T
- Status
B
beckycmarie
Guest
I saw the post SwizzleStick referred to earlier, and it’s obvious Starwynd is a troll. In that thread Starwynd cites the Monty Python song “Every Sperm is Sacred” (which was written as a complete mockery of Humanae Vitae) as backup for his position. So my advice here is,
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
B
beeliner
Guest
That is obviously untrue. If it were, then the Church would prohibit married people who are unable to have children from having sex, which it does not do and and as far as I know has never done.
That having been said, a similar thread went to several pages a few months back and was then obliterated by the management without notice or comment - it just disappeared.
So I’m not likely to waste too much time and effort on this subject and others might not want to either.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
Oral sex is never permitted, just as masturbating before sexual contact is not, any person who thinks this valid foreplay has no understanding of Catholic teaching. Onan was killed for spilling his seed, period, that is the basis, but further, looking at the wife with lust is sin. This is revolting and unbecoming in a Catholic forum to say that such degradation of another human being could ever be acceptable. I pray those who say such may be removed from any authority, especially if they are clergy or Bishops, as has happened in England. It is the bishops who issue Imprimatur, and quite honestly, with some Imprimatureed books I have read, I’d rather read Jack Chick, and know I’m in for an attack on the church than otherwise.
God’s blessing to Emerald Wings, you seem a icon of Godliness, especially in the company in this thread.
God’s blessing to Emerald Wings, you seem a icon of Godliness, especially in the company in this thread.
B
beeliner
Guest
Utter nonsense. And your authority to proclaim such things comes from whom?Oral sex is never permitted, just as masturbating before sexual contact is not, any person who thinks this valid foreplay has no understanding of Catholic teaching. Onan was killed for spilling his seed, period, that is the basis, but further, looking at the wife with lust is sin. This is revolting and unbecoming in a Catholic forum to say that such degradation of another human being could ever be acceptable. I pray those who say such may be removed from any authority, especially if they are clergy or Bishops, as has happened in England. It is the bishops who issue Imprimatur, and quite honestly, with some Imprimatureed books I have read, I’d rather read Jack Chick, and know I’m in for an attack on the church than otherwise.
God’s blessing to Emerald Wings, you seem a icon of Godliness, especially in the company in this thread.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
Can you provide something from an official Church source that shows your statement is true? My understanding is oral stimulation (and manual for that matter) is permitted as described by the link in post #4.
I’m not sure if you meant by “masturbation” the actual definition, touching oneself or touching one’s spouse. If you meant the latter, I can only wonder what you would define as appropriate foreplay.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
There is no infallible document I know of which allows the spilling of the seed outside of a certain area, doing such outside of such purposely is wrong, which is what I would see as such, besides the degrading nature of such acts, more than this, my study of Aquinas, common sense, and the acting of conscience, I cannot say, in any case, if I believed you correct, I would leave the church, as it is, I think either the Infallible stances of tradition have been misunderstood, or not infallible documents have been looked at. My Authodoxy is first to Christ, and then to the individual popes, or bishops- The Church infallible is Christ’s body- as to these ideas, I may as well be a non-catholic if I accept such stances, or watch pornography before something, or any other sort, or some other Lustful action, which I think this to be. Why, what saints had oral sex? I am sure there are none- so, by my soul, I say you are wrong, and I would leave your version of the church instantly, even as I am loyal to the truth.
I emphasise entirely with any who would leave the modern church, dispite always being a liberal minded person, subject to truth- banning contraception, but allowing such would be hypocrisy.
I emphasise entirely with any who would leave the modern church, dispite always being a liberal minded person, subject to truth- banning contraception, but allowing such would be hypocrisy.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
No orthodox Catholic would disagree with you there. But there is a difference between oral sex to the point of ‘finishing’ (which is a sin) and oral stimulation as foreplay for the marital act, completely open to life.
Okay so it’s not for you, fine. But some people believe the body to be beautiful and holy, and no part of the marital act is “degrading” since there are no “dirty” parts.
What concerns me most about your post is your statement that you would leave the Church if it okayed oral stimulation as described above (and again in the link in post #4). Are you saying you would leave the Church because you hold your opinion higher than that of the Church? Sounds an awful lot like Martin Luther to me. . .
