Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
edlinked said:
My context is that a man doesnt own a woman because she gave herself to the man and viceversa. .
Click to expand...
Right, it’s not about ownership.
I am confused the point you were trying to make
but anyway, seems we agree.
 
"So we conclude back that the sexual value must be firmly joined in the consciousness and the will with the relation toward the value of the person. Only then can one think about the union of persons and their belonging to each other. Without the objective union of persons love does not have the essential meaning, that is, a personal meaning.

Love has its ethical sense as it is bound and “governed” by the personalistic norm. So love as lived experience must be subordinated to love as virtue, and to such extent, that without love as virtue there can be no fullness of the lived-experience of love. The Christian Gospel knows love as a supernatural virtue, a divine virtue. A supernatural virtue is rooted in nature and acquires some human form thanks to man’s actions, and at the same time is expressed and confirm in his action, both In interior and exterior acts.

In accord with the full meaning of the word, love is a virtue and not merely an affection. Love as a virtue lives in the will by being disposed toward the value of the person, and so it is the source of the affirmation of the person that permeates all reactions, lived experiences, and all conduct in general.

Love as a virtue relates to affective love and sensual desire, as the point in the ethical order, is to bind the sexual values firmly with the value of the person, since love neither turns to the “body” alone nor even to the “human being of the other sex” himself, but precisely to the person. Love cannot be based neither on sensuality or affectivity alone as they in some way deviate from the true fullness of the person, and do not permit or at least do not lead to his affirmation. “
 
The body of woman is made for the body of man. The body of man is made for the body of woman. The bodies of males and females are made for the conjugal love, in the complementarity and in the alterity, physically, carnally, physiologically, intimately, sexually, erotically, sensually and spiritually.

The human body is in favor the marital act, an act of love, materially and immaterially.
 
A correction with a plus.
fpt said:
The body of woman is made for the body of man. The body of man is made for the body of woman. The bodies of males and females are made for the conjugal love, in the complementarity and in the alterity, physically, carnally, physiologically, intimately, sexually, erotically, sensually and spiritually.

The human body is in favor **of **the marital act, an act of love, materially and immaterially.
Click to expand...
The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual covenant, a sexed and sexual alliance, and a sexed and sexual consortium.
The vows of marriage are sexed and sexual, in the complementarity, in the alterity, and with a potential procreativity.

The vows of the marriage are linked to notion of " the right on the body " and Co. During the Synod of the family in october 2014, a couple said that it was a sexual Sacrement!!!

The modus operandi of the marital act is not linked to the angelic nature. We are human, not angels.

The enemies of the conjugal sexuality are the misunderstandings on the maternity and on the paternity and the wrong views of spirituality. The wifes use the spirituality and the motherhood in order to justify the refusal of the practice the conjugal sex, the same for mens. Be careful, the spirituality, the maternity and the paternity do not imply no marital act. The false devotion, the wrong acception of the spirituality are dangerous for the conjugal sex.
 
Other corrections
fpt said:
A correction with a plus.

The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual covenant, a sexed and sexual alliance, and a sexed and sexual consortium.
The vows of marriage are sexed and sexual, in the complementarity, in the alterity, and with a potential procreativity.

The vows of the marriage are linked to notion of " the right on the body " and Co. During the Synod of the family in october 2014, a couple said that it was a sexual Sacrement!!!

The modus operandi of the marital act is not linked to the angelic nature. We are human, not angels.

The enemies of the conjugal sexuality are the misunderstandings on the maternity and on the paternity and the wrong views of spirituality. The wifes use the spirituality and the motherhood in order to justify the refusal of the practice of the conjugal sex, the same for men. Be careful, the spirituality, the maternity and the paternity do not imply no marital act. The false devotion, the wrong acception of the spirituality are dangerous for the conjugal sex.
Click to expand...
The first devotion is the spouse. Before all, we are spouse, wife or husband.
 
again corrections
fpt said:
A correction with a plus.

The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution, a sexed and sexual contract, a sexed and sexual covenant, a sexed and sexual alliance, and a sexed and sexual consortium.
The vows of marriage are sexed and sexual, in the complementarity, in the alterity, and with a potential procreativity.

The vows of the marriage are linked to notion of " the right on the body " and Co. During the Synod of the family in october 2014, a couple said that it was **a sexual Sacrament!!! **

The modus operandi of the marital act is not linked to the angelic nature. We are human, not angels.

