Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#41
If we're saying during or after, shouldn't just before not be an issue as well? Some women are multi orgasmic and if the man were to give his wife an orgasm prior to intercourse, it can make the act easier/more pleasurable for him.
Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
Reply
#42
(04-18-2018, 12:22 AM)maso Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 05:43 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 05:26 PM)maso Wrote: We know since a few years that oral stimulations between sexual partners are at high risks of contamination by papillomaviruses that ultimately can trigger serious mouth and throat cancers.
The highest risk is for the man orally stimulating his wife, though the opposite is also quite possible.
The framous actor Michael Douglas underwent a throat cancer some  years ago and didn't made a mystery that this was due to this bad sexual habit.
Papillomaviruses are inocuous in the woman's vagina but not in the man's or his wife's mouth.
Certainly God placed these viruses here purposely in order to prevent sexual partners stimulating through this unnatural way.
Soooo, ladies and gentlemen, in my opinion using your hands to enjoy sex is OK, but not your mouths. God made them for eating or speaking and nothing else.

1. Hover is spread through oral stimulation’s when people have had lots of sexual partners.  A women who has not had sex before marriage will not have the hog virus.  Also the risk of men getting hog from oral sex on women is very small.  Although again, your arguing from a secular point of view where we have lots of sexual partners, not just the one your married to.  

2. Michael Douglas could have got HPV from oral sex or from other things.  We don’t know, we just know what he thinks about how he got it.  Also HPV just doesn’t pop up on people who are not sexually active with only one person.  To get HPV you need to be in sexual contact with someone who has it.  Easily avoidable if you only have sex when your married.  Also you logic is God gave us this disease to avoid oral stimulation doesn’t make sense.  Then why do we have all those other sexual disease?  Do diswade is from having sex at all?  Your logic doesn’t make sense .

Your logic makes no sense.  It’s not grounded in Catholic moral teachings and it contradicts itself saying manual stimulation is ok but not oral.  To be rationale consistent either both are approved or neither.  If th mouth can not be used for sex because it’s not it’s primary purpose, then how can the hands be involved since it’s not it’s primary purpose?  If your going to make an arguement at least be consistent on your arguement.

Papilloma viruses are naturally present in many women unknowingly to them. They may be contaminated  with or without an intercourse.
If Michael Douglas so many times notwithstanding the shame said his throat cancer was due to oral sex he had with (probably many) women, he didn't invented this, he was told by doctors.
We should know that there is a risk even if it is small and we must cease practicing it.

Hpv is not naturally present in women .  Where are you getting your facts from.  It's is a sexual lyrics transmitted disease.  It is spread from contact with the genitals.  How ever that were to happen.   Although women do not just carry this disease.  They must contract it first.  If women unknownly have it, it is because they contracted it some how. 

Please go read up on  HPV because you seem completely misinformed about it.
Reply
#43
(04-18-2018, 02:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: It seems contradictory that the moral theologians have been the most stringent critics of sodomy, but anal foreplay is a-okay.

It's not "a-okay", but it is not inherently a mortal sin. (What Tamill keeps incorrectly asserting)

Every major moral theologian during the 20th century and before Vatican II accepted what Jone write. "Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rector manner with the intention of consummating it naturally, or if some sodomitical action is positived without danger of pollution."

It is not a grave sin, if there is not the intention of completing the intercourse, or risk of completing it in an unnatural manner.

No one is saying this is a good thing, but every major moral theologian in the past century says it is not a grave sin.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: It still seems to me that women are not permitted to "stimulate themselves to completion" and that the husband should be the one to do it.  After all, can anyone truly argue that in the event a woman stimulates herself to completion after copulation has occurred no sin, but if a woman stimulates herself to completion outside of copulation is a grave sin.  So the act is not sinful, but merely the time the act occurs.

The context of the act matters.

Sexual intercourse with your finacée the night before marriage and the night after your marriage are different acts. The only difference is that one is within the context of a marriage and the other is not. Sexual pleasure is not within the marital act in the first case and is in the next case. One is a grave sin, the other might be a meritorious act.

Similarly, a secondary and licit end of the marital act is the complete pleasure of each spouse which helps toward marital fidelity and mutual support.

So long as the primary end is not frustrated, there is never more than venial sin in seeking a secondary end (presuming no intention against the primary end, or fidelity). It is sinful if done in a disordered manner, but if not against any of the ends of the act, then it is not gravely sinful.

Again, every major moral theologian in the past century accepts that the woman can obtain within the context of the marital act or immediately after complete pleasure, so long as the man completes the act. None requires that only the man can produce this pleasure for the woman, although, I think you are clear on why that is the proper thing.

These acts of touch are legitimate to them during the act, so as long as the act is not yet complete.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: However for the man, this act, no matter when it occurs, is gravely sinful.

Incorrect.

The same holds here as with the woman, but yes, men and women are different. Complete pleasure for a man is naturally accompanied by ejaculation. This must happen within the body of the woman in the proper place, else there is a frustration of the primary end of marriage.

Thus his complete pleasure in any other manner is a grave sin against nature.

There isn't a so called consensus among moral theologians about the permissibility of anal and oral foreplay. 

Jone said that anal foreplay is not a grave sin. So for him, anal foreplay is at least a venial. It does not change anything because we are not permitted to do venial sin because the act remain illicit.  

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says exactly what I said :

§ 1863 "Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

And in sexual matters, a venial sin can easily become a mortal sin because of the repetition of sexuals acts. 

So catholics are not allowed to have anal or oral foreplay.

And even if the Church has not ruled about such matters, the Church already said that we must follow the teaching of St Alphonsus. And St Alphonsus said that anal and oral foreplay were mortal sins. 

"In any case, there is an extrinsic argument in the fact the Magisterium has taught in the past that the concrete conclusions of St. Alphonsus are always reliable and may be followed, even if one does not agree with his rationale. This is a safer route, and a safer route is the better by far in a matter so important and delicate about which we may be inclined to deceive ourselves."

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

We must not fall into the temptation of progressivism : the more recent theologians trump the more old theologians 

Lying is intrinsically evil (St Thomas, St Alphonsus) as you said. But St Alphonsus allowed mental reservation. And the act of mental reservation is not the same as the act of lying !
Reply
#44
(04-17-2018, 11:58 AM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 06:15 AM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 06:00 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:13 PM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 08:52 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: Hi,
 
As I said in my post of presentation, I am French.
 
Some subjects are quite taboo on french forums and I don’t feel confortable about the idea of talking about the subject of this post with a priest,
 
So, even if I am embarrassed, I thought that this forum would be the best place in order to get answers.
 
Unfortunately, before our conversion, my wife and I committed reprehensible acts, such as oral sex (which, for me, is different from oral stimulation that I considere, based on my researchs and the answers that I got from two traditionalist priests, as being licit) and onanism.
 
By the grace of God I have been able to cease these habits and now it is clear for me that there is only one way to complete a proper marital act.
 
However, I am wondering about the morality of a certain situation.
 
I know that it is licit for a woman that would not have reached orgasm before her husband to stimulate herself (or to be stimulated by him) to completion. It is also licit if, after a first intercourse, the wife and the husband engage immediatley in a second one. In this case foreplay (such as manual or oral stimulations) are certainly allowed too.
 
Is it immoral if, in the two cases that I just mentioned, semen (from the previous intercourse) remains and is « * involved »? The more critical point being probably in the case of oral stimulation.
 
Please forgive the bluntness of my language, I do not intend to shock or disgust anybody. What is shocking or disgusting for some people may be accpetable for others, this is also true for Catholics. I just want to have a clear idea about the morality of that situation.
 
Thank you in advance.
 
Oremus pro invicem.
 
Ludovicus
 
* The word is probably not correct in this sentence but I can’t find an other one. 

Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/2...-chastity/

Please do not quote anything from ron contes site  .  His views on sex are not right.  I guess that's a charitable way of saying it .  His views should not be something a Catholic follows.


I don't care about Ron Conte. What is important is what Saint Alphonsus said about anal and oral foreplay. Many catholics do not know that Saint Alphonsus condemned such foreplay very explicitly (and even manual foreplay if the woman does not reach orgasm : there is not a right to orgasm outside coitus for St Alphonsus !)  

You have many maintream priest (not "rad trad" priest) who condemned anal and oral foreplay (and even manual foreplay for some). Ron Conte and Fr Hugh Barbour are pro pope Francis and even pro Amoris laetitia ! (Not certain for Fr Hugh Barbour) 

So if you are really a traditionnalist you should follow what St Alphonsus said (Doctor of all the doctors on moral theology). The Church said that we must always follow his teaching. 


https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/colum...earts-2164 (Rev. Gregory Gresko)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ody_debate (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni)

https://catholicstrength.com/tag/aquinas...violation/ (Brian Harrison)

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm (Thomas Morrow)

So anal and oral foreplay is most certainly a mortal sins. But orthodox theologians are not sure about the morality of manual foreplay. In my opinion we should avoid also manual foreplay if there is not a serious reasons. 


