Embarrassing question about marital activity
#51
(01-13-2016, 07:43 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Can we all agree that one should not engage in: Masturbation, pornography, or any disruption of copulation (contraception, coitius interruptus ect.), during the marital act?

I agree that any of those things would be mortal sins during the marital act. Masturbation if it means self-stimulation I think is wrong during it, but stimulating one's wife in a tasteful way (externally) I don't think is a sin because the female body does seem designed for this (though we're not yet sure as she does experience some guilt related to this). But in my and my wife's limited experience, we really don't agree with the idea that some people have that anything goes as long as the man finishes in the right place. Sex is really sacred and beautiful, and it seems so wrong to do things that are irreverent or repulsive (like anything to do with the anus, or things like "sex toys"). Temperance is very important, and so is having respect for the fact that you're co-creating life with God (or at least you're doing the act that does).
Reply
#52
(01-13-2016, 08:41 PM)Matt1992 Wrote:
(01-13-2016, 07:43 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Can we all agree that one should not engage in: Masturbation, pornography, or any disruption of copulation (contraception, coitius interruptus ect.), during the marital act?

I agree that any of those things would be mortal sins during the marital act. Masturbation if it means self-stimulation I think is wrong during it, but stimulating one's wife in a tasteful way (externally) I don't think is a sin because the female body does seem designed for this (though we're not yet sure as she does experience some guilt related to this). But in my and my wife's limited experience, we really don't agree with the idea that some people have that anything goes as long as the man finishes in the right place. Sex is really sacred and beautiful, and it seems so wrong to do things that are irreverent or repulsive (like anything to do with the anus, or things like "sex toys"). Temperance is very important, and so is having respect for the fact that you're co-creating life with God (or at least you're doing the act that does).

You've got it right. I think this is a well-said conclusion to this thread.
Reply
#53
For the record, I am most certainly not advocating that "anything goes as long as everything ends up in the right place".  If that was my opinion, I would have stated it as such long ago.  Sex toys and non-vaginal phallic insertion are beyond abominable.
Reply
#54
I once listened to a trad sermon where the priest claimed that passionate kissing between spouses is illicit. I'd take whatever a trad priest tells you about marital relations with a grain of salt as they can be a bit over the top.
Reply
#55
I agree that one should take what some priests say with a grain of salt.

However, there is a difference between a random priest giving a sermon and the talk that I linked earlier in this thread, which is given by a well-known trad priest with a Ph.D., who was a professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at the FSSP seminary.
Reply
#56
I once heard a priest saying the only thing certain is that we're all children of God--moslems, hindus, buddhists, catholics, etc. And this priest was a bishop and this bishop was the pope. Ergo, we should take whatever members of the docens ecclesia (from priests to popes) say regarding theology with a grain of salt. Absurd.

Reply
#57
IMO, the problem is that there isn't a unified answer.  This question wouldn't be asked in every single Catholic forum that there is if it was so simple. One person says x, another y. X is an over the top traditionalist and Y is too much of a modernist.
Reply
#58
(01-20-2016, 10:25 AM)ermy_law Wrote: I agree that one should take what some priests say with a grain of salt.

However, there is a difference between a random priest giving a sermon and the talk that I linked earlier in this thread, which is given by a well-known trad priest with a Ph.D., who was a professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at the FSSP seminary.

That explains why he places so much faith in only a certain selection of written sources.  He's part of an academic club known as the Faculty of Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary.

You do realize that academic credentials mean basically nothing, right?  Academics get away with asserting the most absurd things because their status as experts is conferred upon them from within a closed group.  There's no external source of criticism except by other equally myopic academic professor clubs.

Plenty of people with no academic credentials whatever possess wisdom and understanding far in excess of that possessed by the priest in the lecture to which you linked.

I've been in so many lectures that by now I know when a speaker doesn't have genuine personal understanding about the subject on which he is speaking, and this priest clearly does not.  If he did, he would never have blindly repeated like a computer what his "trustworthy" moralist said about female auto-eroticism during intercourse.
Reply
#59
(01-20-2016, 10:00 PM)GangGreen Wrote: IMO, the problem is that there isn't a unified answer.  This question wouldn't be asked in every single Catholic forum that there is if it was so simple. One person says x, another y. X is an over the top traditionalist and Y is too much of a modernist.
I always wonder whether this isn't in fact a feature. I am not trying to make a sacrament of ignorance. I simply believe the church's teaching is clear on sex:
1. Only within marriage
2. No acts that frustrate the purpose of sexual intercourse.

I believe it is the non-Catholic world that turns these simple and astoundingly normal rules into something shocking and counter cultural. In turn, Catholics start to think of our own church as having "lots of rules about sex" and start asking bizarrely specific questions of celibate men. I am not saying that celibate men can't understand the philosophy and theology of sex, but it strikes me as strange to ask about particular bedroom techniques.

I also think this "weirdness" is facilitated by the recent focus on the holiness of proper, marital sex. I respect that this teaching is true, but again it is odd.  Celibacy is indeed the preferable state, and thus I think the focus on the holiness of sex in a way "monastifies" the laity. Most married people will probably always have sex and not think much about religion while they're doing it. Perhaps we wish that would change but it seems unlikely.  For now, if we could just get even a quarter of Catholics following the rules that are clear and unambiguous, it would be a great victory. Quibbling over just what is permitted within the tiny fraction of people who actually adhere to the church's clear and unambiguous teaching seems like a waste to me.
Reply
#60
(01-21-2016, 12:11 AM)Joseph11 Wrote: You do realize that academic credentials mean basically nothing, right?

I have academic credentials, and I find them to be quite meaningful in my profession.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)