Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Amandil]

Foreplay is not isolated from the purposes of sex. It fulfills them by making sex more unitive (more nejoyable) and prepares it for being potentially procreative.

Oral sex that is not part of a completed marital act is of course wrong. It fails to be open to procreation. But oral forplay does not do this. It is perfectly acceptable, and many theologians will agree.

Again, you fail to show clear Church teaching of that which you claim. You offer an argument, based on certian teachings. But others will make arguments based on those same teachings that disagree. Which leads naturally back to the liberty that John XXIII reminds us of.

As I said, rationalizing.

1)The fact is that no explanation would ever suffice because you like whatever it is you do regardless.

2)“Theologians,” whoever they would be, would be wrong. And they are not Church authorities anyway.

1. Pope Paul VI in Humane Vitae rejected your notion of “totality”(that so long as the last act of consummation is moral than any sexual acts prior to it, no matter if they violate the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual pleasure, is moral).

As the Catechism says: “Lust is ANY ACT…”

Oh, and please don’t yell at me.

I didn’t “yell” at you. This is print. There are no sounds. I was merely emphasizing something that contradicted your assertion.

If you took it as me “yelling” at you, that says more about you than me.

 

[underacloud]

HV’s rejection of the notion of totality has to do with the claim that married couples may use contraception at certain times, as long as they are open to having children at some stage. It is this which is rejected.

As for yelling, it is common etiquette in forums that enlarged lettering or all caps is considered yelling. if you didn’t realise this, then let’s let it go.

Anyway, I think we’ve reached a point now where we have both expressed our views. Neither of us is likely to change our mind from here, so I suggest we let the discussion stand as is.

God bless.

 

[Amandil]

HV’s rejection of the notion of totality has to do with the claim that married couples may use contraception at certain times, as long as they are open to having children at some stage. It is this which is rejected.

As for yelling, it is common etiquette in forums that enlarged lettering or all caps is considered yelling. if you didn’t realise this, then let’s let it go.

Anyway, I think we’ve reached a point now where we have both expressed our views. Neither of us is likely to change our mind from here, so I suggest we let the discussion stand as is.

God bless.

No. It’s not limited to that.

But that’s fine. My points have been firmly established and confirmed.

It’s no wonder people either don’t know or are indifferent to the truth.

Lastly, Paul was always insistent, even with something as utterly innocent as food, not to put his liberty to eat that food in front of others as a “stumbling block”.

In fact he insisted that it was better to never eat meat if it caused a brother to fall. (1Cor 10)

So how much more so do you suppose that you cause not only yourself to stumble, but others to stumble as well, by insisting on your (so-called) “freedom”(how “free” can you be if ypu make yourself a slave to it?) in regards to something that you, yourself, admitted is a “questionable” sin?

Just something to think about.

 

[underacloud]

I said “questionable” merely with regard to the fact that we were debating it. I personally have no doubts; to me there is no sin whatsoever. And I’m happy to let me previous posts address why I conclude that.

God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

YOu can go back before The Holy Book of Dante and find anal sex quite common. That’s a fairly ignorant thing to say. They had anal sex in public baths in Rome and Roman cities. MEN with MEN and MEN with WOMEN.

Ummmm, yes. I never denied that anal sex was common. I only said that the Church has always frowned on it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, and I’ll remind you of the saying (as quoted by Pope John XXIII in the encyclical Ad Petri Cathedram):

“unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things”

Where there is doubt (and no clear teaching from mother Church), faithful Catholics enjoy liberty, and act in accord with their own consciences.

This isn’t the first time in this discussion where you’ve talked as if someone else in the conversation were trying to force you to do something. That’s not the case. I agree that you have LIBERTY in doubtful things. You have liberty to form your own conscience and act according to it.

However, forming your conscience does not just mean following Church teaching. It means thinking about the world carefully, and responding to it. If the Church has no teaching on certain edgy S&M practices, I will nevertheless avoid them, since they seem to me to be using another person without respecting their dignity – and the Church *does *teach against that.

But by all means, no one’s forcing you to do anything. And even if the Church taught that oral sex was the worst sin in the Canon, no one would be forcing you to stop doing it. When Jesus says something is wrong, He is not thereby bullying us. He is making a very good suggestion for our own good.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you not see your advocacy of oral and anal sex as even slightly weird for a Catholic?