All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay. There was only disagreement among theologians on the question of the gravity of sin (mortal or venial). 

Just so we are clear what your purposing.  Your purposing women not orgasm during sex.  Since we now the VAST majority can not orgasm without stimulation of their sexual organ which is the clitoris.  You condemn all forms of stimulation to the women.  So your logic says women, except for a small percentage should not be orgasming during sex.  

Also please tell me if stimulation is bad and only penetration is acceptable what in the world is the clitoris for?  It's a sexual organ that is located on the outside of the body that can not be involved during penetration due to anatomically where it's at.  So why is it there?  To tempt women?  

Your logic does not make sense.  God made the clitoris to be the opposite of the penis.  He also made it located on the outside of the body not accessible during penetration alone.  The VAST majority of women can not orgasm due to penetration alone.  So why we're women made like this if only penetration is allowed?  

Not to mention if stimulation is not allowed how are older men supposed to be ready to go?  Older men usually can not just be ready to go without some so called motivation.  So then by your logic only men who have lots of testerosterone or a high sex drive when older can have sex.  Doesn't make sense.

The clitoris is not an external organ because 9/10 of the organ is inside the vagina and this part is supposed to be stimulated by the penis.

Women need more times to be aroused because of the anatomy of females genitals.The vagina and the clitoris need more time to be completely filled with blood because it's ten time more bigger than the penis ! 

Women have many more erogenous parts than men ! 

St Alphonsus tolerated manual stimulation of the woman (if there was a serious need) in order that she could climax during the coitus (and only during the coitus). 

You know the rule : the end does justify the means 

If not, we can easily justify every perverse acts in order to "help" the woman to climax (sodomy, oral sex, pornograhy, sex toys...)
Reply
#45
(04-18-2018, 01:16 PM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 11:58 AM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-17-2018, 06:15 AM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 06:00 PM)havok579257 Wrote:
(04-16-2018, 05:13 PM)Tamill Wrote:
(04-15-2018, 08:52 PM)Ludovicus Wrote: Hi,
 
As I said in my post of presentation, I am French.
 
Some subjects are quite taboo on french forums and I don’t feel confortable about the idea of talking about the subject of this post with a priest,
 
So, even if I am embarrassed, I thought that this forum would be the best place in order to get answers.
 
Unfortunately, before our conversion, my wife and I committed reprehensible acts, such as oral sex (which, for me, is different from oral stimulation that I considere, based on my researchs and the answers that I got from two traditionalist priests, as being licit) and onanism.
 
By the grace of God I have been able to cease these habits and now it is clear for me that there is only one way to complete a proper marital act.
 
However, I am wondering about the morality of a certain situation.
 
I know that it is licit for a woman that would not have reached orgasm before her husband to stimulate herself (or to be stimulated by him) to completion. It is also licit if, after a first intercourse, the wife and the husband engage immediatley in a second one. In this case foreplay (such as manual or oral stimulations) are certainly allowed too.
 
Is it immoral if, in the two cases that I just mentioned, semen (from the previous intercourse) remains and is « * involved »? The more critical point being probably in the case of oral stimulation.
 
Please forgive the bluntness of my language, I do not intend to shock or disgust anybody. What is shocking or disgusting for some people may be accpetable for others, this is also true for Catholics. I just want to have a clear idea about the morality of that situation.
 
Thank you in advance.
 
Oremus pro invicem.
 
Ludovicus
 
* The word is probably not correct in this sentence but I can’t find an other one. 

Saint Alphonsus said that oral foreplay is a mortal sin ! 

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

https://ronconte.wordpress.com/2015/11/2...-chastity/

Please do not quote anything from ron contes site  .  His views on sex are not right.  I guess that's a charitable way of saying it .  His views should not be something a Catholic follows.


I don't care about Ron Conte. What is important is what Saint Alphonsus said about anal and oral foreplay. Many catholics do not know that Saint Alphonsus condemned such foreplay very explicitly (and even manual foreplay if the woman does not reach orgasm : there is not a right to orgasm outside coitus for St Alphonsus !)  

