FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: A discussion of something sexual
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(04-29-2018, 01:45 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 12:41 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 11:15 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Until it is dogmatically defined by the Holy Magisterium, do your best to follow what prior theologians have said, coupled with what the Church says today, and be guided by prayer and reasoning.

But there in lies the problem.  Theologians don’t agree.  If there was some agreement then this question would not be asked all over the Internet on all manner of trad and modern websites.  Priests teach differently on this matter.  Popes have weighed in.  It’s not even a matter of trad vs modern.  Cause even trad priests or theologians don’t agree.

Yes that was my point.  Listen to all the points argued and with prayer and reasoning come to your own conclusions based on those opinions of worthy theologians.

Until the Holy Magisterium declares otherwise, you will need to make up your own conclusions.

If you recall in that earlier discussion I cited the Magisterial condemnations of laxism and of rigorism.

As a result of we are permitted to take any of the remaining schools of probability for judging morals : Probabalist, Probiliorist or Equi-probabalist.

All differ only in the degree to which they say you need to have certainty before you can act. One says you need if there is a probable opinion that supports one or the other opinion you can take either no matter which is more likely, others that the two options must be equally probably to choose between them, the other that you must always take the stronger probability.

The Church has never mandated one follow these. The standard moral theology and spiritual advice is that, as regards oneself, it is best to be more restrictive and with others to be more liberal.

Thus, in this case you do have to form your conscience, but ultimately because the traditional and orthodox theologians are not settled, you can take any of these positions and act with a good conscience. The better course is to take the safer and more restrictive one, but it is not the only acceptable one.

If you accept the arguments from solid authors that suggest that oral sexual contact is not gravely sinful, then you can do this (all other things being equal) without grave sin. If you accept the argument that it is a grave sin, then you cannot, since you would at least subjectively commit a grave sin. There is no clear rule to which your conscience must bind, so there is doubt and it is one of the reflex principles of ethics : "A doubtful law does not bind."

Now, that's for your own actions. As regards instructing others or making claims, the usual maxim above should be followed. Be hard on self, and easy on others. Do not demand that people follow your more rigorous standard and allow the moral theologians to work out the details. Thus, one should not instruct others without certainty that these actions are undeniably mortal sins.

It should be noted as well that the conclusion from that discussion seemed to be that disordered sexual contact (like oral or rectal intercourse), were sinful because disordered, but that they were not always mortal sins. The discussion was more about the degree of sin rather than whether these things were good and proper.
(04-29-2018, 06:41 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 01:45 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 12:41 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 11:15 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Until it is dogmatically defined by the Holy Magisterium, do your best to follow what prior theologians have said, coupled with what the Church says today, and be guided by prayer and reasoning.

But there in lies the problem.  Theologians don’t agree.  If there was some agreement then this question would not be asked all over the Internet on all manner of trad and modern websites.  Priests teach differently on this matter.  Popes have weighed in.  It’s not even a matter of trad vs modern.  Cause even trad priests or theologians don’t agree.

Yes that was my point.  Listen to all the points argued and with prayer and reasoning come to your own conclusions based on those opinions of worthy theologians.

Until the Holy Magisterium declares otherwise, you will need to make up your own conclusions.

If you recall in that earlier discussion I cited the Magisterial condemnations of laxism and of rigorism.

As a result of we are permitted to take any of the remaining schools of probability for judging morals : Probabalist, Probiliorist or Equi-probabalist.

All differ only in the degree to which they say you need to have certainty before you can act. One says you need if there is a probable opinion that supports one or the other opinion you can take either no matter which is more likely, others that the two options must be equally probably to choose between them, the other that you must always take the stronger probability.

The Church has never mandated one follow these. The standard moral theology and spiritual advice is that, as regards oneself, it is best to be more restrictive and with others to be more liberal.

Thus, in this case you do have to form your conscience, but ultimately because the traditional and orthodox theologians are not settled, you can take any of these positions and act with a good conscience. The better course is to take the safer and more restrictive one, but it is not the only acceptable one.

If you accept the arguments from solid authors that suggest that oral sexual contact is not gravely sinful, then you can do this (all other things being equal) without grave sin. If you accept the argument that it is a grave sin, then you cannot, since you would at least subjectively commit a grave sin. There is no clear rule to which your conscience must bind, so there is doubt and it is one of the reflex principles of ethics : "A doubtful law does not bind."

Now, that's for your own actions. As regards instructing others or making claims, the usual maxim above should be followed. Be hard on self, and easy on others. Do not demand that people follow your more rigorous standard and allow the moral theologians to work out the details. Thus, one should not instruct others without certainty that these actions are undeniably mortal sins.

