Abstinence (Continence) in Marriage

[utunumsint]

Hi,

I am wondering why the church does not praise abstinence/continence in marriage as a necessary virtue at times, but only allows it in the context of NFP in grave situations giving what appears to be a very negative perspective on the practice.

Case in point: Mary and Joseph abstained from marital intercourse. Many married saints were abstinent. Physical injury can force couples to abstain. The wife’s health can also be an important reason for abstinence.

We have an avalanche of material that praises the effectiveness of NFP, that endorses its use, but we have nothing for those people who cannot use NFP for whatever reason.

My thought is that this is a recent occurrence and that in the past, the church fully endorsed the life-giving beauty of continence within marriage.

It is so hard to shake the feeling that a marriage is doomed if one is not having regular sexual intimacy.

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Ut

 

[thewanderer]

Where do you get the idea that the Church does not allow continence?

 

[TomFromMD]

I don’t think that there is a problem with abstinence in marriage, as long as both spouses are fully supportive of it. But each spouse does have a general obligation to the other to be open to sex. It is very easy for one spouse who has less of a sex drive, or less of a need for physical intimacy, to view abstinence as the “holier” option, and use it as an excuse, but the opposite is true. Fulfilling the spouse’s need, and helping them refrain from sexual sin, is the holier option.

Corinthians 7:1-7:

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think that there is a problem with abstinence in marriage, as long as both spouses are fully supportive of it. But each spouse does have a general obligation to the other to be open to sex. It is very easy for one spouse who has less of a sex drive, or less of a need for physical intimacy, to view abstinence as the “holier” option, and use it as an excuse, but the opposite is true. Fulfilling the spouse’s need, and helping them refrain from sexual sin, is the holier option.

Corinthians 7:1-7:

This is also very true.

 

[fpt]

Hi,

I am wondering why the church does not praise abstinence/continence in marriage as a necessary virtue at times, but only allows it in the context of NFP in grave situations giving what appears to be a very negative perspective on the practice.

Case in point: Mary and Joseph abstained from marital intercourse. Many married saints were abstinent. Physical injury can force couples to abstain. The wife’s health can also be an important reason for abstinence.

We have an avalanche of material that praises the effectiveness of NFP, that endorses its use, but we have nothing for those people who cannot use NFP for whatever reason.

My thought is that this is a recent occurrence and that in the past, the church fully endorsed the life-giving beauty of continence within marriage.

It is so hard to shake the feeling that a marriage is doomed if one is not having regular sexual intimacy.

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Ut

By natural principle, the natural marriage is a sexed contract and a sexed institution, and a sexual institution and a sexual contract. According the natural divine design, the marriage is for making one flesh in the human manners with sexual cooperation (body and soul): the union of bodies and the union of souls.

By principle, the sacrament of marriage is a sexed contract and a sexed institution, and a sexual institution and a sexual contract. According the sacrament divine design, the marriage is for making one flesh in the human manners with sexual cooperation (body and soul): the union of bodies and the union of souls.
**
The marital act is an act of love, a prayer, a liturgy, a gift, a present, a donation, a right of love, an obligation of love, a duty of love.

The conjugal sex is HOLY, SACRED AND A GOOD INVENTION OF GOD.**

 

[utunumsint]

Where do you get the idea that the Church does not allow continence?

This is more about messaging that church teaching.

NFP should only be used with serious motives.

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16]

For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368]

What I am looking for is more support for people in circumstances like my own who must abstain. There are a lot of resources for NFP and literature about how it can be marriage enhancing, etc…, but very little about total abstinence.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t think that there is a problem with abstinence in marriage, as long as both spouses are fully supportive of it. But each spouse does have a general obligation to the other to be open to sex. It is very easy for one spouse who has less of a sex drive, or less of a need for physical intimacy, to view abstinence as the “holier” option, and use it as an excuse, but the opposite is true. Fulfilling the spouse’s need, and helping them refrain from sexual sin, is the holier option.

Corinthians 7:1-7:

This is a good point, but that generosity can be heroic if the spouse risks their own health, and the demand from the other spouse could be considered somewhat diabolical if they require their spouses submission to them even knowing the health risks.

My point is, sometimes abstinence is the only option, and to chose otherwise would be close to murder.

Love must be shown in different ways in such circumstances. Marriage must be expressed in different ways. My observation is that there is a lot of opposition, even in principle, to the idea that a sexless marriage can be healthy. I wish this were not so.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

By natural principle, the natural marriage is a sexed contract and a sexed institution, and a sexual institution and a sexual contract. According the natural divine design, the marriage is for making one flesh in the human manners with sexual cooperation (body and soul): the union of bodies and the union of souls.

By principle, the sacrament of marriage is a sexed contract and a sexed institution, and a sexual institution and a sexual contract. According the sacrament divine design, the marriage is for making one flesh in the human manners with sexual cooperation (body and soul): the union of bodies and the union of souls.
**
The marital act is an act of love, a prayer, a liturgy, a gift, a present, a donation, a right of love, an obligation of love, a duty of love.

The conjugal sex is HOLY, SACRED AND A GOOD INVENTION OF GOD.**

I am not claiming otherwise.

But, I hope you will agree with me, that there are circumstances where conjugal sex becomes impossible. Marriage cannot be strictly defined by one’s ability to perform conjugal sex.

God bless,
Ut

 

[TomFromMD]

This is a good point, but that generosity can be heroic if the spouse risks their own health, and the demand from the other spouse could be considered somewhat diabolical if they require their spouses submission to them even knowing the health risks.

Agreed

Love must be shown in different ways in such circumstances. Marriage must be expressed in different ways. My observation is that there is a lot of opposition, even in principle, to the idea that a sexless marriage can be healthy. I wish this were not so.

I think it’s a lot harder for a sexless marriage to be healthy, just as it’s a lot harder for a marriage to be healthy if one spouse is constantly traveling, or if there’s a lot of stress about money, or a host of other challenges. You’re right - love would need to be shown in other ways, and probably with more intentionality.

 

[tafan]

This is more about messaging that church teaching.

NFP should only be used with serious motives.

What I am looking for is more support for people in circumstances like my own who must abstain. There are a lot of resources for NFP and literature about how it can be marriage enhancing, etc…, but very little about total abstinence.

God bless,
Ut

Be careful what you wish for…

I think it would be a mistake to represent all marriages, where sexual intercourse is impossible, as Josephite marriages. Marriages where the couple is truly called, from a spiritual perspective, to complete abstinence is likely very rare, IMO. When they do exist, I am sure that it is a holy and beautiful thing. But a marriage, where a couple must abstain, due to a physical reason is not the same thing. This is a cross to bear, likely a very difficult cross to bear. If the support/resources was from that perspective, it would be a good thing. But if the support/resources tried to make it seem like a blessing, many couples would become quickly disillusioned.

I think the NFP example is applicable, but probably not for the reason you are thinking. It is true that many NFP proponents present it as a positive thing for a marriage, as “marriage enhancing” (using your terminology). If it is, that is only due to the fact that suffering can be a positive thing for all of us. We should recognize, that while there are certainly very legitimate reasons, to practice NFP, it is not the normal state of affairs in a married couple’s life. Presenting it as nothing but a great practice, which makes a marriage stronger, becomes very discouraging to many couples. They find it very difficult, and then they read all the resources which say it should be so great. They become discouraged, wondering what is wrong with themselves. In actuality, there is nothing wrong with themselves. NFP is difficult because it is not really natural. It would be better for all, if it was presented as a cross that a married couple must bear due to the grave reasons that require them to not conceive. This perspective, I believe, would be easier to understand and more supportive.

NOTE: all of this is my opinion only. I am sure others, of very good faith, disagree with me. And I am not claiming there is any set teaching of the Church which would make them wrong, and myself right.

 

[thewanderer]

This is more about messaging that church teaching.

Well I don’t know where you’re getting the “message” that it is wrong for a couple to make a mutual decision to abstain, because I certainly have not been hearing anything like that.

NFP should only be used with serious motives.

What I am looking for is more support for people in circumstances like my own who must abstain. There are a lot of resources for NFP and literature about how it can be marriage enhancing, etc…, but very little about total abstinence.

God bless,
Ut

Thats because total abstinance doesn’t really need much explaining… also there tends to be more people who would prefer to practice NFP than total abstinance. I guess I’m not sure exactly what you’re looking for…

 

[anruari]

This is more about messaging that church teaching.

NFP should only be used with serious motives.

What I am looking for is more support for people in circumstances like my own who must abstain. There are a lot of resources for NFP and literature about how it can be marriage enhancing, etc…, but very little about total abstinence.

God bless,
Ut

I would point you to what the Catechism teaches on the Virtue of Chastity.

All christians are called to espouse and foster the virtue of Chastity.

While some here have refered to a “Marital obligation to your spouse”, on the other hand, the church teaches that the sexual embrace should not be used to just “fulfill a need”. on the contrary the church clearly says that the attitude of “I have needs” is gravely sinful, and does not fulfill the virtue of Chastity.

Within Marriage the marital embrace should be used as a mutual and loving expression of each others love and a gift of self to the other.

Chastity within marriage most certainly includes fasting and abstinence where appropriate, either for a time for spiritual or practical reasons, or for longer or regular short periods for more serious reasons like NFP or health reasons.

If a person is unable to see the value of abstinence within their marriage then they are not approaching their marriage with a proper understanding of the virtue of Chastity as it applies to married couples.

 

[utunumsint]

I would point you to what the Catechism teaches on the Virtue of Chastity.

All christians are called to espouse and foster the virtue of Chastity.

While some here have refered to a “Marital obligation to your spouse”, on the other hand, the church teaches that the sexual embrace should not be used to just “fulfill a need”. on the contrary the church clearly says that the attitude of “I have needs” is gravely sinful, and does not fulfill the virtue of Chastity.

Within Marriage the marital embrace should be used as a mutual and loving expression of each others love and a gift of self to the other.

Chastity within marriage most certainly includes fasting and abstinence where appropriate, either for a time for spiritual or practical reasons, or for longer or regular short periods for more serious reasons like NFP or health reasons.

If a person is unable to see the value of abstinence within their marriage then they are not approaching their marriage with a proper understanding of the virtue of Chastity as it applies to married couples.

A proper understanding is one thing. The ability to carry it out is another. The difficulties and tensions it can produce in a marriage where it is required should be self evident, as Tom’s quote from Corinthians should make clear:

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

But perhaps there is nothing to explain. It simply becomes an opportunity for the couple to express love in a different way, perhaps even as a way of purifying that love from selfish motivation for carnal pleasure.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Be careful what you wish for…

I think it would be a mistake to represent all marriages, where sexual intercourse is impossible, as Josephite marriages. Marriages where the couple is truly called, from a spiritual perspective, to complete abstinence is likely very rare, IMO. When they do exist, I am sure that it is a holy and beautiful thing. But a marriage, where a couple must abstain, due to a physical reason is not the same thing. This is a cross to bear, likely a very difficult cross to bear. If the support/resources was from that perspective, it would be a good thing. But if the support/resources tried to make it seem like a blessing, many couples would become quickly disillusioned.

I think the NFP example is applicable, but probably not for the reason you are thinking. It is true that many NFP proponents present it as a positive thing for a marriage, as “marriage enhancing” (using your terminology). If it is, that is only due to the fact that suffering can be a positive thing for all of us. We should recognize, that while there are certainly very legitimate reasons, to practice NFP, it is not the normal state of affairs in a married couple’s life. Presenting it as nothing but a great practice, which makes a marriage stronger, becomes very discouraging to many couples. They find it very difficult, and then they read all the resources which say it should be so great. They become discouraged, wondering what is wrong with themselves. In actuality, there is nothing wrong with themselves. NFP is difficult because it is not really natural. It would be better for all, if it was presented as a cross that a married couple must bear due to the grave reasons that require them to not conceive. This perspective, I believe, would be easier to understand and more supportive.

NOTE: all of this is my opinion only. I am sure others, of very good faith, disagree with me. And I am not claiming there is any set teaching of the Church which would make them wrong, and myself right.

I am not sure what a Josephite marriage is, but I assume it is a celibate marriage taken intentionally from the start. That would fit with Joseph and Mary. Agreed. But can’t Joseph and Mary inspire those who are forced to bear the cross of abstinence against their will? I suppose what I am looking for is spiritual guidance and practical tips for those who have to endure this cross. It seems really hard to come by. Do you sleep in the same bed? Do you get another room? How do you avoid temptations, etc… but perhaps that should be standard stuff I should have learned before marriage.

I totally agree with your statement about the problems with how NFP is presented by some.

God bless,
Ut

 

[CallMeDad]

“What I am looking for is more support for people in circumstances like my own who must abstain.”

If you are saying that you can not partake sexually, for health reasons, then I suppose continence is the only choice, and it is a virtuous choice by default.

Many years ago, my father had a heart condition and switched to a diet of chicken breasts and fish. Out of love, I assume, my mother did the same, and ate blandly along with him. In that, she had a choice - she could have prepared two different meals, but she chose to help him carry his cross.

If yours is also a health issue, I see little choice but that your wife carry the cross with you as well. Just because there is little choice does not mean there is little virtue.

 

[anruari]

To carry your cross, whatever the cause of that suffering, is a big part of the Christian Calling. The virtue is to do so and to offer the suffering up to the Lord.

In terms of Abstinence in Marriage, I can understand your plight. I’ve been through long periods of abstinence, with the longest being about a year. We’ve only been married 5.

 

[fpt]

I am not claiming otherwise.

But, I hope you will agree with me, that there are circumstances where conjugal sex becomes impossible. Marriage cannot be strictly defined by one’s ability to perform conjugal sex.

God bless,
Ut

In the marriage, the practice of the marital act is the principle, and the non-practice is the exception.

The day where the wedding takes place each spouse has to be capable to perform the marital act (see the canon law on the sexual capacity of wife and the sexual capacity of husband): the male impotency and / or the female impotency imply the incapacity of getting a marriage (to see the relative impotency and / or the absolute impotency.

The non-consummation of marriage by incapacity implies the dissolution of marriage; the refusal of the non-consummation of marriage can imply the dissolution of marriage by the papal decision;

The refusal of the marital request of the marital act done by the other, without one good reason, is sinful; the refusal of requesting the marital act to the other, with no good reason, is sinful; the refusal of making love for avoiding the sexual sins of the other, without no good reason, is sinful.

The good reasons, that is the question??? Thus, the marital act is one of hard cores of marriage;

What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the non-practice of the marital act? What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the moral obligation of not requesting the marital act? What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the moral obligation of saying no to the marital request of the marital act?

The marital act is and stays the principles.

I think so, we are almost on the same line.

 

[fpt]

I am not claiming otherwise.

But, I hope you will agree with me, that there are circumstances where conjugal sex becomes impossible. Marriage cannot be strictly defined by one’s ability to perform conjugal sex.

God bless,
Ut

The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution and a sexed and sexual contract. The mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies implies the mutual and reciprocal donation of nudities. The marital sexual charity is a right, is an obligation and is a duty for each one of members of couple: to do, not to do, to allow to do, not to allow to do, to allow not to do, to give, not to give, to allow to give, not to allow to give, to allow not to give, to receive, not to receive, to allow to receive, not to allow to receive, to allow not to receive, to take, not to take, to allow to take, not to allow to take, to allow not to take, to offer, not to offer, to allow to offer, not to allow to offer, to allow not to offer.

In canon law and in catholic morality, we talk about the right on the body, about the right of the body, and about the right to the body. There is also the sexual cooperation in the human fashion because the marriage is a sexed and sexual matter. The right of marital act, the obligation of the marital act, the duty of the marital act, the marital sexual debt, the right to the marital act, the conjugal sexual charity, the conjugal sexual chastity, the conjugal sexual privileges, the conjugal carnal union, the conjugal carnal love, the natural family planning, the responsible procreation, the mutual and reciprocal submission concerning the conjugal sexuality, the sexual equality and the sexual equity of each spouse about the marital act, the total lack of superiority and of inferiority between spouses about the marital act are elements of marriage.

There are the natural moral order of the materiality of the marital act and the natural moral order of the intentionality of the marital act.
Before the celebration of wedding, in my humble opinion, each engaged person has to explain to the other its own view, in all honesty, on:

The moral issues of the marital act, the spiritual issues of the marital act, the religious issues of the marital act, the cultural issues of the marital act, the physical issues of the marital act, the mental issues of the marital act, the psychological issues of the marital act, the physiological issues of the marital act, the sexual issues of the marital act, the sexual needs, the sexual desires, the sexual hopes, the sexual expectations, the sexual wishes, the sexual wills, the sexual vows, the sexual ideals, the sexual intentions, the sexual mentalities, the sexual beliefs, the sexual diseases, the sexual culture, the sexual education, the almost non-negociable sexual things (in positive and in negative) and the sexual fears concerning the marital act;

The mutual and reciprocal view on the josephite marriage;

If the day of marriage one of spouse excludes the marital act (an unilateral refusal by a personal will) the declaration of nullity is easy to get;

If the day of marriage two spouses is excluding the marital act (bilateral will), I think, I am almost sure, that the declaration of nullity is easy to get.

If after day of marriage, two spouses are okay not to practice the marital act for time or forever, it is okay for the validity of marriage. But, if one of spouses wants the marital act, the other has to practice it (the moral obligation): the refusal is wrong and can be very sinful. And permits to get a declaration of nullity or, best a dissolution from Pope for no marital act. The spouse, who is asking for sex, is not wrong, it is its right.

 

[utunumsint]

In the marriage, the practice of the marital act is the principle, and the non-practice is the exception.

The day where the wedding takes place each spouse has to be capable to perform the marital act (see the canon law on the sexual capacity of wife and the sexual capacity of husband): the male impotency and / or the female impotency imply the incapacity of getting a marriage (to see the relative impotency and / or the absolute impotency.

The non-consummation of marriage by incapacity implies the dissolution of marriage; the refusal of the non-consummation of marriage can imply the dissolution of marriage by the papal decision;

The refusal of the marital request of the marital act done by the other, without one good reason, is sinful; the refusal of requesting the marital act to the other, with no good reason, is sinful; the refusal of making love for avoiding the sexual sins of the other, without no good reason, is sinful.

The good reasons, that is the question??? Thus, the marital act is one of hard cores of marriage;

What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the non-practice of the marital act? What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the moral obligation of not requesting the marital act? What is the list of just and fair reasons that can justify the moral obligation of saying no to the marital request of the marital act?

The marital act is and stays the principles.

I think so, we are almost on the same line.

I appreciate the language of principles. But my question is not about justifying the abstinence. My wife and I are both in agreement and we both believe our reasons satisfy Catholic moral norms. My question has to do with the practicalities once the decision has been made.

I agree with you and others that NFP and total abstinence frustrates the natural end of marriage. It is the exception to the rule.

The answers I get from most people on this forum is “bear your cross”. While I would like something more concrete, I think this phrase, in principle, covers anything that can be said.

But I do wonder if it can be more than just a terrible cross, but a potential source of blessing. Could it be transformed into something more spiritually akin to whatever Saint Joseph and Saint Mary had, or the saints? Is there something intrinsic in such examples that can provide hope and solace for those in my position?

God bless,
Ut

 

[fpt]

I appreciate the language of principles. But my question is not about justifying the abstinence. My wife and I are both in agreement and we both believe our reasons satisfy Catholic moral norms. My question has to do with the practicalities once the decision has been made.

I agree with you and others that NFP and total abstinence frustrates the natural end of marriage. It is the exception to the rule.

The answers I get from most people on this forum is “bear your cross”. While I would like something more concrete, I think this phrase, in principle, covers anything that can be said.

But I do wonder if it can be more than just a terrible cross, but a potential source of blessing. Could it be transformed into something more spiritually akin to whatever Saint Joseph and Saint Mary had, or the saints? Is there something intrinsic in such examples that can provide hope and solace for those in my position?

God bless,
Ut

It is only my interpretation and not an official directive. This message is only my thought of my understandings of the catholic teaching (implicitly and indirectly). For being sure, ask to your catholic priests, to your catholic couples of friends, to your catholic ethicists. You need more information.

What is morally permissible to do between husband and wife if a couple practices the Natural Family Planning (Physical affection during the N.F.P.), if a couple wants the conjugal physical affection without sex, or if a couple cannot have a complete marital sex, for a time or all time???

They have the right to give physical affection between them. Wife can give physical tenderness to her husband; husband can give physical tenderness to his wife. During those periods of continence, they are and stay spouses, they are not brother and sister: the marital intimacy without sex is possible and totally permissible, they need to find their " creative abstinence" . The marital intimacy without sex is morally okay, of course. Per se, there is no moral problem. They can caress each one with moderation, I mean in avoiding the orgasms.

For instance:
A kiss on mouth, a french kiss, a kiss on the forehead, a kiss on the hands, a kiss on shoulders, a kiss on the nose, a kiss in neck, a kiss on ears, a kiss on eyes, a kiss on feet, a kiss on chest, a kiss on breasts, a kiss on nipples, a kiss on the back. The rubs on the top part of the body of each one; The caresses on the top part of the body of each one; Massages between spouses for improving the bonding of love without touching the exterior genitals. Wife and husband can sleep together in the same bed very closely, even totally naked. They can speak very freely how to improve their sexual life: their desires, their wishes. It is a good moment for having a nice conversation about this topic and next days after to try. If there is an accident from husband without intention (ejaculation is outside), it is not a mortal sin or venial sin, per se, because the couple is trying to understand the reaction of their bodies and it is an accident. By principle, we have not to see the sin (venial or mortal sin) everywhere. Scrupulism is a very bad thought. During these periods of time, to be far away to one to the other in the physical sense is not a solution.

Natural erection of husband with a massage of top part of a body does not automatically mean to keep going for having sexual intercourse; Excitation of wife with top massage of her body does not means moral obligation to keep going completely, even after sensual massage.
To be prudish, to be scrupulous, to be sad, and to be flipped (full of stress) because of the fear of the sin. No and no? Be careful, okay, but not like a nun, a monk, a single, a fiancé , a fiancée. In the marriage, the first rule is Love. The key is no intention of orgasm and the physical tenderness for expressing conjugal love.

In conclusion “conjugal charity” is the key before " conjugal chastity ", even if " conjugal chastity " is an element of conjugal charity. The concept of " marital charity “ (conjugal charity) is the best. During fertile times, **do sport together, do romantic dinners, do sensual massages,do romantic talks, sensual caresses, cinema, make prayers. The husband has to be nice, lovable, very near for his wife and the wife has to be nice, lovable, very near for her husband. To be romantic, like before the wedding.**The solution is the creative abstinence: the conjugal physical tenderness without marital act, not as brother and sister, but in staying like wife and husband. The physical tenderness with some sexed touchings, some sexed massages, some sexed kisses, some sexed licks without the male orgasm and the without the female orgasms: on all the body of the other except on the sexual external organs.

FOR INFORMATION:
According to Father Noël Barbara, a French priest (a traditionalist catholic after VATICAN II, BECAUSE HE WAS IN LINK WITH SSPX , AND AFTER A SEDEVACANTIST PRIEST) between wife and husband:

All the caresses are morally permissible. Each time that for one reason, they can not or do not want to practice the marital act, they have to avoid all what could lead to orgasm. The voluptuous excitations without orgasm, in link with their intimity are in the conjugal life that venial sins I AM NOT OKAY WITH HIM, in my opinion, no venial sin]. And no sin, if the motivation (intention) is the affection.

Caresses with orgasm, without the context of marital act, by surprise and without will, a simply venial disorder and nothing if they have a simple regret.
(Cathéchèse Catholique of Marriage, 1963).

IN MY OPINION, AFTER THIS READING, EVEN THE SEXUAL CARESSES WITHOUT WANTING TO REACH THE ORGASM AND ONLY FOR EXPRESSING AFFECTION, ARE NOT SINFUL.