Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is everyone here arguing with me simply for the sake of argument? The question of whether or not the Church condemns these actions is no question at all. She has not spoken. You cannot say that the Church condemns these actions when She does not.

If you do not understand, simply ask an apologist here on CAF. They’ll explain it.

Why should we trust their opinion on this matter?

Why should a Catholic trust well-known Catholic theologians with imprimatur/nihil obstat, meaning that there works have been vetted by Church officials?

Why should a Catholic trust the official website of an Archdiocese?

Why wouldn’t a Catholic trust those things? Rome has not spoken on these matters either way, so what else do you want?

Logical fallacy.

**Which **logical fallacy? How am I supposed to agree with you that this is a logical fallacy if you’re not going to mention which one it is and explain why?

Why does this matter?

The Church’s mission includes helping the faithful avoid sin, doesn’t it? Considering how widespread this allegedly sinful activity is, why would She be silent? Why would She see so many fall into sin when it could easily be avoided?

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

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

I never said that you shouldn’t. You are implying that a well-formed conscience should reject these practices. Why, because you say so? I say again: the Church has not spoken.

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:

Speaking of fallacies: a little bit of ad hominem here and a little bit of strawman. First, at no time did I present such an argument. Second, attacks on my character (intent) will not strengthen your argument.

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

Please describe “perfect” sex.

Miserissima:

I’m not against your argument. I’m just saying be careful what you call “evidence” when it’s actually reasoning,

We may be defining evidence differently. The first definition that I’m using here is:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The belief is: it is sinful to do X.

As evidence (as “body of information indicating whether [x] is true”) is as follows:

1. The Church’s silence on the issue, despite the compelling interest She would have to do so if it was in fact, sinful.
2. Many well-known Catholic theologians, Priests and Bishops have reasoned that the practice is acceptable. (Others have reasoned differently, which, again, is fine for them to do.)

especially when there is no clear direction in this matter.

Exactly. This point you have made here should end the discussion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No clear direction in the matter?

Are you saying the Church does not condemn sodomy? That St. Paul did not condemn sodomy? That Moses did not condemn sodomy. That Jesus did not condemn the citizens of Sodom?

But if it’s practiced by husband and wife in a hedonistic culture like ours and approved by a modern day liberal theologian and not explicitly condemned book, chapter, and verse in the Catechism it’s O.K.?

Are you saying sodomy is bad for homosexuals but good for straights (what kind of hypocrisy is that)?

You will have to dig a bit deeper for those loopholes to convince moi!

Consider my part in the discussion ended. :coolinoff:

 

[LongingSoul]

It’s really important to conform to the Church teaching that is relevant to life in todays world. Heribert Jones perspective was relevant to a world where women were not considered equal in the way we are now. Mens desires were met unchallenged as a matter of course and anal sex was one of those desires. Very few women like anal sex. It’s uncomfortable and unhygenic if a man thinks he can flip you over to finish off in the Catholic manner. What a load of total misogynistic tosh.

Anal and oral sex are sodomitic from the moment the act begins. If a person is in doubt about this because of so called Catholic theologians writings… I say err on the side of conscience and common sense and don’t trigger a lust for these disordered desires in the first place.

God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

No clear direction in the matter?

Are you saying the Church does not condemn sodomy? That St. Paul did not condemn sodomy? That Moses did not condemn sodomy. That Jesus did not condemn the citizens of Sodom?

But if it’s practiced by husband and wife in a hedonistic culture like ours and approved by a modern day liberal theologian and not explicitly condemned book, chapter, and verse in the Catechism it’s O.K.?

Are you saying sodomy is bad for homosexuals but good for straights (what kind of hypocrisy is that)?

You will have to dig a bit deeper for those loopholes to convince moi!

Consider my part in the discussion ended. :coolinoff:

A little side-note about Christopher West, more revealing about me than about him…

So prior to marriage I unfortunately had the experience of receiving oral sex, and it was wonderful, one of the most phenomenal things I’ve ever experienced. Of course, it was also completely selfish, and it was hard not to feel that I was using my girlfriend – in addition to the fact that she was using fellatio as a means to keep me happy in an otherwise dysfunctional relationship.

So anyway, when my wife and I were getting married, many years later, we picked up West’s Good News About Sex and Marriage, though we understood that it was just one theologian’s opinion. Anyway, when I read it, I completely agreed it was “good news” (!), but that was simply because I immediately skipped to the part about oral stimulation, and West’s endorsement of the activity made me very happy. Why? Well, of course, because I have experienced oral sex and I wanted to experience it again.

But, you see, I have a somewhat unique perspective here, because (in addition to being married to a woman) I am tempted toward homosexual activity. I look at my desire to “be with” a man in terms of receiving oral sex, and it’s hard for me to distinguish it from my desire to be with my wife in terms of receiving oral stimulation as foreplay. If I think the one is wrong, it’s hard for me to believe the other isn’t wrong too.

Mind you, I most certainly **want **Catholic theology to approve of oral stimulation, at some level. But the best argument against what we might call “recreational homosexuality” – which does not involve romance or attraction, only sexual activities – is that there is something intrinsically wrong with these acts, that they are intrinsically opposed to the authentic gift of self, that they are merely manifestations of lust.

At the same time, I do think we need to avoid legalism. When a husband and wife are filled with passion for each other, that passion might manifest itself in passionate kissing, might manifest itself in various forms of genital contact, might verge on oral stimulation or oral sex. And I don’t think that’s terrible within the context of an authentic gift of self. But I do think that (at least for men) oral stimulation is generally a stimulus for lust, not love. So for example, I think it could be a serious problem if a wife “goes down” on her husband to spice up their love life. That’s not being swept away by passion; it is the effort to arouse lust. Or at least it risks being precisely that.

 

[underacloud]

No, that’s not what I said. I said (or at least meant to say but apparently it did not come across) that natural law is covered in the catechism.

Sodomy is against the natural law. Read St. Paul in Romans if you don’t think so. Also in Corinthians.

I presume you are refering to this:

Romans 1: 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

…

32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Yes, I completely agree that the bible and the Church are clear in their prohibition against men having sex with men and women having sex with women.

If you think St Paul means something more here, you should note that the reference here to “God’s decree” is the law from Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Again, it’s a prohibition against men having sex with men. St Paul, the law of Moses, and the Church stand firm in their condemnation of men having sex with men (and women with women).

 

[underacloud]

But, you see, I have a somewhat unique perspective here, because (in addition to being married to a woman) I am tempted toward homosexual activity. I look at my desire to “be with” a man in terms of receiving oral sex, and it’s hard for me to distinguish it from my desire to be with my wife in terms of receiving oral stimulation as foreplay. If I think the one is wrong, it’s hard for me to believe the other isn’t wrong too.

For starters, the fact that you aren’t married to another man (or woman) makes anything you might do with your wife wrong when done with another person.

To put it another way, consider the difference if your temptation was expressed in the desire to kiss another man. The act itself - kissing - is not wrong here. It’s the situation. You can kiss your wife. You can’t kiss anyone else, including other men.

So there are lots of things that are perfectly OK to do with your wife that wouldn’t be OK with another person, man or woman.

At the same time, I do think we need to avoid legalism. When a husband and wife are filled with passion for each other, that passion might manifest itself in passionate kissing, might manifest itself in various forms of genital contact, might verge on oral stimulation or oral sex. And I don’t think that’s terrible within the context of an authentic gift of self. But I do think that (at least for men) oral stimulation is generally a stimulus for lust, not love. So for example, I think it could be a serious problem if a wife “goes down” on her husband to spice up their love life. That’s not being swept away by passion; it is the effort to arouse lust. Or at least it risks being precisely that.

Just to be clear, no one who advocates oral stimulation is talking only about a wife stimulating her husband. The husband stimulating the wife is, arguably, of greater interest in these discussions, since foreplay (preparation for intercourse) is often more important from the woman’s perspective.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

For starters, the fact that you aren’t married to another man (or woman) makes anything you might do with your wife wrong when done with another person.

To put it another way, consider the difference if your temptation was expressed in the desire to kiss another man. The act itself - kissing - is not wrong here. It’s the situation. You can kiss your wife. You can’t kiss anyone else, including other men.

So there are lots of things that are perfectly OK to do with your wife that wouldn’t be OK with another person, man or woman.

I understand that marriage makes certain actions (e.g. dating other women) morally wrong, that wouldn’t be wrong otherwise. That’s not what I’m talking about.

Consider a gay man who desires to have sex with another man, and asks why this is wrong. He is answered, “Because it’s sex outside of marriage”. He says, “But why can’t I get married?” He is answered, “Because sex between two men cannot be unitive and procreative.” He says, “But neither can oral or anal sex between a man and a woman be unitive or procreative, and yet you allow that.”