The enemies of the conjugal sexuality are the misunderstandings on the maternity and on the paternity and the wrong views of spirituality. The wives use the spirituality and the motherhood in order to justify the refusal of the practice **of **the conjugal sex, the same for men. Be careful, the spirituality, the maternity and the paternity do not imply no marital act. The false devotion, the wrong acception of the spirituality are dangerous for the conjugal sex.
Click to expand...
The doctrine of scrupulism about the marital act is ***a spiritual disease.
 
I will take the own words of Ronald Conte Jr about the definition of some natural offenses;

He says, today, on this blog that that " we can debate which acts fall under the proper moral definition of torture, [why not the debate about the definition of masturbation and of sodomy, for example ] ". With me, he is refusing, it is so sad, it is a shame.
 
Corrections
fpt said:
I will take the own words of Ronald Conte Jr about the definition of some natural offenses;

He says, today, on this blog that " we can debate which acts fall under the proper moral definition of torture, [why not the debate about the definition of masturbation and of sodomy, for example ] ". With me, he is refusing, it is so sad, it is a shame.
Click to expand...
What is the good acception of natural offenses that are always morally wrong concerning the conjugal sexuality. That is the great issue with him. No debate with him, it so… no word!!!
 
I never thought of quoting my own posts to keep a conversation going.
Interesting way to do things…😃
 
As English language is not my native language (mother tongue), I make many mistakes and some errors, I do not like that. Thus, I try to do my own corrections.:D:D:D:D:):)🙂
 
Okay, I honestly quit reading about page 25, so if some of this has been covered this tell me.

I think the major issue here is corrupted meaning of terms. Thanks to the modern terms of ‘anal sex’, ‘oral sex’, ‘homosexual sex’ we have no clue anymore what the meaning of the word “sex” is. Sex is not simply two people reaching climax together, it is THE union of a man and a woman in the martial act. ANYTHING else that simulates this without a man depositing his seed in the woman IS NOT sex. What people typically call anal and oral 'sex" is nothing more than mutual masturbation, this is what the Church has condemned those actions under. Homosexual “sex” an impossibility, which is why classically it is referred to as sodomy. It is not physically possible for two men or two women to come together in sexual union, which of course, is why it is impossible for two people of the same sex to contract a marriage.

Now, as to the question if oral or anal stimulation is Okay as foreplay. Some people have said that manual/oral stimulation of your spouse is masturbation. I argue that it is not possible to masturbate and have sex at the same time.
CCC 2352:
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty,for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here **sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship ** which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139
Click to expand...
This definition is clearly stating that masturbation is the stimulation (regardless of climax) for ANY reason OUTSIDE the "moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual selfgiving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

Now for the argument that this idea of “anything goes so long as Tab P is inserted in slot V” is a ‘modern’ HV idea. I invite you to read this essay on Moral in Marraige writen in 1936, 6 years after Casti Connubii and 32 prior to Humanae Vitae with a Nilhi obstat and Imprimatur. ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

If you do have the mental fortitude to get through the whole thing, here is the relevant part
The rightness of a human act is coloured by the surrounding in
which it is performed; attendant circumstances must be considered
in addition to the two main determining moral factors of nature
of deed and motive.
Click to expand...
Sex intercourse is supposed to be a complete human situation, an
entire expression of love and delight between a man and woman. It
should not be the securing of a local stimulus and satisfaction
or just a physical action to be performed, a duty to be endured,
but should be deeper and wider in its cause and effect, enjoyable
to persons, not pleasurable merely to sexual organs.
Click to expand...
Rightly should the man delight in the whole person of the woman,
and the woman likewise in that of the man. Often the climax of
passion is reached and passed more quickly in the man than in the
woman; he should therefore prepare her in ways that their frankly
shared instincts will suggest, so that both may reach their
happiness together and at the same time. He should not turn from
her immediately afterwards, for mere bodily passion should no
more hold sway in the after-effects than in the human action.
Relapse into personal satisfaction brings about the very
loneliness that the impulse seeks to break down. It must be
repeated that the union is human, not physiological, and should
be endowed with the gracious virtues, including art. Love-making
is the proper preparation for intercourse, according to both
medical and theological science. It is right and healthy, serving
to keep the relationship at the human level of mutual and devoted
affection and enjoyment, preventing an undesirable preoccupation
with the merely genital side of the action.
Click to expand...
The details of these circumstances need not be entered into;
enough to note that discipline and restraint are not the same as
awkwardness, brusqueness, and coldness, and that they will not
break the rhythm of the action. The warmest and most tender love
need never be beastly or maudlin. The general principle here is
that a couple may seek as much closeness and intimacy as possible
so long as the situation remains human, that is, does not
deteriorate into animality and does not seek the culmination of
pleasure outside the natural act. For the rest, while they know
they are two in one flesh and love one another and do not desire
to use one another for purely selfish and private gratification,
they will come to no harm if they follow their natural promptings
and take the greatest and widest joys together in their love.
Click to expand...
Love-making should never grow stale; there is variety and
freshness within the limits of what is right. The art of
courtship, though it may change and develop with the years,
should never die out. What has been said above about the
importance of the secondary sex characteristics may here be
recalled: special sex intercourse is only one part of the general
intercourse of married life.
Click to expand...
So the bottom line is, as long as your treating each other as spouses (not objects) with respectful of the function of the ends of the act. Yes, anything goes.