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
It would disprove infallibility if men were allowed to spill seed outside acceptable area, which the document does not state-
I think it is risky to allow any action- but oral sex and oral stimulation may be different- still, but seem utterly degrading to me, I could not see Christ, or any Saint doing so, and yes- if the church were to infallibly state such I would leave, but as it is, I have not hear such, nor do I see another sacrament. Was John Paul also right to kiss the Koran, to pray in sinagugues, or mosks in the manner he did, or to replace a Catholic thing with a statue of Buddah for the sake of inter -religious Dialog- a more traditionalist friend of mine says these are all true. I have always liked John Paul, I enjoyed some of his writtings, but the way in which many abuses crept in, the sexual abuse scandal, and many other things makes me prefer taking a more conservative view involving him, which utterly contradicts my previous stance. As it is, many clergy would have us be luke-warm, or just skit through, or risk whatever can be risked. There is however an utterly fine line between stimulation and fornications in lust. I would rather not cross it, or risk such, nor should any other.
I think it is risky to allow any action- but oral sex and oral stimulation may be different- still, but seem utterly degrading to me, I could not see Christ, or any Saint doing so, and yes- if the church were to infallibly state such I would leave, but as it is, I have not hear such, nor do I see another sacrament. Was John Paul also right to kiss the Koran, to pray in sinagugues, or mosks in the manner he did, or to replace a Catholic thing with a statue of Buddah for the sake of inter -religious Dialog- a more traditionalist friend of mine says these are all true. I have always liked John Paul, I enjoyed some of his writtings, but the way in which many abuses crept in, the sexual abuse scandal, and many other things makes me prefer taking a more conservative view involving him, which utterly contradicts my previous stance. As it is, many clergy would have us be luke-warm, or just skit through, or risk whatever can be risked. There is however an utterly fine line between stimulation and fornications in lust. I would rather not cross it, or risk such, nor should any other.
B
beckycmarie
Guest
I think it’s safe to say that would never happen.
I won’t argue about the other points since it’s a matter of personal preference and pointless to argue about. . .
But I hope you wouldn’t leave the Church founded by Christ, upon which the gates of Hell will never prevail over your opinion of what constitutes appropriate foreplay. I’m not sure what would be accomplished by potentially losing your soul over such a protest.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
I am glad you agree on the first- as to the second, I think there is a dangerous line between, a line I would not desire to risk. The posts don’t all mention what the sites say- which is that spilling of the seed outside of appropriate place is not ever acceptable, even if followed by it. Stimulation, well- maybe, but not spilling, which is the reason masturbating is wrong, and what I and EmeralWings believe wrong. I would consider a reply well. P.s. I cannot see such as outside of tempting towards wrong action- It seems dangerous, and perhaps in many cases occasion to sin- in that they may quickly move into lust. Therefore, I would avoid such.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
"Occasions of Sin
Occasions of Sin are external circumstances–whether of things or persons–which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.
It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). "
Imprimatur- OCE
home.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
So the act may not be immoral in itself, I speak of stimulation without ejaculation, which is sinful, in that Seed is purposely spilt, but is likely for many, if not all an occasion to sin, and so, along with (for unmarried people, erotic, or passionately pleasure seeking kissing etc- see Aquinas parts of lust), It seems that this act is still not permissible to fallen people unless I am wrong, I say that it is wrong especially to allow people to think you agree that spilling seed outside the womb is right, as to the other, I think it occasion to sin in the least, and as such, we vow to avoid these each time at confession, and all sin, least we gain no forgiveness (no forgiveness apart from desire of or actual repentance and contrition)
Occasions of Sin are external circumstances–whether of things or persons–which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.
It is important to remember that there is a wide difference between the cause and the occasion of sin. The cause of sin in the last analysis is the perverse human will and is intrinsic to the human composite. The occasion is something extrinsic and, given the freedom of the will, cannot, properly speaking, stand in causal relation to the act or vicious habit which we call sin. There can be no doubt that in general the same obligation which binds us to refrain from sin requires us to shun its occasion. Qui tenetur ad finem, tenetur ad media (he who is bound to reach a certain end is bound to employ the means to attain it). "
Imprimatur- OCE
home.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm
So the act may not be immoral in itself, I speak of stimulation without ejaculation, which is sinful, in that Seed is purposely spilt, but is likely for many, if not all an occasion to sin, and so, along with (for unmarried people, erotic, or passionately pleasure seeking kissing etc- see Aquinas parts of lust), It seems that this act is still not permissible to fallen people unless I am wrong, I say that it is wrong especially to allow people to think you agree that spilling seed outside the womb is right, as to the other, I think it occasion to sin in the least, and as such, we vow to avoid these each time at confession, and all sin, least we gain no forgiveness (no forgiveness apart from desire of or actual repentance and contrition)
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
In any case, this is simply my stance and only stance, that said, I am subject to Infallible Truth, but your postings have much added to the scandals (occasions of sin caused by others- occasions as stated in previous post) I have already experienced in the past weeks.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
I have yet to see Emerald Wings be wrong in anything. as to her own words.
