Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[HeteroDoxical]

Ummmmmm, presumption is saying that anal sex does not violate the natural law.

That’s nto what was said though, was it?

Are you or are you not a Catholic?

I’ve never made any claims to being RCC my name should make that clear by itself, If not, then nearly every place I’ve posted I preface with I’m protestant…

Even ignorance of the natural law does not excuse violating the natural law, since a catechism is not required to understand the natural law. It’s built into us by God through our human nature.

If you are ignorant of a law, what is the purpose of the law?

When you imply a natural law on the world, that you use to define scripture, but it’s a man dreamed up concept, we are going to have issues.

Your claim, unless I’m confusing people, was the church has always been against anal sex.

What is the earliest proof you have of anal sex conversations?

Prove me wrong.
teach me.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

He’s not “redefining” the word. He’s using it according to classic philosophical and metaphysical sense.

It was modernism which redefined the word into its materialistic sense as you are using it.

Let’s get fundamental.

Define natural law, and who’s natural do you use to define it.

You can define murder, which is a moral law that is universal for all man kind. But in Turkey, Iran, the States, and Brazil it has very different interpretations.

teach me .

 

[HeteroDoxical]

Forgive my laziness, I took the first click.

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.
=========dear ole wiki, I mock myself…=======

I can’t see how to take the meaning of the word NATURE out of it.

binding rules of moral behavior from… nature…

so, if it morally exists in nature, then… I’m still stuck on my little silly word nature.

It’s like, you want to discuss theory of electricity, but take the volts out of it. Or Joules, or… whatever, I get all that confused. I can put up a ceiling fan, that’s enough for me.

 

[davidv]

Let’s get fundamental.

Define natural law, and who’s natural do you use to define it.

In the context of sexual morality the definition used by the Church is:

1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

This definition is expanded in the CCC articles following.

You can define murder, which is a moral law that is universal for all man kind. But in Turkey, Iran, the States, and Brazil it has very different interpretations.

teach me .

Moral laws are universal because they are based on divine and natural law.
The OP is about sexual morality. How does murder relate?

 

[davidv]

As I said, you redefine the word natural.

No it was you in post #124 that redefined it.

you use the word natural, in the sense “of nature” then complain when “of nature” kicks your butt in the conversation.

Because you say so?

Don’t waste my time.

I won’t, unless you call defending the truth as a waste.

That’s like calling an ad hominem just because someone calls you a liar.

Huh?

 

[HeteroDoxical]

In the context of sexual morality the definition used by the Church is:
This definition is expanded in the CCC articles following.

Moral laws are universal because they are based on divine and natural law.
The OP is about sexual morality. How does murder relate?

like I said, you are in the water but aren’t wet, besides you say so.

Murder is a moral issue. It was an analogy. I didn’t mean to leave you behind with a sneaky analogy.

Divine law, has nothing to do with homosexuality.
It deals with the sex acts.
Part of the problem I have with your church’s POV is they will pick a posture that adds or retracts from scripture and claim to supersede it. That’s just lazy. If there is a POV that contradicts law, you don’t have all of the proper POV yet.

Natural law, is still NATURAL LAW in the definition you post. So, in the spirit of debate try this on for side.

Homosexuality isn’t a sin,
homosexual sex might be.
… In the OT it’s against the law.
…except the law was for the Jews, not the Gentiles.
…Before the law, the only issue was sodom and gomorrah, but scripture says that the sex acts were only a symptom of the problem, NOT the problem.
…In the NT Paul speaks about it.
…except, in Romans 1, it’s not about HOMOSEXUALS, homosexual sex is only one example of one of the topics he’s addressing. And that topic has terms to it. So not every homosexual would apply.
I’m sure you won’t but here is a drawn out exegesis on the point. The best I ever got was “you are wrong” no one has challenged the exegesis yet.
challengeyourfaithblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/romans-1-and-homosexuality-2/

Homosexual sex, is open for debate to be a sin for everyone, but it is definitely a sin for some people. And the people described are selfish, self focused, decadence first driven people. Those people are doing the sex for the pleasure, not the relationship.

The second half is just to give you one example of some arguments to slow you down.

