Sex questions
#31
(01-15-2020, 03:01 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Good talk that goes into the questions raised here:

[Fr Ripperger video] 

Fr Ripperger, as usual, goes beyond what traditional moral theologians since St Alphonsus have held as the more probable opinion. 

Those theologians like Jones, Prummer, Davis, etc. will generally say that non-vaginal intercourse type sexual contact without serious risk of a complete act outside of the vagina is not a grave sin in itself. It could be considered a kind of preparatory touch, or might be used on the woman if she did not achieve complete satisfaction. It is dangerous, and usually disordered, so sinful in most cases, but not universally.

Fr Ripperger, on the other hand, says it is always and everywhere a mortal sin. He's welcome to that harsher opinion, but it would be wrong to bind people to his rigorism when good moral theologians who are far more Thomistic in their approach than he do not hold this view.

This is exactly why it is a really bad idea to air delicate moral theology questions in a public forum. No priest has any business trying to teach faithful his own opinions when he has no mission to care for those souls. Fr Ripperger has no mission to care for those who listen to his sermons and videos, meaning that he has no grace of state towards these people, yet many take his word as an authority instead of the priest who has the grace of state to care for them. That's a serious problem.

I know we've had priests on here in the past who did not identify themselves as such specifically for this reason. I knew them only from my days before leaving seminary. The last thing they wanted was to be quoted as an authority by those who were not their faithful.

Fr R might be right. He disagrees with most traditional theologians of the past few centuries, but we're in expert opinion territory here, so there's room for disagreement among experts. While his talk, IMHO, should not be out there, if it is then it is important to know his opinion is a fringe one, and in no way binds one's conscience.

It is perfectly acceptable for one to take his rigorist position or the more lax common teaching, but only for oneself. We should not be trying to bind others' consciences when the Church does not take a definitive stance and experts disagree.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#32
(01-17-2020, 02:47 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Those theologians like Jones, Prummer, Davis, etc. will generally say that non-vaginal intercourse type sexual contact without serious risk of a complete act outside of the vagina is not a grave sin in itself. It could be considered a kind of preparatory touch, or might be used on the woman if she did not achieve complete satisfaction. It is dangerous, and usually disordered, so sinful in most cases, but not universally.

Fr Ripperger, on the other hand, says it is always and everywhere a mortal sin. He's welcome to that harsher opinion, but it would be wrong to bind people to his rigorism when good moral theologians who are far more Thomistic in their approach than he do not hold this view.

Did you listen to the talk?  I didn't hear him say that.  He said that anal is sodomy and is always a sin.

He said that oral on a woman in preparation for the act and for stimulation after the act is not a sin in fact.  

I don't know who those other theologians are, but people need to get this information and don't know where to get it and they can get vastly different opinions from different priests.

I think it's helpful to know what Aquinas and Ligouri said on this matter and it's refreshing to know they dealt with it in a straightforward manner in their day.
Reply
#33
(01-17-2020, 02:34 AM)divinesilence80 Wrote: My understand of the subject is that the Church doesn't have some magical laundry list of "DO" and "DON'T" positions. We are however supposed to think about engaging in acts that lift up and praise our God given dignity in each other. Maybe a better question to ask is how do to these acts esteem and dignify the human person? I think often times these acts in our era are more subtly a display of domination however in the past anally exploiting someone was seen as an explicit / deliberate act of domination.

Lastly, I don't mean to "kill the moment" but at the end of the day the orgasm is largely a product of ones own neurological chemistry and physiology. The other person is a stimulus but you can only experience what is in your brains own capacity to experience. Position, acts, etc are largely irrelevant to pleasure you experience. If you *think* you are getting better orgasms doing X its because of mind over matter. You are just fooling yourself into thinking something is true that isn't therefore exploiting your own brain. I think the allure of these acts is that they show a disordered willingness to give oneself totally, however the same level of understanding could be achieved as follows:

For Women
1) Turn off the chick flicks and stop commiserating with your gal pals about how awful men are. The more you dwell on the negative the more it foments and consumes you.
2) Stop with the "men are from Mars" attitude. We were birthed from one of you for crying out loud so if we're alien so are you. In some cases our DNA resides in your permanently from birth.

For Guys
1) Do us all a favor and stop making our sex worthlessly cheap. Supply and demand.....we give too much "supply." Women need to feel like predators on the hunt every now and then but no one wants to shoot an easy can't miss target. The sense of satisfaction comes from having to work for your meal with skill.
2) Stop the woman-worship. "Thou shalt have no false gods" ring a bell? The ground woman walks on is not hallowed. We need to take care of ourselves too so there something worth desiring.

Once we can shed ourselves of these insecurities then we can fully open up to each other and not need to obsess over positions and acts.


I agree with the domination subtlety, or sometimes not so subtle, and everything else you said here.

I know most of what you say about women is aimed at feminists, but I've never been friends with feminists.  My friends have always been open to life and strive to submit to their husbands.  I can assure you that their husbands do not worship them and make little effort to help them get in the mood at all.  When their wives ask for a date night they say they don't need to date.  There is no kissing, hand-holding, loving words...all those things that make for the psychological aspect you described so accurately which is a part of creating the ability to climax apart from various positions.  

They know that sex will probably mean several months of throwing up and walking around in a daze followed by gaining enough weight to look like a sumo wrestler and then the struggle with losing it, as well as the exponential stress and lack of sleep that goes with another baby.  It becomes a duty, but they submit and lay down their lives for their husband and kids.

I do have one friend who is a mother of 9 and her husband plans a weekend away for the two of them four times a year and a regular date night.  They have a really strong marriage.  :heart:
Reply
#34
Quote:MM:  Fr Ripperger has no mission to care for those who listen to his sermons and videos, meaning that he has no grace of state towards these people, yet many take his word as an authority instead of the priest who has the grace of state to care for them. That's a serious problem.



Unfortunately, it's very difficult to get information from your pastor on these issues.  I know that when I was married I had a questions I brought to my priest in confession, but he didn't have time to address them.  As a woman, trying to discuss the matter in his office was very embarrassing and uncomfortable, to say the least!
Reply
#35
(01-17-2020, 02:06 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:MM:  Fr Ripperger has no mission to care for those who listen to his sermons and videos, meaning that he has no grace of state towards these people, yet many take his word as an authority instead of the priest who has the grace of state to care for them. That's a serious problem.



Unfortunately, it's very difficult to get information from your pastor on these issues.  I know that when I was married I had a questions I brought to my priest in confession, but he didn't have time to address them.  As a woman, trying to discuss the matter in his office was very embarrassing and uncomfortable, to say the least!

Still, the matter is for the pastor to address, he has the grace of state for such things. Some questions and matters are embarrassing, but that doesn't meant we should seek out answers from those who do not have the duty to guard our souls unless they are so severely derelict that there is no other reasonable choice.

Confession during the scheduled times is rarely the time to address questions. Usually this is because of charity towards the others in the line. The proper place to ask questions, unless essential to the confession is outside the confessional. Really, the proper place to address the sexual questions them is in marriage preparation, not after the fact.

If one's pastor refuses to help, and marriage prep was insufficient, then perhaps looking for others to help is reasonable, but again, it is worth noting that these people can be approached at best, by way of advice and counsel, not as having the grace of state to direct souls not given to them by the Church.

If Fr Ripperger were invited to give a conference by the pastor, then he would have the grace of state to address the issues given, since the man with the grace and authority is granting the speaker permission. What should not happen, IMHO, is that his talks and sermons (or really those of any priest) be recorded and disseminated without the express desire of the superior. The desire ensures that this is God's Will, an not one's own, and that has always been a point that has bothered me about Fr Ripperger and several other priest who seem to like to publicize themselves.

