I thought so , http://www.smiliegenerator.de/s17/smilies-
22197.png
Greets From a NON BELIEVER:
-- Laurent LUG (.@...), July 10, 2003.
Oral Sex in Marriagegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Here's a new question I have often wondered about and its kind of relevant give tthe recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down all anti-sodomy statutes as violating the 14th Amendment.My question is as follows:
Is it ever permissible for a wife to perform oral sex on her husband so that he ejaculates in her mouth. I'm speaking not in the instance where they are committing the sin of Onan. But rather, as when the act is a unitive expression of love at a time when the wife or husband is infertile. In this limited instance, the procreative aspect of marriage does not exist so it would not be inhibited by this act.
I can't seem to get a straight answer to this. Please pardon the pun.
-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), July 02, 2003
No, oral sex as you have described it is never morally permissable. Oral **stimulation** is acceptable, but ejaculation is only supposed to happen in one place--I don't think I need to be any more blunt than that, do I?
-- R. (none@none.com), July 03, 2003.
Quite a racey question!!!! I blushed when I read it. Then I laughed heartily. Thanks for the chuckle.As the end in itself I would doubt it is licit, as all sexual acts leading to orgasm should be ordered toward the possibility of procreation, even if fertility is zero. But I am not sure.
Karl
-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.
I have no direct citation but seek Dr. William May's work. Some is on the internet. He is an orthodox Latin Catholic theologian of long, solid reputation and has written on making moral decisions of a complex nature as well as human sexuality. He may, forgive the pun but I could not resist, give some dirction with how to approach such a question from an authentically catholic perspective.Karl
-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.
I'll look again. I actually know Bill May personally and consulted his work on this topic onve before. (My wife and I actually attended one of his lectures.) As I recall, his work and others, seems to dance around this a bit. But I'll look.
-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.
Pat,Write him a letter and ask for an answer. What is there to lose but uncertainty.
Your wife is a puzzle to me, sounds like mine. I bet we have more in common than not.
Karl
-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.
"R" is right, as Dr. May will affirm.
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 03, 2003.
Hmmmmmm ?You can park your car at the car wash, but you must change the oil at the garage.
. . . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.
Marriage by its very nature is always ordered toward the good of the spouses AND procreation. This is why Jesus Himself elevated this covenant to the status of “Sacrament”. (CCC 1601) Although a couple (either spouse) has been rendered infertile, with God all things are possible. (Matt. 19:26). For this reason the couple should respect the Church’s guidelines and abstain from deliberate sexual pleasure and self-giving without the compulsory second element of the marriage act present (procreation).It is for this reason that likewise the Church condemns masturbation because in it, 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 procreation in the context of true love is achieved (Persona humana #9). Deliberate stimulation of sexual organs in order to solely derive sexual pleasure has been both for the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of constant tradition and the moral sense of the faithful considered to be an intrinsically and gravely disordered action .
In my opinion this condemnation is no less applicable to the example cited above for the same reason. One element of the Sacrament of Marriage cannot be isolated out from the other. Couples intentionally setting out to exclusively give mutually to one another in the conjugal act of marriage while removing any and all conditions for procreation, including ejaculation outside of the vagina, are not in full compliance with Church teaching.
However, as in masturbation, the Church likewise teaches that in order to make a fair judgement of the couples moral culpability (serious sin or not) in this instance one must take into account all conditions that exist, among them force of acquired habit, depth of love, conditions of anxiety, conditions of fertility, and other psychological or social factors that lessen and even extenuate moral culpability. In light of the above, in this particular instance, I don’t feel the couple has committed an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.
-- Ed Lauzon (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 03, 2003.
Why are you starting a new thread? This topic was raised (no pun intended) six posts ago by David Ortiz... see "The Rapture".
-- Bob Hennessy (bobhen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.
Bob, what topic did I raise six days ago?
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 03, 2003.
"Rapture" ... like, oral sex + "Rapture". It's a joke for God's sake. Happy 4th of July, Sport.
-- Bob (bobhen@hotmail.com), July 04, 2003.
No one seems to take in consideration one aspect of those sexual practices.These are the forms depravity takes in the coupling of sodomites and prostitutes. Not conjugal lovers. The last thing a wife or her spouse ought to resemble in bed is these perverted givers and recipients of pleasure. There are licit and holy ways approved by God and His people; and nothing a medical source can say should convince us of what's proper or improper. Great respect and unselfish love make us scrupulous in lovemaking. But nevertheless, not as scrupulous as the Victorians who considered so many perfect expressions of love simply dirty.
If we're guided by prudish distaste, we go wrong. If we allow ourselves unlimited freedom without holiness and dignity, we go wrong. Love never goes wrong. Healthy sex is loving, graceful sex. Forget what the doctors say. Doctor ''Rut-hh'' was inclined toward advising unlimited salacious and unholy sexual relations to the public. Totally disgraceful! The sex- lives of the barnyard. They're not for devout Christians, I'm sure.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 04, 2003.
Hi Pat at the end of the day ask yourself if such acts are permissible.Examine your conscience in the light of the general subjective teachings Ed has provided, your informed conscience is your objective guide in this case and ultimate moral authority.
Again man is bound to follow his conscience even if it is not consistent with Church moral teachings or is in error. To do so is a sin.
God gave YOU a brain for a reason. God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 04, 2003.
You say "other psychological or social factors that lessen and even extenuate moral culpability. In light of the above, in this particular instance, I don’t feel the couple has committed an intrinsically and gravely disordered action"You are mixing moral apples and oranges here. It is true that personal culpability for an action may be mitigated by psychological, social, and various other factors. However, such culpability has nothing whatsoever to do with the INTRINSIC immorality of an act. An "intrinsically and gravely disordered action" is ALWAYS intrinsically and gravely disordered, regardless of the degree of personal culpability involved. That's what "intrinsically" means - the moral evil is a characteristic of the act itself, and cannot be separated from it by ANY extenuating circumstances, even those which may lessen the personal culpability of those who have committed a nevertheless gravely disordered action. Therefore your conclusion "in light of the above" is invalid, since the matter of your conclusion is completely unrelated to that which was above.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2003.
