Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language)
#58
(04-19-2018, 06:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So you are saying that it is the intention that constitutes whether or not the act of penetrating a rectum is a sin.  Is that correct?

Yes.

Intention is key for morality, because both sin and merit are as a result of human actions (which involve the will), not "acts of man" (which are instinctive or not willed).

There is, for example, clearly a difference between accidentally doing so and intentionally doing so, just as there is such a distinction between every action.

If I a barista and accidentally use spoiled milk in making a latté, it's a far different action than wanting to harm him by using spoiled milk. Materially the action is identical. Formally they are far different.


(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: Again, we're being a bit of a sophist turning around particular terms rather than the action.

It is not sophist if I am using the same definition as the Catechism.

It is if that definition does not apply to a particular action except materially.

For instance theft is defined by most as the taking of something which is not yours against the will of its possessor. By that definition repossessing a car is theft, except clearly it's not formally theft.

If one then continues to call this action theft, ignoring the formal difference, then the only reason is to get an emotional, not a logical reaction from his hearers/readers. This is the "talking point" practice of the politicians. That is sophistry.

Regarding your labels, I showed how what you are calling "sodomy" cannot be properly defined as such, and at least one moral theology handbook which specifically says that such action is not. It is not as if I'm just making this up because I want it to be this way. This is what reliable moral theologians say.

(04-19-2018, 06:48 AM)austenbosten Wrote: So then a masturbation is a natural act, provided it is within the context of the marital act, yes?

Again, sophistry. It is not formally masturbation within the context of the marital act.


(04-18-2018, 02:00 AM)austenbosten Wrote: What would constitute as masturbation for a woman?
(04-18-2018, 05:01 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Deliberate venereal pleasure, obtained through one's own physical actions, outside of the context of a proper marital act.
So how does this fit with both the Catechism definition, and Persona Humanae, which doesn't make such a distriction.  In fact, PH condemns the opinion that masturbation is wrong only that it is radically opposed to loving communion.

The Catechism is not a moral theology book, nor is Persona Humanæ. Moral theology is not about one document, but about having studied and compared the various sources to tease out principles of actions which can then be prudently applied.

Further, no one has claimed, much less I, that the malice of masturbation is "because it is opposed to loving communion." What I did say is that touches upon one's own body or one's spouse within that "loving communion" of marital intercourse, or immediately attached to it are not masturbation.

That is supported by nearly all modern, orthodox moral theologians including :

Halligan, O.P. (Administration of the Sacraments, 1964) : "This sin [masturbation] consists in the separate and complete venereal satisfaction or use of the generative faculty without carnal intercourse."

Jone, O.F.M. Cap. (Moral Theology, 1962) : "Pollution [masturbation] is complete sexual satisfaction obtained by some form of self-stimulation ... directly voluntary pollution is always gravely sinful," but later Jone specifically says, "wifes who do not obtain complete satisfaction [in the marital act] may procure it by touches immediately before or after coition since the husband may withdraw immediately after ejaculation," meaning he does not define this as direct voluntary masturbation which he previously said is always sinful without exception, and he clearly allows that the husband ends his participation after ejaculation.

Prümmer, O.P. , (Handbook of Moral Theology, 1962) : "Sexual pollution (also termed by doctors onanism, masturbation -manu stupratio) is the emission of seed or its equivalent outside sexual intercourse."

Davis, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1958) : "Pollutio proprie definitur actus completus venereus sine concubitu, sive naturali in copula sive innaturali."

I think my point is made. 

Within the context of the marital act, or immediately attached to it, self-pleasure by the woman to completion, which was not obtained during the marital act where the man did obtain this complete pleasure is not masturbation.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Delicate question about sexuality (warning: graphic language) - by MagisterMusicae - 04-19-2018, 05:20 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)