I feel like the answer that most Catholics give here – that these actions are *part *of a larger unitive and procreative action – runs the risk of being a cop-out. To the gay man I’m discussing, it might sound like saying that “we heterosexuals” can have our cake and eat it too, but “you gay people” can’t even have any scrap of sexual pleasure. I know this is just an emotional response, but emotions often bring up important underlying issues.

Far better, from my perspective, to say that both gay and straight Catholics are called to heroic chastity, even in the marriage bed.

(The rarity of large Catholic families, even in conservative Catholic circles, seems to indicate to me that there are a lot of Catholic married couples who are having their cake and eating it too – though perhaps they are stretching the rules.)

 

[underacloud]

Consider a gay man who desires to have sex with another man, and asks why this is wrong. He is answered, “Because it’s sex outside of marriage”. He says, “But why can’t I get married?” He is answered, “Because sex between two men cannot be unitive and procreative.” He says, “But neither can oral or anal sex between a man and a woman be unitive or procreative, and yet you allow that.”

I feel like the answer that most Catholics give here – that these actions are *part *of a larger unitive and procreative action – runs the risk of being a cop-out. To the gay man I’m discussing, it might sound like saying that “we heterosexuals” can have our cake and eat it too, but “you gay people” can’t even have any scrap of sexual pleasure. I know this is just an emotional response, but emotions often bring up important underlying issues.

This is where the argument regarding the natural law does come in, and makes homosexual relationships differernt from heterosexual relationships - even those involving fornication or adultery. The natural law prohibits homosexual relationships. This is taught definitively by the Church. It is not the particular sex acts, but the “objectively disordered” relationship that is wrong by virtue of it being between two men or two women.

And no, it’s no a cop-out. Sex is either ordered to procreation or not.

Homosexual sex is not procreative, and is for this reason (as well as with regard to natural law) that it is always illicit.

Heterosexual sex that does not end with climax of man inside his wife is similarly illicit. It is closed to procreation.

Heterosexual sex that does end with climax of man inside his wife is open to procreation, as long as contraception is not used. Whatever foeplay that has taken place (and you yourself concede that some foreplay is acceptable) cannot change this.

If heterosexual couples are thus having their cake and eating it too, well, that’s what God designed. Sex is exclusively the right of the married couple. Marriage is the end purpose of sexuality (as noted in the catechism).

Far better, from my perspective, to say that both gay and straight Catholics are called to heroic chastity, even in the marriage bed.

Yes, all people are called to chastity.

But many faithful Catholics (and, as cited, different theologians) do not agree that oral foreplay is a sin against chastity.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

This is where the argument regarding the natural law does come in, and makes homosexual relationships differernt from heterosexual relationships - even those involving fornication or adultery. The natural law prohibits homosexual relationships. This is taught definitively by the Church. It is not the particular sex acts, but the “objectively disordered” relationship that is wrong by virtue of it being between two men or two women.

And no, it’s no a cop-out. Sex is either ordered to procreation or not.

Homosexual sex is not procreative, and is for this reason (as well as with regard to natural law) that it is always illicit.

Heterosexual sex that does not end with climax of man inside his wife is similarly illicit. It is closed to procreation.

Heterosexual sex that does end with climax of man inside his wife is open to procreation, as long as contraception is not used. Whatever foeplay that has taken place (and you yourself concede that some foreplay is acceptable) cannot change this.

If heterosexual couples are thus having their cake and eating it too, well, that’s what God designed. Sex is exclusively the right of the married couple. Marriage is the end purpose of sexuality (as noted in the catechism).

Yes. Thanks for summing it up so well.

 

[fpt]

I know where I can get the audio document of Fr Chad Ripperger (a member of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or a former member) making focus on the marital chastity (Omaha: Chastity on www.sensustraditionis.org), but as my English listening is not very operational and is not enough good, I am looking for a script (a written document), if that is possible.

Do you know where I could find it? Also, I am looking for a summary??? Where can I find it? Do you know his moral position about conjugal foreplay? What is his intellectual approach? What does he say? Have you heard this document?

 

[fpt]

I’m going to ask my question in broad terms, and then fill in some of the details. The question is this: Does the fact that Catholic married couples are now permitted to engage in various activities – including activities that were once considered sodomy, like oral stimulation – make it more difficult for us to provide a consistent witness to the sinfulness of homosexual acts?

I bring this up because of a comment by a poster in another thread, who said something that (frankly) shocked me: he said that certain theologians were considering whether anal sex “without consummation” could be licit among married couples, if it had a canonical conclusion. Now throughout history this act of anal sex has been resoundingly and repeatedly condemned by the Church – and now we are supposed to believe that the Church’s objection applies only to the depositing of seed in the anus, and not to the action of anal penetration?

Now I don’t think those theologians are mainstream, but it got me thinking. When we tell homosexuals that “homosexual activity” is wrong, I always thought we were saying that a particular activity was wrong – an activity that would be wrong for straight people too. I have heard a distinction made between fornicating couples and sexually active homosexual couples, and this distinction too made sense to me, so long as the fornicating couple was only engaging in intercourse, since intercourse is naturally fecund.

But once we say that married couples may have oral sex as foreplay, and so on, it becomes very hard to understand how there could be something intrinsically wrong with certain acts, as opposed to the gender of the people who commit those acts – and it was always Church teaching that sodomy was a specific sexual act that was not concerned with the gender of its participants.

But now I feel like Church teaching has become fuzzy, since oral sex is permitted within certain limits. And the caveat that it not be done to the point of orgasm is not a real distinction, because (among homosexuals) both oral and anal sex are often done without any orgasm being involved. It’s obvious, historically, that one commit sodomy without ejaculating.

How can we explain why gay sex is wrong in this landscape? Have theologians been wrong to tolerate such changes in Catholic moral teaching? What should we do now?

Why the term of “concession” in the title of this thread?

Do you believe that the foreplay and the sexual foreplay of the marital act are any concessions? Do you believe that the marital act, without foreplay and without sexual foreplay, has to be the standard?

 

[fpt]

By nature and in principle, are not foreplay and sexual foreplay constitutive of the marital act?

Is the doctrine of refusal of the legitimity of foreplay and of sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, a doctrinal error with effects on the validity of marriage, under particular conditions?

Can a spouse refer to a doctrine refusing the foreplay and sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act? Are there effects? What are types of effects?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why the term of “concession” in the title of this thread?

Do you believe that the foreplay and the sexual foreplay of the marital act are any concessions? Do you believe that the marital act, without foreplay and without sexual foreplay, has to be the standard?

Your question strikes me as bizarre. You seem to assume that the category of “foreplay” necessarily includes oral sex. That is bizarre.

It is possible to engage in TONS of foreplay without engaging in any actions that the Church has ever come miles from forbidding. The idea that foreplay is comprised of oral/anal stimulation is silly. The limitations are half the fun!

 

[fpt]

Your question strikes me as bizarre. You seem to assume that the category of “foreplay” necessarily includes oral sex. That is bizarre.

It is possible to engage in TONS of foreplay without engaging in any actions that the Church has ever come miles from forbidding. The idea that foreplay is comprised of oral/anal stimulation is silly. The limitations are half the fun!

I wanted only to mean that, in my humble opinion, each member of couple, in the context of the marital act, must agree with the foreplay and sexual foreplay, in the human fashion: to give them and to recieve them.

The doctrinal exclusion of foreplay and of sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act in the human fashion with the love and the tenderness, could be cause of the nullity of marriage and / or a wrong think (an immoral thought). The refusal of sexual foreplay respecting the natutal moral order without fair reasons (medical issues) or without a consensual agreement is morally wrong. By nature, the marriage implies the agreement of receiving and giving sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, in order to lead the complete union of bodies. Why, because the marital act is not a simple coitus like with the animals.

The massages, the touchings, the kissings, the caresses, the suctions, the licks done by one on the body of the other are constitutive elements of the marital act: rights, obligations and duties. Of course, oral sex is wrong, because it is not a foreplay.

Of course, oral sex is morally wrong, per se, because it is not a foreplay and because it is a substitution and a replacement. The same reasoning has to be held for anal sex.

Of course, anal stimulation is morally wrong, per se, in my humble opinion, because this organ is not linked with the sexuality, by nature.

Of course that yes that the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations or oral stimulations of the external sexual parts of the other *are constitutive parts of the phenomenology of the marital act. *The oral kiss and, the manual massage and the digital massage are conjugal caresses, acts of love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I wanted only to mean that, in my humble opinion, each member of couple, in the context of the marital act, must agree with the foreplay and sexual foreplay, in the human fashion: to give them and to recieve them.

The doctrinal exclusion of foreplay and of sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act in the human fashion with the love and the tenderness, could be cause of the nullity of marriage and / or a wrong think (an immoral thought). The refusal of sexual foreplay respecting the natutal moral order without fair reasons (medical issues) or without a consensual agreement is morally wrong. By nature, the marriage implies the agreement of receiving and giving sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, in order to lead the complete union of bodies. Why, because the marital act is not a simple coitus like with the animals.

The massages, the touchings, the kissings, the caresses, the suctions, the licks done by one on the body of the other are constitutive elements of the marital act: rights, obligations and duties. Of course, oral sex is wrong, because it is not a foreplay.

Of course, oral sex is morally wrong, per se, because it is not a foreplay and because it is a substitution and a replacement. The same reasoning has to be held for anal sex.

Of course, anal stimulation is morally wrong, per se, in my humble opinion, because this organ is not linked with the sexuality, by nature.

Of course that yes that the manual stimulations, the digital stimulations or oral stimulations of the external sexual parts of the other *are constitutive parts of the phenomenology of the marital act. *The oral kiss and, the manual massage and the digital massage are conjugal caresses, acts of love.

So when Paul says that a wife must not deny her husband marital lovemaking, you think he means (among other things) that she must kiss his genitals? :ehh:

 

[fpt]

So when Paul says that a wife must not deny her husband marital lovemaking, you think he means (among other things) that she must kiss his genitals? :ehh:

The marriage:

The donation of persons means the donation of souls, the donation of hearts, the donation of bodies. This donation has to be mutual, reciprocal, total and bilateral;

The wife agrees with the fact of receiving the masculinity of her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of receiving the feminity of his wife; the wife agrees with the fact of giving her own feminity to her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of giving his own masculinity to his wife: to give and to receive;

The body of wife becomes the body of husband, the body of husband becomes the body of wife; it is the donation of bodies, for making one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. The exchange of vows of marriage implies the donation of nudities: the wife offers her own nudity to her husband, the husband offers his own nudity to her wif: the right to see, to look at, to stare the nudity of the other, the obligation and the duty to show the nudity to the other, the right to receive and to take the nudity of the other, the marital debt, the conjugal sexual obligations, the conjugal sexual duties, the conjugal sexual rights, the obligation, the duty and the right to the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. The terms of “human fashion” means in the respect of the human nature.

The husband has natural rights on the body of wife, the wife has natural rights on the body of husband: to kiss, to touch, the massage, to caresse, to lick, to suck, to use the body for the body of the other, with the love and the tenderness, in the human fashion.

The refusal of foreplay is not very human, it is animalistic: each one has right to be prepared by the other. All the body of the other can be touched and co, in the human fashion with the love and the tenderness. The sexual cooperation is an obligation, a right and duty; each one has to work on the other.

The right to be caressed by the other in the human fashion: manual touchings mean means manual caresses, digital touchings mean digital caresses, kissings mean caresses with the lips of mouth…etc.

The external intimate parts are parts of body, these parts are the sexual privileges for each member of couple. A husband has to prepare his wife, the wife has to prepare her husband.

If you do not agree with the fact of being touched by the other sexually speaking and if you do not agree with the fact to touch the other, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you: immaturity, doctrinal errors… Red flag before the marriage.

 

[fpt]

So when Paul says that a wife must not deny her husband marital lovemaking, you think he means (among other things) that she must kiss his genitals? :ehh:

In the context of the marital act:

The husband has the right to kiss the intimacy of his wife what means that the wife has the obligation to allow him to kiss her own external intimate parts; the wife has the right to kiss the intimacy of her husband what means that the husband has the obligation to allow her to kiss his own external intimate parts.

The doctrinal exclusion of sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, by one of member of couple is problematic: it is an issue.

 

[fpt]

So when Paul says that a wife must not deny her husband marital lovemaking, you think he means (among other things) that she must kiss his genitals? :ehh:

Do you really that a wife, really in love for her husband, is going to refuse to be touched on all her body by her own husband with love and tenderness, in the human fashion, like foreplay (before), during and after the complete union of bodies?

Do you really that a husband, really in love for his wife, is going to refuse to be touched on all his body by his own wife with love and tenderness, in the human fashion, before and during the complete union of bodies?

The caresses are totally human.

 

[fpt]

two corrections

Do you really believe that a wife, really in love for her husband, is going to refuse to be touched on all her body by her own husband with love and tenderness, in the human fashion, like foreplay (before), during and after the complete union of bodies?

Do you really believe that a husband, really in love for his wife, is going to refuse to be touched on all his body by his own wife with love and tenderness, in the human fashion, before and during the complete union of bodies?

The caresses are totally human.

 

[seeker_of_God]

two corrections

fpt, might you consider not posting so many posts in a row?