Eugene, your logic doesn’t follow. Sodomites and prostitutes kiss and embrace. Does that mean married couples should not lest they be considered unscrupulous and immoral as well? Of course not. You cannot blanket the all the actions of group of individuals based solely on the fact they have supposedly committed an immoral act. That is stereotyping. It also is not a case of being guided by prudish distaste. It is not a question of taste. What is distasteful to you may not be distasteful to someone else. What is at issue here is the immorality of an act and the circumstances that surrounded it that could extenuate or lessen its degree of seriousness. In this instance it is more a case of “extenuating” (to lessen the magnitude or seriousness of) circumstances that have influenced sinners into doing what they do. I never said what the couple does is not a sin. What I said was in light of the circumstances I don’t consider what they do to be a serious sin - ie. mortal sin that jeopardizes their eternal salvation.Kiwi, I don’t believe in this instance it’s a case of the Church’s moral teachings being in error as you say. The Church is correct in saying that oral sex for sexual stimulation alone is immoral (since it lacks the element of procreation). However, the Church on the other hand, has made allowances for our humanness and has acknowledged that there can be “extenuating” circumstances that lessen the culpability (deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious) in any sin. This is why, this couple is no more going to Hell for what they have done then the teenage boy who masturbates is. So, the Church isn’t being inconsistent or incomplete or in error, in fact, I feel She has been quite the opposite. The Church has made allowances for the factors that influence our humanness in this imperfect world of ours.
Paul, perhaps I didn’t explain myself as clearly as I could have. In the first paragraph of my post I explained that in this example couples should obey the Church’s laws for marriage. In the second paragraph I tried to explain this act is not in conformity to Church teaching and should be condemned. In paragraph 3 I re-emphasized the condemnation of this act as it does not allow for the Church’s stipulation for procreation within it. Having said all of this my fourth paragraph was not intended to reach a logical conclusion in “light of the above” 3 paragraphs that preceded it but rather, was intended to show “the other side of the coin”, the other side of the argument - that with all sin there are mitigating circumstances that can lessen and even extenuate moral culpability. My “in light of the above” wording was in reference to what I had stated immediately in the foregoing of paragraph 4 and not in reference to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Sorry for the confusion.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 05, 2003.
... this couple is no more going to Hell for what they have done then the teenage boy who masturbates is. ... with all sin there are mitigating circumstances that can lessen and even extenuate moral culpability.The couple MAY commit mortal sin. The adolescent MAY commit mortal sin. Either or both MAY go "to hell for what they have done."
With any sin, there MAY be "mitigating circumstances" -- not ARE mitigating circumstances. (There may NOT be any.)
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 05, 2003.
Ed:,br>You may believe as you please. I speak for myself, not the Church. My intent isn't mysterious, it's clear: The last thing a wife or her spouse ought to resemble in bed is these perverted givers and recipients of pleasure. --In fact, it is the perverts who imitate a loving marriage when THEY kiss and embrace. --The holy practice God has always blessed. You have it turned around.We know exactly how God sees the evil kind of sexual congress: as an abomination. Therefore, I think my premise is safe, and no stereotype. Perverts cannot complete an act of conjugal union. All they can do is give deliberate pleasure. Why would spouses blessed by God reduce the act of love to any similar level?
This is a particular aspect of onanism and contraceptive relations as well. To give only pleasure, like lesbians and homosexuals give it; with no possibility of procreating together as one flesh.
If you disagree, Ed, please don't belabor it with me. I ask you only to contemplate these things I've said. My motives are NOT prudery or an attempt to trash others.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 05, 2003.
Hi Patrick.If I needed to answer a question such as this, I would certainly not think to look in a "Rapture" thread!
I must assume that you and your wife are attempting to avoid a pregnancy by practicing NFP, and are therefore abstaining from the marital act during her fertile time.
(Incidentally, this method is only to be used for grave circumstances, not convenience or selfish reasons, so I must presume that you have grave reasons for avoiding a pregnancy.)
In this instance, you should be observing a time of "courtship" (sexual abstinence) during the fertile time, and "honeymooning" (sexual participation) during the infertile time.
Any deliberate form of sexual stimulation during the fertile period must be completed in accordance with the way God intended for the sexual act to be completed.
If you are looking to enjoy only the "unitive" aspect of sexual contact and circumvent the natural "procreative" aspect, then you are, in effect, contracepting, and offending God.
During fertile time, abstain from arousing one another entirely. Use this time to build bonds of communication and non-sexual relationship skills. Go for walks, hold hands, make future plans, set goals...PRAY TOGETHER! (not yelling) :)
Your relationship will grow in grace and holiness, and the Lord will bless you abundantly.
The fertile time is not such a long period of time that it should hinder your relationship to avoid sexual contact. In fact, it's Scriptural! 1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except [it be] with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to [[fasting and]] prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
Pax Christi. <><
-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 05, 2003.
Hope this helps. http://www.ccli.org/reviews/west.shtmlPax Christi. <><
-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), July 05, 2003.
>Kiwi, I don’t believe in this instance it’s a case of the Church’s moral teachings being in error as you say.Hi Ed, I agree.I meant if our informed conscience is still in conflict with a teaching, one is obligated to follow it (while keeping in mind they will be judged by God one day :-)).
Nice to see you back around. God Bless
-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 06, 2003.
Kiwi, thanks for the welcome. I am sorry I misread your post.Eugene, most Christian councillors consider oral sex a healthy part of a marriage. There is nothing wrong with being a “recipient of pleasure”. Times change and tastes within a society change. In ancient times it was considered sinful for a son to observe his father naked and for a couple to have sexual intercourse during the woman’s menstrual cycle. Polygamy was encouraged and at times even expected or required. Celibacy was frowned upon and considered abnormal. In the 7th century abortion carried a less severe formalized penance than did oral sex.