The first part, on natural law, no matter how many ways you twist it, you are still circular… “Natural law can’t be defined by what’s in nature because we say so!”.

You’ve yet to escape that, and no matter how smug you get on it, logic is logic and rules of language are rules of language.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If you are ignorant of a law, what is the purpose of the law?

When you imply a natural law on the world, that you use to define scripture, but it’s a man dreamed up concept, we are going to have issues.

O.K. then, you are a Protestant. As you know, that covers a lot of possible sects. Would be interesting to know which one.

The natural law is not something you can be ignorant of. It is hard wired into us.

It is not man made nor dreamed up.

“I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” - Heb 8:10

“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” - Rom 2:14-15

Judgment by the Interior Law. St. Paul - Romans 2:11-15

“All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.”

Thomas Aquinas

“Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.” ST 1-II q. 91-94

 

[davidv]

like I said, you are in the water but aren’t wet, besides you say so.

What does this mean?

Murder is a moral issue. It was an analogy. I didn’t mean to leave you behind with a sneaky analogy.

Divine law, has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Why do you say this? Where is your logic to support this?

It deals with the sex acts.
Part of the problem I have with your church’s POV is they will pick a posture that adds or retracts from scripture and claim to supersede it. That’s just lazy. If there is a POV that contradicts law, you don’t have all of the proper POV yet.

Natural law, is still NATURAL LAW in the definition you post. So, in the spirit of debate try this on for side.

Homosexuality isn’t a sin,
homosexual sex might be.

When might it not be?

… In the OT it’s against the law.
…except the law was for the Jews, not the Gentiles.

Based on what exactly?

…Before the law, the only issue was sodom and gomorrah, but scripture says that the sex acts were only a symptom of the problem, NOT the problem.
…In the NT Paul speaks about it.
…except, in Romans 1, it’s not about HOMOSEXUALS, homosexual sex is only one example of one of the topics he’s addressing. And that topic has terms to it. So not every homosexual would apply.
I’m sure you won’t but here is a drawn out exegesis on the point. The best I ever got was “you are wrong” no one has challenged the exegesis yet.
challengeyourfaithblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/romans-1-and-homosexuality-2/

Homosexual sex, is open for debate to be a sin for everyone, but it is definitely a sin for some people. And the people described are selfish, self focused, decadence first driven people. Those people are doing the sex for the pleasure, not the relationship.

The second half is just to give you one example of some arguments to slow you down.

The first part, on natural law, no matter how many ways you twist it, you are still circular… “Natural law can’t be defined by what’s in nature because we say so!”.

Strawman.

You’ve yet to escape that, and no matter how smug you get on it, logic is logic and rules of language are rules of language.

Let’s see your logic in defending your position.

 

[HeteroDoxical]

O.K. then, you are a Protestant. As you know, that covers a lot of possible sects. Would be interesting to know which one.

See the name? Look it up. That tells you “my sect”. I don’t have one. However, putting me in a box and arguing against the box isn’t exactly quid pro quo discussion, it’s target practice and strawman abuse.

The natural law is not something you can be ignorant of. It is hard wired into us.

So, those people who are hard wired, attracted to the same gender pass the test. Excellent. we are done.

Out of courtesy I’ll answer the rest…

It is not man made nor dreamed up.

REALLY? Where is nature recorded as saying, these are our laws??? It seems to me nature has no recording, Man tries to discern (guess at) natural laws, based on what they decide themselves is natural. It’s obviously not what NATURE has in it, regularly, because that would not be convenient for your position. It’s not written anywhere. It’s not established in ANY WAY than man’s discernment. So any man can define natural law, and be as valid as the other. Which is not a law.

“I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.” - Heb 8:10

That’s not natural law under any definition. That’s biblical law, divine law. LOVE law, which is Christ’s law.

“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” - Rom 2:14-15

see above.

Judgment by the Interior Law. St. Paul - Romans 2:11-15

“All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it. For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified. For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.”

The law he references there, was given to the Jews alone.

He was reconciling how the Gentiles fit into the Jewish perspective of the GOD relationship. Care to exegete Romans with me?

The law, that keeps all laws, is love Neighbor. When you love neighbor you love God. When you love like God, what law do you violate??? It would be the same ones that God violates, hint hint.