While I cannot say what John Paul could have meant- I ask politely that a person refer me to the direct quotation on this online. You may scripturelink it if you are unsure, but only I and Emerald Wings have supplied any authentic links as yet- please, either a papal encyclical or Ecumenical Council, then discussion may resume.
As to EWTN:
"oral sex
Question from michelle bowman on 6/27/2007:
is it a sin for a married couple to have oral sex with each other?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 6/28/2007:
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993). "
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442&Pg=Forum5&Pgnu=1&rec nu=2
I.E. Moderate activity, no spilling of seed, and utter warning.
God bless EmeralWings, I would appreciate further help to kill these erroneous viewpoints.
Ignatius Press
“Dr. William E. May is the Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of a dozen books, most recently the revised 2 nd edition of his An Introduction to Moral Theology (Our Sunday Visitor, 2003). May served on the International Theological Commission from 1986 through 1997 and during those years worked closely with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Dr. May has lectured in universities throughout the world.”
ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/may03_2006.htm
“Although the terms “intrinsically evil” and “absolute moral norms” do not appear in Scripture, there can be no doubt that Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, clearly identify certain kinds of actions as utterly incompatible with (a) the life of God’s chosen people in the Old Testament and (b) his holy people who are one body with Christ. Competent exegetes show, for instance, that the story of Onan in Genesis, despite the efforts of some contemporaries to ignore its relevance to such issues as masturbation and contraception and that Onan was struck dead solely because he violated the Levirate law, clearly shows that what Onan did, namely, spill his seed deliberately in the ground, was abominable to the Lord as well as the end for whose sake he did this. [4] It is likewise clear that Paul clearly condemned fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, etc. In addition, no one can read 1 Cor. 6 without realizing that such sexual sins as incest, fornication, adultery, anal/oral sex bodily unite persons, and that if done by the baptized, who are irrevocably, for good or ill, bodily one with Christ, debase the entire body of Christ. [5]”
ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/may03_2006.htm
Pure Love Club
"Other people resort to oral sex so that they don’t lose their virginity. Although you do not technically lose your virginity by having oral sex, it still robs you of innocence and puts you in situations where you could easily lose your virginity. It does not relieve sexual tension in a man, but creates it and reinforces in him the myth that he has sexual “needs” that must be met, even at the expense of a woman’s dignity and innocence. The bottom line is that you don’t need oral sex to keep from going all the way. You need grace, courage, and self-respect.
We need to take an honest look at our motives. Why are we doing this anyway? Why would a person become upset if he or she were not allowed to have oral sex? Recently I was invited to speak to a high school morality class. When I arrived, the teacher said to me in front of the class, “We’ve been having a big debate about oral sex. They do not see anything wrong with it. What would you say?” Everyone in the class looked at me and awaited my response. I said what came to mind: “If a guy needs to place his genitals into the mouth of his girlfriend in order to show her what she means to him, then it shows exactly what she means to him.”"
pureloveclub.com/chastity…d=7&entryid=45
Lust Exists even in marriage, USCCB
"3. Premarital & Extramarital Sex
Acts proper and exclusive to spouses are totally reserved for
CCC, 1643-8, 2348-2350,
a man and a woman who are joined in marriage and committed
2360-2361, 2380, 2394
to one another until death. All other carnal unions and sexual
acts (including oral sex) between an unmarried man and woman
(fornication), or between two partners—of whom at least one is
married to another party (adultery) violate the sixth Commandment
and are serious offenses against chastity and/or the dignity of
marriage. Married couples have always experienced problems
U.S. Catholic Catechism
that threaten their union: jealousy, infidelity and conflicts.
for Adults, pp. 287-288
Lust and arbitrary domination can ruin a marriage. These
situations can lead to mental, physical and emotional abuse. "
usccb.org/education/chasteliving.pdf
"Received Teaching of the Church
References
21. Chastity promotes the full integration of sexuality
CCC, 2337, 2349
within the person, in accord with their state of life —
married, single, professed religious, or consecrated celibate.
Chastity promotes abstention from immoral sexual activity.
22. Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery
CCC, 2339, 2342
which is a training in human freedom and which is the result
of long and hard personal and interior work.
23. Chastity flows from the moral virtue of temperance that helps CCC, 2341
us direct our sexuality and sexual desires toward authentic
Truth and Meaning, 4
love and away from using persons as objects for sexual
pleasure. Chastity is not a matter of repression of sexual
feelings and temptations but the successful integration
of the gift of sexuality within the whole person. To integrate
the gift of sexuality means to make it subordinate to love and
respect through the practice of chastity.
24. Formation in the virtue of chastity includes:
CCC, 2338-2345; 2517-2527
• education for authentic love
NDC, 45 F
• understanding one’s sexuality as a gift
Truth and Meaning, 8-25
• cultivation of all the virtues, especially charity
• the practice of prayer
• the virtue of temperance
• respect for human dignity in oneself and in others
• the practice of decency and modesty in behavior, dress,
and speech
• the respect for one’s own body and for others as
1 Cor 6:19
temples of the Holy Spirit
• assistance in acquiring self-mastery and self-control.
25. The benefits of chastity include:
CCC, 2338-2340
• the integrity of life and love placed in the person
CCC, 2338
• the gift of authentic friendship
CCC, 2347
• fidelity in marriage which leads to strong family life
CCC, 2363
• the ability to be ‘pure of heart’
CCC, 2518
• development to authentic maturity
Familiaris Consortio, 37
• capacity to respect and foster the ‘nuptial meaning’ of
Familiaris Consortio, 37
the body
• a lifestyle that brings joy
Truth & Meaning, 3
• the discipline to renounce self, make sacrifices and wait
Truth & Meaning, 5
• a life that revolves around self-giving love
Truth & Meaning, 16
• development of a harmonious personality
Truth & Meaning, 17 "
usccb.org/education/chasteliving.pdf
While I cannot say what John Paul could have meant- I ask politely that a person refer me to the direct quotation on this online. You may scripturelink it if you are unsure, but only I and Emerald Wings have supplied any authentic links as yet- please, either a papal encyclical or Ecumenical Council, then discussion may resume.
As to EWTN:
"oral sex
Question from michelle bowman on 6/27/2007:
is it a sin for a married couple to have oral sex with each other?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 6/28/2007:
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993). "
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442&Pg=Forum5&Pgnu=1&rec nu=2
I.E. Moderate activity, no spilling of seed, and utter warning.
God bless EmeralWings, I would appreciate further help to kill these erroneous viewpoints.
Ignatius Press
“Dr. William E. May is the Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of a dozen books, most recently the revised 2 nd edition of his An Introduction to Moral Theology (Our Sunday Visitor, 2003). May served on the International Theological Commission from 1986 through 1997 and during those years worked closely with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Dr. May has lectured in universities throughout the world.”
ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/may03_2006.htm
“Although the terms “intrinsically evil” and “absolute moral norms” do not appear in Scripture, there can be no doubt that Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, clearly identify certain kinds of actions as utterly incompatible with (a) the life of God’s chosen people in the Old Testament and (b) his holy people who are one body with Christ. Competent exegetes show, for instance, that the story of Onan in Genesis, despite the efforts of some contemporaries to ignore its relevance to such issues as masturbation and contraception and that Onan was struck dead solely because he violated the Levirate law, clearly shows that what Onan did, namely, spill his seed deliberately in the ground, was abominable to the Lord as well as the end for whose sake he did this. [4] It is likewise clear that Paul clearly condemned fornication, adultery, homosexual activity, etc. In addition, no one can read 1 Cor. 6 without realizing that such sexual sins as incest, fornication, adultery, anal/oral sex bodily unite persons, and that if done by the baptized, who are irrevocably, for good or ill, bodily one with Christ, debase the entire body of Christ. [5]”
ignatius.com/Magazines/hprweb/may03_2006.htm
Pure Love Club
"Other people resort to oral sex so that they don’t lose their virginity. Although you do not technically lose your virginity by having oral sex, it still robs you of innocence and puts you in situations where you could easily lose your virginity. It does not relieve sexual tension in a man, but creates it and reinforces in him the myth that he has sexual “needs” that must be met, even at the expense of a woman’s dignity and innocence. The bottom line is that you don’t need oral sex to keep from going all the way. You need grace, courage, and self-respect.