Sodomy can be classified as all forms of sexual intercourse where ejaculation takes place in any other opening of the body but the vagina. This definition then obviously includes anal and oral sex when ejaculation has taken place outside of the vagina. Whether you find this practice offensive or not, is not the issue here.
What is at issue is the question of what is permitted by God and Church within the confines of marriage and what is the intention of the couple. Is the married couple using oral sex as a means of contraception or are they employing it as a means of foreplay or a means of pleasing their spouse? Is culpability mitigated or extenuated when a spouse accidentally climaxes during foreplay - of course it is. There can be numerous other issues which come to bear in determining what is sinful and what is not within a marriage relationship and it is not for us to make that decision on behalf of others.
Pope John Paul in his Theology of the Body has stated that spouses within a marriage have the obligation to satisfy the other. St. Paul goes Pope John Paul one better when in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 he says that a spouse does not have authority over his/own body but that it belongs to the other spouse and that a spouse cannot deprive sexual pleasure from the other spouse.
The Church teaches that anything a married couple wishes to do during foreplay is permissible provided both give their consent. This includes anal &/or oral sex provided it leads to sexual intercourse. It is not for us to decide what is tasteful or perverted for a couple when having sexual relations within their marriage. The Church and the individuals within the marriage determine this.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.
Ed,
Whatever you think the Church teaches is up to you and no one's judging you. Did you think I, at age 65 haven't heard every opinion of Catholic & non-Catholic alike? You haven't corrected me; you only satisfied your own conscience.It means nothing. My opinion was offered for only one reason: to encourage everyone's interior meditation on this.
I remind you and all who read. Every prostitute in the world is skilled in the ''arts'' of love. No matter what she (he) is asked for, all that matters is the price. Every lesbisan & homosecxual makes these practices part of their repertory. Even the most filthy.
The marriage act ought never descend into filth. Just as it must never resort to using condoms or foreign objects or filthy language. If it seems to one of you here that I'm mistaken, let your own consciences be your guides. My part in this conversation is over. I was happy to try to help you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.
... if our informed conscience is still in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching, one is obligated to follow it ...This is not correct, because it is self-contradictory.
By definition, an "informed conscience" is one that is NOT "in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching" on morality.
Conversely, any conscience that IS "in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching" on morality is NOT an "informed conscience." Instead, it is an ILL-(in)formed, MAL-(in)formed, LESS-THAN-(in)formed, NOT-YET-FULLY-(in)formed, or UN-(in)formed -- whichever word/phrase one prefers to use to describe it.
This fact follows from the truth that the Church CANNOT teach error on morality. Simply put: If we want to do something that the Church teaches is a sin ... we are WRONG. We must not do it.
The only "loophole"? If we don't KNOW that the Church teaches that a certain act is sinful -- and thus our conscience is not fully informed -- we do not incur guilt if we perform this act.
Why is it important to learn what the Church teaches to be moral and immoral? Two reasons.
First, we must learn the Church's teachings in order to avoid doing immoral acts while mistakenly thinking that they are morally OK. This is true because such acts "upset the moral balance," give bad example, and harm ourselves and others even though we are unaware of this fact.
Second, we must learn the Church's teachings in order to avoid doing morally acceptable acts while mistakenly thinking that they are morally evil. It's true: If we mistakenly believe that a morally good (or neutral) act is gravely sinful and we deliberately choose to do it anyway, we commit a mortal sin.
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 06, 2003.
Dear CtM,Your last statement is not quite correct. If we mistakenly think that an objectively acceptable act is sinful, and go ahead and commit it anyway, we do sin, because we act in opposition to our conscience. But it is not mortal sin. There are three criteria which must ALL be present in order for an act to be a mortal sin: (1) objectively grave matter; (2) knowledge of the gravity of the matter; and (3) full rational consent of the will. Note that the first criterion is OBJECTIVELY grave matter. In other words, it has to be something that actually IS a grave moral evil. Simply thinking SUBJECTIVELY that something is gravely evil is not enough to constitute mortal sin, if in fact the act is not objectively grave.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 06, 2003.
Eugene, it's not a question of satisfying my own conscience. I merely passed on to the forum what the Church, through her priests, has passed on to me. Let's not try and settle this issue amongst ourselves for those who visit here. This forum does not speak for the Catholic Church. Let's suggest to anyone who reads this thread and has a similar question, to contact their parish priest for advice on acceptable sexual behaviour in marriage; then let them be guided accordingly.
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.
I have no problem with that, Ed. You have to understand, our forum is a meeting place; the arena of ideas regarding our faith & morals and everything our faith teaches.I didn't attempt to block your point of view. I have strong convictions. I've explained my personal viewpoint, but only to further everyone's understanding. We are adults here. I really thought the question before us was far too indiscreet; and almost didn't post anything. But I let the chips fall where they might, and this became a revealing thread after all.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.
I'm just glad we have euphemisms and places to hide our colorfully embarrassed faces. Oh, isn't it nice that we're not teleconferencing?rod. . . . ...
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 06, 2003.
I see-- You sound guilty, Roddy. There's nothing to be ashamed of. But as time goes by, a closer look at the world around us is necessary. We're all human. In some situations, the world can influence us irrationally. That's in overly-scrupulous fear, during puritanical eras. And, today-- during a paganistic revival. No one is safe from temptations.To me, and many thinking, cariong Catholics, the most awful part of it is: Younger & younger purient adolescents are falling into grave sin. Only some few years ago a world famous movie director was forced to fly the United States or go to jail. He'd been convicted of sexual depravity with a 13 year-old girl.
Nowadays, many 13 year-olds are guilty of depraved activities. Nothing like this has been seen since the days when Tiberius kept a stable of child prostitutes. We live in a pagan society, for Pete's sake! It requires much deep meditation; about the effects on our immortal souls; our personal failures in this world; to remain faithful to God. Love and safe sex are now spoken of in the same context! Just use a condom, and everything's OK!!! --Come ON!!!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 06, 2003.
Your last statement is not quite correct.I respect your opinion, but I believe that my last statement is correct. I realize that folks can be reluctant to believe it unless they read it in a Church document, but I have no document to quote at the moment, so I can only try to persuade.