You have many maintream priest (not "rad trad" priest) who condemned anal and oral foreplay (and even manual foreplay for some). Ron Conte and Fr Hugh Barbour are pro pope Francis and even pro Amoris laetitia ! (Not certain for Fr Hugh Barbour) 

So if you are really a traditionnalist you should follow what St Alphonsus said (Doctor of all the doctors on moral theology). The Church said that we must always follow his teaching. 


https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure (Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/colum...earts-2164 (Rev. Gregory Gresko)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/...ody_debate (Fr. Maurizio Faggioni)

https://catholicstrength.com/tag/aquinas...violation/ (Brian Harrison)

http://www.catechism.cc/articles/marital-foreplay.htm (Thomas Morrow)

So anal and oral foreplay is most certainly a mortal sins. But orthodox theologians are not sure about the morality of manual foreplay. In my opinion we should avoid also manual foreplay if there is not a serious reasons. 


All the moral theolgians have condemned oral and anal foreplay. There was only disagreement among theologians on the question of the gravity of sin (mortal or venial). 

Just so we are clear what your purposing.  Your purposing women not orgasm during sex.  Since we now the VAST majority can not orgasm without stimulation of their sexual organ which is the clitoris.  You condemn all forms of stimulation to the women.  So your logic says women, except for a small percentage should not be orgasming during sex.  

Also please tell me if stimulation is bad and only penetration is acceptable what in the world is the clitoris for?  It's a sexual organ that is located on the outside of the body that can not be involved during penetration due to anatomically where it's at.  So why is it there?  To tempt women?  

Your logic does not make sense.  God made the clitoris to be the opposite of the penis.  He also made it located on the outside of the body not accessible during penetration alone.  The VAST majority of women can not orgasm due to penetration alone.  So why we're women made like this if only penetration is allowed?  

Not to mention if stimulation is not allowed how are older men supposed to be ready to go?  Older men usually can not just be ready to go without some so called motivation.  So then by your logic only men who have lots of testerosterone or a high sex drive when older can have sex.  Doesn't make sense.

The clitoris is not an external organ because 9/10 of the organ is inside the vagina and this part is supposed to be stimulated by the penis.

Women need more times to be aroused because of the anatomy of females genitals.The vagina and the clitoris need more time to be completely filled with blood because it's ten time more bigger than the penis ! 

Women have many more erogenous parts than men ! 

St Alphonsus tolerated manual stimulation of the woman (if there was a serious need) in order that she could climax during the coitus (and only during the coitus). 

You know the rule : the end does justify the means 

If not, we can easily justify every perverse acts in order to "help" the woman to climax (sodomy, oral sex, pornograhy, sex toys...)

Do you not know where the clitoris is located?  Please go look at an anatomy book.  It is not inside the vagina, not the part that needs to be stimulated. To help you out here is some anatomy of the female anatomy from webmd(no pictures).  It talks about it being a "protruding structure.".  The part that needs to be "stimulated" for orgasm protrudes out of the body.  If this is not stimulated, then the VAST majority of women can not orgasm.  It protruding part is the part with the nerve endings.  Please research before you comment.

 https://www.webmd.com/menopause/qa/what-...ive-system

Please tell me how the penis is supposed to stimulate the clitoris during sex?  Unless your talking about some crazy positions, its not possible.  What is possible is the man's pubic bone stimulating the clitoris but not his penis.  Which according to your logic is a sin.  Since the pubic bone is not a sexual organ and if its stimulating the women it is no different than the fingers.  Just take a second and think about this logistically.  The missionary position for example. Just think hows its logistically possible to make it happen.

So let me ask you something.  We know the VAST majority of women can not orgasm without some sort of stimulation to the clitoris.  You claim any stimulation is at least a venial sin and we should not do it.  So my question is, are women not supposed to climax during sex?  Does their orgasm not matter?  Cause what you purpose is the women being left high and dry at all times to avoid sin?  So that would mean a women's orgasm is in someway sinful, even if only a venial sin for the VAST majority of women.  Which would mean a couple is always at least venially sinning to give the wife an orgasm.  So I would like to hear your thoughts on the female orgasm and what your purposing.
Reply
#46
(04-18-2018, 02:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: It's not "a-okay", but it is not inherently a mortal sin. (What Tamill keeps incorrectly asserting)

Every major moral theologian during the 20th century and before Vatican II accepted what Jone write. "Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rector manner with the intention of consummating it naturally, or if some sodomitical action is positived without danger of pollution."