We need to take an honest look at our motives. Why are we doing this anyway? Why would a person become upset if he or she were not allowed to have oral sex? Recently I was invited to speak to a high school morality class. When I arrived, the teacher said to me in front of the class, “We’ve been having a big debate about oral sex. They do not see anything wrong with it. What would you say?” Everyone in the class looked at me and awaited my response. I said what came to mind: “If a guy needs to place his genitals into the mouth of his girlfriend in order to show her what she means to him, then it shows exactly what she means to him.”"
pureloveclub.com/chastity…d=7&entryid=45
Lust Exists even in marriage, USCCB
"3. Premarital & Extramarital Sex
Acts proper and exclusive to spouses are totally reserved for
CCC, 1643-8, 2348-2350,
a man and a woman who are joined in marriage and committed
2360-2361, 2380, 2394
to one another until death. All other carnal unions and sexual
acts (including oral sex) between an unmarried man and woman
(fornication), or between two partners—of whom at least one is
married to another party (adultery) violate the sixth Commandment
and are serious offenses against chastity and/or the dignity of
marriage. Married couples have always experienced problems
U.S. Catholic Catechism
that threaten their union: jealousy, infidelity and conflicts.
for Adults, pp. 287-288
Lust and arbitrary domination can ruin a marriage. These
situations can lead to mental, physical and emotional abuse. "
usccb.org/education/chasteliving.pdf
"Received Teaching of the Church
References
21. Chastity promotes the full integration of sexuality
CCC, 2337, 2349
within the person, in accord with their state of life —
married, single, professed religious, or consecrated celibate.
Chastity promotes abstention from immoral sexual activity.
22. Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery
CCC, 2339, 2342
which is a training in human freedom and which is the result
of long and hard personal and interior work.
23. Chastity flows from the moral virtue of temperance that helps CCC, 2341
us direct our sexuality and sexual desires toward authentic
Truth and Meaning, 4
love and away from using persons as objects for sexual
pleasure. Chastity is not a matter of repression of sexual
feelings and temptations but the successful integration
of the gift of sexuality within the whole person. To integrate
the gift of sexuality means to make it subordinate to love and
respect through the practice of chastity.
24. Formation in the virtue of chastity includes:
CCC, 2338-2345; 2517-2527
• education for authentic love
NDC, 45 F
• understanding one’s sexuality as a gift
Truth and Meaning, 8-25
• cultivation of all the virtues, especially charity
• the practice of prayer
• the virtue of temperance
• respect for human dignity in oneself and in others
• the practice of decency and modesty in behavior, dress,
and speech
• the respect for one’s own body and for others as
1 Cor 6:19
temples of the Holy Spirit
• assistance in acquiring self-mastery and self-control.
25. The benefits of chastity include:
CCC, 2338-2340
• the integrity of life and love placed in the person
CCC, 2338
• the gift of authentic friendship
CCC, 2347
• fidelity in marriage which leads to strong family life
CCC, 2363
• the ability to be ‘pure of heart’
CCC, 2518
• development to authentic maturity
Familiaris Consortio, 37
• capacity to respect and foster the ‘nuptial meaning’ of
Familiaris Consortio, 37
the body
• a lifestyle that brings joy
Truth & Meaning, 3
• the discipline to renounce self, make sacrifices and wait
Truth & Meaning, 5
• a life that revolves around self-giving love
Truth & Meaning, 16
• development of a harmonious personality
Truth & Meaning, 17 "
usccb.org/education/chasteliving.pdf
F
FRATER_PAVLVS
Guest
Is it safe? I think there are bacteria on the penis, or parasite eggs from the anus, which aren’t welcome in the mouth and, more importantly, a lot in the mouth that can infect the penis. On the contrary, an encounter may benefite the immune system, but what a risky venture. Virile strength is no argument against the strength of the jaws, I warn you.
As for morality, in essense oral sex is masturbation. As it is clear that it is not easy to vindicate masturbation, to find a case in which its evil is made little by its reasonable direction, I do not see how we can justify oral sex: an odd, unnecessary activity. Why waste your time? Plus, I doubt it’s healthy at all.
- Status