rkwright Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1271279463' post='2093523'] The anus is not a generative organ and so there is no way in which penetration of the anus for sexual purposes can be morally justified. [/quote] Does this imply that all foreplay is morally impermissible as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1271279695' post='2093525'] Exactly. Also, anal penetration seems to be more for the man's pleasure than the woman's, and there seems to be an element of dominance involved in that which is certainly contrary to marital love. [/quote] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:25 PM' timestamp='1271280321' post='2093533'] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong. [/quote] Yes, but none of those things have to do with penetration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1271280321' post='2093533'] Apo is on very shaky ground though if that was his only justification for his conclusion - which I know it is not, he is just making a good point. He is right about his conclusion, but lovers will use other non-reproductive organs to morally bring about excitement as well. Nibbling on an ear, kissing a back, hugging a waist. None of those things are morally wrong. [/quote] I suppose I will just have to stand upon the shaky ground of the natural law and the Church's moral tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1271280573' post='2093536'] I suppose I will just have to stand upon the shaky ground of the natural law and the Church's moral tradition. [/quote] You are wrong if you believe any of those things I mentioned are contrary to natural law or the Church's moral tradition. My point stands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='14 April 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1271280502' post='2093535'] Yes, but none of those things have to do with penetration. [/quote] No, but they all use non-reproductive organs in a sexual way, which Apo said was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 A lot of recent talk about the conjugal act seems to be minimalist in nature, and by this I mean that it seems to be reducing the act of love to where a man deposits his semen. I have never in my life come across a single writing of one of the Church Fathers where he supports the notion that anal penetration without orgasm is morally acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffpugh Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I can see why all this is a big deal... just remember, a whole town was "nuked" by God over this sort of matter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='14 April 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1271280938' post='2093542'] A lot of recent talk about the conjugal act seems to be minimalist in nature, and by this I mean that it seems to be reducing the act of love to where a man deposits his semen. I have never in my life come across a single writing of one of the Church Fathers where he supports the notion that anal penetration without orgasm is morally acceptable. [/quote] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1271281386' post='2093551'] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that. [/quote] That is no doubt how you see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='14 April 2010 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1271281386' post='2093551'] I'm sorry, but you seem to be the only person doing that. [/quote] No. He has argued that the anus is not a generative organ but he has also argued that anal penetration is contrary to nature i.e. the way our bodies are designed - while the genitalia are generative organs, when used properly they act in accordance with nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinytherese Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 I'm so confused. I don't find what is involved in the act of anal penetration and anal sex as appropriate regardless. From what I've been told, it can be painful for the woman and come on does a man really want to put himself in an area where human waste comes out of? Oh and one more thing. I'm sorry if this post needs to be edited or if this makes people uncomfortable but how could a man keep himself from not finishing in that area? That strikes me as a hard thing for him to possibly do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) [quote name='God Conquers' date='14 April 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1271279172' post='2093516'] No, I"m not. I don't know you, and you claim that someone I know teaches Catholic teaching with the support of bishops and other theologians, doesn't have Traditional Catholic thought. Why place a descriptor (with a capital T) if it doesn't mean something different? [/quote] By Traditional Catholic thought I mean to say what the Church has always taught, Sacred Tradition. There is no known Scripture, or Church Father, that supports sodomy of any kind during the Marriage Act. It is a sin so wicked it traditional is known as the Unpardonable Vice and Unspeakable Sin. Edited April 14, 2010 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='14 April 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1271284065' post='2093572'] By Traditional Catholic thought I mean to say what the Church has always taught, Sacred Tradition. There is no known Scripture, or Church Father, that supports sodomy of any kind during the Marriage Act. It is a sin so wicked it traditional is known as the Unpardonable Vice and Unspeakable Sin. [/quote] Let's look at your original quote: [quote]He has had other views not in line with Traditional Catholic thought. [/quote] hmmmm... Nope, that's not what you meant at all. What did you mean? There is no "Traditional", or "Current", "old" or "new", "liberal" or "conservative". There is only Catholic. I don't think anyone disagrees with what you do about the Vice. WHat I don't get is why you are trying to contrast Christopher West's teaching with what the Church teaches. If that isn't what you are doing, explain yourself properly. Don't pretend you meant what you clearly did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamiller42 Posted April 14, 2010 Share Posted April 14, 2010 [quote name='rkwright' date='14 April 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1271280089' post='2093532'] Does this imply that all foreplay is morally impermissible as well? [/quote] I see both sides to this, but I think Apo's definition is a bit restrictive. If it's not generative, it's off limits? No kissing? No female chest organs? I won't go any further. After reading this thread, I need to go wash my eyes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts