2
3

Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics (self.Catholicism)

kmo_300 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]kmo_300[S] -8 ポイント-7 ポイント  (11子コメント)

Unfortunately, my Latin is not good enough to translate it with any justice.

Yes, you have already admitted that you do not fully understand the source, and FrMatthew has also stated in his posts that he is not familiar with the argument.

Fr. Ripperger however has obviously studied the quote in question and is unquestionably more qualified to speak on it than either you or Fr. Matthew.

His comments on this matter can be found here, start listening around the 15 minute mark. He clearly interprets Ligouri to be implying that yes it very much is a sin.

Ligouri is not infallible

Ligouri is a Doctor of the Church, as declared by the Magisterium. St. Thomas is also a Doctor of the Church. We know St. Thomas was wrong about the Immaculate Conception because the Magisterium infallibly declared it as a Dogma. You Digifork are not the magisterium, you are not the Pope, and YOU are not infallible, and neither is FrMatthew.

What everyone needs to remember is which specific acts that are permissible as foreplay are not infallibly taught by the Church. In fact, the Church has yet to advance the theology of sexuality to a point where an official stance could be taken for the faithful to assent to, irreformable or otherwise.

Unnatural sexual acts which are not open to life are not considered legitimate foreplay in any way.

This is why TOB is such an important work and it will take some time for the Church to fully understand and integrate. This also means that the morality of such acts are debatable and there are moralists on both sides of the issue.

Theology of the Body is not a moral manual, nowhere does JPII talk like this about sexual acts. It is modern theologians who are acting off their own opinions that are making these arguments. Theology of the Body is meant specifically to condemn the king of pornographic ideas you are promoting here.

The oral stimulation leads to vaginal intercourse that conforms to the unitive and procreative ends of the marital act.

Again, the ends do not justify the means. Participating in what is otherwise called a blow job, and then afterwards switching over before climax to vaginal sex does not change the fact that you committed an natural act which is not open to life.

it is the general pastoral teaching of the Church and faithful should not feel bound by the back and forth argumentation of moral theologians. Listen to your pastors. Leave it to the theologians to hash it out.

You have the sound teaching of a Doctor of the Church telling you what actions are sinful and what is not. But apparently for people like you being a Doctor of the Church doesn't mean anything. I will listen to sound doctrine and I will never agree that oral and anal sex are moral just because you rename it to "stimulation" and justify it with perverted logic.

[–]digifork 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (10子コメント)

Yes, you have already admitted that you do not fully understand the source

I am not denying his argument. From what I read from Liguori's original work and the analysis of others is that Liguori did indeed believe that oral sex was sodomy. Which means I verified what you said about Liguori was correct. So what are you complaining about?

You Digifork are not the magisterium, you are not the Pope, and YOU are not infallible

I never claimed to be a member of the Magisterium nor did I claim to be infallible. In fact I don't believe I ever gave my own option on the matter. I only gave the opinion of other theologians.

Unnatural sexual acts which are not open to life are not considered legitimate foreplay in any way.

I provided a text which carries and imprimatur and nihil obstat which says otherwise. Do you know what that means?

Theology of the Body is not a moral manual, nowhere does JPII talk like this about sexual acts.

Correct. He talks about sexuality on a more basic level.

It is modern theologians who are acting off their own opinions that are making these arguments. Theology of the Body is meant specifically to condemn the king of pornographic ideas you are promoting here.

That is your opinion on the matter. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that you are not a member of the Magisterium and you are not infallible.

Again, the ends do not justify the means. Participating in what is otherwise called a blow job, and then afterwards switching over before climax to vaginal sex does not change the fact that you committed an natural act which is not open to life.

Again, the book I quoted which has an imprimatur disagrees. The teaching of at least two Pontifical Seminaries disagree. The theologians at EWTN disagrees.

You have the sound teaching of a Doctor of the Church telling you what actions are sinful and what is not. But apparently for people like you being a Doctor of the Church doesn't mean anything.

You are making an amateur mistake. You see, there will always be theological concepts which are not developed to the point to where the Church can make a definitive statement. Theologians will argue on both sides of the matter while the Magisterium waits for the theology to develop and the calling of the Holy Spirit. During that time, the faithful will see these arguments and look to their pastors for clarification. The Church will then provide pastoral advice in line with what it currently understands about the matter. This advice is not irreformable, it is just the how the Church sees it given its current understanding. That pastoral advice is encompassed in the book I quoted, the teaching of the seminary, and in the advice given by EWTN.

