The source of a persons pleasure or sensual gratification

The following is based on Dr.

The source of a persons pleasure or sensual gratification

Now some people will indeed be quick to suggest that this statement only applies to unmarried people. However the truth of the matter is that there is not a single indication in the decree that even remotely suggests this. This objection is also easily refuted by considering the wording and reason behind the decree, which of course applies both to the married and unmarried people.

This point is important to mention since many lustful couples use all kinds of unnecessary acts before, during and after sexual relations.

Sexual objectification - Wikipedia

They try to excuse these shameful acts by claiming that they cannot complete the sexual act without them. However, their sinful excuse is condemned by this decree alone.

Again, unless husband or wife are totally degenerated, the mere thought of having sex with their spouse should be enough to inflame their lust and make them ready—at least on the part of the husband.

And if this is true with mere thoughts, how much more with kisses and touches? It happens even today amongst some men, mostly in young men who are unlearned in the ways of lust—if one can call it that. The fact that many men today have no danger of pollution from sensual kisses or touches does not make it lawful or right either.

Because it is obvious that the act is not made lawful just because some men have hardened their hearts and become perverted. Simply said, all kisses and touches performed for the sake of sensual or fleshly pleasure is condemned as a mortal sin by the Catholic Church.

Aesthetic Judgment (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The Holy Bible, Tobias 6: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power.

In fact, the sexual pleasure is many times more intoxicating than many drugs that are unlawful to abuse.

But when people are performing unnatural and The source of a persons pleasure or sensual gratification forms of sexual acts, they are abusing the marital act in a similar way that a drug user abuses drugs, or a glutton abuses food.

It is an inherently selfish act that are not founded on reason, but only on their unlawful and shameful search for carnal pleasure, similar to the action of a person that uses drugs in order to get intoxicated or high. This absolutely proves that all unnecessary and non-procreative forms of sexual acts, such as sensual kisses and touches, are sinful and unreasonable to abuse in the same way that drugs are sinful and unreasonable to abuse.

In truth, it is a marvel how anyone who accept such a contradictory, illogical and absurd position as described above is even able to justify such a stupid position in his own conscience, but free will being what it is, we can only pray that those who have fallen into this false and unreasonable position see their error, and convert.

Again, since the Church and Her Saints teach that even the normal, natural and procreative sexual act is sinful for the married unless it is excused with the motive of procreation, how much more obvious does it have to get for a person to realize that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as kisses and touches for venereal pleasure, are even more sinful for the married?

But when this sick person uses more drugs than he needs in order to get intoxicated, or continues to use the drugs after he gets well, he commits the sin of drug abuse.

This is a perfect example of those who perform non-procreative or unnecessary forms of sexual acts such as sensual kisses and touches either by themselves or in relationship to the marital act.

They are gluttonous or overindulgent in the marital act, and are thus sinning against their reason and the Natural Law.

Thomas and the Church condemns as a sin are all sexual acts except for what is inherent in the normal, natural and procreative marital act itself. All other sexual acts are by their own nature inexcusable and a sin against the Natural Law, which means that even though a person has never been told or taught that they are sins, they are still committing a mortal sin, just like a person do not have to be told or taught that murder, abortion, stealing, or getting intoxicated or drunk is a sin against the Natural Law in order for this person to be able to commit a mortal sin.

Thomas taught that all non-procreative and unnecessary sexual acts are sinful and against nature. Augustine, Against Julian, Book V, Chapter 5, Section 23 Indeed, the people of the modern world shamelessly do not blush to proclaim that kisses and touches for venereal pleasure are lawful and even good, just like the heretics of the early Church did!

In addition to all of this evidence, this quotation also shows us that even the married are forbidden to perform unnatural or non-procreative sexual acts such as sensual kisses and touches.

The Pelagian heretic Julian that St. Augustine is citing in this quotation, did not teach that sexual acts such as sensual kisses and touches could be performed by unmarried people, but that only the married were allowed to perform them, which shows us that it is shameful to even dare to suggest that the married can perform such acts.

This fact, then, directly refutes those who claim that the Church and Her Saints only condemns kisses and touches for venereal pleasure for those who are unmarried. This is also why St. Augustine teaches that all non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts are sinful even for the married.

Augustine, On The Good of Marriage: But that which goes beyond this necessity [of begetting children, such as sensual kisses and touches] no longer follows reason but lust. Augustine taught that the only lawful sexual act was the procreative sexual act itself. The fact that he is speaking about the married and of the normal sexual intercourse, of course, totally refutes all who say that only the unmarried but not the married are forbidden by the Saints and the Church to perform unnatural, non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts—such as sensual kisses and touches.

Again, for those who would claim that only some non-procreative or unnecessary sexual acts, such as masturbation of self or of spouse, oral and anal sex, or foreplay, are condemned by the Church and Her Saints, but not sensual touches or kisses, St.Our desire for sensual pleasure can be felt so powerfully that we experience a desire to use the other person in order to gain that pleasure.

But here is the key: Wojtyla says even this stirring of sensual desire is not in itself sinful as long as the will resists that desire to use the person as long as the will does not consent to it.

@BGR Bravo! You get a standing “O” for this most needed correction in Christian culture.. Two thumbs up and a hearty “Amen”. Tis a shame that teachings like this are not usually part of the older women teaching the younger women curriculum. FREE DVDS & BOOKS: Natural Family Planning (NFP) Catholic, Methods, Calendar, Charts.

Read all about it. Pleasure, calm and gratification: sweetness is a reassuring taste, inevitably associated with positive sensations; as a result, we are genetically inclined .

The source of a persons pleasure or sensual gratification

Finding the will of God about sexual self-stimulation. Is Do-It-Yourself sex self abuse or a perversion or a natural form of sexual relief? Is auto-eroticism always sinful? A sin to masturbate or God's provision for sexual frustration? Sexual relief for unmarried born again Christians?

Christianity, the Bible and solo-sex. Scriptural answers. "This thesis introduces and defends the Axiological Theory of Pleasure (ATP), according to which all pleasures are mental episodes which exemplify an hedonic value.

According to the version of the ATP defended, hedonic goodness is not a. .

Cato's Letters | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism