A sin has a material component but also requires an act of will and sufficient knowledge. In grave matters, with sufficient levels of consent and knowledge, the sin is mortal. Just the occurence of orgasm doesn’t generate a sin, but it’s a sin to seek that orgasm outside of the intercourse. The man’s seed needs to end up in the woman’s vagina to fulfil the procreative purpose of the intercourse. Male orgasm is tied with ejaculation, female is not. This doesn’t mean that the woman is free to seek that orgasm elsewhere. Her orgasm too has to remain within the act (what centres around the vaginal intercourse), otherwise it’s wrong.
Where are the data from? Sounds very strange to me. There are many claims that masturbation or oral stimulation is the only way, but the problem with those theories is that they serve the purpose of advancing non-penetrative and/or non-vaginal forms of sexual activity. Also, just the presence of a condition doesn’t mean one should adjust to it and go on - for example, if you have a cold, you go to the doctor’s and take meds, you don’t just buy a ton of paper handkerchiefs and make sure you have a dust bin around. It sounds like some work for sexuologists, the condition cannot be normal.
Joint approval doesn’t change that much. People have the idea that their approvals and choices shape the moral law. That’s not the case. There are acts which require consent, but that doesn’t mean that the consent of both parties has some superpowers in the moral area. By the way, most apologists would probably agree with you. It’s just my humble self that has a problem with the autoerotic aspect of it. Admittedly, when the husband is still inside her it doesn’t ring as wrong to me as when the husband is already fast asleep.
Nope, the canon law specifies the unitive and procreative purpose and also requires such an act for consummation of marriage. As for the Catechism, you already know.
Sodomy is anal sex. Seems to be allowed in the eyes of some Catholic writers today. What about the true sense of masturbation, how do you define it?
Actually, there’s more to the teaching than the Catechism or the Canon Law and Canon Law is more legal than pastoral… you get the idea. Of course, a single living apologist from some country is not the teaching of the church, either. Consider Fathers, Doctors, other components of the tradition.
“To assist the wife…],” suggests stimulation by husband, although this is not fully apparent. He says it’s acceptable before or after the ejaculation in the vagina, but this doesn’t mean outside of intercourse. For example, he can’t stimulate her to orgasm in the morning and deposit the seed in her vagina in the evening, just because they so choose. Before or after the vaginal ejaculation doesn’t mean outside intercourse - understood as the “act”. The “act” is deposition of seed in the vagina with what leads to it (foreplay) and perhaps some things after it which are connected (afterplay).
I don’t know if anything official exists and as I told you, modern theologians will tend to consider stimulation by own hand to be allowed for the wife. However, I (and not the Church) have a big problem reconciling such auto-stimulation with the unitive aspect of the intercourse. For example, the wife accepts the seed, then she takes the vibrator and provides for her own pleasure while the husband watches and shouts, “Go, Jenny!” or goes to sleep or turns on the TV and watches a football match. No matter how one looks at it, stimulating one’s own genitals, especially to orgasm, is an autoerotic act. I also believe it to be unhealthy because of the same reasons that make typical solitary masturbation unhealthy: they teach the body the wrong response. They use own body as an object in the acquisition of pleasure. It’s still teaching the genitals to answer sexually to one’s own hand. I believe that’s disordered and I have a big problem with the fact that Catholic writers seem to accept this.
It’s impossible to justify it, if it’s sought deliberately with the deliberate intent to skip intercourse. Deliberate seeking of orgasm outside marital intercourse seems to be absolutely wrong in any circumstances, in the light of the teaching of the Church.
I’m too sick to be posting much, but I did feel the call to respond to this. The definition presented here was something I was taught by a married friend when I was 17. She was also 17 BTW. I didn’t ring true then, but I accepted it because she had more experience. I had none. Nearly 20 years later she is 3 times divorced.
Are they not becoming “one in the flesh”?
Nope, you’re twisting things again for your purpose. There’s an obvious difference between the man stimulating the woman with his hand, and the woman stimulating herself with her hand. Similarly, there’s a difference between the wife stimulating her husband with her hand, and the husband masturbating. Although both impulses are processed internally, the internal or external source of impulse makes an obvious difference. This is so obvious that to claim it’s all the same, one needs some kind of agenda. I don’t know where you got your definition, but it seems off the moon. It’s like your disputing the fact that seed contains human gametes.
Nope. While some people truly use the other person to masturbate and thus make the act nothing more than mutual masturbation, that’s not what the marital act is. That kind of attitude is known as “onanisticus usus matrimonii” in the canon law jargon and it is even argued that it precludes the consummation of marriage.
My point exactly thank you,
JohnIts easy to say I am the one twisting things, when in my last post I said absolutly nothing about human semen or human DNA,
I join with that if you don’t mind.
It rings wrong to me if it’s self-obtained or involved some unhealthy ways of stimulation, otherwise… well, if the woman doesn’t achieve orgasm during vaginal penetration and ejaculation, then it’s fine for the husband to bring it about in a different way, I suppose, but I have a definite problem with the idea that she’s allowed to get it herself without his participation. Even if most modern apologists will probably disagree with me. I also tend to think that the female orgasm is still somehow designed to happen along with vaginal intercourse with ejaculation, even if it doesn’t always. It saddens me how people seem to disconnect the two and just switch to toys, self-stimulation etc.
Naaah, hey. There’s still penetration going on. The fact she’s moving about doesn’t change it. If he were already falling asleep and she were playing with a vibrator, then I would have a problem with it. I just don’t see what it serves for one, I believe it involves just one person, I see masturbation in it.
Very correct, but we aren’t really meant to take pleasure pills or touch ourselves the right way to make ourselves happy. Masturbation is also about touching ourselves and being self-sufficient sexually, which is why it’s called selfish and outlawed. Modern theologians seem to think it’s fine if the price of vaginal ejaculation has been paid.
Yep. We’re obliged not to desintegrate ourselves with unhealthy habits and the like, not to act against our bodies. Why self-stimulation doesn’t seem to fall under here according to modern theologists is beyond me.
There are also doctors, sexuologists. I believe that kind of condition is a medical unit, is it not? If so, then it should be treated. I’m not saying it’s something wacky and unclean. Colds are medicated too, or broken limbs. Basically, if it’s an illness, cure it, not live with it. If one has a cold, one takes meds, one doesn’t just carry more handkerchiefs.
If the method were not unitive, it would detract from the feeling of unity, wouldn’t it? I just see the focus on pleasure and the right to pleasure in the allowance for masturbation. Unity seems to be a secondary concern there. One of my biggest problems with this is that it still looks to me like a solitary act.
Numbers don’t make it healthy or natural. What about other places, other times? Legions of people have certain “civilisational” problems, such as with stress. Many with aggression. Show me an office worker without carpal problems. Just that many people have it doesn’t mean it’s anatomical. Problems with orgasming used to be considered psychological…
However, I still fail to see how it would be His design to make the wife self-stimulate in the act because a woman better knows what a woman needs.
I’m not really… It’s been very taxing and extremely time-consuming.
Fantasies are generally wrong since the only legitimate source of sexual pleasure is that marital intercourse. Outside it, fantasising about sex with spouse seems wrong, even if this may look harsh. Willingly engaged fantasising about other people during the marital act is also wrong - the people fantasised about aren’t spouses. Self-stimulation I believe can’t be reconciled with natural law and… basically, I’d have to repeat myself.
I regret the offended sensibilities, but I think adjusting the material content of an argument for the sake of making it feel nicer isn’t the answer. It will avoid some hurts for the time being but open way for more, especially through misunderstanding. I do not see the value of concession or conformism. I may be wrong when I’m consistent, but bending will not make me more right. I wish the discussion were possible without compromising the search for truth and without hurting people’s feelings at the same time.
Yup, it surely helped me gain a certain new perspective and certainly some insight into how to frame answers to questions or generally how to frame things.
Aquinas once wrote, “Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love,” and that’s something I should remember. Dissecting things over and over and constructing miles of inferences won’t give us the truth, and even less love, but at the same time we can’t forget about the important things, either. Perhaps I should have kept quiet first and the whole discussion wouldn’t be there if I had skipped the speculating in the beginning. At the moment, I feel bad delving into the specifics because it’s not my area, I’m not a moral theologian either, and I could do harm even wanting good.health.msn.com/womenshealth/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100125436&wa=wsignin1.0