sodomy

[Miss Shelby]

Joab is ignoring the OP's definition of sodomy, you know, the thing that this entire discusion is based on, and using one that he found instead. I think that's creating some confusion.

and i guess he thinks it would be permissable to ignore the cousel of clergy that have said there is nothing wrong with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] through manual stimulation? whatever.

joab. stillsmallvoice, an orthodox jew and another jewish woman I know from another board are the ones who explained the teaching to me about sex and marriage from their perspective. i will have to research it and given that I post here mostly to amuse myself since I lack any substantial amount of time to give, it might take a while for me to cite my sources.

 

[JoabAnias]

and i guess he thinks it would be permissable to ignore the cousel of clergy that have said there is nothing wrong with [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] through manual stimulation? whatever.

Where did I ever say such a thing? And where have you shown any such counsel? So you see you don't know what I think at all so there is no need to whatever me. I don't disagree that there should be mutual satisfaction.

Though I realize this isn't what your alluding to but I will ignore masturbation for the sake of gratification though because its clearly defined in the CCC.

If you put up your sources that would be helpful.

I have my own educated opinions about stimulation for stimulations sake and I haven't offered them. I will tell you though they get straight to the root of why women can't find pleasure and men have hair triggers.

Think about temperance and balance and you don't develop those problems but if one mentions chastity or takes a stand against lust within marriage these days we get hung out to dry so I bite my tongue.

joab. stillsmallvoice, an orthodox jew and another jewish woman I know from another board are the ones who explained the teaching to me about sex and marriage from their perspective. i will have to research it and given that I post here mostly to amuse myself since I lack any substantial amount of time to give, it might take a while for me to cite my sources.

Well if its to much trouble don't put yourself out. And for what its worth I think any marital relationship should be mutually happy and healthy and I hope and pray thats what all who are married do have.

 

[MikeK]

Have you got a better definition than the one from Fr. John Hardon?

There are 1000 definitions of that word. You were given one in the OP. That some Priest doesn't agree with it (and EWTN's definition isn't agreed upon in the CVhurch apparently - TLF gave a different definition of it in a thread not too long ago that I presume came from a Catholic source).

She was asking if oral and anal stimulatrion were acceptable between married couples, and instead of giving an answer you hem and haw and ask weather her definition is good enough. The definition doesn't really matter - as the OP made her question very clear. Your answer to that question is not very clear.

 

[Miss Shelby]

And where have you shown any such counsel?

Believe it or not, Joab, some of us actually talk to our priests directly-- with our spouses--- and ask these kinds of questions as opposed to surfing the web all day long looking for sources that we can cite during intenet debates.

 

[Globalnomad]

Tell me guys, those of you who believe so strictly in never wasting/spilling seed: do you keep away from your wives during the five to seven months when she is known to be pregnant?

My point is that "not spilling" is not a value in itself, it is a proxy for "not wasting". Yet, there ARE times when a couple may, in all mutual love and respect, pleasure each other though it is known that no procreation can take place - thus when it is known that the seed is wasted.

And Bafriend has not educated me. One quote by a priest does not make authoritative Church teaching. You know perfectly well, as MissShelby pointed out too, that we could bring up hundreds of quotes to the contrary, which you would not accept for a second, even though they are by priests.

 

[JoabAnias]

There are 1000 definitions of that word. You were given one in the OP. That some Priest doesn't agree with it (and EWTN's definition isn't agreed upon in the CVhurch apparently - TLF gave a different definition of it in a thread not too long ago that I presume came from a Catholic source).

She was asking if oral and anal stimulatrion were acceptable between married couples, and instead of giving an answer you hem and haw and ask weather her definition is good enough. The definition doesn't really matter - as the OP made her question very clear. Your answer to that question is not very clear.

When did I hem and haw. I took issue with you saying anal is not immoral in marriage. I made not judgement and when you asked me for my definition I gave you one from the advisor to John Paul II, the saintly Fr. John Hardon. If that isn't good enough for you then go ahead and do what you will do but don't make this about me my friend. Your private life is just that and so is mine.

 

[JoabAnias]

Believe it or not, Joab, some of us actually talk to our priests directly-- with our spouses--- and ask these kinds of questions as opposed to surfing the web all day long looking for sources that we can cite during intenet debates.

Awesome glad to hear it. So do I consult several priests on a regular basis (being serveral times a month).

Yet alas I don't deal with these same problems practically anymore as I am a celibate divorcée.

But I can tell you I practiced NFP before that, do have grown children and think there was still Lust that crept in that in retrospect I wish hadn't. Leaves one wondering if it made a difference. I am positive lust harmed us and contributed to my divorce.

So once again our sources are our personal experiences eh? What was it John Paul said about that? "Our personal experiences are those which animate the life of the Christian" or something along those lines.