If we mistakenly think that an objectively acceptable act is sinful, and go ahead and commit it anyway, we do sin, because we act in opposition to our conscience. But it is not mortal sin.
Please note that the mistaken thinking in my example was not merely that the "objectively acceptable act is sinful," but that the act "is gravely sinful." That makes a crucial difference.
There are three criteria which must ALL be present in order for an act to be a mortal sin: (1) objectively grave matter; (2) knowledge of the gravity of the matter; and (3) full rational consent of the will. Note that the first criterion is OBJECTIVELY grave matter. In other words, it has to be something that actually IS a grave moral evil. Simply thinking SUBJECTIVELY that something is gravely evil is not enough to constitute mortal sin, if in fact the act is not objectively grave.
It is true that "Simply thinking subjectively that something is gravely evil is not enough to constitute mortal sin." But the incorrect "thinking" is not the "matter" being judged. Rather, it is the DOING the action thought to be mortally sinful -- flagrantly contrary to one's conscience -- that is the "objectively grave matter." The instrinsic (im)morality of the act itself is irrelevant, and the mistaken thinking is irrelevant. It is the deliberate ACTING "against" God's will in a putatively serious way that is itself "grave matter." The mortal sin is in saying "Non serviam" to God -- "I don't care that You prohibit this, Lord, under pain of mortal sin, and I am going to do it anyway." We aren't "let off the hook" that we have "bitten," even if the Lord does NOT actually prohibit the act.
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 07, 2003.
Hey CtM ( Mateo?) I need help on this stuff for sure so bear with me I really struggle to buy into your view and I guess the classical one of the role of conscience. I accept that this is a dividing line between liberal and conservative theologians within the Church and I don’t want it to disintegrate along those lines of technical theological jargon.I got some of my thoughts off this site which I found helpful (sort of) http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/conscience_and_moral_decision.htm
Like wise don’t really accept the "cafeteria Catholic," liberal mindset whose morality is based on the concept of conscience as supreme and unassailable either. In short I’m in the gutless position of sitting on the fence. I do enjoy playing the devils advocate so …“lets go”. Id be interested in your response to what I would consider a typical liberal mindset to your latest post
if our informed conscience is still in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching, one is obligated to follow it ... This is not correct, because it is self-contradictory.
>“the teaching of the church is very clear. A man is bound to follow his conscience and this is true even if his conscience is in error.” Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal John Heenan in 1969 It has always been the teaching of the Catholic church that whereas the church is our objective guide in our faith and morals our conscience remains the final arbiter of our actions.
Vatican II “Conscience is a person's most secret core and sanctuary. There we are alone with God whose voice echoes in our depths. By conscience .that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one's neighbor. Hence the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct" …
“It is through their conscience that people see and recognize the demands of the divine law. People are bound to follow their conscience faithfully in all their activity so that they may come to God who is their last end.”
By definition, an "informed conscience" is one that is NOT "in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching" on morality. Conversely, any conscience that IS "in conflict with a [Catholic Church] teaching" on morality is NOT an "informed conscience." Instead, it is an ILL-(in)formed, MAL-(in)formed, LESS-THAN-(in)formed, NOT-YET- FULLY-(in)formed, or UN-(in)formed -- whichever word/phrase one prefers to use to describe it.
>An informed conscience is one that has sought to inform and educate itself about a particular moral issue. Each of us must seek to be "teachable"—open, willing, even eager to hear the teaching of the Church, even when it requires reexamining our values, opinions and conduct. Our duty in conscience is to know the official teaching of the Church. This means getting to the heart of the matter to discern the values being taught.To achieve that wedding—to assimilate Church teaching and translate it into action—is a big order. There is no automatic leap from knowing the Church’s stance on moral matters to living it out.
This fact follows from the truth that the Church CANNOT teach error on morality. Simply put: If we want to do something that the Church teaches is a sin ... we are WRONG. We must not do it.
>Yet, in the course of history, many such teachings were changed. Consider these few moral issues: burning and torture of Protestants to please God
slavery
role of women,
war,
intrest on loans etc etc
Would one who examined their conscience and DISAGREED with the Church be sinning against God????? Do you really believe that someone who studied Church teachings, scripture, who prayed and reflected and came to a different conclusion to the church in these above issues, SINNED against God. Somehow I don’t think so.
The Church’s teaching is often necessarily general and abstract because it is addressed to the whole world—people of all countries and cultures, children and adults at different stages of faith development. Church teaching concentrates on what ought to be and how people ought to live, all things being equal. But of course all things are never equal… I might expand on this idea later as I think its important
There is never going to be a rule book big enough to cover all moral dilemmas. This legalistic and doctrinal approach to morality is something Jesus and there fore God despised in the Pharisees. Yet it is what the Church represents!
We trust the promise that the Spirit will guide the Church, but we cannot overlook the fact that divine assistance does not dispense with human effort. The Holy Spirit is at work in the heart of all men. Therefore, just as members of the Church cannot readily assume that they are right and Church teaching wrong, so official teachers cannot rule out the possibility that they may be wrong and ordinary believers right when there is real difficulty with a particular teaching.
God Bless
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 07, 2003.
"I respect your opinion, but I believe that my last statement is correct. I realize that folks can be reluctant to believe it unless they read it in a Church document, but I have no document to quote at the moment, so I can only try to persuade"A: What I posted was not my opinion, but the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church. I realized you were speaking about actual commission of the act, not merely thinking about it. Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. But the fact remains that your opinion is not supported in any official Church source, while the three necessary conditions for mortal sin are clearly defined in many official Church documents - grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. You say "It is the deliberate ACTING "against" God's will in a putatively serious way that is itself "grave matter." That is not correct. The deliberate acting you speak of here involves the third requirement - full consent - not the criterion of grave matter. Gravity is an objective characteristic of the act itself, completely distinct from the subjective aspects of knowledge and consent. An act that is grave matter is always grave matter, regardless of the subjective state of the sinner; but it is not always mortal sin. An act that is not grave matter is never grave matter, regardless of the subjective state of the sinner; and therefore it can never be mortal sin. Mortal sin cannot be based on "putative" gravity, only on actual, objective gravity. In a case of mere "putative gravity", that is to say, "non-gravity mistakenly thought to be gravity", not only the first, but also the second requirement for mortal sin is lacking, since one cannot possess "full knowledge" of something that doesn't exist.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 07, 2003.
