Mutual Masturbation Within Marriage - A Debate I'm Having

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='21 March 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1269198785' post='2076997']
Steak and Shake? I have to respectfully disagree, and choose Burger King.
[/quote]
Yeah, nothing quite like fake grilling taste...

[Slappo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='21 March 2010 - 02:50 PM' timestamp='1269208222' post='2077120']
Yeah, nothing quite like fake grilling taste...
[/quote]

Hey! Fake grilling taste and fake love... this is totally still on topic w/ the thread!

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Slappo' date='21 March 2010 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1269210233' post='2077145']
Hey! Fake grilling taste and fake love... this is totally still on topic w/ the thread! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Off-topic--I hope. Slappo--Your fiancee is very pretty. When are you getting married? Soon I hope, because too much unsatisfied lust (even though it's holy and pure lust for a woman you intend to marry--not for a centerfold) can turn your brain to mush. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/marriage.gif[/img]

[Innocent]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='24 March 2010 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1269399596' post='2078767']
.... too much unsatisfied lust (even though it's holy and pure lust for a woman you intend to marry--not for a centerfold) ...
[/quote]


Hi. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but as far as I know, "holy and pure lust" is oxymoronic for a Catholic. The term "Lust" refers to one of the Seven Cardinal Sins and can never be "holy and pure" since the Catechism defines Lust to be a "disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure."[sup][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2351"][1][/url][/sup] I'm not very sure about what better term to use but perhaps "desire" would be a better term to indicate what you mean.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Innocent' date='23 March 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1269401796' post='2078788']
Hi. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but as far as I know, "holy and pure lust" is oxymoronic for a Catholic. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sweat.gif[/img] The term "Lust" refers to one of the Seven Cardinal Sins and can never be "holy and pure" since the Catechism defines Lust to be a "disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure."[sup][url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2351"][1][/url][/sup] I'm not very sure about what better term to use but perhaps "desire" would be a better term to indicate what you mean.
[/quote]

Then let's call it "desire"--I'm fine with that. I was using it to mean a totally healthy and understandable physical attraction by a man for the woman he intends to marry.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/love.gif[/img]

Thank-you for your patience with my ignorance of the correct terminology. I'm only "moderately fluent" and still have lots to learn. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/flowers.gif[/img]

Edited March 24, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Innocent]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='24 March 2010 - 10:13 AM' timestamp='1269402189' post='2078792']
I'm only "moderately fluent" and still have lots to learn.
[/quote]

I think that your willingness to learn more about Catholicism is beautiful.

By the way, hope you didn't miss the film recommendation in my [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102822&st=100&p=2076637&#entry2076637"]earlier reply[/url]? Do tell us what you think of the film if you do manage to watch it.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Innocent' date='23 March 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1269402592' post='2078796']
By the way, hope you didn't miss the film recommendation in my [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102822&st=100&p=2076637&#entry2076637"]earlier reply[/url]? Do tell us what you think of the film if you do manage to watch it.
[/quote]

Thanks for the reminder--I HAD forgotten about it.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif[/img]

BTW--I don't think I've mentioned that Phatmass has THE best selection of great emoticons I've ever seen. Some of them are SO creative. I love the marriage one with the baby popping out.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/marriage.gif[/img] But, this is the one that I think is most unique. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/ascension.gif[/img]
I doubt that emoticon would show up anywhere else on the Internet!

Edited March 24, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[jeffpugh]

It's true. We've got a great variety

Edited March 24, 2010 by Sacred Music Man

[poetryofimage]

What do you make of God's teaching, when the Bible records David breaking the Temple laws and eating the Showbread that was dedicated to God and forbidden? Specifically, I seem to recall it was justified by his starvation, which would clearly be situational ethics, since eating it at a different time would have been condemned. The same is true for Jesus attitude towards the Pharisee's rabbinical fence. Their inability to bend the Law put them on His bad side: He made numerous exceptions for His disciples to break the Sabbath laws, whether regarding travel, handwashing, or food. Since the Catholic Church invokes the rabbinical authority as its power, the idea of situational exceptions would apply just as much today to the Catechism as it did to the Law in Jesus' time.

[quote name='Raphael' date='20 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1269123292' post='2076425']
Morality is worthless if we disregard it when a difficult situation comes along.

There is a moral theory called situational ethics which says that the loving thing is always the moral thing. In that most basic form, it is correct. However, its proponents started arguing that the "loving thing" could change based on the situation and circumstances. They even said that sometimes it would be the most loving thing for a woman to cheat on her husband. Needless to say, Pope John Paul II condemned it as heresy in Veritatis Splendor.

God bless,

Micah
[/quote]

[poetryofimage]

Shall we all give up hamburgers, since there are children in Africa that don't have them? After all, love is not confined to marriage. Paul warned against this line of reasoning: "Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement." Col. 2: 18a

Is it not marital love to want to fulfill our spouse's needs and desires? If there is nothing immoral about the desire, then we have to look at the process. If my spouse wants to climax, it is a natural desire and process. Contraception would split the desire, making it unnaturally hypocritical: Contraception wants to have sex, but not to release into the partner, all at the same time. Contraception is confusion. Coitus is a true and moral desire. Masturbation between partners can become a part of the ACT and thus justified by it. The Church requires that coitus be open to life and unity; Mutual masturbation is unitive by the very name -mutual-, and would only need some point of the Act (or else a true intimate desire on the part of the partners) to be open to life. Thus, mutual masturbation could be justified by the Pope's test of unitive and pro-creative.

Let's take another example. Birth control is wrong when it is used to stop pregnancy. Yet Priests and Bishops have made exceptions for birth control, when it is used for a different purpose, as "hormone replacement therapy". There is no difference in the process of the drug, only in the motivation in its use. Masturbation for the purpose of denying unitive coitus to one's spouse is immoral. However, in the case of mutual masturbation, or of medical problems/reasons not to copulate, we are dealing with a different motivation.

[quote name='Slappo' date='20 March 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1269143017' post='2076703']
I really have to sympathize with your desire for what you seem to think is mercy. Often times the "letter of the law" is very very difficult to follow in real life situations but extremely easy to throw out in intellectual situations. This is why being a pastor can be so difficult. They have to enforce the letter of the law, which in Catholicism has very many dispensations to allow for what is most charitable* (see bottom note), but at the same time they have to meet the needs of the people.

The hard thing to understand is really knowing what is most charitable. Is it really more loving to make your husband/wife reach climax because vaginal intercourse is unavailable? The answer, although it may be hard to see, is no it isn't more loving. Think of it in this situation: Your husband wants big fat juicy hamburger but his doctor has told him that to eat such a thing is extremely bad for his health and in his current situation could cause permanent damage. Is it more loving to cook him up that hamburger, or to suffer with him by both of you eating a salad when you really wanted a hamburger and could eat one? To cook him up the hamburger and give him the immediate pleasure could cause him to die, whereas to abstain from the hamburger until he has reached a point where he can eat it and remain healthy would let him live and eat the ocassional hamburger for many years to come.

Even with the impotent man, who could never eat a hamburger again, it would still be more loving to never cook him a hamburger and never eat one yourself so as not to let him see your own pleasure and desire a hamburger all the more.



Replace hamburger with sex and you'll see my point.


*Catholicism has all sorts of "supplements to the rules". For instance, there is a 1 hour required fast before receiving the Eucharist. This fast does not hold to those who need to eat for medical reasons (diabetes etc), the elderly, or those who are caring for the elderly. The obligation to attend Sunday mass is dispensed when one is sick, when one is in an area where it may endanger their life to attend, etc.
[/quote]

[Innocent]

[quote name='poetryofimage' date='27 March 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1269672763' post='2081183']
Masturbation between partners can become a part of the ACT and thus justified by it. The Church requires that coitus be open to life and unity; Mutual masturbation is unitive by the very name -mutual-, and would only need some point of the Act (or else a true intimate desire on the part of the partners) to be open to life. Thus, mutual masturbation could be justified by the Pope's test of unitive and pro-creative.
[/quote]

I think that this point (or a very similar one) has previously come up here in another similar discussion previously. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=93809&st=180&p=1865354&#entry1865354"]LINK[/url]

[Slappo]

[quote name='poetryofimage' date='26 March 2010 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1269672763' post='2081183']
Shall we all give up hamburgers, since there are children in Africa that don't have them? After all, love is not confined to marriage. Paul warned against this line of reasoning: "Let no one disqualify you, delighting in self-abasement." Col. 2: 18a

