Authority on Married Sex

[Verbum_Caro]

Verbum Caro
Here are other sources who back up what you are asking about the wifes Climax after Intercourse.

Thank you Antrim, but I wasn’t asking about that – rather I was asking about whether or not Pope John Paul II ever wrote anything like that. There was an assertion made that JPII held this, but I haven’t seen a quote to that effect yet.

VC

 

[baylee]

Thank you Antrim, but I wasn’t asking about that – rather I was asking about whether or not Pope John Paul II ever wrote anything like that. There was an assertion made that JPII held this, but I haven’t seen a quote to that effect yet.

VC

I do find this interesting from both sides of this discussion. Although I can’t agree with Ron Conte etal, I’m not sure I agree with the many posters who tout Christopher West and his book which supposedly interprets Theology of the Body either…because I find it very hard to believe that JPII actually states or even insinuates when and how a wife can climax in Theology of the Body.

 

[kage_ar]

Are you sure you misunderstood my post…or are you just trying to avoid the fact that you were wrong?

Baylee - in this post you put forht that the Church taught error regarding geocentrism:

I haven’t posted that it was in fact a teaching, but I have provided an opinion on this…how I could better understand current church teaching on spilling seed in the context of marriage IF this was the case (ie. spilling seed=abortion).

I would not be surprised if this was church teaching at one time. DIdn’t the Church also teach that the Earth was the center of the universe…that the Sun revolved around the Earth? It seems to me that teaching changed based on scientific discovery, no?

You might want to do some research, start here:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

ETA and I hope you have since researched and see that this “sperm are little people” is hogwash that was never taught as doctrine.

 

[Pug]

Kissing and hugging and other acts which are arousing, but which are not a use of the sexual faculty, need not be unitive and procreative, because these are not sexual acts.

I don’t understand this. The context here was heavy kissing for maybe 15 minutes, that’s what a poster said. Is that not a case of seeking sexual pleasure? Isn’t that what seeking to be aroused is, sexual pleasure? I thought we could not seek sexual pleasure apart from the unitive and procreative act.

 

[Bookcat]

Even an older causistic moral manuals such as H. Jone …one finds that sexual touches etc are always lawful in connection with the marital act as a preparation …

… and regarding wives who do have climax during intercourse …that such can happen via touch immediately before or after the actual act of intercourse.

Of course we can just say there moral unity …of the foreplay etc with the intercourse.

So not only is such taught by Dr. Grisez and others…as well as West but even by an older well established moral manual of causistry…

 

[Antrim]

Hi V C
I dont know either. I have not read Christopher WEest’s Interpetration of it only what people are saying on here.
I read some of the Late Pope’s Theology of The Body but I could not understand some of it as it was away above me.
I would think that these other Priests what they are teaching is from what the Late Holy Father said.
Let me say this I trust these Priests who are talking on this subject because they are responsible for saving our Souls. We have to have faith in them and trust them.
Take for instance Father John Caropi you know when you listen to him that you can trust and beleive every thing he teaches.

Antrim.

 

[FiberZilla]

Given the worldwide level of gross sexual immorality and corruption within the Catholic Church over the years, considering her leaders to be an “anthority” on married sex is almost absurd. I truly feel sorry for the straight, honest, moral and god fearing men who have given up all to serve this church and her flock.

 

[baylee]

Baylee - in this post you put forht that the Church taught error regarding geocentrism:

You might want to do some research, start here:

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

ETA and I hope you have since researched and see that this “sperm are little people” is hogwash that was never taught as doctrine.

And yet in that post, I am questioning what the Church taught. I never claimed it was true nor did I bash “your” church (I would add that your telling me I bashed “your” church offends me since…it’s not just your church, it’s mine as well).

Wondering when you’ll retract your statement that I bashed our church and taught false teachings…

 

[baylee]

Here we have celibate men wrapping the pleasures of the marriage bed up in a tangle of unbilical legalism that it’s a miracle is anyone can come out of the sexual encounter and actually enjoyed it as God intended. Perhaps without fully realizing it, this is their goal?
Since I cannot have it, you won’t either.

I understand why you have said this, but I don’t think it’s fair.

However, I wonder why it wasn’t this type of post that caught kagear’s ire…wouldn’t this be a post that bashes our church?

 

[Bookcat]

Given the worldwide level of gross sexual immorality and corruption within the Catholic Church over the years, considering her leaders to be an “anthority” on married sex is almost absurd. I truly feel sorry for the straight, honest, moral and god fearing men who have given up all to serve this church and her flock.

(small percentage where involved in comparison to all those who are faithful…not to make it right of course…but much was the product of the 60’s and 70’s culture…and of course the same thing happens in protestant communities…and other fields…)

They are not sorry…for they gave up all for Christ…and his flock

just as did St. Paul…and of course what he recommended…

 

[Squanto]

“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.” (HV n. 11-12).

Therefore, sexual acts which lack the unitive or procreative meanings are not moral. They are not justified by being followed by, or preceded by, a natural marital act, because each and every marital act, each single sexual act, must be procreative and unitive, as well as marital.

Kissing and hugging and other acts which are arousing, but which are not a use of the sexual faculty, need not be unitive and procreative, because these are not sexual acts.

The Magisterium teaches in the above quoted text, that each single sexual act must be unitive and procreative. It is absurd to claim that a non-unitive or a non-procreative act, condemned by the Church, becomes moral by being renamed ‘foreplay’. It is equally absurd to claim that the principle of totality, rejected by the Magisterium, becomes true by renaming it ‘moral unity’.

So, the point of HV was to insist that each and every “marital act” must be open to procreation and free of contraception, as opposed to the totality of the marriage being open to procreation.

Now, look at the above post closely:

“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.” (HV n. 11-12).

---

The Magisterium teaches in the above quoted text, that each single sexual act must be unitive and procreative."

This is what Conte has written.

But do you see the difference between “marriage act” or “marital act,” which refers to sexual intercourse between the parties, and a “sexual act”? The Magisterium never used the term “sexual act.” Sexual intercourse is comprised of a series of acts. It has a beginning, middle, and end. Sexual acts are a part of sexual intercourse. So, HV is rejecting the “totality of the marriage” being open to life, and stating that each act of intercourse must be open to life. There is no declaration within about “unnatural sexual acts.” It’s simple, isn’t it? There is a difference between “marriage act” and “sexual act.”

Also, if you disagree w/Grisez, please let us know where he has it wrong.

 

[kage_ar]

I understand why you have said this, but I don’t think it’s fair.

However, I wonder why it wasn’t this type of post that caught kagear’s ire…wouldn’t this be a post that bashes our church?

The poster you quoted does not claim to be Catholic. I expect such disrespect from non-Catholics.

As a Catholic I will defend Holy Mother Church til my dying breath.

 

[Bookcat]

So, the point of HV was to insist that each and every “marital act” must be open to procreation and free of contraception, as opposed to the totality of the marriage being open to procreation.

Now, look at the above post closely:

“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.” (HV n. 11-12).

---

The Magisterium teaches in the above quoted text, that each single sexual act must be unitive and procreative."

This is what Conte has written.

But do you see the difference between “marriage act” or “marital act,” which refers to sexual intercourse between the parties, and a “sexual act”? The Magisterium never used the term “sexual act.” Sexual intercourse is comprised of a series of acts. It has a beginning, middle, and end. Sexual acts are a part of sexual intercourse. So, HV is rejecting the “totality of the marriage” being open to life, and stating that each act of intercourse must be open to life. There is no declaration within about “unnatural sexual acts.” It’s simple, isn’t it? There is a difference between “marriage act” and “sexual act.”

Also, if you disagree w/Grisez, please let us know where he has it wrong.

The point as you say of HV is that one can not say that a little contraception in a few marital acts is ok because on the whole the marriage is open to life…

that is what is being condemned…that attempt to call this ‘totality’.

Each marital act must be open to life…yes this is true. Amen. And the various parts (chaste foreplay) leading up to the completion of the act are part of that one act.

Again he will not be able to produce one document that actually says what he personally and incorrectly teaches.

and of course the burden of proof is on him.

but one can not square the circle…or produce Church documents to say what the Church does not actually say.

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. intention
2. moral object
3. circumstances

passionate kissing between spouses is not a per se sexual act; it is not a deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. Therefore, kissing does not need to be unitive and procreative. HV states that ‘each and every marital act’ must be unitive and procreative. The term ‘marital act’ is a discrete term referring to a per se sexual act between spouses, not to kissing.

In order to be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. The moral object of a moral act of natural intercourse between the spouses must be marital and unitive and procreative. Otherwise, the act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Calling a sexual act ‘foreplay’ does not change the moral object.
Using one sexual act as a means to the end of another sexual act, that of natural intercourse, does not change the moral object of either act.

Performing an unnatural sexual act (non-procreative sexual act) a certain number of minutes before or after natural intercouse does not change the moral object of either act.

The evil moral object of unnatural sexual acts causes these acts to be intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances.

It is absurd to claim that an intrinsically evil, unnatural sexual act becomes moral, or becomes natural, or becomes moral foreplay, or is in any way justifiable, despite the lack of the procreative meaning, due to the inclusion in a set of acts of at least one procreative act of natural marital relations.

What if the unnatural sexual act is not followed by the natural act because the couple are interrupted? Is the unnatural act still (supposedly) moral? Is the mere intention of the couple to engage in a subsequent natural act enough to justify a non-procreative act?

How many unnatural intrinsically evil sexual acts are (supposedly) justified by a single act of natural marital relations?

What is the limit to the number of minutes between the unnatural act and the natural act that allows the unnatural act to be (supposedly) justified? Do you really believe that an unnatural act is moral if it occurs within a certain number of minutes before or after the natural act, but then beyond that point it becomes intrinsically evil and gravely immoral? Should the married couple set a timer, so they don’t commit moral sin?

Does this alleged principle whereby a good act justifes an intrinsically evil act by occurring within a certain number of minutes of the evil act apply to other areas of human life? How is it that there are (supposedly) ‘special rules’ for sexuality that can justify what is intrinsically evil?

The claim that a sexual act is justified by being a type of foreplay **implies the heresy **that the end (natural marital relations) can justify the means (any sexual act at all, even one with an evil moral object, if it is foreplay).

The claim that a particular type of sexual act is both intrinsically evil when done by itself, but also not intrinsically evil when done within a certain number of minutes of natural marital relations, **implies the heresy **that intrinsically evil acts are not always immoral.

The claim that the intention to use an unnatural sexual act as a form of foreplay justifies that act, or makes it no longer intrinsically evil, **implies the heresy **that intrinsically evil acts can be justified or transformed by intention.

The claim that the circumstance in which the wife does not reach climax by means of the natural act thereby jujstifies the use of an unnatural sexual act **implies the heresy **that intrinsically evil acts can be justified or transformed by circumstances.

I don’t care how many theologians with good reputations and credentials anyone cites, the **Magisterium **teaches that the end does not justify the means, that intrinsically evil acts are never moral, that intention and circumstances cannot change a moral object from evil to good, and that each and every sexual act lacking in the marital meaning or the unitive meaning or the procreative meaning is intrinsically evil.

 

[Mijoy2]

Calling a sexual act ‘foreplay’ does not change the moral object.
Using one sexual act as a means to the end of another sexual act, that of natural intercourse, does not change the moral object of either act.

.

In your line of reasoning I fail to see why context does not seem to matter. What would cause the definition of a sexual act used for the purpose of arousal with all intention being to culminate in the one “allowable” act to be unnatural? Wouldn’t the act “become” natural by means of it being a natural progression to the final act?

Isn’t it natural to prepare for the marital embrace? I’d suggest, for men, some preparition is required. Without preparation he’d be rendered unable. This is even true (but probably to a lesser extent) for women. It doesn’t just happen…am I wrong?

In other words, for an individual to perform an act that leads to an “end” or release (if you will) may in and of itself be deemed unnatural. But in the context of a full session (again, if you will), it may be quite natural indeed. It may be more then natural, it may be necessary.

If I punch a man in the nose I have committed a sinful act. If I punch a man in the nose in a boxing ring, I did not.

 

[Bookcat]

You have re-defined the meaning of what is natural and unnatural, so as to approve of unnatural acts by calling them ‘natural’ and ‘foreplay’. These are the same types of acts condemned by St. Augustine. What is your position on the claim that a husband can perform a completed unnatural sexual act on his wife after natural marital relations? Are you claiming that such an act is ‘natural’?

Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. The Magisterium teaches that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, the only acts of foreplay that are moral are those that stand on their own as moral acts.

Renaming an act ‘foreplay’ and making an unsupported claim that the acts are ‘not un-natural’ does not justify the act. The Magisterium teaches that “each and every marital act” must be unitive and procreative.

Non-unitive sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the unitive meaning. Non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil because the moral object is deprived of the procreative meaning. The Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts are never justified, not by intention and not by circumstances. Therefore, non-unitive or non-procreative sexual acts are not justified by the intention to commit a subsequent natural act, nor by the circumstance that the wife did not reach climax during the natural act.

Your repeated use of the term “moral unity” has no basis in any magisterial document.

not renaming anything.

Again…

No document from the Church to support your claims.

The only one you provided does not support your claim and actually says something entirely different…

The Church simply does not teach what you claim. Nor will you be able to square the circle by producing a document that says she teaches what she does not.

Yes …the end does not justify the means…yes each marital act must be open to life.

But stating this does not make chaste acts of foreplay as understood by various orthodox Catholic Theologians who are known for their faithfulness to the Magisterium (and who do not get told by the magisterium that they are wrong on this…)…as well as even an older moral manual by H. Jone --to be sinful. Nor does it allow for an unnatural parsing of human acts.

If you have a problem with what orthodox theologians are teaching…send a complaint to the Holy See…

though they will not endorse your understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t care how many theologians with good reputations and credentials anyone cites, the **Magisterium **teaches that the end does not justify the means, that intrinsically evil acts are never moral, that intention and circumstances cannot change a moral object from evil to good, and that each and every sexual act lacking in the marital meaning or the unitive meaning or the procreative meaning is intrinsically evil.

One persons ideas that something is intrinsic evil…or an ‘unnatural sexual act’ does not make something that is not evil into an evil or something that is not unnatural (properly understood see Grisez above) into something that is unnatural.

One person shouting “the end does not justify the means” or it is heresy over and over does not make a good means into an evil one.

The Church does not teach that such acts (again see the Grisez work to see what acts) for are either unnatural as part of the marital act…or evil.

NOWHERE does the Magisterium teach that such acts are an evil means to a good end.

 

[Shannon9791]

Ron, can you answer a question for me please? A simple yes or no will do, but feel free to explain any answer you give. Is the “marital act” only sexual intercourse?

 

[FiberZilla]

(small percentage where involved in comparison to all those who are faithful…not to make it right of course…but much was the product of the 60’s and 70’s culture…and of course the same thing happens in protestant communities…and other fields…)

They are not sorry…for they gave up all for Christ…and his flock

just as did St. Paul…and of course what he recommended…

I used to believe that. Unfortunately, every year, more is revealed about these abuses. The problem was not confined to a few problem locations within the US a couple of decades ago. This is nothing new. It’s just new to modern western culture with instant access to information.

It is worldwide and has been going on since the days of ancient Greek and Roman secular’pagan culture when women and children were considered to be nothing more than property and has been nesting albeit at a much less level of intensity within many Roman Catholic Church institutions for centuries.

In times of antiquity, child rape and abuse was commonplace mainstream behavior. I’ll give the Catholic Church credit for at least ending it’s widespread social acceptance. But the fact that it (sexual and physical abuse) lived on in the shadows of it’s weakened state within the Catholic Church for hundreds of years is still disturbing.

 

[Pug]

passionate kissing between spouses is not a per se sexual act; it is not a deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. Therefore, kissing does not need to be unitive and procreative. HV states that ‘each and every marital act’ must be unitive and procreative. The term ‘marital act’ is a discrete term referring to a per se sexual act between spouses, not to kissing.

You are using words differently than I was taught. I was taught that a sexual act is anything that you do, anything at all, be it mental or generic physical or specific physical (specific as in touching the genitals), to get aroused or to maintain that arousal or to complete that arousal. Deliberately triggering those sexual facilities for the ends of arousal by whatever means seems to me like it could be a deliberate use of those facilities to obtain a type of satisfaction, the satisfaction of one’s desire to be sexually aroused.

For example, parading around in a bridle and bit could be a sexual act *if *you are doing it to be aroused. It isn’t sexual, of course, if you are a child pretending to be a horse to practice for the school play. Also, it is clear (to me, anyway) that a somewhat satisfying experience of sexual arousal could be the goal of a prolonged kissing incident.

Is there some Catholic definition of a sexual act? (Besides Grisez, who will define it in such a way that kissing can be a sexual act.) Does someone have one? I did find an interesting tidbit in Denzinger, about kissing and carnal delight. For those who are not familiar with the strange way Church things can be worded, the following snip is supposed to be viewed as wrong, or at least scandalous to teach or some such. It is not being held up as a model of what is right:
Denzinger:

1140 40. It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible * delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded.

So, is that “sexual pleasure” there, the words “carnal delight”? If so, we ought not suggest that it can be sought in isolation from the procreative and the unitive, whatever **isolation **means.
CCC snip from 2351:

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

I wonder what that statement from Denzinger is about. Is it about mortal/venial? That’s what I’m surmising.