Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion related to learning about the faith (Catechetics), defense of the Faith (Apologetics), the Liturgy and canon law, motivated by a desire to grow closer to Christ or to bring someone else closer.

Saint Augustine of Hippo is considered on of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time and the Doctor of the Church.
Learn More: Saint Augustine

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: Why this priggishness? As long as the married couple's love-making culimnates ...
(Quote) David-364112 said:


Why this priggishness?


As long as the married couple's love-making culimnates in intercourse that is open to the transmission of life, various forms of foreplay are fine.

--hide--

Not quite. Lust, where one's partner is an object, not the subject of the act, is gravely disordered, even within marriage.

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Not quite. Lust, where one's partner is an object, not the subject of the act, is gra...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Not quite. Lust, where one's partner is an object, not the subject of the act, is gravely disordered, even within marriage.

--hide--


Yes sexual sins, including lust for one's spouse, are among the most prevelant and obvious ways people fall from grace. Everyone must be chaste according to our state in life (even in marriage). No exceptions. It's not open to compromise. But why must you always find reasons to vilify any forms of intimacy - even non-sexual ones? I'll never understand the reason for that mindset. It saddens me.


Lust for one's spouse is something entirely different from what I described:

The sin of lust occurs within marriage when the other spouse either can't or or is temporarily unwilling to engage in love-making or is unavailable (e.g. away on a business trip or visiting relatives). Lust is selfish. It is not loving. Desire for one's spouse is fine; lust is not. Read the Song of Solomon. Why is it in the Bible? Why do saints make extensive commentary on how the erotic love of the Bridegroom for his Bride )described in that beautiful book) most closely mirrors Christ's love for each human soul?

In contrast, mutual love which includes pleasuring actions in addition to intercourse and which are done in a loving way is never lustful. It is mutual and loving. (Again, certain sexual acts are always wrong. I listed them in my post - if it hasn't already disappeared.) But pleasuring which occurs in addition to intercourse adds to the joy of the act and deepens the couple's love for one another. WHAT can be wrong with that?


hug

02/16/2013 new

In that ABC show there was massive editing. I've heard West's riff on Hefner, and it in no way glorifies Hefner or his work. West just points out that Hefner recognized that Puritanism was bad but then proceeded to create a "cure" that was worse than the disease. ABC cut and pasted to put words in his mouth. It was bad. Really bad...

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Aga...
(Quote) David-364112 said:

My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it?

--hide--

Morally, nothing (within the stated constraints). However, it's not necessarily the healthiest practice -- there can be a lot of bacteria in the mouth one would not want to be introducing into the genitalia, and sometimes vice versa.

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) David-364112 said: My guess is that the excerpt from your post whic...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
David-364112 said:

My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it?


Morally, nothing (within the stated constraints). However, it's not necessarily the healthiest practice -- there can be a lot of bacteria in the mouth one would not want to be introducing into the genitalia, and sometimes vice versa.

--hide--
referee Fr.Chad Ripperger FSSP- PHD

Marriage:

Omaha:

Chastity (answers here re: post) www.sensustraditionis.org Holy Family Husband Marriage Virtues Wife

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-341178 said: Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discus...
(Quote) Patrick-341178 said:

Theology of the Body has always been a topic that has fascinated me. I have been to some discussion groups and was amazed that Pope John Paul II put his heart in soul into writing about sexuality. My own personal view is, although inspired by God, TOB is unneccesarily complex.

I think Christopher West's efforts are noble - even if I do question how much he may be in it for fame and money. Yet, I do understand how he has opened himself up to criticism. I don't personally have a strong view one way or the other so I am interested to see what others think.

--hide--

I have some issues with Christopher's presentation of Theology of the Body. There are other resources that are less troublesome. I was at one of his presentations about 15 years ago and was very disturbed by his suggesting that if we truly believe we are redeemed we should have no problem with nudity in the home and in the midst of Christians. I grew up in a home with rampant nudity and it was quite damaging. I spoke with the man travelling with him to find out if this was really what he meant. He said very definitely and they have open nudity in their home. For awhile after the talk, I was less modest around my own daughter, but learned through experience that it was harmful to her. To suggest that if we really believe that Jesus redeemed our bodies on the cross because he was crucified nude, we would practice nudity in our own lives, is harmful. It might work in his home, but it has had devastating effects in my family.

I have heard that he no longer teaches this in his talks, but I don't know for sure.

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) David-364112 said: (Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) David-364112 said:
(Quote) David-364112 said:

Quote:
Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
David-364112 said:

As long as the married couple's love-making culimnates in intercourse that is open to the transmission of life, various forms of foreplay are fine.


Not quite. Lust, where one's partner is an object, not the subject of the act, is gravely disordered, even within marriage.