The problem with anal stimulation has far less to do with the morality of the action and far more to do with the sanitation, which alone makes it complicated.
 
When there is a right for one, there is an obligation for the other: the right, the obligation and the duty.

In the context of the marital act:

The natural right to touch the other on all the body is existing, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness; The natural right to be touched by the other on all the body is existing, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness. The conjugal sexual yoke is still existing. Each one has the natural right to require to touch the other and / or to require to be touched by the other, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness.

The wife must agree with the fact of being touched by her husband, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness. The husband must agree with the fact of being touched by his wife, in the human fashion in love and in the tenderness.*** The moral opposability of these moral rights is existing:*** the obligation to be touched by her husband, and the obligation to be touched by his wife. All the body can be touched and Co, in the human fashion, even the sexual external organs, except the anus.

The refusal of the right of the other* without good reason *is totally morally wrong.
 
The moral regime of sexual foreplay still exists, of course: it is not free of possible sins, of course. The morality will be function of circumstances, of intentions and of effects.

The moderation, the non-abuses, the lack of excesses, the lack of obsession, the love, the tenderness, the variations, the different means for pleasing to the other, the sacrifices to do or not to do, the efforts to do or not to do, the dialogue between the Faith and the Reason, the rule of Reason, the rationality, the reasonability and the legitimacy … are the rules.

In catholic moral theology, in general, there are the circumstances, intentions and the effects that are useful in order to identify if an act is moral:

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used (employed);
3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;

For understanding the morality of preliminaries (foreplay and sexual foreplay) in the context of marital act, we have to know that. Nothing about sexual foreplay is without limit, of course, it is a truism.
 
LJN21 said:
Okay, I honestly quit reading about page 25, so if some of this has been covered this tell me.

I think the major issue here is corrupted meaning of terms. Thanks to the modern terms of ‘anal sex’, ‘oral sex’, ‘homosexual sex’ we have no clue anymore what the meaning of the word “sex” is. Sex is not simply two people reaching climax together, it is THE union of a man and a woman in the martial act. ANYTHING else that simulates this without a man depositing his seed in the woman IS NOT sex. What people typically call anal and oral 'sex" is nothing more than mutual masturbation, this is what the Church has condemned those actions under. Homosexual “sex” an impossibility, which is why classically it is referred to as sodomy. It is not physically possible for two men or two women to come together in sexual union, which of course, is why it is impossible for two people of the same sex to contract a marriage.

Now, as to the question if oral or anal stimulation is Okay as foreplay. Some people have said that manual/oral stimulation of your spouse is masturbation. I argue that it is not possible to masturbate and have sex at the same time.

This definition is clearly stating that masturbation is the stimulation (regardless of climax) for ANY reason OUTSIDE the "moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual selfgiving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

The acception of the definition of Ronald conte Jr on the sin of masturbation is, totally, not catholic. He is totally out of the catholic logic: it is his own misunderstanding, if he is in good faith, or other thing, if he is in bad faith!!! no idea. In my humble opinion, he is touched by the disease of the intelligence, theologically speaking and philosophically speaking, thus probably, he is good faith.!!!

Now for the argument that this idea of “anything goes so long as Tab P is inserted in slot V” is a ‘modern’ HV idea. I invite you to read this essay on Moral in Marraige writen in 1936, 6 years after Casti Connubii and 32 prior to Humanae Vitae with a Nilhi obstat and Imprimatur. ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

If you do have the mental fortitude to get through the whole thing, here is the relevant part

So the bottom line is, as long as your treating each other as spouses (not objects) with respectful of the function of the ends of the act. Yes, anything goes.

The problem with anal stimulation has far less to do with the morality of the action and far more to do with the sanitation, which alone makes it complicated.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top