Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#51
(04-18-2018, 04:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote:
(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?

With Jone, I would posit, it is not, formally, sodomy.

Personal opinion : Within otherwise proper marital relations, absent any circumstances which aggravate it, rectal intercourse which terminates properly is sinful because disordered, but, because not preventing the primary end, it is not gravely disordered.

(04-18-2018, 04:20 PM)austenbosten Wrote: 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?

Again, it is only sodomy if it is intended to end improperly (whether it ends properly or not).

He can't do so to his completion because it would then be sodomy, properly speaking, and a grave sin.

He could not do so even to near the point of completion because this would present a grave risk of sodomiacal pollution. That risk constitutes a grave sin.

(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.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: 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?

Again, we're being a bit of a sophist turning around particular terms rather than the action.

Within the marital act, whatever is necessary to achieve the proper end of the act is licit. If there is intentional or negligent frustration of the primary end there is always grave sin. Otherwise whatever occurs during the act which does not constitute a risk for or actual frustration of the proper end is not more than a venial sin.

If immediately attached to the marital act, then we are not talking about masturbation by the very fact that it is attached to that marital act.

(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?

Deliberate venereal pleasure, obtained through one's own physical actions, outside of the context of a proper marital act.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language) - by MagisterMusicae - 04-18-2018, 05:01 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)