It is not sinful to follow the pastoral advice of the Church. You may disagree with the teaching. You can certainly disregard it. You may debate it in theological circles. But you cannot say that your side of the argument is the right way and everyone else is just a sinner and a pervert. You cannot claim to have any authority as your believes go against the current pastoral advice of the Church.

So feel free to state your opinion. Just don't tell other people they are sinning because they disagree with you or a Doctor of the Church. The Church says people who are engaging in foreplay in the way it has outlined are not sinning. Who are you to say the Church is wrong?

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The Church says people who are engaging in foreplay in the way it has outlined are not sinning. Who are you to say the Church is wrong?

Is this true? Even that post by that priest didn't really convince me of this.

[–]digifork 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Given the quote from the book Catholic Sexual Ethics which holds an imprimatur, the teaching of Pontifical Seminaries, and the advice given by EWTN, it seems that the church does not find this teaching harmful to faith or morals.

I don't know what additional evidence would convince you if that does not.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You would agree that the Church's position on abortion is not the same as its position here, yes? There's no grounds for trying to justify the position that abortion is moral. There is clearly room to justify the position that such behavior is immoral.

[–]digifork 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (6子コメント)

There is clearly room to justify the position that such behavior is immoral.

I'm curious if you are reading I wrote because I addressed that already. I will repeat it here.

[T]here will always be theological concepts which are not developed to the point to where the Church can make a definitive statement. Theologians will argue on both sides of the matter while the Magisterium waits for the theology to develop and the calling of the Holy Spirit. During that time, the faithful will see these arguments and look to their pastors for clarification. The Church will then provide pastoral advice in line with what it currently understands about the matter. This advice is not irreformable, it is just the how the Church sees it given its current understanding. That pastoral advice is encompassed in the book I quoted, the teaching of the seminary, and in the advice given by EWTN.

It is not sinful to follow the pastoral advice of the Church. You may disagree with the teaching. You can certainly disregard it. You may debate it in theological circles. But you cannot say that your side of the argument is the right way and everyone else is just a sinner and a pervert.

So to reiterate, there is certainly room to make theological arguments. However, do not confuse your conclusions on the matter with some sort of binding resolution on the faithful. If you find these acts to be personally sinful, that is fine; feel free to not engage in them. However, the Church has provided guidance in the matter and following that guidance today is not a sin even if the Church concludes that the acts are sinful in the future.

Furthermore, you would be remiss to tell others engaging in these acts (as long as they are within the bounds specified by the Church), that they are committing a sin because that goes against what the Church is saying at this point.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Following the pastoral advice of the Church could be immoral but forgivable. I mean, if it turns out that capital punishment really is immoral, the people who listened to the Church for thousands of years before the 1960's would still have been doing something immoral by supporting or employing its use.

I don't think I'd be remiss to do that at all. I'm making a philosophical point. And I never even used the word "sinful." I'm just calling the acts immoral.

[–]digifork 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I don't think I'd be remiss to do that at all. I'm making a philosophical point. And I never even used the word "sinful." I'm just calling the acts immoral.

I disagree. The teaching as it stands now is considered by the Church to not be harmful to faith or morals. Which means the Church does not consider it immoral. It is okay for you to personally believe it is immoral. But to tell other people they are engaging in immoral acts is to go against what the Church is saying at this point.

So you have to be careful. Theological discussion is fine, however you can not say with any authority that those acts are immoral and those who claim the acts are moral, do enjoy the authority of the pastoral teaching of the Church. You must be clear that when you say these acts are immoral, you are not communicating the teaching of the Church on the matter.

[–]Hurrah_for_Karamazov 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

This would be no different than disagreeing with and trying to change people's minds concerning the Church's (currently dominant) view on capital punishment, which, as we all know, is perfectly fine. This sort of fideistic authoritarianism is just nothing to do with Catholicism. These aren't issues of dogma or anything close. They're moral questions, which the Church wrestles with all the time.

[–]digifork 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This sort of fideistic authoritarianism is just nothing to do with Catholicism.

That is a bit much don't you think? I'm not engaging in fideism. I actually said there is room for theological debate. The theological conclusions presented do have logic and reason to back them up. To make an accusation of fideism is insulting. Insulting to all the theologians who spend the time to write, teach, and advance these difficult theological issues.

What I am discouraging are people telling the faithful that they are immoral/sinful/perverts for following Church teaching simply because the Church teaching may be reformable and they disagree with it. What I am discouraging are people treating our priests like pornographers simply because they subscribe to this teaching. Those types of discourse cause scandal and division. To ask people not to engage in that sort of thing is not fideistic authoritarianism. It is acting with charity towards the Church and your neighbor.

In other words, discuss the matter with charity and leave personal accusations of immorality and other forms of vitriol found in this discussion checked at the door.