Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[clem456]

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of a right for each one to receive and to give some sexual foreplay, in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act is an great issue, in my humble opinion. Canonical issues and or moral issues!!! The validity of marriage and / or the fact of being a good spouse, sexually speaking!!!

The question of opposability of sexual foreplay to give and to receive in the human fashion, in the context of the marital act: the list of acts that each one has the right to do on the other and to receive from the other (the right to the body, the right on the body , the right of the body, the sexual privileges on the body of the other, the sexual rights, the reserved acts to spouses).

The sexual vows of the marriage are?? The list, I am doing it.

That’s ok, you don’t have to make a list. The Church doesn’t have a list. I suppose the couple composes it’s own list of pleasurable activities, within the bounds of the dignity of the human person.
The point was, the poster was putting pleasure in it’s proper context…ordered to it’s properly ordered end .
The poster was not taking a negative view of pleasure.

 

[fpt]

In the context of the marital act, the unilateral refusal of not trying of giving the sexual pleasures and the sexual orgasms to the other, intentionally and voluntary, is morally wrong.

In the context of the marital act, the unilateral refusal of not pleasing to the other and of not satisfying the other, sexually speaking, in the respect of the natural moral order, intentionally and voluntary, is morally wrong.

 

[fpt]

That’s ok, you don’t have to make a list. The Church doesn’t have a list. I suppose the couple composes it’s own list of pleasurable activities, within the bounds of the dignity of the human person.
The point was, the poster was putting pleasure in it’s proper context…ordered to it’s properly ordered end .
The poster was not taking a negative view of pleasure.

The doctrinal refusal of some acts in link with the marital act can imply the nullity of marriage!!! What are those acts?

The unilateral refusal of some acts in link with the marital act can imply a great injustice toward the other and thus some sinful acts by omission, or for unfair reasons of not practicing !!! What are those acts?

 

[clem456]

In the context of the marital act, the unilateral refusal of not trying of giving the sexual pleasures and the sexual orgasms to the other, intentionally and voluntary, is morally wrong.

In the context of the marital act, the unilateral refusal of not pleasing to the other and of not satisfying the other, sexually speaking, in the respect of the natural moral order, intentionally and voluntary, is morally wrong.

Are you having trouble understanding the posts? :sad_yes:

 

[fpt]

That’s ok, you don’t have to make a list. The Church doesn’t have a list. I suppose the couple composes it’s own list of pleasurable activities, within the bounds of the dignity of the human person.
The point was, the poster was putting pleasure in it’s proper context…ordered to it’s properly ordered end .
The poster was not taking a negative view of pleasure.

An example:

If the husband has some erectile dysfunctions that imply difficulties for the marital act, the husband has to try to find medical solutions, in respecting of the natural moral order. Thus, if his wife asks him and wants to obtain the full union of bodies (her right), he could be morally obliged to try to take the viagra pill after a medical check up for solving the conjugal sexual issues, if the prizes of those pills are not too much, for the couple and for the family.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

An example:

If the husband has some erectile dysfunctions that imply difficulties for the marital act, the husband has to try to find medical solutions, in respecting of the natural moral order. Thus, if his wife asks him and wants to obtain the full union of bodies (her right), he could be morally obliged to try to take the viagra pill after a medical check up for solving the conjugal sexual issues, if the prizes of those pills are not too much, for the couple and for the family.

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

A duty to take Viagra? And if Viagra doesn’t work, and the only thing that gets a man up is S&M porn, does he have a “duty” to look at that, too? Do you realize how far your philosophy is from Catholic teaching?

 

[fpt]

That’s ok, you don’t have to make a list. The Church doesn’t have a list. I suppose the couple composes it’s own list of pleasurable activities, within the bounds of the dignity of the human person.
The point was, the poster was putting pleasure in it’s proper context…ordered to it’s properly ordered end .
The poster was not taking a negative view of pleasure.

Officially, this list is not existing, but she exists, unofficially:

Via the case law (jurisprudence) of the catholic courts: they analyze the demands of recognition of the nullity of marriage.

Via the notion of marital debt that the confessors and that spiritual directors explain to the spouses. The physical rules of marriage and of the marital act. It is her right, it is his right.

 

[fpt]

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

A duty to take Viagra? And if Viagra doesn’t work, and the only thing that gets a man up is S&M porn, does he have a “duty” to look at that, too? Do you realize how far your philosophy is from Catholic teaching?

Only, the treatments that respect the natural moral order are moral. Otherwise it is totally sinful. Porn is morally wrong, S&M is morally wrong.

 

[clem456]

Officially, this list is not existing, but she exists, unofficially:

Via the case law (jurisprudence) of the catholic courts: they analyze the demands of recognition of the nullity of marriage.

Via the notion of marital debt that the confessors and that spiritual directors explain to the spouses. The physical rules of marriage and of the marital act. It is her right, it is his right.

WHAT IS IT YOU ARE MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT EDLINKED’S POST AND MY POSTS?
WHO SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE ENJOYMENT OF PLEASURE? PLEASE ADDRESS SPECIFIC POINTS RATHER THAN JUST “GOING OFF”.

It’s ok, I do it sometimes too. Leaves people a little bewildered.

 

[fpt]

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

A duty to take Viagra? And if Viagra doesn’t work, and the only thing that gets a man up is S&M porn, does he have a “duty” to look at that, too? Do you realize how far your philosophy is from Catholic teaching?

By definition, Viagra is a medical pill for the sexual dysfunctions of males. The husband has to protect his body, and to try to cure his body in favor of his wife.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

We’re not in Kansas anymore.

A duty to take Viagra? And if Viagra doesn’t work, and the only thing that gets a man up is S&M porn, does he have a “duty” to look at that, too? Do you realize how far your philosophy is from Catholic teaching?

That’s quite a stretch. I don’t think legitimate prescription medicine is morally equivalent to pornography. Sexual dysfunction in the form of impotence is a legitimate physical disorder, and failure to treat it using LEGITIMATE means when such failure to seek treatment is damaging to the marital relationship would seem to be morally problematic. Is it your claim that “Catholic teaching” supports involuntarily forcing a married woman into a lifetime of celibacy should her impotent husband choose not to seek treatment, and that the husband bears no moral responsibility for not seeking treatment?

 

[fpt]

The fact of neglecting his wife, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong. The fact of neglecting her husband, sexually speaking, without fair reason is morally wrong.

 

[fpt]

Before the viagra pills, there are many other treatments: the moral treatments, the mental treatments, the psychological treatments, the psychical treatments, the religious treatments, the spiritual treatments, the medical physical treatments, the surgery treatments, the treatments with other pills and then the viagra pills.

The sexual foreplay of the wife on her husband are very helpful with a lot of pleasures to give and to receive.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s quite a stretch. I don’t think legitimate prescription medicine is morally equivalent to pornography. Sexual dysfunction in the form of impotence is a legitimate physical disorder, and failure to treat it using LEGITIMATE means when such failure to seek treatment is damaging to the marital relationship would seem to be morally problematic. Is it your claim that “Catholic teaching” supports involuntarily forcing a married woman into a lifetime of celibacy should her impotent husband choose not to seek treatment, and that the husband bears no moral responsibility for not seeking treatment?

Yes. Catholic teaching does not require anyone to take a medication that creates erections. I am puzzled as to how you could think that Catholic teaching includes such a requirement.

I think there’s a lot of grey here, but there’s no requirement. Often, impotence is not an indication of any sexual dysfunction at all. It could be an indication of old age (which doesn’t need treatment) or an indication of a lack of sexual desire (which is problem in a marriage, not a medical problem).

 

[fpt]

Yes. Catholic teaching does not require anyone to take a medication that creates erections. I am puzzled as to how you could think that Catholic teaching includes such a requirement.

I think there’s a lot of grey here, but there’s no requirement. Often, impotence is not an indication of any sexual dysfunction at all. It could be an indication of old age (which doesn’t need treatment) or an indication of a lack of sexual desire (which is problem in a marriage, not a medical problem).

**

Are you against the notion of the marital debt with all the moral regime that she implies?** The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the donation / the reception of bodies, the sexual rights on the body of the other, the wife’s body is the husband’s body, the husband’s body is the wife’s body, the sexual privileges of each one on the body of the other, the rights to give conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms to the other, the rights to receive conjugal sexual pleasures and conjugal orgasms from and by the other.

The marital debt is one of elements of the marriage. The marriage implies many sexual vows in favor of the other.

 

[fpt]

A good husband has to try to solve his impotence in respecting the natural moral law of the human beings, otherwise he is on the wrong way, morally speaking. He has to try, in function of some elements: his health, his money, his age, his culture, his knowledge, the will of his wife, his couple, his family, his country, his doctors… etc. The same thing for the wife.

All in the respect of the natural moral order of the marriage and of the marital act.

My view wants to respect the rules of the creation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My view wants to respect the rules of the creation.

Your view assumes that impotence – a natural human response to aging – must be avoided.

 

[fpt]

Your view assumes that impotence – a natural human response to aging – must be avoided.

A normal husband has the natural wish of satisfying his wife, in the context of the marital act, if possible, even an old husband. Thus, his doctrinal refusal of trying to find out a normal solution for solving this impotence linked to the age, not too dangerous for his health, is deeply not very normal. This attitude is totally not catholic, because it is going against the conjugal justice that is linked to conjugal vows. The voluntary refusal of not trying to solve, when his wife wants the conjugal sex, is unfair: it is wrong for him.
The rights of the wife on the body of her husband are existing.

Of course, a deep medical solution, dangerous, objectively speaking, for his health does not has to be used. He has to refuse.

 

[clem456]

A normal husband has the natural wish of satisfying his wife, in the context of the marital act, if possible, even an old husband. Thus, his doctrinal refusal of trying to find out a normal solution for solving this impotence linked to the age, not too dangerous for his health, is deeply not very normal. This attitude is totally not catholic, because it is going against the conjugal justice that is linked to conjugal vows. The voluntary refusal of not trying to solve, when his wife wants the conjugal sex, is unfair: it is wrong for him.
The rights of the wife on the body of her husband are existing.

Of course, a deep medical solution, dangerous, objectively speaking, for his health does not has to be used. He has to refuse.

Do you realize your interpretations of sexual morality are as rigid as Conte’s? (In this particular instance anyway…)

 

[fpt]

Do you realize your interpretations of sexual morality are as rigid as Conte’s? (In this particular instance anyway…)

My interpretations of sexual morality are linked to the notion of the marital debt that, today (modern society), is seen like a wrong thing. We need not to forget this notion, she is so important. My rigidness can be, may be, but she is not of the same nature. She is so different because she is in favor of the sexual natural rights of each member of couple. Ronald Conte Jr denies the existence of sexual foreplay, me, I claim that those rights are existing, and that a type of opposability can exist.

The donation of bodies and the reception of bodies are so important that:
the impotence is a cause of nullity of marriage;
the unilateral refusal of practicing the marital act,without fair reasons, is morally wrong;
the non knowledge of the sexual nature of marriage is a cause of nullity of marriage;