Huh. I’m currently arguing on your side, but I don’t personally see defending oral-sex-as-foreplay as “weird” for a Catholic. I do believe this is an open and valid issue to debate.

(I don’t think debates about anal-sex-as-foreplay are open and valid, but I’m willing to engage in them).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Lust is defined as any sexual pleasure sought for itself isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes."

What part of “any” is unclear?

Does oral sex or masturbation meet both the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual pleasure according to natural law?

No.

Thus they are not licit but illicit acts, they are immoral and thus sinful.

The Church shouldn’t need to define everything to the enth degree and draw pictures for you for something to be morally obligatory.

No, no, no, this doesn’t settle the issue. When my wife touches my genitals as a part of foreplay this is clearly not separated from the unitive and procreative purposes of sex – and yet this doesn’t make babies either – and I don’t think it’s *clear *that some amount of oral stimulation can’t fall in the same category. That’s why this debate is so dicey.

 

[underacloud]

But by all means, no one’s forcing you to do anything. And even if the Church taught that oral sex was the worst sin in the Canon, no one would be forcing you to stop doing it. When Jesus says something is wrong, He is not thereby bullying us. He is making a very good suggestion for our own good.

Any clear teaching would ‘force’ me to refrain, in the sense that I obey mother Church, or the teachings of Christ. There is no bullying in this, only revelation of truth. I’m merely noting that no such teaching exists. Arguments exist, on both sides, but no clear teaching. I happen to agree with the arguments on one side and not the other, and each person can assess those arguments for themselves and therby form their own conscience.

 

[fpt]

Who are the followers of the moral theology of the modus operandi of the marital act coming from mister Ronald Conte Jr? Are there few followers of this very particular morality? If yes, the debate will be very very… No words for explaining this strange acception? A new debate very strong, why not, I am very ready.

The fact of making one flesh in the human fashion with sexual cooperation??? In the context of the marital act, morally speaking. What are the rights of wife on the body of her husband? What are the rights of husband on ther body of his wife? The modus operandi of the marital act is material and immaterial. The acts of love on the body of the other have to be done with love and tenderness. For each one, the rights of touching, of massaging, of kissing, of licking, of sucking, of caressing the primary and secondary erogenous parts of body of the other, in the human fashion, and the other has the moral obligation of cooperating, sexually speaking (passive agent and active agent, to give and to receive). The body of the other is for the other, the donation of bodies for leading the natural carnal union between wife and husband. The marital act is incarnated, **we are making love not like angels, but like human beings. **The angelical method of making love is against the human nature, it is very awful.

Each wife has natural rights on the body of her husband; each husband has natural rights on the body of his wife. The marriage is a sexed and sexual contract and a sexed and sexual institution. The contract of marriage is the donation of bodies.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Who are the followers of the moral theology of the modus operandi of the marital act coming from mister Ronald Conte Jr? Are there few followers of this very particular morality? If yes, the debate will be very very… No words for explaining this strange acception? A new debate very strong, why not, I am very ready.

The fact of making one flesh in the human fashion with sexual cooperation??? In the context of the marital act, morally speaking. What are the rights of wife on the body of her husband? What are the rights of husband on ther body of his wife? The modus operandi of the marital act is material and immaterial. The acts of love on the body of the other have to be done with love and tenderness. For each one, the rights of touching, of massaging, of kissing, of licking, of sucking, of caressing the primary and secondary erogenous parts of body of the other, in the human fashion, and the other has the moral obligation of cooperating, sexually speaking (passive agent and active agent, to give and to receive). The body of the other is for the other, the donation of bodies for leading the natural carnal union between wife and husband. The marital act is incarnated, **we are making love not like angels, but like human beings. **The angelical method of making love is against the human nature, it is very awful.

Each wife has natural rights on the body of her husband; each husband has natural rights on the body of his wife. The marriage is a sexed and sexual contract and a sexed and sexual institution. The contract of marriage is the donation of bodies.

But don’t forget to mention the theology of nibbling or of biting, the theology of making one another bark like a dog, the theology of grabass, and so on and so forth…

Personally, I prefer my explanations of sexual ethics to read like bodice rippers.

Oh, and as for angels making love, considering the fact that all angels are apparently male, let’s not go there!