However, you said you had sources that I thought sounded like they were in print that I would find interesting to read and now it appears your saying they were personal communications with a priest, which is it?

You know what, never mind, the sources don't matter so much do they? Your on the right track if your consulting a priest. Hope your love life is just perfect sister, I really do.

I have reached the point in my life that I don't even care if I have an intimate life or not. Its rather freeing and I take my state in life to be a great grace from God and as such am a grateful eunuch.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Joab,

You make an interesting point about lust within marriage. Western society seems to have become obsessed with sexual matters, perhaps because, as the English poet Larkin opined, it thinks it discovered it in 1963. The Christian Faith grew in a society similarly obsessed, which is one reason so many early Christians counselled celibacy or restraint.

What matters, within the teaching of the Church, is that husband and wife treat one another with respect and love, and that, if blessed by God with children, they provide a loving and stable home in which the evidence of God's love is apparent.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[JoabAnias]

What matters, within the teaching of the Church, is that husband and wife treat one another with respect and love, and that, if blessed by God with children, they provide a loving and stable home in which the evidence of God's love is apparent.

I found that task to be compounded in difficulty due to the constant barrage of sexual innuendos encouraging lust and indulgent gratification.

For me it seems to be a very real war of the spirit and the flesh to the point where dignity itself is elusive. Dignity of ones self and also ones view of their partner or even the opposite sex in general. Its a very subtle subversion traceable in many ways to other abuses imo.

Peace.

 

[BAFRIEND]

Dear Joab,

You make an interesting point about lust within marriage. Western society seems to have become obsessed with sexual matters, perhaps because, as the English poet Larkin opined, it thinks it discovered it in 1963. The Christian Faith grew in a society similarly obsessed, which is one reason so many early Christians counselled celibacy or restraint.

What matters, within the teaching of the Church, is that husband and wife treat one another with respect and love, and that, if blessed by God with children, they provide a loving and stable home in which the evidence of God's love is apparent.

Peace,

Anglian

I think this is kind of shallow. I don't mean this to offend you. But if you want to look how society has changed you have to look at how economics and social factors play into it.

In the 1950's in the United States we had the first generation of people (for the majority of the population) off the rural farms.

In a century we went from 75% of the population in rural agriculture to 75% in industry and service.

A kid raised on the farm woke in the morning, spent most of the farming season working in the fields or agriculture related work. Parents raised their kids to be adults. When the population moved into the suburbs and citys, the parents went out to work, the kids went to school with other kids. When parents came home from work and evening with the kids, they raised their kids to be children. Idle hands combined with being raised by parents who have objectified you into a spoiled plaything with a sense of entitlement.

Add to that technology, nutrition, entertainment...

 

[Anglian]

Dear Barfriend,

I am sorry if my analysis lacked depth, and I thank you for your own, which is a good and convincing one.

But however much society may change, the word of God does not. If our society has become so decadent that it cannot hear and obey the word of God, then that is because we are self-willed as ever.

That it is so in Europe as well as the USA may well add depth to your treatment of this, with which I do not disagree; I am sure there is much in what you say.

But the root cause of sin is always the same - our desire to have our own way, whatever God says. Adam did it; Eve did it; King David did it; Judas Iscariot did it; and we, God have mercy on us, do it. Sin has many manifestations, but, I suspect, one cause.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Have you got a better definition than the one from Fr. John Hardon?

Does anyone lese find this last name particularly humorous in the scope of this discussion??

 

[Miss Shelby]

lol

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

No I don't think its that hard to hash out really -unless- one is already fallen into lust and the accompanying relativism that permitted them to convince themselves lust was not sin simply because said lust is in the context of marriage which then alludes to my statement of "then what" as self gratifying lust devoid of the dignity of the persons may invariably lead where? - Greater sins right?

Umm- it's a good thing to have sexual desire for one's spouse...it only becomes a problem when a spouse begins to objectify the other...I hope when I strip for my husband he isn't just thinking about how holy I am....

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

lol

I mean c'mon! You couldn't make up a better name...

 

[isabella1]

I mean c'mon! You couldn't make up a better name...

If you knew the story behind the name and what it really meant you might not be so quick to make fun of it.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Enlighten us isabella.

 

[JoabAnias]

I hope when I strip for my husband he isn't just thinking about how holy I am....

What would you rather have, him lusting after you?

 

[JoabAnias]

Does anyone lese find this last name particularly humorous in the scope of this discussion??

Off topic,

The old Lust versus Purity struggle yet again.

Its pronounced; Har-dan not Hard-ON

You really should look him up, there is allot to learn from him.

Back on topic.

 

[Anglian]

For some reason Ephesians 5:1-6 came into my mind

5:1 Therefore be imitators of God as dear children.
5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
5:3 But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints;
5:4 neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.
5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Is this a Catholic Christian forum, and is some of the jesting here really compatible with that?

Anglian