I’m still waiting for a compelling definition of NATURAL LAW, not Christ’s, Levi’s, Divine law. I get that, you see natural law as having some divine influence into it, but that doesn’t make Divine law, natural law…

Thomas Aquinas

“Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.” ST 1-II q. 91-94

If you are going to give people’s quotes, who are dead and not here to defend against them, you should make an argument with them, so the conversation can go forward.

All you have succeeded in doing, is take the abuse of the word NATURAL law, and moved it backwards a few hundred years.

Change the name. Take the word natural out of it and we are fine.

But you can’t put natural into it, and take NATURE OUT OF IT. That’s literally taking the WET out of the water!

 

[HeteroDoxical]

What does this mean?

This is a pronoun that indicates a focus on something… but that’s not important now.

Explained in previous post to this one from me. .

Why do you say this? Where is your logic to support this?

to which “THIS” so I can answer. Why not go cut and paste it, so I can answer you. THIS could apply to several subjects there.

Divine law, is pretty simple, although we can dirty it up some, and usually do. Divine law, God is love.
Love neighbor, Love God. That’s your divine law. ANYTHING ELSE is kept when those two are met. The whole of the gospel is FOR GOD SO LOVED… I know that’s a heterodoxical position, and that it’s a long conversation. but I’m quite confident from experience I can hold it to logic/scripture/and even RCC tradition…

When might it not be?

In the OT when you were a Jew.
Or in Sodom’s case, when you were a selfish, uncharitalbe, ME FOCUSED jerk. Gotta read the prophets for that part though… not just pick and choose the sodom topic, but get it all.

In the NT the issue was discussed in detail in the link I offered. And it’s relatively clear.

The Guilt of the Gentile World

18 For God’s wrath is revealed** from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, **19 since what can be known[o] about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.

Blue is the topic of this segment of Rom 1.
they deny what is known of God. But they worked against God. So they were condemned.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, four-footed animals, and reptiles.

one of the issues is people of evil hearts with odd hungers. HSuality is one example I could give of that, it’s the one mentioned here.
**24 Therefore God delivered them over in the cravings of their hearts **to sexual impurity, so that their bodies were degraded among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served something created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.

Others were given to a worthless mind… Evil hearts, and worthless mind. The examples of the worthless mind are not homosexuals, but…
28 And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong. 29 They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving,[t] and unmerciful. 32 Although they know full well God’s just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die—they not only do them, but even applaud[v] others who practice them.

Now, exegetically, either the HEART examples and the MIND examples are two sets of the same root issue.

OR the root issue is further limited to someone who is both depraved mind and heart. That would mean not just homosexuals, but homosexuals who were got haters, slanderers arrogant, proud, etc… AND that could fit your militant gay rights folks.

I think it’s the two separate examples. I’m honest enough to admit it could be either. But I can’t come up with another. IT IS CLEARLY not solely about homosexuals as people latch hold of and try to ride to justify their bigotry. (I’m not calling you a bigot)

Based on what exactly?

The OT law. It states, some God Fearer who was living with the jews, had very limited laws they were kept under. Homosexual sex wasn’t one of them. SO, it’s based on what we have…given to us in the OT. We can also verify that with the Council fo Jerusalem in the NT.

Disagree with me based on your gut, but research and test the reasoning, it’s solid.

Strawman.

Not if you can’t show how it’s a strawman. It pertains to the topic, it defines part of my argument, it stands up in scripture… you make an empty assertion. It is, at this point, ONLY an ignored argument.

Let’s see your logic in defending your position.

Oh yes, let’s. Will I get some in return this time?

Or no. I’m still waiting.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

See the name? Look it up. That tells you “my sect”. I don’t have one. However, putting me in a box and arguing against the box isn’t exactly quid pro quo discussion, it’s target practice and strawman abuse.

We have nothing more to say to each other. God bless.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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.

You are simply wrong on this matter.

stlukescatholic.com/index.cfm?load=page&page=1430

It is important to remember that the Church reserves all sex for marriage. However, the Church clearly teaches that oral sex is wrong when a married couple chooses to separate the act from sexual intercourse and merely achieve orgasm(s). As long as the oral stimulation serves an honorable purpose, namely, to help both of the spouses reach sexual climax through normal intercourse, it is permissible.

