Aiming for Sainthood, and the Marital Act

[porthos11]

Religious education is incomplete without some reading of St. Augustine, who wrote:Sexual intercourse in marriage not for begetting children is a venial fault

1. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining 1947 one another’s weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the man: in like manner also the man hath not power of his own body, but the woman.” 1948 That that also, which, not for the begetting of children, but for weakness and incontinence, either he seeks of marriage, or she of her husband, p. 402 they deny not the one or the other; lest by this they fall into damnable seductions, through temptation of Satan, by reason of incontinence either of both, or of whichever of them. For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault: but adultery or fornication hath deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of the married ought to beware, lest whilst it seek for itself occasion of larger honor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation. “For whosoever putteth away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” 1949 To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil.

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/103/1030523.htm

The Church’s Magisterium trumps even the esteemed Doctor. The teaching is that all sexual acts within marriage be open to life and that there are valid reasons to engage in sexual relations properly spaced to avoid children. In such a situation, the sexual act is not even venially sinful. This is Church teaching.

 

[Bookcat]

To “use” (sorry for the crude word) one’s spouse is legitimate

Your inclination that such is not the right word is correct. One cannot “use” ones spouse - for that would be to make them an object of use… See Love and Responsibility by St. Pope John Paul II for a technical explanation. One would not want to use the word use in this context.

 

[mommamaree]

Your inclination that such is not the right word is correct. One cannot “use” ones spouse - for that would be to make them an object of use… See Love and Responsibility by St. Pope John Paul II for a technical explanation. One would not want to use the word use in this context.

I have seen St Francis De Sales say it more like “make use of the marital act” or “make use of the sexual facilities”. In this way of speaking, the spouses are using sexual relations to demonstrate their love for each other. Like the old but true adage “love people and use things, but do not love things and use people”.

 

[porthos11]

Your inclination that such is not the right word is correct. One cannot “use” ones spouse - for that would be to make them an object of use… See Love and Responsibility by St. Pope John Paul II for a technical explanation. One would not want to use the word use in this context.

“Scare quotes” excuse everything.

 

[Bookcat]

Can one sin within the marital act? Yes one can sin - it can happen here as in other areas of life. Venial sin for example is called “daily sins” for a reason…

Yes let us work to avoid venial sins too - but know also that there will be some - for which we quickly repent turning more towards the Lord.

While one certainly ought not merely seek pleasure - pleasure is part of Gods will for the martial act.

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

Noting all there and this section:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

 

[Bookcat]

“Scare quotes” excuse everything.

What on earth are you talking about…

I was discussing the word* use*. So I used “” around the word (is italics better? )
St. Pope John Paul very well on this subject and that word.

 

[Bookcat]

Can one sin within the marital act? Yes one can sin - it can happen here as in other areas of life. Venial sin for example is called “daily sins” for a reason…

Yes let us work to avoid venial sins too - but know also that there will be some - for which we quickly repent turning more towards the Lord.

While one certainly ought not merely seek pleasure - pleasure is part of Gods will for the martial act.

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

Noting all there and this section:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

 

[Bookcat]

I have seen St Francis De Sales say it more like “make use of the marital act” or “make use of the sexual facilities”. In this way of speaking, the spouses are using sexual relations to demonstrate their love for each other. Like the old but true adage “love people and use things, but do not love things and use people”.

“Make use of the marital act” is yes to be found especially in some of the older works. I was referring to “use of ones spouse” as being not what one wants to say -for it tends to make them an object for use. See St. Pope John Paul II’s work on the subject.

I will say more on the general subject of the question of the thread- in the next post.

 

[Bookcat]

Can one sin within the marital act? Yes one can sin - it can happen here as in other areas of life. Venial sin for example is called “daily sins” for a reason…

Yes let us work to avoid venial sins too - but know also that there will be some - for which we quickly repent turning more towards the Lord.

While one certainly ought not merely seek pleasure - pleasure is part of Gods will for the martial act.

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

Noting all there and this section:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

 

[porthos11]

What on earth are you talking about…

I was discussing the word* use*. So I used “” around the word (is italics better? )
St. Pope John Paul very well on this subject and that word.

I’m saying I used the “scare quotes” in the post you referenced, so I am excused. I already said right there that “use” is a crude word, and I enclosed them in scare quotes to show that I’m not using it with its full force.

Really, I used “scare quotes” and I also gave an indicator that I’m weaseling. So why are you even calling me out on this?

 

[mommamaree]

“Make use of the marital act” is yes to be found especially in some of the older works. I was referring to “use of ones spouse” as being not what one wants to say -for it tends to make them an object for use. See St. Pope John Paul II’s work on the subject.

I will say more on the general subject of the question of the thread- in the next post.

Yes, I understand and agree with you, and I also understood what porthos was saying, although he was honest in saying that “use” was perhaps not the best word. I appreciated his difficulty in expressing it. When he said “use” in his initial post, and excused his not-quite-adequate wording, I immediately recalled the other writings I had read, so I understood his meaning.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, I understand and agree with you, and I also understood what porthos was saying, although he was honest in saying that “use” was perhaps not the best word. I appreciated his difficulty in expressing it. When he said “use” in his initial post, and excused his not-quite-adequate wording, I immediately recalled the other writings I had read, so I understood his meaning.

Yes I understand he was saying it was not the best term etc…I just was seeking to assist and to give a bit from our new Saint on the matter which could bring light to it.

I’m saying I used the “scare quotes” in the post you referenced, so I am excused. I already said right there that “use” is a crude word, and I enclosed them in scare quotes to show that I’m not using it with its full force.

Really, I used “scare quotes” and I also gave an indicator that I’m weaseling. So why are you even calling me out on this?

Oh I see now.

Why mention it? Because use and not using - are terms of key importance here. See St. John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility.

“…a human person, as we know, cannot be an object for use” (pg 107)

“This norm (the personalistic norm), in its negative aspect, states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use…In its positive form the personalistic norm confirms this: the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love. This positive content of the personalistic norm is precisely what the commandment to love teaches.” pg 41

“A persons rightful due is to be treated as an object of love, not as an object of use.” pg42

“These objective purposes of marriage create in principle the possibility of love and exclude the possibility of treating a person …as an object of use” pg 30

He goes into a long discussion of the different uses of the term* use*.

ignatius.com/Products/LRE-P/love-and-responsibility.aspx

The book though very useful. (but is written very philosophically etc)

As to the question at hand - hopefully the post I made just before can be of help to all readers - pointing to the Catechism. I mention this so it does not get lost in our discussion of use.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12221333&postcount=27

 

[mommamaree]

Can one sin within the marital act? Yes one can sin - it can happen here as in other areas of life. Venial sin for example is called “daily sins” for a reason…

Yes let us work to avoid venial sins too - but know also that there will be some - for which we quickly repent turning more towards the Lord.

While one certainly ought not merely seek pleasure - pleasure is part of Gods will for the martial act.

Catechism:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

Noting all there and this section:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.

Yes, this is helpful.

Another thing I remember reading recently here at the forums is the idea that all sexual sins are sins of grave matter. This idea was promoted rather bluntly, as if, of course it must be true. But from this conversation, we can see the possibility that faults can be only venial as well. Especially, if they have already worked to form their consciences and therefore know that whatever acts they enjoy together are not forbidden or inherently sinful. There is the possibility of committing sins, but it is neither an inevitability as some would suggest nor is it always grave matter as others might suggest.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, this is helpful.

Another thing I remember reading recently here at the forums is the idea that all sexual sins are sins of grave matter. This idea was promoted rather bluntly, as if, of course it must be true. But from this conversation, we can see the possibility that faults can be only venial as well. Especially, if they have already worked to form their consciences and therefore know that whatever acts they enjoy together are not forbidden or inherently sinful. There is the possibility of committing sins, but it is neither an inevitability as some would suggest nor is it always grave matter as others might suggest.

The teaching that all sexual sins are grave matter - is not referring to say some sins within the marital act -say of temperance or some selfishness etc. Such is not what is meant. A confessor can (take care in how one asks) guide one. There can yes be “venial sins” in matter within the marital act itself.

(There can also be* grave matter* -such as contraception or pornography or where say the climax of the husband is sought apart from the actual union, thinking of a person other than ones spouse etc).

 

[mommamaree]

The teaching that all sexual sins are grave matter - is not referring to say some sins within the marital act -say of temperance or some selfishness etc. Such is not what is meant. A confessor can (take care in how one asks) guide one. There can yes be “venial sins” in matter within the marital act.

(There can also be* grave matter* -such as contraception or pornography or where say the climax of the husband is sought apart from the actual union, thinking of a person other than ones spouse etc).

This makes sense, but I don’t think everyone is aware of this truth when they simply assert “all sexual sins are grave matter”. This is made all the more troubling, because it can lead people into accusing themselves of sin where there is none, especially new converts and reverts.
I have found that sometimes I will read or hear something, and be troubled by it, and be confused for months or even a couple of years, before I am even able to articulate a question about it. I have taken my concerns to priests in confession, whether to confess a doubtful sin or to ask if something is even a sin at all, but while they have often been very reassuring to me, it still can take some time before I am able to articulate my question, and to understand why an assertion is misguided or wrong or perhaps right in certain contexts but not universally so. (I have also read Church-approved works of moral theologians, and used various Church-approved examinations of conscience, and referred often to the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, all of which comes together to allow me to finally crystallize my thoughts and concerns, sometimes years later…)
Sigh. I might be a thoughtful sort of person, but I am not a quick-thinker, that is for sure.

But as always, Bookcat, I appreciate your clarity in explanation. God bless you.

 

[Vico]

…

A few things occur to me in response to your first item:

• A marriage* i*s made holier by denial of what is good when it is to gain what is greater. This occurs during periods of fast and abstinence for prayer and spiritual reflection. There is a long history and tradition of abstinence from marital relations during penitential periods and it is mentioned by St. Paul.
• Certainly married couples commit sins of lust between themselves. "Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure." It is the lack of order which is the problem, and every desire of a sexual kind is not ordered between spouses. There should always be moderation and charity. (See Address to Midwives below.)

From Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives:

*Human dignity in the conjugal act

•    This explanation of Ours on the functions of your professional          apostolate would be incomplete, if We did not add further a few more          words about the defense of human dignity in the use of the procreative          faculty.
  
     The same Creator, Who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of          the work of man and woman, by uniting them in matrimony, for the          preservation and propagation of the human race, has also decreed that in          this function the parties should experience pleasure and happiness of          body and spirit. Husband and wife, therefore, by seeking and enjoying          this pleasure do no wrong whatever. They accept what the Creator has          destined for them. 
  
     Nevertheless, here also, husband and wife must know how to keep          themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure          of food and drink so with the sexual they must not abandon themselves          without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this:          the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally lawful in          matrimony only, in the service of and in accordance with the ends of          marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage with the          observing of this rule is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and          of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law          of the action whence it derives, and not *vice versa *— the action to the          law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the          substance but also the circumstances of the action, so that, even when          the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in          the way it is performed. 
  
     The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our          times there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental          principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words          and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary          autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its          realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life.          There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm          the very order established by God and not to admit any other restraint          to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of          the instinctive act. In addition there would be substituted a license to          serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature in          the place of the moral obligations to dominate passions; and this sooner          or later cannot but turn out to be a danger to morals, conscience and          human dignity. 
  
     If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a          reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight,          and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest          possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to          the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in          forming and constituting the natural act. Now, instead, all this is          subordinated and ordered to that unique, great law of the "*generatio          et educatio prolis,*" namely the accomplishment of the primary end of          matrimony as the origin and source of life. 
  
     Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and          threaten to submerge in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires and acts          the whole marital life, not without serious dangers and grave prejudice          to the primary duty of husband and wife.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The Church’s Magisterium trumps even the esteemed Doctor. The teaching is that all sexual acts within marriage be open to life and that there are valid reasons to engage in sexual relations properly spaced to avoid children. In such a situation, the sexual act is not even venially sinful. This is Church teaching.

What St. Augustine said about the Marital Act was essentially the Church’s teaching at the time.
We can see here that the Church’s teaching on morals is developing and changing.