Authority on Married Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucky7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky7

Guest
Hi All,

I need some advice. I have recently found out that my husband and I have different understandings of Church teaching and therefore different feelings towards certain sexual acts within marriage (specifically acts where things do not finish vaginally).

In the past, at times, we have done some things that I thought were wrong to do even as a married couple. Depending upon the situation, I would feel guilty and we would confess them (usually as a generic “inappropriate sex with my spouse”). I am first learning that my husband never felt it was wrong (and never felt guilty) to do these things with his wife…and now I am questioning whether it is wrong. The more I think about our situation and experience, I fully agree that all conjugal acts should be procreative and unitive (ie. no contraception), but I do not agree that all sexual acts must be conjugal. I have never disagreed with (what I thought was) Church teaching, so this is very unsettling for me to say the least.

Most priests have not said anything to me when I have confessed (I assume because it’s one of those things that causes embarrassment in the confessional), but the last priest made a point of saying (in so many words) that sex is not inappropriate between spouses unless one of them is not in full agreement. I think his understanding is more complex than that, but I’ll leave it at that for the purpose of this post. My initial reaction was to disagree with him, but the more I think about it, the more I wonder whether things aren’t as black and white as I originally thought.

My husband and I have since talked about this and I am looking for the Church’s stance on this. Could you please provide me with authoritative sources that explain it?

Thank you.
 
The Good News on Sex and Marriage - Christopher West

Sex and the Sacred City - Steven Meyer

BTW, if you don’t want to wait for books, Christopher West has many articles and podcasts on his website.

christopherwest.com/
 
Thanks for the links, but I have to admit that I’m finding them pretty overwhelming. I was hoping for more of a discussion here (in addition to sources)…but perhaps I wasn’t clear in my OP.

Based upon what I have read, if I am understanding it correctly it looks like every sexual act needs to be conjugal (or end that way) and I’m going to admit that I am struggling with that. It just doesn’t seem right to expect that “every” act be a certain way between a husband and a wife…that this is the only way to show their love for one another…and I don’t know whether I can accept it (and as a result, I am questioning going to confession).

It seems unnatural to direct private, bedroom practices within marriage…not to mention how limiting sex can get rather monotonous over time. On top of that, it seems as if the Church has changed practices regarding what is acceptable in the bedroom already (certain acts are now okay for foreplay…if I’m not mistaken, those acts were not allowed at all).

Despite the above, I will add that I do agree that the conjugal act should remain open to life when having sex in that manner.
 
Ok, at the risk of sounding stupid, lets me tell you what I think you are asking.

You and your spouse do something that you think of as sexual. Perhaps you get naked and fool around. You don’t have sexual intercourse. Or, you are separated, you have phone sex. Again, you do not have sexual intercourse. Or, you think about you spouse, you get turned on, you do not have intercourse cause your spouse is not there.

I hope nobody is going to say any of this stuff is sinful.

I guess the interesting part comes in when somebody has an orgasm, oral sex is involved, or fooling around means exposing yourself in the mall. Then I’d say that if you and your spouse really want to do it, and it doesn’t involve getting arrested, it is probably ok. In my life I had to deal with a couple that wanted to get naked in front of me and my wife. They kept getting naked. Was that sinful? I hope so. Wasn’t our sin, was theirs.

There is an overriding policy to sex. It is called love and respect. Joseph loved Mary and respected her so they never had sex. A man must love and respect his wife. If she is not comfortable with some expression of sex then he must not expect it. Likewise the wife must respect the husband.

Now, my opinion. The Church wants you to have kids. Suppose you are working on that and you get a little carried away. Something that is supposed to go in mommy’s body winds up on the floor. So what. Wait 10 minutes and this time do it right. Accidents happen. Hope you get what I am saying. I can be more descriptive, but I don’t want to. Who is to say that that phone sex you have isn’t foreplay?

If you decide to wait and not have sex before you are married then you spend a bunch of time getting aroused before you are married and choosing not to have intercourse. That isn’t sinful, it is normal. If you view the term sex act in a very limited way then you are making a mistake. Sex acts are sleeping together, buying a nighty for you wife, having and caring for children, kissing, buying a card that says I Love You, and sexual intercourse. The Church doesn’t view kissing as a sex act. Have a little fun, as a priest what a sex act is. No, that is not fair.

Now in fairness, the Church teaches you must have intercourse. So fine, have intercourse. The Church allows foreplay and doesn’t define it. So have foreplay Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and have intercourse on Wednesday. Your entire married life is a sexual experience, do not limit it to the few times you have intercourse.

But, please seek the advice of a priest. And pray about it. You are not married to the Church. By being married you must love your spouse, not the Church. Yes, the Church does want you to have kids, but God may not, you might already have them, but the Church also wants your marriage to be the best act of love between you and your spouse that it can be. Much of the Church’s teaching on sex supports the idea that children must be part of a marriage and does not develop the gift of sex as well as it could.
 
Lucky7 said:
Thanks for the links, but I have to admit that I’m finding them pretty overwhelming. I was hoping for more of a discussion here (in addition to sources)…but perhaps I wasn’t clear in my OP.

Based upon what I have read, if I am understanding it correctly it looks like every sexual act needs to be conjugal (or end that way) and I’m going to admit that I am struggling with that. It just doesn’t seem right to expect that “every” act be a certain way between a husband and a wife…that this is the only way to show their love for one another…and I don’t know whether I can accept it (and as a result, I am questioning going to confession).

It seems unnatural to direct private, bedroom practices within marriage…not to mention how limiting sex can get rather monotonous over time. On top of that, it seems as if the Church has changed practices regarding what is acceptable in the bedroom already (certain acts are now okay for foreplay…if I’m not mistaken, those acts were not allowed at all).

Despite the above, I will add that I do agree that the conjugal act should remain open to life when having sex in that manner.
Click to expand...
The Church never changes her teaching on Faith or Morals.

I would very much suggest you look into Greg Popcack’s book “Holy Sex”.

The very bottom line - here is what is NOT moral:

Masturbation
Pornography
Bringing in more people than just your spouse
The man to intentionally ejaculate outside of the vagina.
Artificial Birth Control

If it is not one of those things, and two validly married people are both comfortable with it, it is not immoral.
 
Lucky7 said:
Thanks for the links, but I have to admit that I’m finding them pretty overwhelming. I was hoping for more of a discussion here (in addition to sources)…but perhaps I wasn’t clear in my OP.

Based upon what I have read, if I am understanding it correctly it looks like every sexual act needs to be conjugal (or end that way) and I’m going to admit that I am struggling with that. It just doesn’t seem right to expect that “every” act be a certain way between a husband and a wife…that this is the only way to show their love for one another…and I don’t know whether I can accept it (and as a result, I am questioning going to confession).

It seems unnatural to direct private, bedroom practices within marriage…not to mention how limiting sex can get rather monotonous over time. On top of that, it seems as if the Church has changed practices regarding what is acceptable in the bedroom already (certain acts are now okay for foreplay…if I’m not mistaken, those acts were not allowed at all).

Despite the above, I will add that I do agree that the conjugal act should remain open to life when having sex in that manner.
Click to expand...
Since you’ve been vague, I’ll take a chance on providing the following information…hope it helps.

Manual Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“The acts by which spouses prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay)—so long as they are performed lovingly and not lustfully—are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation. There’s no gift of self, no marital communion taking place at all. Nor are such acts open to conception.

“An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina (unintended ejaculation involves no moral fault). Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, in any absolute sense, be during actual penetration.

“Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s. In fact, John Paul II, in his pre-papal reflections on the matter, exhorted husbands to learn how to control their own orgasms in order to bring their wives to climax with them. Doing so with altruistic motives, he said, was a husbandly virtue at the service of marital harmony. That being said, if the wife, despite their sincere efforts, was unable to climax during penetration, it may well be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate her to climax thereafter (if she so desired). In this case, such stimulation is not inherently masturbatory since it is within the context of a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 90-91]

Oral Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse. The term “oral sex,” however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples—though the clarification made above regarding female orgasm is applicable here as well: Mutual climax (or at least climax during penetration) remains the ideal to strive for, but it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context fo a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 92-93]

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Mr. Timothy J. McCarthy, J.C.L.
Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of Denver

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
April 27, 2004

About the Author

Christopher West is a research fellow and faculty member of the Theology of the Body Institute. He is also one of the most sought after speakers in the Church today, having delivered more than 1000 public lectures on 4 continents, in 9 countries, and in over 150 American cities. His books – Good News About Sex & Marriage, Theology of the Body Explained, and Theology of the Body for Beginners – have become Catholic best sellers.

Christopher has also lectured on a number of prestigious faculties, offering graduate and undergraduate courses at St John Vianney Seminary in Denver, the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and Creighton University’s Institute for Priestly Formation in Omaha. Hundreds of thousands have heard him on national radio programs and even more have seen him defending the faith on programs such as Scarborough Country, Fox and Friends, and At Large with Geraldo Rivera. Of all his titles, Christopher is most proud to call himself a devoted husband and father. He and his wife Wendy have four children and live in Lancaster County, PA.
 
larry85704 said:
You are not married to the Church. By being married you must love your spouse, not the Church. Yes, the Church does want you to have kids, but God may not, you might already have them, but the Church also wants your marriage to be the best act of love between you and your spouse that it can be. Much of the Church’s teaching on sex supports the idea that children must be part of a marriage and does not develop the gift of sex as well as it could.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you have a very confused notion of who the Church is and how She relates to Christ…🤷
 
Randy_Carson said:
Since you’ve been vague, I’ll take a chance on providing the following information…hope it helps.

Manual Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“The acts by which spouses prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay)—so long as they are performed lovingly and not lustfully—are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation. There’s no gift of self, no marital communion taking place at all. Nor are such acts open to conception.

“An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina (unintended ejaculation involves no moral fault). Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, in any absolute sense, be during actual penetration.

“Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s. In fact, John Paul II, in his pre-papal reflections on the matter, exhorted husbands to learn how to control their own orgasms in order to bring their wives to climax with them. Doing so with altruistic motives, he said, was a husbandly virtue at the service of marital harmony. That being said, if the wife, despite their sincere efforts, was unable to climax during penetration, it may well be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate her to climax thereafter (if she so desired). In this case, such stimulation is not inherently masturbatory since it is within the context of a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage
Click to expand...
, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 90-91]

Oral Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse. The term “oral sex,” however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples—though the clarification made above regarding female orgasm is applicable here as well: Mutual climax (or at least climax during penetration) remains the ideal to strive for, but it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context fo a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 92-93]

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Mr. Timothy J. McCarthy, J.C.L.
Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of Denver

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
April 27, 2004

About the Author

Christopher West is a research fellow and faculty member of the Theology of the Body Institute. He is also one of the most sought after speakers in the Church today, having delivered more than 1000 public lectures on 4 continents, in 9 countries, and in over 150 American cities. His books – Good News About Sex & Marriage, Theology of the Body Explained, and Theology of the Body for Beginners – have become Catholic best sellers.

Christopher has also lectured on a number of prestigious faculties, offering graduate and undergraduate courses at St John Vianney Seminary in Denver, the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and Creighton University’s Institute for Priestly Formation in Omaha. Hundreds of thousands have heard him on national radio programs and even more have seen him defending the faith on programs such as Scarborough Country, Fox and Friends, and At Large with Geraldo Rivera. Of all his titles, Christopher is most proud to call himself a devoted husband and father. He and his wife Wendy have four children and live in Lancaster County, PA.

Thank you. If this is, in fact, what the Church teaches, then I have a hard time agreeing with it…the first time I have disagreed with the Church since converting years ago (of course, I was single at the time). Now the question is what do I do now…the situation I find myself in is quite complex.
 
Here are some articles

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0109.html

and an audio file you might find useful

catholicmentoday.org/2008/09/04/marriage–the-eucharist-the-two-shall-become-one.aspx

You are going to want to understand the church teaching on marriage and the relationship to the eucharist and to the trinity. You’ll want to take a look at our bodies and how we use them within the sacrament to reflect the trinity ,how our bodies reflect Christ’s relationship to the church and the Eucharist. The marital act has a sacramental meaning that we need to bear in mind. The wife needs to recieve the gift of the husband just as we need to recieve the gift of Christ in Communion. Marital sex is called marital communion, after all. We form the one flesh union during it. Communion as well as the renewal of marital vows are the sacramental meaning of the act when the act is conjugal. They are not present when it is not conjugal.

A very inexpensive audo set by Christopher West that you can get is -

giftfoundation.org/

You might go straight for Theology of the Body if you don’t want Christopher West’s explanation of it.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

In addition to Good News and Holy Sex that were recommended above you might want to look at Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla ( Pope John Paul 2)
 
Go on the Internet put in Sensus Traditionis.
Click on the middle page of the first three.
Click on Chastity.
Father Chad Ripperger gives a detailed teaching of what is and is not allowed in Catholic Sacramental Marriage.

Antrim
 
Lucky7 said:
Thank you. If this is, in fact, what the Church teaches, then I have a hard time agreeing with it…the first time I have disagreed with the Church since converting years ago (of course, I was single at the time). Now the question is what do I do now…the situation I find myself in is quite complex.
Click to expand...
When I found myself disagreeing, I’d think - who has a better chance of being correct - me or the Church that God began and protects from error? Then, I study to bring my errant thinking in line with God’s Church.
 
Antrim,

I looked opn the page that you described but failed to find the info you suggested.

Is there a way you could post the actual link?

Thank you.
 
Hi Mary
I am not able to post it. I am lisrtening to the video as I am writeing this.
Make sure you have the sensus traditionis right you dont need www. Just put the two words in nothing else.
Traditionis will come up in two places. These words will be under the heading.
(These media files are penanceware.) Click on that and a list will appear. Scroll down to Chastity. Click on that and the video will start
If you have any problem let me know.
Good Luck
Antrim.
 
The Magisterium definitively teaches that every sexual act must be marital, unitive, and procreative. Therefore, unnatural sexual acts (sexual acts that are not unitive and procreative) are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. It is a grave sin for a husband and wife to engage in any type of sexual act other than natural marital relations open to life.

The **end **of engaging in natural marital relations open to life does not justify the use of unnatural sexual acts as a means.

See these articles for a more detailed explanation, with citations from magisterial documents, from Scripture, and from the Saints:
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

A married couple that engages in unnatural sexual acts commits objective mortal sin.

Anyone who teaches married couples that it is moral to commit unnatural sexual acts is guilty of formal cooperation with these intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts, and this cooperation is also an objective mortal sin.

The teaching of the Magisterium on this subject is clear and definitive.
All sexual acts must be marital, unitive, and procreative.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the **unitive **significance and the **procreative **significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.”
Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The Magisterium definitively teaches that every sexual act must be marital, unitive, and procreative. Therefore, unnatural sexual acts (sexual acts that are not unitive and procreative) are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. It is a grave sin for a husband and wife to engage in any type of sexual act other than natural marital relations open to life.

The **end **of engaging in natural marital relations open to life does not justify the use of unnatural sexual acts as a means.

See these articles for a more detailed explanation, with citations from magisterial documents, from Scripture, and from the Saints:
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

A married couple that engages in unnatural sexual acts commits objective mortal sin.

Anyone who teaches married couples that it is moral to commit unnatural sexual acts is guilty of formal cooperation with these intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts, and this cooperation is also an objective mortal sin.

The teaching of the Magisterium on this subject is clear and definitive.
All sexual acts must be marital, unitive, and procreative.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the **unitive **significance and the **procreative **significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life – and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.”
Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.
Click to expand...
With all due respect for the poster…

The above post and site makes assertions which are do not in fact represent the teachings of the Church in the area of Marital relations. They misunderstand certain aspects of moral theology and the Church’s teachings on the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act and its marital nature as well as certain other aspects. And they do not understand what is chastely permitted within the marital act …and that certain marital acts prior too and directly after the actual act of intercourse form a moral unity with that intercourse and thus are part of the one chaste martial act. Some perhaps is in the order of opinion but still are not to be confused with being the Teachings of the Church. (I have not read everything…I imagine there is things that are on target or just opinion…but I have read enough to urge readers to turn rather to the source below)

I would refer readers instead to this site by the well established and Orthodox Catholic Moral Theologian Dr. Germain Grisez twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

He explains the requirements of a chaste marital act in these regards and what is evil …and not permitted and what is good within the martial act. So a disciple of Jesus may live a chaste married life of love.

Also Christopher west and others have good material on these…one can find his book promoted here on the Catholic Answers site…and is prob. sold by Catholic Answers as well.

also this addresses one aspect.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=climax&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=25&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
 
The faithful are required by faith to adhere to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on this point, even in contradition to the theological opinion of Grisez and other theologians.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11.)

The sexual acts in question are not procreative sexual acts, therefore, they are not moral.

And notice that the Pope uses the expression “each and every marital act”. Such a phrasing cannot honestly be interpreted as referring to a set of any number of sexual acts, of any type, as long as one good act of natural marital relations is included.

Everyone admits that these unnatural acts are intrinsically evil and gravely immoral to commit as single acts. Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being combined with other acts, even acts that are good.

The claim that a set of sexual acts can be considered as if they were one act was rejected by Humanae Vitae, which says “each and every marital act”.

I notice that those posters who approve of unnatural sexual acts within marriage do not base their claims on teachings of the Magisterium, nor on Scripture, nor on the teachings of Saints and Doctors of the Church, but only on the opinions of a few particular theologians.

There is no magisterial document approving of these unnatural sexual acts. There are magisterial documents requiring every sexual act to be marital and unitive and procreative, and specifically rejecting the idea that a set of acts can be morally considered as if it were one act.
 
Ron_Conte said:
The faithful are required by faith to adhere to the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on this point, even in contradition to the theological opinion of Grisez and other theologians.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that** each and every marital act** must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11.)

The sexual acts in question are not procreative sexual acts, therefore, they are not moral.

And notice that the Pope uses the expression “each and every marital act”. Such a phrasing cannot honestly be interpreted as referring to a set of any number of sexual acts, of any type, as long as one good act of natural marital relations is included.

Everyone admits that these unnatural acts are intrinsically evil and gravely immoral to commit as single acts. Intrinsically evil acts do not become moral by being combined with other acts, even acts that are good.

The claim that a set of sexual acts can be considered as if they were one act was rejected by Humanae Vitae, which says “each and every marital act”.
Click to expand...
I refer readers to the prior post.
 
I refer readers to the documents of the Magisterium on sexual ethics:

Humanae Vitae rejects the idea that a set of sexual acts can be morally considered as one act (HV, n. 3 and following).

Humanae Vitae teaches that each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative (HV, n. 11-12).

The unnatural sexual acts in question are not procreative acts, and so they are not moral.

This encyclical is the definitive teaching of the Magisterium, and required belief by all the faithful. The sources cited by other posters are not magisterial sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top