My point, though, was to say that it is important that those who do listen to any priest on the Internet who is not their pastor, should take what is said as counsel, at best, and should not start quoting these priests as authorities, since they lack any Church-given mission to care for random souls on the Internet. I only warn that what is said should not be taken as authoritative, and feel the need to point out that Fr Rippereger's viewpoint is not, in fact, Thomistic, and is rigorist, and that good solid traditional Thomistic moral theologians would disagree with his stance.
Reply
#36
Quote:I only warn that what is said should not be taken as authoritative, and feel the need to point out that Fr Rippereger's viewpoint is not, in fact, Thomistic, and is rigorist, and that good solid traditional Thomistic moral theologians would disagree with his stance.

I always appreciate your input, MM, so I hope you don't think I'm just being argumentative.  I just want to clarify...

What stance, in particular, are you referring to?  Sodomy?

Also, often questions will arise in the many, many years after marriage prep and things change.

Meeting with the priest and discussing these things in person for a woman feels akin to going to confession with him face to face:  really inappropriate.

Is it okay for priests to write books on these issues?
Reply
#37
(01-17-2020, 01:22 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(01-17-2020, 02:47 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Those theologians like Jones, Prummer, Davis, etc. will generally say that non-vaginal intercourse type sexual contact without serious risk of a complete act outside of the vagina is not a grave sin in itself. It could be considered a kind of preparatory touch, or might be used on the woman if she did not achieve complete satisfaction. It is dangerous, and usually disordered, so sinful in most cases, but not universally.

Fr Ripperger, on the other hand, says it is always and everywhere a mortal sin. He's welcome to that harsher opinion, but it would be wrong to bind people to his rigorism when good moral theologians who are far more Thomistic in their approach than he do not hold this view.

Did you listen to the talk?  I didn't hear him say that.  He said that anal is sodomy and is always a sin.

He said that oral on a woman in preparation for the act and for stimulation after the act is not a sin in fact.  

I don't know who those other theologians are, but people need to get this information and don't know where to get it and they can get vastly different opinions from different priests.

I think it's helpful to know what Aquinas and Ligouri said on this matter and it's refreshing to know they dealt with it in a straightforward manner in their day.

I've heard that talk and others before and have accurately represented his position from what I have heard him say.

Those other theologians are the standard moral theologians studied before Vatican II.

Fr Ripperger does quote St Thomas and St Alphonsus, but selectively, and against what later theologians more commonly agreed upon. He is known to bend what St Thomas actually says to fit a narrative (what he says is not false, but it is a misquote--it is from this that Hugh Owen at the Kolbe Center misquotes St Thomas, and that was a misquote that Fr Ripperger approved, for instance).

The principles of moral theology never change, but the application of them does given a better understanding of science, medicine, etc. That is why moral theologians may differ in their opinions. Until the Church settles the matter, one is permitted to take any opinion, but cannot bind anyone to any particular one.

There are different opinions, and the point of the pastor/authority issue is that only one's pastor has the authority to counsel what opinion you ought to follow (since he will be the one usually hearing your confessions and has a responsibility for your soul). A priest who does not have the grace of state to care for your soul has no business telling you that you must follow his opinion. Layfolk on a forum can discuss the matters, but also have no business insisting that any one of permisible moral opinion must be followed.

If there are solid traditional theologians that allow oral or anal contact and the Church has not condemned these opinions, and they are probable (it is possible they are correct), one is permitted to follow them without sin. Experts can argue which is true, but that's really not a good idea for someone who doesn't know the theology behind these things, or even the most common moral theologians from before the Council.
Reply
#38
(01-17-2020, 04:58 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(01-17-2020, 01:22 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
(01-17-2020, 02:47 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Those theologians like Jones, Prummer, Davis, etc. will generally say that non-vaginal intercourse type sexual contact without serious risk of a complete act outside of the vagina is not a grave sin in itself. It could be considered a kind of preparatory touch, or might be used on the woman if she did not achieve complete satisfaction. It is dangerous, and usually disordered, so sinful in most cases, but not universally.

