters here.

 

[clem456]

the old testament forbids a ‘man lying with a man, as he would with a woman.’ all church teaching on homosexuality comes from this law. and sodom was about the practice of homosexuality. none of the has anything to do with sex between a husband and wife. the church’s only teaching is that the man must ‘finish inside the wifes vagina’. to allow for conception, if it is God’s will. everything else is just projecting from posters here.

All Church teaching on homosexuality does not come from the OT. Because it can be difficult to project Old Testament Law into the New Testament, we should always look to Christ, who is the fulfillment of the law. Everything we believe is contained in Christ, and obeying Christ is not about merely pointing out the negative to avoid damnation. So the Church’s teaching about homosexuality has everything to with sex between a husband and wife. (maybe not the details that are discussed here…)

What does Christ say about forbidding homosexuality? Nothing specifically. There was no agenda to address in those days, why would he comment on it? There was also no abortion agenda, why would he specifically address it? We live in strange times.

But, Christ does affirm marriage as the union of one man and one woman “from the beginning”. Think about that. Christ himself points to “the beginning”, in effect saying, “this is how my Father made you from the start”. Very powerful words from Christ which affirms marriage in a positive way, pointing to the essential good of marriage.

 

[bisco1]

actually, church fathers have been preaching on homosexuality and abortion since the first century. the times we live in are the same as they ever have been, there is nothing new under the sun. they even had artificial contraception back then.

i disagree that all church teaching comes from Christ.

 

[clem456]

actually, church fathers have been preaching on homosexuality and abortion since the first century. the times we live in are the same as they ever have been, there is nothing new under the sun. they even had artificial contraception back then.

i disagree that all church teaching comes from Christ.

Well not in an explicit way obviously., if that is what you mean.

You know that’s not what I meant. This is what I mean:

1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
…
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ
…
1967 The Law of the Gospel “fulfills,” refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21

You said that all Church teaching on homosexuality comes from the Old Testament prohibitions. That is just not so. Christ is the fulfillment of the law and prophets. His talk about marriage is definitive and instructive for us, but not merely in a prohibitive way, as the law against sodomy.

Christ points to marriage as the unique way we are made “from the beginning”. That is the positive reality that speaks most powerfully about the sanctity of marriage, and points out how unique marriage is.

 

[clem456]

…
Do you deny the physical rights of each one on the body of the other during a session of the marital act? Do you refuse the existence of those sexual carnal rights to give and to receive, in love and the tenderness during a session of the marital act? Do you support to the acception of the definition of sexual sin of masturbation seen at the manner of Ronald Conte Jr?

Can you define rights please?

The way I understand rights, one human being does not have rights over the body of another for the purposes of pleasure. We have the right to eat and move about freely and private property etc… but even those rights are not absolute.

It is good that God made the conjugal act pleasurable. The pleasure serves the good of the act, properly ordered. The pleasure involved in foreplay is part of that good, properly ordered. Is it considerate for me to prepare my wife for intercourse in various ways, and vice versa? Well yes of course. It is considerate on my part, and the pleasure is a great aspect of that.

But to claim the pleasure, or the stimulation of another, as a right goes too far, doesn’t it?. It seems to be the flip side of the same coin as Conte Jr’s “theology”.

 

[bisco1]

Well not in an explicit way obviously., if that is what you mean.

You know that’s not what I meant. This is what I mean:

You said that all Church teaching on homosexuality comes from the Old Testament prohibitions. That is just not so. Christ is the fulfillment of the law and prophets. His talk about marriage is definitive and instructive for us, but not merely in a prohibitive way, as the law against sodomy.

Christ points to marriage as the unique way we are made “from the beginning”. That is the positive reality that speaks most powerfully about the sanctity of marriage, and points out how unique marriage is.

agreed. i just think the ‘thou shall nots’ play a big part of the formation of doctrine.