According to Christopher West, a contemporary educator in the area of Catholic sexual ethics, “The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s [genitals]. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired)”.

The importance of language cannot be downplayed though. There is a clear difference between the phrases ‘oral sex’ and ‘oral stimulation’. It may be helpful to point out that oral sex (within itself, isolated) never signifies the full reality of a true sexual union. West explains, the term ‘oral sex’ most often refers to “acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples…”

Mr. West has gained much notoriety. If he teaches error, why has the Church not corrected him or any of the other theologians that hold this viewpoint or the Archdiocese of St. Luke the Evangelist which hosts the above information, or any of the other Diocesan or Archdiocesan websites that do likewise? In short, why does the Church stay silent in the face of these errors?

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

Sometimes it should. For totally obvious reasons like, for example, the overwhelming prevalence of such practices. If these activities truly are sinful and the Church has not spoken, then it is either because the Church is totally out of touch with its people or it is because the Church has been grievously neglectful in fulfilling its obligation to correct sinful activity.

Which of these things do you think is accurate? If you believe that neither of them are accurate, then what reason will you give for the Church’s failure to instruct us in this matter?

Amandil:

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.

Well for one thing, it’s not like we’re orally stimulating our spouses in public.

In any event, the question of “stumbling blocks” is quite complicated. If we were truly obligated to avoid anything that might lead another to sin, then don’t you think the Church would have spoken out about, for example, alcohol? Like, seriously, you don’t think there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that are sinning every day in their use of alcohol? Yet the Church doesn’t say that we must refrain from alcohol.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Mr. West has gained much notoriety. If he teaches error, why has the Church not corrected him or any of the other theologians that hold this viewpoint or the Archdiocese of St. Luke the Evangelist which hosts the above information, or any of the other Diocesan or Archdiocesan websites that do likewise? In short, why does the Church stay silent in the face of these errors?

Like, seriously, you don’t think there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people that are sinning every day in their use of alcohol? Yet the Church doesn’t say that we must refrain from alcohol.

Unfortunately for you, Mr. West is not the Catholic Church. As to officially condemning his view, that may yet come to pass. Sodomy is sodomy. Violations of the natural law are not acceptable in Catholic theology, so the Church has spoken. Stop pretending that Mr. West is the Catholic Church.

Your likening of liquor to sodomy is very shallow. Had you likened drunkenness to sodomy, you would have had a point that didn’t work in your favor. Sodomy is to normal sex what drunkenness is to a glass of wine. Both violations of the natural law.

Interesting, in the passage you cite, no mention is made of anal sex. Do you not wonder why? Does Mr. West also defend the sododmy of anal sex? If so, I’ve heard all I need to know about this dude.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Unfortunately for you, Mr. West is not the Catholic Church.

Not “unfortunate for me,” since any desire that I have to partake in such activity is less than my desire to be obedient to the Church.

West’s works have been given imprimatur and nihil obstat. If you cannot provide any definitive teachings of the Church to the contrary, then how can you say that one is required to disagree with him? I get it if you happen to disagree with him personally, but what is your basis for suggesting that others are required to disagree with him?

As to officially condemning his view, that may yet come to pass.

Anything could come to pass. The Pope may come out tomorrow and condemn the works of several of its top theologians. In the mean time, we should generally be able to trust that those theologians (with works that carry imprimatur/nihil obstat) are not leading us into sin. If we can’t even trust highly recognized Catholic theologians then we are in deep trouble.

Sodomy is sodomy. Violations of the natural law are not acceptable in Catholic theology, so the Church has spoken.

The Church has not condemned oral stimulation, manual stimulation, etc. I’m not aware of any condemnation of anal stimulation either. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask an apologist right here on CAF. I suspect that they will tell you likewise.

Stop pretending that Mr. West is the Catholic Church.

Again, I’m not pretending that Mr. West is the Church. To my knowledge, Mr. West has received praise from many priests and bishops and most or all of his works carry imprimatur/nihil obstat. In areas in which the Church has not spoken, who better to turn to for this information than a recognized Catholic theologian?