 

[fpt]

Before the wedding, a conversation (a talk) between engaged persons (the fiancée and the fiancé) on the modus operandi of the marital act is helpful, useful and very prudential in order to avoid the strong difficulties. As future member of the couple, are we on the same page, morally speaking? The question: are we compatible?

 

[RPRPsych]

Who are the followers of the moral theology of the modus operandi of the marital act coming from mister Ronald Conte Jr? Are there few followers of this very particular morality? If yes, the debate will be very very… No words for explaining this strange acception? A new debate very strong, why not, I am very ready.

Bravo, monsieur FPT. Moi aussi, j’en ai marre de M. Ronald Conte et de ses ecritures.

(Long time since I wrote in French, I bet I made lots of errors. Mea culpa.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Huh. I’m currently arguing on your side, but I don’t personally see defending oral-sex-as-foreplay as “weird” for a Catholic.

Foreplay (kissing, fondling) is one thing.

Masturbation and coming to climax is quite another.

Oral sex is a form of mutual masturbation. Do you not agree?

Advocating masturbation is weird for a Catholic.

I’m arguing on your side too, but I sense a rupture about to come?

 

[Julianna]

Perhaps everyone should stay out of everyone’s bedroom. Really now

 

[HeteroDoxical]

The 4 Sins that Cry Out to Heaven
Willful murder
The sin of Sodom
Oppression of the poor
Defrauding laborers of their wages

People are constantly pushing the limits of acceptable behavior.I cannot for the life of me see how any loving husband would seek to introduce fecal bacteria into his wife.Sodomy is sodomy period,and the bible condemns it for a reason.

If you wish to understand truly what a gift sexuality is read Theology of the Body by Bl JP2.I cannot believe you are drawing info from a book written 60 years ago! That was around the same time Kinsey came out with his ridiculous "surveys"which almost single handedly destroyed the sacred judeo christian concept of marital love.

Homosexuality was a fruit of the sin of Sodom. It was not the SIN OF SODOM that got it killed. It was a symptom not the cause. Read the prophets.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Any clear teaching would ‘force’ me to refrain, in the sense that I obey mother Church, or the teachings of Christ. There is no bullying in this, only revelation of truth. I’m merely noting that no such teaching exists. Arguments exist, on both sides, but no clear teaching. I happen to agree with the arguments on one side and not the other, and each person can assess those arguments for themselves and therby form their own conscience.

So you don’t agree with the natural law argument? But that is a teaching of the Church.

The Church teaches that the natural law in our hearts guides us to be repulsed by unnatural acts. That would include anal and oral sex.

But apparently you don’t see these acts as unnatural. Oh, I forgot. You would see them as unnatural between members of the same sex, but not unnatural between members of the opposite sex. You know, of course, that you have to accept them as unnatural between members of the same sex. That’s in the catechism.

Looks like you are parsing the catechism to see if you can find a loophole. “Oh, the catechism doesn’t mention oral and anal sex between married partners, so it must be up to me to decide. Well then, I decide oral and anal sex between married partners is natural and therefore not a sin.”

Do you see how clever you have been?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps everyone should stay out of everyone’s bedroom. Really now

Does that include the Catholic Church staying out of every Catholic’s bedroom?

Really now.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Lust is defined as any sexual pleasure sought for itself isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes."

What part of “any” is unclear?

Does oral sex or masturbation meet both the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual pleasure according to natural law?

No.

Thus they are not licit but illicit acts, they are immoral and thus sinful.

The Church shouldn’t need to define everything to the enth degree and draw pictures for you for something to be morally obligatory.

So, when Abraham knew his wife was barren, and that he was shooting blanks, it was a sin for Him to bump uglies with her. Afterall, he couldn’t procreate and knew it, so to be aroused, I.E. lust by your definition was a sin.

So, God demanded Abraham sin, to bring the savior of the world’s line into play. Brilliant.

God can sin. We all outta feel some pressure lifted if your definition is right. :0|

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Ummmm, yes. I never denied that anal sex was common. I only said that the Church has always frowned on it.

Ummmm saying ALWAYS is a presumptive reach. I’ve read the church father’s have you? I don’t recall any paragraphs on anal sex. It was so common in those times, they didn’t even mention it.

Ummmm presumption does not a doctrine make.