Fr Ripperger, on the other hand, says it is always and everywhere a mortal sin. He's welcome to that harsher opinion, but it would be wrong to bind people to his rigorism when good moral theologians who are far more Thomistic in their approach than he do not hold this view.

Did you listen to the talk?  I didn't hear him say that.  He said that anal is sodomy and is always a sin.

He said that oral on a woman in preparation for the act and for stimulation after the act is not a sin in fact.  

I've heard that talk and others before and have accurately represented his position from what I have heard him say.

Did we listen to the same talk?  I'm confused.
Reply
#39
Quote:MM:  There are different opinions, and the point of the pastor/authority issue is that only one's pastor has the authority to counsel what opinion you ought to follow (since he will be the one usually hearing your confessions and has a responsibility for your soul). A priest who does not have the grace of state to care for your soul has no business telling you that you must follow his opinion. Layfolk on a forum can discuss the matters, but also have no business insisting that any one of permisible moral opinion must be followed.

If there are solid traditional theologians that allow oral or anal contact and the Church has not condemned these opinions, and they are probable (it is possible they are correct), one is permitted to follow them without sin.



Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but to be blunt, it seems as if what you are saying is that married couples should go to their priest, set an appointment and ask him if it's okay to have anal sex (followed by vaginal sex...which is completely unhealthy) and it might be okay for some couples but not for others.   :huh:

Anal penetration is an unhealthy misuse of a part of the body God designed for other purposes (namely an exit, not an entrance) and I don't see how that could possibly be morally acceptable.



As an aside:  Just to be clear because things can be so easily misconstrued:  I haven't said that Fr. Ripperger's opinion must be followed, just that it was a good talk with good references. 

Also, just because I don't want to be misunderstood by anyone, I didn't say in my earlier post that the "missionary position" is the only position allowed for vaginal sex.
Reply
#40
I started this thread cos I came across a talk on a Christian ministry site teaching that a married couple could do as they please. 
I was so shocked, how can that be possible given the health risks of anal. Even medical science says it's wrong. 
I found another source explaining the same thing and justifying it by saying that the bible doesn't say we can't do it. 
I felt the the RCC had the answer. And it did. Catechism

So I started to wonder is this what Protestants do, is it how they live or are they unaware? So I posted the same thread on a Christian forum (protestant basically 90%)
It got taken down without explanation. I thought I may have messed up so I re posted it. Again it vanished. I tried asking admin, nothing. 

Maybe they thought I was condoning it as I had only presented it from a neutral position to see if any of them knew. 
So I posted it a 3rd time, this time with links and a video saying hey guys this is what your church teaches, is this right? Again it disappeared without a sound.

So I opened a thread asking where they went. I got answers like it's morally wrong, disrespectful, inappropriate, disgusting, etc. They didn't want to talk about it, trying to blame me for bringing it up. How immature can an adult get I said. Your disgust is at this abomination from your own church, not me. The Catechism tells me this is wrong, medical science tells me this is wrong.

I often get attacked for being a Catholic out of the blue. Some here might know that im a total ignoramus when it comes to Catholicism I only started learning all this a year ago. Asking questions here to try and learn more and showing incredulity most ppl took offence, labelled me a heretic and became hostile. Same at CAF. So Catholics from 2 forums have rejected me for not being Catholic enough and now the other Christians were rejecting me for being Catholic. Cmon now

So now i feel like they are such idiots criticizing other religions. All of the RCC teachings they question wouldn't come close to the perverse nature of this one teaching.
But i kept relatively calm, refused to get drawn into a heated exchange ok. But they still put a red flag on me, a kind of label that everyone sees im a bad boy. 

So next time a protestant criticizes the RCC bring up this filth which they teach. It should shut em up.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)