Your likening of liquor to sodomy is very shallow. Had you likened drunkenness to sodomy, you would have had a point that didn’t work in your favor. Sodomy is to normal sex what drunkenness is to a glass of wine. Both violations of the natural law.

I’m not going to play games with you. We were discussing the general subject of “stumbling blocks,” not likening two disparate things.

At no point did I ever liken liquor to sodomy. I did not even liken liquor to oral stimulation or any other kind of stimulation. I did not do that any more than Amandil (who agrees with you, I take it) likened the consumption of meat to sodomy. It just didn’t happen.

Interesting, in the passage you cite, no mention is made of anal sex. Do you not wonder why? Does Mr. West also defend the sododmy of anal sex? If so, I’ve heard all I need to know about this dude.

First, again, stimulation is not sex. Oral stimulation is not oral sex, manual stimulation is not manual sex, anal stimulation is not anal sex.

I do not have any of Mr. West’s books in front of me. To the best of my recollection, he notes:

1. Anal stimulation is *not *explicitly condemned by the Church.
2. It may not be advisable for various reasons (health, cleanliness, dignity of spouse, etc.)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

West’s works have been given imprimatur and nihil obstat.

1. Anal stimulation is *not *explicitly condemned by the Church.
2. It may not be advisable for various reasons (health, cleanliness, dignity of spouse, etc.)

I see you are very busy looking for loopholes. Good luck with them.

 

[davidv]

Not “unfortunate for me,” since any desire that I have to partake in such activity is less than my desire to be obedient to the Church.

West’s works have been given imprimatur and nihil obstat. If you cannot provide any definitive teachings of the Church to the contrary, then how can you say that one is required to disagree with him? I get it if you happen to disagree with him personally, but what is your basis for suggesting that others are required to disagree with him?

Anything could come to pass. The Pope may come out tomorrow and condemn the works of several of its top theologians. In the mean time, we should generally be able to trust that those theologians (with works that carry imprimatur/nihil obstat) are not leading us into sin. If we can’t even trust highly recognized Catholic theologians then we are in deep trouble.

The Church has not condemned oral stimulation, manual stimulation, etc. I’m not aware of any condemnation of anal stimulation either. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and ask an apologist right here on CAF. I suspect that they will tell you likewise.

Again, I’m not pretending that Mr. West is the Church. To my knowledge, Mr. West has received praise from many priests and bishops and most or all of his works carry imprimatur/nihil obstat. In areas in which the Church has not spoken, who better to turn to for this information than a recognized Catholic theologian?

I’m not going to play games with you. We were discussing the general subject of “stumbling blocks,” not likening two disparate things.

At no point did I ever liken liquor to sodomy. I did not even liken liquor to oral stimulation or any other kind of stimulation. I did not do that any more than Amandil (who agrees with you, I take it) likened the consumption of meat to sodomy. It just didn’t happen.

First, again, stimulation is not sex. Oral stimulation is not oral sex, manual stimulation is not manual sex, anal stimulation is not anal sex.

I do not have any of Mr. West’s books in front of me. To the best of my recollection, he notes:

1. Anal stimulation is *not *explicitly condemned by the Church.
2. It may not be advisable for various reasons (health, cleanliness, dignity of spouse, etc.)

Since when is the lack of explicit condemnation the criteria for determining what is moral?

 

[fpt]

If the fiancée does not want to be touched, 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 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, 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 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 debt, the conjugal sexual rights, the conjugal sexual obligations, the mutual, reciprocal and bilateral donation 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.

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

How do you define oral sex?
How do you define a foreplay? How do you define a sexual foreplay?
How do you define the sin of masturbation?
How do you define the sin of sodomy?
Do you make a difference between oral sex, per se, and the oral stimulations of the sexual external parts of the other by the other?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Let me sum this up again.

On the one hand, you’re trying to tell me that the Church considers activity X sinful. You offer no evidence.

I’m saying that you are welcome to dislike activity X, but the Church does not consider activity X sinful. I offer evidence in the form of a well-known Catholic theologian whose works carry nihil obstat/imprimatur and the fact that this Catholic theologian is being quoted on the official website of an Archdiocese.

So, you’re trying to make a tougher case than I am, and you’re doing it with no evidence. My case is easier to make, and I do have evidence.

Since when is the lack of explicit condemnation the criteria for determining what is moral?

That’s not all that I said. It’s a good point, but that’s just* half *of it. I’ll give you the bullet points:

-Well-known Catholic theologians (in works with nihil obstat, imprimatur) have indicated that it is OK.

-The practice (oral stimulation, for example) is widespread, yet the Church has not taken action to condemn it.

Any time a Catholic is trying to determine whether an action is acceptable, here is a good general guideline to go by. IF well-known Catholic theologians say it is acceptable AND, if it has not been condemned by the Church despite the Church being well aware of its widespread practice, then it is most likely acceptable.

Furthermore, skipping past all of these points, it is the right of the Church (in truth and in the mind of practicing Catholics) to determine that which is sinful and that which is not. You have every right to consider any of these practices distasteful but that is your opinion only, not the judgment of the Church.

 

[Miserissima]

I’m saying that you are welcome to dislike activity X, but the Church does not consider activity X sinful. I offer evidence in the form of a well-known Catholic theologian whose works carry nihil obstat/imprimatur and the fact that this Catholic theologian is being quoted on the official website of an Archdiocese.

So, you’re trying to make a tougher case than I am, and you’re doing it with no evidence. My case is easier to make, and I do have evidence.

Furthermore, skipping past all of these points, it is the right of the Church (in truth and in the mind of practicing Catholics) to determine that which is sinful and that which is not. You have every right to consider any of these practices distasteful but that is your opinion only, not the judgment of the Church.

I am totally with you this, but…evidence is not rationalized, deducted, inferred opinion.

I’ve read, notably, a priestly opinion on EWTN to the contrary.

I’m not against your argument. I’m just saying be careful what you call “evidence” when it’s actually reasoning, especially when there is no clear direction in this matter.

Remember, in both cases, the Spirit can move our allow as our hearts are open enough. If Joe Adult and Josephine Adult are fulfilled and have “rationalized” their mutual submission, we have no moodiness in what they do, as Fulton Sheen said, “Out takes three for a marriage: husband, wife, and the Holy Spirit.”

The rest is up to a a fully formed conscience,.and that may entail acknowledging that some “grey” areas.are not up to the scrutiny of other humans.

As far as instructing the ignorant, the words have been laid out by both sides but note that conviction of heart only comes by the Holy Spirit to affect intellect, emotion, and will.

When both sides are justified and neither is in error, why exacerbate the issue?

 

[davidv]

Let me sum this up again.

On the one hand, you’re trying to tell me that the Church considers activity X sinful. You offer no evidence.

I’m saying that you are welcome to dislike activity X, but the Church does not consider activity X sinful. I offer evidence in the form of a well-known Catholic theologian whose works carry nihil obstat/imprimatur and the fact that this Catholic theologian is being quoted on the official website of an Archdiocese.

So, you’re trying to make a tougher case than I am, and you’re doing it with no evidence. My case is easier to make, and I do have evidence.

That’s not all that I said. It’s a good point, but that’s just* half *of it. I’ll give you the bullet points:

-Well-known Catholic theologians (in works with nihil obstat, imprimatur) have indicated that it is OK.

Why should we trust their opinion on this matter?

-The practice (oral stimulation, for example) is widespread, yet the Church has not taken action to condemn it.

Logical fallacy. Why does this matter?

Any time a Catholic is trying to determine whether an action is acceptable, here is a good general guideline to go by. IF well-known Catholic theologians say it is acceptable AND, if it has not been condemned by the Church despite the Church being well aware of its widespread practice, then it is most likely acceptable.

A pretty poor guidelines, since some theologians have been known to teach ideas contrary to Church doctrine.

Furthermore, skipping past all of these points, it is the right of the Church (in truth and in the mind of practicing Catholics) to determine that which is sinful and that which is not. You have every right to consider any of these practices distasteful but that is your opinion only, not the judgment of the Church.

One is to use a well formed, by the teaching of the Church, conscience in making moral choices.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

The whole argument for the questionable practices seems to be an attempt to see how close one can get sin without sinning. This seems contrary to Jesus’ command:

Matthew 5:48; Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.