Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
(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.


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."

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 !

Messages In This Thread
RE: Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language) - by Tamill - 04-18-2018, 12:53 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)