It should be noted as well that the conclusion from that discussion seemed to be that disordered sexual contact (like oral or rectal intercourse), were sinful because disordered, but that they were not always mortal sins. The discussion was more about the degree of sin rather than whether these things were good and proper.
Although the problem arising from taking the strictest option and being the hardest on yourself or in this instance as a couple means no orgasm for the woman.  If we are taking the strictest option, then that would be to ignore all forms of foreplay that involves the genitals and stick strictly to intercourse and have the man orgasm and then be done meaning the vast majority of women won’t orgasm. Which then means either the act becomes not unnative (since the wife will shut down emotionally during sex since the other option is to be extremely aroused but never have release) or the husband is putting his wife into a near occasion of sin.  He is having sex knowing full well he will arouse her, he will get her close and then she will be denied the orgasm.  Which would leave her extremely aroused and be tempted to self gratification or to find sexual pleasure elsewhere.  So then the husband is committing sin by having sex with his wife knowing he is tempting her into sin.

So the strictest route leads either the wife to sin by not being unnative or the husband for putting his wife into a near occasion of sin.  So the strictest option doesn’t look good here since someone is going to be sinning.  

This again runs into problems.  The strictest will cause sin and other actions are claimed by theologians will also cause sin.
(04-29-2018, 07:42 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]Although the problem arising from taking the strictest option and being the hardest on yourself or in this instance as a couple means no orgasm for the woman.  If we are taking the strictest option, then that would be to ignore all forms of foreplay that involves the genitals and stick strictly to intercourse and have the man orgasm and then be done meaning the vast majority of women won’t orgasm. Which then means either the act becomes not unnative (since the wife will shut down emotionally during sex since the other option is to be extremely aroused but never have release) or the husband is putting his wife into a near occasion of sin.  He is having sex knowing full well he will arouse her, he will get her close and then she will be denied the orgasm.  Which would leave her extremely aroused and be tempted to self gratification or to find sexual pleasure elsewhere.  So then the husband is committing sin by having sex with his wife knowing he is tempting her into sin.

So the strictest route leads either the wife to sin by not being unnative or the husband for putting his wife into a near occasion of sin.  So the strictest option doesn’t look good here since someone is going to be sinning.  

This again runs into problems.  The strictest will cause sin and other actions are claimed by theologians will also cause sin.

Well within a marriage you are dealing with two people, and two consciences.

You can and probably ought to be strict on yourself (it is the better way), especially when we're talking about the possibility of sin or not. You can also take the more lax opinion, legitimately and without sin. Still, you're not the only person involved and so Charity and Justice are needed, too.

If you apply that rule correctly then you also cannot oblige your spouse to abide by your conscience, and must at least allow her the freedom to take her own legitimate position. You cannot deny her a right because of your sensitive conscience (this would be contrary to Justice), but likewise she cannot oblige or demand something which you find sinful or objectionable (this would be contrary to Charity).

She must also respect your conscience, so cannot ask for what you think to be sinful or wrong. Likewise you must respect her conscience, and if she takes the position that a certain action is legitimate, and that is a possible opinion, you cannot bind her to think otherwise.

For example, if you are uncomfortable with the idea of allowing a woman to stimulate herself to complete pleasure following the man's completion of the marital act, then that is fine, but you cannot make her accept this and insist she not do this. Many theologians hold this is licit, and so you cannot bind her to your more rigid opinion. He could decide that he is unwilling to offer her that pleasure himself, but he most certainly then cannot tell her she sins by procuring it herself in such a case.

If she wishes that your orally stimulate her as part of preparation to normal intercourse, then if you object, you have no duty to do this, but you do have the duty to help prepare her for the act in other way, and she has no right to demand what is not strictly part of the marital right.

If you look at this according to the big picture, it's just one more area where marriage is about understanding each other and working within those limits to achieve the best of each. On the realm of conscience we must be allowed to be strict with self, but cannot insist that others be so. That's a balancing act that is also necessary in marriage.
what i am confused about is when one theologian or saint or doctor of the church says something is sinful and one says its not. both can not be right.
(04-30-2018, 12:23 AM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]what i am confused about is when one theologian or saint or doctor of the church says something is sinful and one says its not.  both can not be right.

That's correct. One or both are wrong.

One has to make the distinction between formal sin and material sin. What they are discussing is in the abstract whether an action is materially sinful. They are not going into the concrete situation. They do not judge the guilt of any particular person.

As a comparison they are saying "this bird is a duck". They are saying that Joe Catholic who says "I think this is a goose" is incorrect, but they cannot judge if he is stupid, ignorant, lying, or malicious.

In a doubtful case, you may have theologians split on an issue. The look at a platypus. "This is a duck" one says. "No, it's a mammal!" "But it lays eggs!" Joe Catholic decides it's a duck because a certain expert says so. He is wrong, but does not know this. So is the expert, but since he's an expert and there's a fair argument, he's not stupid, ignorant or malicious in taking the expert's opinion.

What a moral theologian is judging is the matter, not whether that action is imputable as a sin—whether one is guilty of sin. This is the formal aspect of sin and it depends on the will of the person violating one's well-formed conscience.

Yes, one of those theologians is right, which one is not really Joe Catholic's job to figure out, so he follows what seems to be right, and in doing so his conscience can be clear. He commits no formal sin, even if materially speaking, what he is doing is sinful.

We're in a situation of doubt. The conscience could take either opinion as its rule, so in taking either one, there is no sin.

Were the authority to settle the matter, then the conscience would know which it must take. Absent that, when there are solid arguments both ways we have doubt, and one cannot make a rule which is binding in the case of doubt : A doubtful law (and conscience is a kind of personal law) does not bind.
(04-29-2018, 06:32 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2018, 02:48 PM)Zedta Wrote: [ -> ]Because I follow my conscience in all things and in this particular subject, I've stated my long-held beliefs. I see nor have seen anything that makes better sense and the "Magisterium" not withstanding, I will follow my conscience.

If that makes me an heretic, so be it. But I deny the authority of the Church to be judges in the personal activities of my wife and I, acting alone and not involving anyone else in any way, in the privacy of our bedroom as involves our sexual activity. Only God may judge us...period and I am fine with that and unashamed.

Firstly, you need to follow your conscience. In fact that's precisely what you are meant to do. Your conscience is your proximate rule of morality.

But that conscience is not its own rule, and must be formed rightly. Part of that is forming your conscience based on the Eternal Law (Natural Law and Divine Positive Law) and then how the various moral authorities specify how that Natural Law is to be applied (human law).

The Magisterium plays a role here, because it speaks for God as our teacher. We know what God want us to know through the teacher He gave : The Church. She speaks in order to form our conscience, and it is that conscience we follow.

So you're right in one aspect. You must follow your conscience. On the second aspect you are right that God will judge, but He tells us how He will judge through the teacher He has established. Thus you go to far, effectively suggesting that "only God can tell me what to do" when He is doing that through the Church.

You're effectively saying that were you a soldier, "I will only do what my Commander-in-Chief wants" and then suggesting that somehow his messenger with a letter signed by him commanding you to do something is insufficient, when clearly it's from that Commander-in-Chief.

Agreed, however, since you have a third point here and I hope not to take your analogy too far, but the battlefield in this, is our bedroom and the action is what we are doing, it is done alone and together and we know exactly what that is and we find that it is mutually acceptable and good in our analysis. We are one as the Seal of Matrimony has made us, so we act as otherwise sensible human beings, who would not do anything out of what is morally correct in our actions, especially with each other. Therefore, any outside indication from some 'source' who may even claim authority must be held suspect, since our intellect and intuition, as good soldiers of God, tells us our current course is right and not outside the parameters of our original orders, namely, to love one another as we would love ourselves.

In some things people need some amount of self evidence. That what we have been taught and understand about life is understood. That we can make the right choices about situations without direct rulings from some 'authority'. In this instance, I am sure we were acting correctly and indeed, morally. We didn't need some outside arbiter coming into our bedroom and analyzing our activities. So, if these 'orders' come, that conflict with the data we have at hand, it is our obligation to assure that the 'new' orders apply correctly or they must be false. In our bedroom, they did not apply.
does anyone know where i can get the real document from st alphonsus on oral stimulation. i keep seeing references to what he said online but no one seems to link to the actual text. does anyone have a link to the actual text i can read since i can only find websites that say saint liguori said this but they have no actual link to what he wrote.
(04-30-2018, 11:09 AM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]does anyone know where i can get the real document from st alphonsus on oral stimulation.  i keep seeing references to what he said online but no one seems to link to the actual text.  does anyone have a link to the actual text i can read since i can only find websites that say saint liguori said this but they have no actual link to what he wrote.

I believe it would be from St. Alphonsus' Theologia Moralis book VI, since that seems to contain the parts about Matrimony.
(04-30-2018, 11:49 AM)GangGreen Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-30-2018, 11:09 AM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]does anyone know where i can get the real document from st alphonsus on oral stimulation.  i keep seeing references to what he said online but no one seems to link to the actual text.  does anyone have a link to the actual text i can read since i can only find websites that say saint liguori said this but they have no actual link to what he wrote.

I believe it would be from St. Alphonsus' Theologia Moralis book VI, since that seems to contain the parts about Matrimony.

your correct, that is the right book.  i am wondering if anyone knows where to get the actual text from the book, even if in latin.  i can't seem to find any link to the actual text from the book or the book itself.  all i find are websites that say this is what the saint says but I have no way to read the actual writing.  there is no links to the actual writings.  its just someone saying this is what he says.  that seems to be universal on all the websites.  if anyone knows of a place i can see the actual text and not just someone telling me what it says I would appreciate it so much.
(04-30-2018, 12:07 PM)havok579257 Wrote: [ -> ]your correct, that is the right book.  i am wondering if anyone knows where to get the actual text from the book, even if in latin.  i can't seem to find any link to the actual text from the book or the book itself.  all i find are websites that say this is what the saint says but I have no way to read the actual writing.  there is no links to the actual writings.  its just someone saying this is what he says.  that seems to be universal on all the websites.  if anyone knows of a place i can see the actual text and not just someone telling me what it says I would appreciate it so much.

I would try Archive.org. Here's something that I found that looks like it has the bits about matrimony, but where the actual text is located, I have no clue since it doesn't seem to map with the N. 491-492 that people cite:
https://archive.org/details/TheologiaMor...ogmaticaV7
If it was in Italian, I'd have a bit of a better time figuring this stuff out (although I'm not fluent, but I can read it well enough).
Pages: 1 2 3