It is not a grave sin, if there is not the intention of completing the intercourse, or risk of completing it in an unnatural manner.

No one is saying this is a good thing, but every major moral theologian in the past century says it is not a grave sin.

So are you saying that sodomy is not sinful as long as he intends to complete in intercourse?

So you are saying a man could sodomize his wife to the point of completion and immediately finish in the natural manner and it would be fine?


(04-18-2018, 02:54 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: However for the man, this act, no matter when it occurs, is gravely sinful.

Incorrect.

The same holds here as with the woman, but yes, men and women are different. Complete pleasure for a man is naturally accompanied by ejaculation. This must happen within the body of the woman in the proper place, else there is a frustration of the primary end of marriage.

Thus his complete pleasure in any other manner is a grave sin against nature.

So you are saying a woman is free to enjoy masturbation, despite the Church condemning it, since it does not frustrate the primary end of marriage?

I'm sure what I said above is absurd, but do tell what constitutes as masturbation for the female, because you know well that there is only one definition of masturbation and it is open for all humans. What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?



P.S. I am curious as to what your thoughts on the quote from Persona Humanae is.
Reply
#47
BTW Havok and Tamill, please clean up quotes before posting. We don't need replies that are 5 quotes deep.
[-] The following 1 user Likes austenbosten's post:
  • VoxClamantis
Reply
#48
(04-18-2018, 12:05 PM)havok579257 Wrote: Hpv is not naturally present in women .  Where are you getting your facts from.  It's is a sexual lyrics transmitted disease.  It is spread from contact with the genitals.  How ever that were to happen.   Although women do not just carry this disease.  They must contract it first.  If women unknownly have it, it is because they contracted it some how. 

Please go read up on  HPV because you seem completely misinformed about it.
 
Maso Wrote:If Michael Douglas so many times notwithstanding the shame said his throat cancer was due to oral sex he had with (probably many) women, he didn't invented this, he was told by doctors.

HPV can be transmitted to newborns so is not necessarily always transmitted through a sexual act. It can also be transmitted by touching the genitals and then touching the mouth. His doctors would have no way of knowing how he contracted it. They may have said that, but there's no way for them to know for sure.

The clitoris is both internal and external. Most women require external stimulation in order to have an orgasm, as the external part is the equivalent of the glans of the penis. To understand how intercourse alone isn't typically conducive to orgasm, imagine the shaft of the penis being rubbed against with no stimulation of the glans. Same sort of thing. Might be pleasant, might bring some to orgasm, but won't typically work for most.
 
Sometimes I read the words of the scrupulous when it comes to sex and I pity their spouses.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • havok579257
Reply
#49
(04-18-2018, 04:21 PM)austenbosten Wrote: BTW Havok and Tamill, please clean up quotes before posting.  We don't need replies that are 5 quotes deep.

Havok and Tamill, please read:  How to Post Without Driving Everyone Insane
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#50
First let us deal with this error :

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: And even if the Church has not ruled about such matters, the Church already said that we must follow the teaching of St Alphonsus. And St Alphonsus said that anal and oral foreplay were mortal sins. 

"In any case, there is an extrinsic argument in the fact the Magisterium has taught in the past that the concrete conclusions of St. Alphonsus are always reliable and may be followed, even if one does not agree with his rationale. This is a safer route, and a safer route is the better by far in a matter so important and delicate about which we may be inclined to deceive ourselves."

The Church does not demand that we follow St. Alphonsus. The Church allows one to follow a probable opinion outside of the Sacraments and what is absolutely necessary for Salvation. Alexander VIII, in solemnly approving the Decree of the Holy Office of 7 Dec 1690 condemning various propositions from Jansenism/Rigorism (Dz 1293/DS2303) confirms that it is licit and thus moral for one to follow probable opinion or choose from those which are probable.

On the other hand Innocent XI condemned the idea that any, even slighly, probable opinion could be followed. This is laxism, and was condemned by a Decree if the Holy Office 2 Mar 1679 ( Dz 1151/DS 2101 ff.)

We are left with systems that take into account that any probable opinion with at least a reasonable amount of support is a licit to follow.

The Church has following St. Alphonsus is safe and reliable, thus in doing so one does not sin.

The general standard is that an opinion is probable enough to follow if the Holy See (without a definite definition), St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas, or any other doctor of the Church teaching on moral matters gives it. If it is at held by at least two or three of the major moral theologians who are not doctors, then it can be considered probable. If it is held by many of the more minor writers, then it may also be considered probable.

If St. Alphonsus says a thing is a grave sin, you are safe in following that opinion. However, if notable other writers provide a contrary opinion, then this is also a tenable opinion. In such a case, one cannot bind another person to follow either opinion. The Church has said (Dz 1293/DS 2303) following either is permissible.

You are welcome to hold therefore that oral sexual contact of any kind is a sin. You are even welcome to consider it a grave sin. You are not permitted to bind other to this opinion. To do so is rigorism, which is condemned by the Church.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: There isn't a so called consensus among moral theologians about the permissibility of anal and oral foreplay.

You are right. Few, if any, suggest that it is normal and acceptable.

Still, there are solid arguments for these acts being only venially sinful, or perhaps in certain cases not even sins (but still not the most noble manner of acting)

In such a case, one cannot bind another to accept that these are grave sins—the line you continue to insist upon.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: Jone said that anal foreplay is not a grave sin. So for him, anal foreplay is at least a venial. It does not change anything because we are not permitted to do venial sin because the act remain illicit.

Venial and Moral sin are formally different. As your own quotes show.

Sin is not permitted, period. Yet there is an essential difference between venial and mortal sin.

By mortal sin one loses Sanctifying Grace and without repentance, will end up in Hell. By venial sin neither of these effects happens. One could deliberately commit venial sin hundreds of times a day, piling up lots of time in purgatory, and never lose Sanctifying Grace.

No one is saying "venial sin equals okay". To suggest we are means you are not reading the posts, but reading what you want into them.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: ... a venial sin can easily become a mortal sin because of the repetition of sexuals acts.

Venial sin can never become mortal sin in the proper sense of that term.

If there is a grave degree of malice or if circumstances create a condition where there is a grave degree of malice or negligence required to commit an act whose matter is per se light, then this is not the case of a venial sin becoming a mortal sin. Rather it is the case of a person committing a mortal sin with objectively light matter.

Take the example of stealing $20. Not a grave sin. Light matter. If you take $20 from the till at work it is unjust, illict and you owe restitution, but it is absent other circumstances or malice, a venial sin. If you take it from a poor man or violence, then it is a mortal sin. The matter is light, per se, but in the conditions there had to be a grave degree of malice or a serious harm done to a person, making the matter subjectively grave.

(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: So catholics are not allowed to have anal or oral foreplay.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-the...l-pleasure

I find it hillarious that the very article I said undermined your whole point (such acts are always grave sins) you keep quoting as if it does support your point :
"Whether this prohibition is gravely binding or not is another question ... the matter may be venial."

I am not arguing that such acts are licit, but against your claim that they are always grave sins. Dom Hugh makes that same case I do.

Do you actually read your sources and take time to think about your arguments and where you might be wrong?



We must not fall into the temptation of progressivism : the more recent theologians trump the more old theologians 
(04-18-2018, 12:53 PM)Tamill Wrote: Lying is intrinsically evil (St Thomas, St Alphonsus) as you said. But St Alphonsus allowed mental reservation. And the act of mental reservation is not the same as the act of lying !

Red Herring.

No one mentioned mental reservation. That's not lying, but not all lying is grave sins, even though its contra naturam.

Your friend asks if you deposited his $10 check yet (but you hadn't) as it wasn't on his statement yet and he was trying to reconcile his accounts. You forgot, but in shame and human respect you say, "Yeah, sorry, I did it yesterday, I'll bet it shows up on the accounts soon." Then you run off to do it right then.

That's a lie. It's certainly not about grave matter, but it's still a sin. It is a venial sin. It is not permitted, but it doesn't have to be confessed.

You were talking about sins contra naturam. My whole point was to show that not all sins contra naturam were mortal sin in every case. Many, probably most if we consider how many "white lies" are told, are probably venial.

That doesn't make them right, but it also doesn't make them mortal sins.

I appreciate your desire, Tamill, to encourage good Catholic behavior, but you have to be very careful, especially if you are not studied in moral theology (and given you can't make the proper distinctions, don't understand the various moral systems and their liceity, and seem to have a rigorist bent), that you do not demand of people too much, such that you push them into grave sin, or worse, push them away from having that sin absolved.

When people have a bad habit of venial sin, telling them it is a mortal sin is probably one of the best way to harden them in the sin, and leave the Faith as a result.

If you do that, you are responsible for that, which is why generally only priests and those who have done the studies should be advising people on these matters.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)