Hi Kiwi,Just to let you know, I'm not CtM.
God bless!
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 07, 2003.
My guess is, that was Gecik-San. He ''loves'' to break [sentences] up with (qualifiers) and plenteous ''html'' for ...the sake... of superflous clarity and EMPHASIS ...on something important. --!!! Also, using aliases from time to time. I still think he's an excellent contributor as long as he stays detached. I'm always going to be a Gecik fan because he speaks up for the faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 07, 2003.
Whyever not? If one or the other is infertile, then nothing is lost. Go for it!
-- Jake (ikluggtyn@mmgrewplh.gov), July 07, 2003.
Amazing!!! A friend of mine who "lurks" here mentioned that he thought CtM was John Gecik as well at about the same time the very same thought was crossing my mind; and now Eugene has mentioned the similarity in writing styles. How about it John, are we getting warm??? hehehehe
-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), July 07, 2003.
Hi, KIWI!In that post you say:
''This fact follows from the truth that the Church CANNOT teach error on morality. Simply put: If we want to do something that the Church teaches is a sin we are WRONG. We must not do it.'' (So far so good.) But then:
''Yet, in the course of history, many such teachings were changed. -- -??? Were they? Consider these few moral issues: burning and torture of protestants to please God
slavery
role of women,
war
interest on loans --etc., etc --I shudder to think you might dredge up more of this to accuse the Church of. In that ETC.
Did the Catholic Church preach war? Slavery? Burning protestants, --Kiwi? Or interest on loans? Or a particular ''role'' for women?
I dont think any teachings changed, ''in the course of history''. Not Catholic teachings. Fuedalism existed alongside the Church for centuries. Many barbarous customs existed. Catholics by the many hundreds died at the stake, or were drawn & quartered, and some became slaves, because these were unforgiving societies. Not because they were faithful to the Church. As for women and their role: some of the Church's most glorious saints are women of medieval times. The Church venerates each one. Some are called Doctors of the Church. The Catholic Church is in fact a civilizing influence in the western world second to none.
Can you name a single institution in the middle ages which did more to enhance the arts, learning, charity-- than the Church? What institution? What monarch, or country, or revolution? You just can't.
Neither can we lay at the Church's doorstep the blame for man's inhumanity to man.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 07, 2003.
Can it ever be moral and good to do an action which is by its very nature is unhygenic and has serious health risks attached to it?IOW, O.S. and A.S. both involve the exchange of bodily fluids in physiological zones not designed for the reception of such fluids.
For example: the anus is designed as a one-way pipe - its cellular walls are not a thick as those in the vagina. Injecting 500 million sperm cells whose whole point of existence is to penetrate mucus membranes (injecting their cargo of 23 chromosomes in the process) and which can live for up to a week within such an environment... means there will be 500 million holes bored in to the abdominal walls. Sure cells are small and the immune system normally works, but also certainly such a transfer has a real affect - and can lead to opening the door to other more lethal contagions and toxins.
Ditto for the mouth - a moist environment including gums, tongue, and throat.
Now, kissing or caressing to provoke pleasure is nowhere as dangerous as setting out to inject living, membrane penetrating cells into your spouse!
Which brings me back to the first question: how can it be OK to do something "within the embrace of love" which is of its own nature harmful?
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), July 08, 2003.
Not to mention plain disgusting, but that's me.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 08, 2003.
What I posted was not my opinion, but the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church.With all due respect, what you posted was more than "the official teaching of the Holy Catholic Church." You took what is "the official teaching" (something to which I gratefully assent) and misapplied it to the complex situation I had described. This resulted in an error on your part.
Truly understanding the situation I described (particularly the fact that it really does involve grave matter) requires a special effort, one that you have now twice been unwilling or unable to make. I can read the growing frustration and anger in your replies, caused by the fact that you are just not grasping a critical element in the equation. This failure to grasp has resulted in your having now twice arrived at incorrect conclusions.
I don't want you to be frustrated and angry. So I won't try a third time to force this upon you, as you are clearly not open to facts from a stranger like me -- facts intended to correct errors/misunderstandings that you may have long held. Perhaps some day you will discuss this instead with an orthodox, well-trained moral theologian, who (I am confident) will take my position and help you to see where you are going wrong.
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 08, 2003.
Nonetheless, you continue to insist these unnatural and dangerous pursuits are truly orthodox and approved for Catholic spousal relations. That can't be so. You haven't proven anything like it.My own problem with your premises is, I can't subject a devout priest of the Church to such unwelcome graphic descriptions of animalistic pleasures. There's the problem of communicating the exact nature of a wanton practice; especially to a holy priest. Possibly you find this just peachy, as if it would help prove your point? I figure you've proved it to yourselves. Leave me out of it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 08, 2003.
Forgive me, CtM;
It seems as if my post addressed you. Not so. I was speaking to ''Ed 444''. I hope he understood.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 08, 2003.
I got some of my thoughts off this site which I found helpful (sort of)
http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/conscience_and_moral_decision.htmToo bad you came across that site, because it is not reliable. It is a rather dangerous site, because it can beguile a reader who knows some things about orthodox Catholic teaching. It presents some real facts, but then slips into giving approval to weak-kneed compromise. The author seems not to want to dissent, but -- probably due to bad seminary training or reading wishy-washy theology -- he slips into error. At the end, he mentions a book by a Redemptorist author. Unfortunately, that once-great congregation now has some dissenters, including priests who think that women's ordination would be OK and others who publish speculations about the supposed femininity of God. One of these troubled Redemptorists may well have given the Internet site's author his improper ideas about conscience.