Is it not marital love to want to fulfill our spouse's needs and desires? If there is nothing immoral about the desire, then we have to look at the process. If my spouse wants to climax, it is a natural desire and process. Contraception would split the desire, making it unnaturally hypocritical: Contraception wants to have sex, but not to release into the partner, all at the same time. Contraception is confusion. [b]Coitus is a true and moral desire. Masturbation between partners can become a part of the ACT and thus justified by it. The Church requires that coitus be open to life and unity; Mutual masturbation is unitive by the very name -mutual-, and would only need some point of the Act (or else a true intimate desire on the part of the partners) to be open to life.[/b] Thus, mutual masturbation could be justified by the Pope's test of unitive and pro-creative.

Let's take another example. Birth control is wrong when it is used to stop pregnancy. Yet Priests and Bishops have made exceptions for birth control, when it is used for a different purpose, as "hormone replacement therapy". There is no difference in the process of the drug, only in the motivation in its use. Masturbation for the purpose of denying unitive coitus to one's spouse is immoral. However, in the case of mutual masturbation, or of medical problems/reasons not to copulate, we are dealing with a different motivation.
[/quote]


If you had read the entire thread you would have seen that we made a clear distinction between the term masturbation and foreplay.

The bolded in your text above is describing foreplay not masturbation. As long as you mean by [b]participating in the act[/b] that what you are referring to is concluded with vaginal coitus.

Mutual masturbation as defined earlier in this thread refers specifically to physical stimulation of the genitals outside of marital intercourse. To be blunt: when a man or women causes his or her spouse to reach orgasm outside of the [b]context[/b] of the marital act, or for a man outside of the vagina.



Edit: And I think in Christian prudence this has to be the last time I view this thread. Reading and discussing such topics is very difficult when only 64 days from marriage. I.E., I'm impatient to practice what I preach

Edited March 27, 2010 by Slappo

[Christie_M]

nice, slappo.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='poetryofimage' date='27 March 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1269671180' post='2081178']
What do you make of God's teaching, when the Bible records David breaking the Temple laws and eating the Showbread that was dedicated to God and forbidden? Specifically, I seem to recall it was justified by his starvation, which would clearly be situational ethics, since eating it at a different time would have been condemned. The same is true for Jesus attitude towards the Pharisee's rabbinical fence. Their inability to bend the Law put them on His bad side: He made numerous exceptions for His disciples to break the Sabbath laws, whether regarding travel, handwashing, or food. Since the Catholic Church invokes the rabbinical authority as its power, the idea of situational exceptions would apply just as much today to the Catechism as it did to the Law in Jesus' time.
[/quote]
How eloquently you call me a Pharisee!

Situational ethics is not the same as following the spirit of the law rather than just the letter. The spirit of the law is the honor of God. The letter of the law did not foresee that honoring God might be achieved through feeding a starving person.

The problem with situational ethics is not that it says the more loving option is the one to take. That is completely true. The problem is that it uses a fluffy, subjective definition of what love is. Its definition is devoid of the commandments, which Christ said must be followed by one who wishes to love God.

So, as a summary, your point is not valid because:

1. Following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law is still following the law and therefore loving.
2. The law you are referring to is the Mosaic Law, which is not part of "the Commandments" Christ said we must follow in loving Him.
3. The Catholic Church does not invoke the rabbinical authority as its power, but the authority of Christ.

God bless,

Micah

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' date='27 March 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1269727399' post='2081569']
How eloquently you call me a Pharisee!

Situational ethics is not the same as following the spirit of the law rather than just the letter. The spirit of the law is the honor of God. The letter of the law did not foresee that honoring God might be achieved through feeding a starving person.

The problem with situational ethics is not that it says the more loving option is the one to take. That is completely true. The problem is that it uses a fluffy, subjective definition of what love is. Its definition is devoid of the commandments, which Christ said must be followed by one who wishes to love God.

So, as a summary, your point is not valid because:

1. Following the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law is still following the law and therefore loving.
2. The law you are referring to is the Mosaic Law, which is not part of "the Commandments" Christ said we must follow in loving Him.
3. The Catholic Church does not invoke the rabbinical authority as its power, but the authority of Christ.

God bless,

Micah
[/quote]
+1