Yes sexual sins, including lust for one's spouse, are among the most prevelant and obvious ways people fall from grace. Everyone must be chaste according to our state in life (even in marriage). No exceptions. It's not open to compromise. But why must you always find reasons to vilify any forms of intimacy - even non-sexual ones? I'll never understand the reason for that mindset. It saddens me.


Lust for one's spouse is something entirely different from what I described:

The sin of lust occurs within marriage when the other spouse either can't or or is temporarily unwilling to engage in love-making or is unavailable (e.g. away on a business trip or visiting relatives). Lust is selfish. It is not loving. Desire for one's spouse is fine; lust is not. Read the Song of Solomon. Why is it in the Bible? Why do saints make extensive commentary on how the erotic love of the Bridegroom for his Bride )described in that beautiful book) most closely mirrors Christ's love for each human soul?

In contrast, mutual love which includes pleasuring actions in addition to intercourse and which are done in a loving way is never lustful. It is mutual and loving. (Again, certain sexual acts are always wrong. I listed them in my post) But pleasuring which occurs in addition to intercourse adds to the joy of the act and deepens the couple's love for one another. WHAT can be wrong with that?

--hide--

I don't see where my comment was vilifying anything. In any case, that wasn't my intent. I was commenting on the specific statement I quoted, not the entire post, and was only pointing out there there is an additional constraint you did not mention.

You say "The sin of lust occurs within marriage when the other spouse either can't or or is temporarily unwilling to engage in love-making or is unavailable (e.g. away on a business trip or visiting relatives)" True enough, but lust can also occur when the spouses are right next to each other, as well. Even an act of intercourse that is open to the transmission of life with one's spouse can be lustful.

When one acts solely to satisfy their own desire, not for their mutual benefit, that is lustful. The lustful act may not be evident to the outside observer: it is not necessarily the nature of the physical act that is problematic, but rather the mindset of the person performing the act.

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Bernard-2709 said: (Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) David-364112 said: <...
(Quote) Bernard-2709 said:

Quote:
Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
David-364112 said:

My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it?


Morally, nothing (within the stated constraints). However, it's not necessarily the healthiest practice -- there can be a lot of bacteria in the mouth one would not want to be introducing into the genitalia, and sometimes vice versa.


Fr.Chad Ripperger FSSP- PHD

Marriage:

Omaha:

Chastity (answers here re: post) www.sensustraditionis.orgHoly Family Husband Marriage Virtues Wife

--hide--

Starting at 6:15 in the Chastity presentation (although I recommend listening to the recording from the beginning)

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: (Quote) David-364112 said: My guess is that the excerpt from your post whic...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Quote:
David-364112 said:

My guess is that the excerpt from your post which I quoted above is a code word for oral sex. Again, if done prior to intercourse as a means of enhancing the pleasure and intimacy of the love act (and never as an end in itself) then what can possibly be wrong with it?


Morally, nothing (within the stated constraints). However, it's not necessarily the healthiest practice -- there can be a lot of bacteria in the mouth one would not want to be introducing into the genitalia, and sometimes vice versa.

--hide--

I stand corrected. Refer to Fr. Ripperger's recording on Chastity (see Bernard's post) staring at about 17:00 with regard to oral sex.

02/16/2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: I stand corrected. Refer to Fr. Ripperger's recording on Chastity (see Bernard's ...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

I stand corrected. Refer to Fr. Ripperger's recording on Chastity (see Bernard's post) staring at about 17:00 with regard to oral sex.

--hide--


I listened to that with great interest and will bookmark the page to listen to the entire talk when I have more time. He's a knowledgable speaker and I look forward to hearing his other presentations as well. It left me a little confused because he seems to be saying it's always a mortal sin but at other points he says when it's acceptable and what must be avoided. I'm pretty sure that my post was in line with his presentaztion - although I may have made certain errors or poorly explained my position on others. Everything he said is in synch with the instructions I received during my moral and spritiual formaiton by the priests of Opus Dei.


The main point of what I was trying to make is that marital love can and should be something more and deeper than mere intercourse, provided that the spirit and form of such acts conforms with the moral doctrine Fr. Ripperger summarized. Marital intimacy is a great gift. It's sacred rather than profane. Sadly, some are taught that sex is always unclean and best kept within very stirct and narrow bounds. I'd never suggest doing anything which violates the natural law, but neither do I recommend imposing superfluous limits on this wonderful gift of God. We must do what is best according to God's plan and God's law. No more, no less.


It's easy to get carried away when it comes to any physical pleasure. The best moral barometer for these situations is love - i.e. is it the love of God and each other which motivates the spouses? Or is it something less, something selfish?



Posts 21 - 30 of 85