Early on, the author states these facts:
"A true or correct Catholic conscience is one that has made a sincere effort to discover the truth and one that acts in accordance with the Word of God and the teachings of the church. An erroneous conscience is one that is contrary to God's Word and the teachings of the church."These initial words of the author are in agreement with things I stated previously. They do not allow "leeway" for dissent -- for commiting sins because one has a right to follow a conscience that goes against "the teachings of the Church."
But then the author, a few paragraphs later, begins to slip toward error with these words: "Sometimes even the most sincere Catholic may find his/her conscience in conflict with some moral teaching of the church. After prayer, study and consultations, a person may find that he/she cannot at this time embrace and follow a particular teaching of the church; e.g., the church's teaching on birth control."
He goes on to imply that this "sincere Catholic" may act on this kind of conscience -- not "follow[ing] a particular teaching of the Church". But that contradicts what he said earlier. He was right (previously) to say that this kind of conscience is an "erroneous conscience" -- one that is contrary to "the teachings of the Church." It follows logically that one should not follow an "erroneous conscience." Hence, the author contradicts himself.
The author writes: "An informed conscience is one that has sought to inform and educate itself about a particular moral issue. For Catholics informing one's conscience will always involve a prayerful reflection on the teaching of scripture and the church as well as reflection on one's own experience."
The author is missing a final element in an "informed conscience" -- namely, that one must assent to the Church's teaching, always subjecting one's private opinion to it. He wrongly hints that an "informed conscience" may include the possibility of dissent, based on a person's "reflection" on personal experience that "tells" him that the Church may be wrong (at least in his "special circumstances"). He wrongly hints that there is "gray area" wherein the rules may be bent. The Church teaches no such concept.
It has always been the teaching of the Catholic church that whereas the church is our objective guide in our faith and morals our conscience remains the final arbiter of our actions.The use of the word "whereas" appears to introduce a twisting of the truth. Yes, the Church provides many more-or-less general moral truths that we must then apply to the very specific conditions of our lives. If our conscience is "true" and "correct" and "informed" -- and we follow it -- we will do what is in keeping with God's will. But if our conscience is "erroneous" or not "informed" -- or if we rebel against our "correct" and "informed" conscience -- we are going to do what is against God's will.
Yet, in the course of history, many such teachings were changed. Consider these few moral issues: burning and torture of Protestants to please God, slavery, role of women, war, intrest on loans etc etc
These are the canards that are incessantly trotted out by those who want to dissent from immutable Catholic teachings on sexual morality. Careful examination of each of these issues shows that the Church never TAUGHT erroneously on them. One can find detailed articles, by orthodox clergy, about these matters -- each showing how the dissenters are mistaken in claiming that the Church taught wrongly.
Would one who examined [his] conscience and DISAGREED with the Church be sinning against God????? Do you really believe that someone who studied Church teachings, scripture, who prayed and reflected and came to a different conclusion to the church in these above issues, SINNED against God. Somehow I don't think so.
You think wrongly. The answer is, "Yes, without a doubt, he would -- objectively speaking -- 'be sinning against God.'" One is not permitted to "disagree with the Church" about whether an action is sinful or not. But if one has been so misled as to believe (sincerely, but wrongly) that he is allowed to come "to a different conclusion" from the Church and then act on his conclusion, he may be in such a state of ignorance that it would keep him from incurring subjective guilt.
The Church’s teaching is often necessarily general and abstract because it is addressed to the whole world —- people of all countries and cultures, children and adults at different stages of faith development. Church teaching concentrates on what ought to be and how people ought to live, all things being equal. But of course all things are never equal.
This seems to be getting dangerously close to moral relativism. The Church's moral teachings are not some kind of "ideals" -- "what ought to be and how people ought to live" -- that few, if any, can live up to. "All things" ARE "equal" enough to make it necessary for us to assent to these teachings, never dissenting from them. This stuff about "ideals" and "oughts" comes right from so-called theologians who dissent on sexual morality. It always boils down to the same thing. Some people are weak and always seek an excuse for breaking the Commandments, especially those that require chastity and other forms of temperance (e.g., sobriety).
There is never going to be a rule book big enough to cover all moral dilemmas. This legalistic and doctrinal approach to morality is something Jesus and therefore God despised in the Pharisees. Yet it is what the Church represents!
Terribly incorrect! The Church, the infallible Body of Christ, "represents" nothing improper. We don't need a "big rule book." As I mentioned earlier, we have many more-or-less general moral principles and ways of applying them to our very specific life circumstances such that we avoid breaking the Commandments and offending God.
... just as members of the Church cannot readily assume that they are right and Church teaching wrong, so official teachers cannot rule out the possibility that they may be wrong and ordinary believers right when there is real difficulty with a particular teaching.
It is not our place to consider "possibilities." Vatican II teaches us that it is our place to assent and to assume that WE are wrong, not the Church. As soon as an "ordinary believer" begins to consider some alleged "possibility" that he may be right and the Church may be wrong, that person becomes, to some extent, an "ordinary NONbeliever." Given enough time and repetition of his "consdiering of possibilities," he will eventually use his rationalization to justify almost anything.
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 08, 2003.
Eugene if I had one tenth of the faith you have Id be a less objective researcher of history as well. Yes I marvel at your posts in their wit sharpness and love of Christ yet sometimes, just sometimes Im glad I wasnt raised in a remote sleepy Mexican hilltop village. Your above post to me reminds me why.Eugene the truth of a particular system of belief must NOT be decided on other grounds (the fact protestants also erred or Women were Saints or whatever other red hering you offered (I forget blame it on the drink). The tequila teddy bear hes cute though isnt he, you can only chuckle at the puffed up old warrior... I wanna give him a hug some days. God Bless you Mr Chavez!
CTM ...your identity is a mystery, my first guess is ...... the Iraqi Information Minister!.. I never knew theyd let you have internet access. LOL.
John thanks for your counter youre dead right about the dangers of relativism creeping in. I think we need to narrow this argument down somewhat to specific issues.Ill work my way through each of these with you and Im quite prepared to alter my opinion if you come up with the goods.
Lets start with the inquistion or more correctly inquistions eh and the Church teachings regarding hertics.I believe that those who ignored Papal declarations on the punishments of heretics by death as pleasing to god etc were correcting listening to their conscience. In essence the Church was in error, as well intentioned as it may have been and no amount of clever apologetics or time and place conditioning can disguise how our Blessed Church strayed on this issue. I think youd be surprised at the wording of some ex catherdra Papal letters. But more on this latter Id be really hopeful that others can offer some explanationns for me as well, especially Paul and ED. The important thing I believe I can prove is that the Church while well meaning was wrong to interpret Gods will the way she did, that Catholics folowing the Church teachings "thought" they were doing the right thing but in the light of what we know today they most certainly were not. Anyone who ignoired certain teachings on heretics which I will outline from old encylicals and listened to their conscience were indeed NOT SINNING.
ANyway heres a starter from Catholic Answers that I think is helpful,to set the foundatiuoin for how to approach historical investigations. There is no room for the Catholic Taliban in our Church. No need to fear the Facts. No need to fear the TRUTH! The Church remains indefectible. Please dont reply John on this thread Ill start a new thread sometime next week with a concise summary of the issues I have with Church teachings on the Heretics and would be highly intrested in any expalantion you may try to offer. These old encylicals are very difficult to find (not surprisingly) but Ill dig them up for you. God Bless.
The Inquisition
To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion…. A few Catholic writers, particularly those less interested in digging for truth than in diffusing a criticism of the Church, have glossed over incontrovertible facts and tried to whitewash the Inquisition. This is as much a disservice to the truth as an exaggeration of the Inquisition’s bad points. These well-intentioned, but misguided, apologists are, in one respect, much like Lea, Coulton, and contemporary Fundamentalist writers. They fear, while the others hope, that the facts about the Inquisition might prove the illegitimacy of the Catholic Church.
Don’t Fear the Facts But the facts fail to do that. The Church has nothing to fear from the truth. No account of foolishness, misguided zeal, or cruelty by Catholics can undo the divine foundation of the Church, though, admittedly, these things are stumbling blocks to Catholics and non- Catholics alike. What must be grasped is that the Church contains within itself all sorts of sinners and knaves, and some of them obtain positions of responsibility. Paul and Christ himself warned us that there would be a few ravenous wolves among Church leaders (Acts 20:29; Matt. 7:15). Fundamentalists suffer from the mistaken notion that the Church includes only the elect. For them, sinners are outside the doors. Locate sinners, and you locate another place where the Church is not. Thinking that Fundamentalists might have a point in their attacks on the Inquisition, Catholics tend to be defensive. This is the wrong attitude; rather, we should learn what really happened, understand events in light of the times, and then explain to anti-Catholics why the sorry tale does not prove what they think it proves….. The crucial thing for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, is to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church and why it is not proper to conclude, from the existence of the Inquisition, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. This is the real point at issue, and this is where any discussion should focus.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 09, 2003.
Kiwi,
Strange but; I wasn't able to keep on reading after the first 40 words of your post. You're loquacious and bold, but not very interesting.I wish to explain here once for all. My faith is NOT placed on men in the Catholic Church, although I know I owe these men my obedience. My faith is in the founder, Jesus Christ. It is He who helps me cope with otherwise alarming issues in the Church.
I'm no more objective than anyone here, in my gut reaction to pedophilia and sacrileges in the sanctuary. Just as a for instance. Nor do I feel detached and conformed to past sins of our elders. These are all causes for doubt and repugnance.
It is He who reconciles me to the hardship of believing. There's no lasting consolation anywhere, if He isn't amidst the people.
If you imagined I became a robot of my bishops back in a Mexican village (I'm American by birth, but have your joke) you're not aware at all. It isn't faith in the Church that carries me. Such as that formal faith in the scriptures that carries every non-Catholic. My faith is in Jesus Christ only. That's why I'll always be unflappable. I place faith in the Person of Our Saviour; and He commands my loyalty to His Church. Without Him, why salve my conscience following bishops or Popes? What good would my Bible be? My catechism, my social conscience?
You can have all those. I'll remain a loyal son of the Church through every trial, because He meets us there. He pitched a tent amidst the faithful; and there is where He stays until the last day, when He'll return in glory to judge the living and the dead.
All who have offended Him will have to give account, be it Inquisitors, heretics or Mexican bandits. So will you, Kiwi. So will the smug and self-absorbed Christians who need daily reports from the Vatican, otherwise they get antsy.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 09, 2003.
Lets start with the inquistion or more correctly inquistions eh and the Church teachings regarding hertics. I believe that those who ignored Papal declarations on the punishments of heretics by death as pleasing to god etc were correct[ly?] listening to their conscience. In essence the Church was in error, as well intentioned as it may have been and no amount of clever apologetics or time and place conditioning can disguise how our Blessed Church strayed on this issue. ... The important thing I believe I can prove is that the Church while well meaning was wrong to interpret Gods will the way she did, that Catholics folowing the Church teachings 'thought' they were doing the right thing but in the light of what we know today they most certainly were not. Anyone who ignored certain teachings on heretics which I will outline from old encylicals and listened to their conscience were indeed NOT SINNING. ... I'll start a new thread sometime next week with a concise summary of the issues I have with Church teachings on the Heretics and would be highly intrested in any expalantion you may try to offer.I urge you not to bother to "start a new thread," if this is the kind of thing you have in mind. The subject you have begun to present above has nothing whatsoever to do with Catholic moral teachings, or alleged errors taught by the Church, or the possibility of using conscience to dissent from Catholic moral teaching.
The whole broad subject you are introducing here involves disciplinary actions and decrees. This has nothing at all to do with exercises of the magisterium (teaching authority) on morality.
No one can object if you want to look at some disciplinary action or decree (past or present) and reach an opinion that a churchman violated Catholic teaching in taking that action or proclaiming that decree. No one can object if you refuse to commit a sin because a churchman ordered you to disobey a commandment or a Catholic moral doctrine. Those kinds of exercise of conscience are valid and to be commended. But they are totally irrelevant to this thread's previous discussion -- which was on the fact that we cannot appeal to "conscience" as a judge that can override Catholic MORAL TEACHING. A papal or episcopal command that some heretic, on a given occasion, be treated a certain way is not a "Catholic moral teaching."
-- CtM (it@matters.not), July 09, 2003.
Kiwi,
Your intention to start another thread is fine with me. Don't press the Inquisition subject in the present thread.You say it's ''crucial'' for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church? But why? The Church has no problem with historical facts. You are the one who believes the worst and feels the guilt about that. Many saints had praise for the leaders of our Church in those days, and it was called ''the Holy Inquisition''; for your information.
HOLY??? (NZ finally receives the news.) Holy from certain points of view, Kiwi. Not holy as the altar of God is holy, or as Baptism is holy. As an OFFICE, it was set up for a holy purpose. The Inquisition is NOT that hideous blot on our faith that anti-Catholics have sold you.
CtM is partly right, in saying moral and religious teaching have nothing to do with that set of events. But we aren't afraid to argue with you. You're misinformed as to what the Inquisition was. You need to know the truth so that you can expound correctly on the Church's hierarchy then & now; instead of repeating every slur against them in unison with her enemies.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 09, 2003.
>CtM is partly right, in saying moral and religious teaching have nothing to do with that set of eventsUmm no I dont think he is but like I said Ill get back to you next week as Im on holiday this week
Perhaps I misread Gods commandments but "tho shall not kill" wasnt qualified when I last read it. ANyway thats not the real issue I have Ill outline them for you to "set me straight". Ill eat my words humbly if youre up to the task Eugene.
In between Id like to correct a small error of yours Eugene
>You say it's ''crucial'' for Catholics, once they have obtained some appreciation of the history of the Inquisition, to explain how such an institution could have been associated with a divinely established Church?
Not me but a website called "CAtholic Answers" at www.catholic.com about as orthodox as it gets.
As for you getting your knickers in a twist over a few jabs, lighten up youre no holy Saint yourself and stop taking yourself so damn seriously.Youve called me and others much worse. I know youre born in the USA youve bitten for the same prod from me about three times, each time I wipe away the tears as you scream back the same repsonses. All this praise has gone to your mellon.
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), July 10, 2003.
Dear Kiwi:
I can live with that. If nobody praises you, I can live with that.''Anyway, thats not the real issue I have. I'll outline them for you to set me straight.''
You've already outlined, Old Boy. Don't slip off the hobbles. Make a stand.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 10, 2003.
"Not me but a website called "Catholic Answers" at www.catholic.com about as orthodox as it gets."I'll tell him you said that. I'll tell him I disagree with you, too. lol!
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2003.
I can't believe I posted on this thread before looking at the title. That was stupid.Eugene is right about marital sanctity. The only thing I disagree with Eugene about is that he states that it is only his opinion. It isn't and opinion; it's the truth.
"I can't seem to get a straight answer to this."
NO.
Is that straight enough?
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2003.
Now I'm in it, so I'll put my two cents and stir the pot; why not. What the question-asker needs here is the truth. The truth is that this would be an intrinsically disordered act.If disorder like that gets free reign to continue, it will affect the marriage because it springs away from the very nature of marriage. If that doesn’t eventually seem to make itself apparent in the marriage, it will most certainly effect the mind's ability to properly perceive reality. One way or another, the deviation from truth will manifest itself. It might sound stupid, but I say so the hell what with the naysayers… plunge the sword into this issue and twist it.
Perversion of any kind seriously affects the ability of the mind to perceive the truth, because the very follow-through of any and all perverted acts is the damnable to reason itself. What should be the obvious truth in these matters is suppressed by the will to perform them. That’s what perversion is, and perversion being accomplished in one area, it will repeat itself in others because that’s the zipper effect of immoral action. It directly bends reason acutely in an attempt to justify an action.
We have the world, the flesh, and the devil arrayed against us, all strategizing together to block the thoughts of men from aspiring to the contemplation of the Divine and the unseen things of the hereafter. Get people to lock their attention on to the flesh, push their faces in the mire of earthly appetites and hold it there, and kiss the truth goodbye. People have their bad habits here and there, but there’s a serious base-line of behavior that can’t be dropped below… when it even remotely passes into perversion, the person will be absolutely unable to move any further forward in seeking truth or holiness or even God Himself. Certain things must be purged completely before a person can continue in the pursuit of truth, and the things of the flesh have a hell of a lot to do with it.
This is where obedience is key. Don’t understand the why’s of the moral question? Do the right thing or don’t do the wrong thing anyways. Time goes by, and the reasons manifest themselves. If you don’t bend the will to the moral precept in the first place, then the intellect will never come to understand the truth of the matter but will constantly be operating in overdrive to justify what it wants to hear instead.
Maybe it’s just me, but for the life of me I can’t reconcile these two considerations: one, being a Catholic life devoted to making our way back to our Creator on some narrow, difficult path, and the other being concerned up things that so unbelievably damn fleeting.
Not that I can’t see asking the question… I can see this: ask a good priest (if you can find one) at the outset of marriage what the rules are concerning normal and deviant sexuality. Then, follow them. That’s all there is to it. Anything further should be construed as a distraction from things that relate to picking our way along the narrow path that leads to God.
However, sure… knowing the reasons behind the rules is better than simply knowing the rules. If you want to know the “why’s” of sexual morality, then all you need to do is consider this: that marriage itself is the Divine Analogy, which includes the marital act. It is a shadow of the Church itself; human marriage being a lesser form of something much grander which it partakes in, or participates in. This Divine Analogy permeates all of Catholicism and all creation, all of the things of salvation, all of the relationship between Christ and His Church. It is found in the Song of Songs, and it permeates the priesthood and the Incarnation and the Eucharist and only God knows what else.
Our participation in it should reflect these things.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2003.