Authority on Married Sex

[Bookcat]

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.

Any abuse anywhere by anyone…we oppose. And it crosses cultures religions and professions and has lived in them all…not something anyone wanted to talk about.

but we oppose it and condemn it.

 

[FiberZilla]

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.

I find it sad that there are good people on here who love God with all of their hearts, minds, soul and strength who read stuff like this and cry themselves to sleep with fear, dread and worry because they think that they may have had an “immoral” climax with their husband or wife.
I’m sure that people who write these things love God and are doing it with all good intention. But this is nothing short of a legalistic rat’s nest of spiritual abuse. Is arousal even possible with this stuff swimming in one’s head?

Where is any of this in scripture? Nowhere!

I would encourage all husbands and wives who seek to give to one another in such a beautiful and complete way refer to Ephesians chapter 5 and the Song of Songs instead.

:twocents:

 

[MercyMia]

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.

As opposed to the other churches that all abandoned the Christian restrictions on artificial birth control in the 1930’s and gave into Margaret Sanger’s seduction to normalize and legalize birth control? How many millions of women have had spontaneous abortions caused by the birth control pill their pastor said was good to take? Depending on the type of pill, an average woman can unknowingly have 4 spontaneous abortions per year and never even know what has happened. Look at the state of the family as a result. Look at the number of abortions as the result of the contraceptive mentality that has overtaken us. Did you know that the failure rate of contraceptive is taken into account by the abortion industry, as long as they promote conraceptive use, they know abortions will take place and $$$ will be made. As long as there is contraception to make children the unwelcome consequence of sex, there will be abortions. Contraception was condemned by all Christians for 2,000 years until the last century when they all changed their doctrine to fit their lifestyle.
The Catholic Church is the singular institution in the world that has rejected birth control and the culture of death. God has protected his bride, the Church, from error and thanks be to Him for it.
FYI instances of priest sexual abuse are lower than other clergy, and much lower than the general population.

 

[FiberZilla]

As opposed to the other churches that all abandoned the Christian restrictions on artificial birth control in the 1930’s and gave into Margaret Sanger’s seduction to normalize and legalize birth control? How many millions of women have had spontaneous abortions caused by the birth control pill their pastor said was good to take? Depending on the type of pill, an average woman can unknowingly have 4 spontaneous abortions per year and never even know what has happened. Look at the state of the family as a result. Look at the number of abortions as the result of the contraceptive mentality that has overtaken us. Did you know that the failure rate of contraceptive is taken into account by the abortion industry, as long as they promote conraceptive use, they know abortions will take place and $$$ will be made. As long as their is contraception to make children the unwelcome consequence of sex, there will be abortions.
The Catholic Church is the singular institution in the world that has rejected birth control and the culture of death.
FYI instances of priest sexual abuse are lower than other clergy, and much lower than the general population.

You make some valid points. But as I have stated in other posts, the “culture of death” has been around since shortly after Genesis ch3 with the fall of mankind… and so have various forms of contraception.

I see no biblical reason to prohibit the use of non-abortive methods of contraception for married couples who have brought a number of children into the world and feel that their family is complete.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I see no biblical reason to prohibit the use of non-abortive methods of contraception for married couples who have brought a number of children into the world and feel that their family is complete.

Slightly off topic (but it does relate to this thread in a way), but, would you admit that the weight of Christian biblical interpretation is against you? In other words, would you admit that up until recently all Christians saw a biblical reason to prohibit contraception? What changed? Not Scripture, surely.

VC

 

[Bookcat]

Slightly off topic (but it does relate to this thread in a way), but, would you admit that the weight of Christian biblical interpretation is against you? In other words, would you admit that up until recently all Christians saw a biblical reason to prohibit contraception? What changed? Not Scripture, surely.

VC

What happened historically was a door opened somewhat via the lambeth conference in England …which…and then one after another Protestant Christians began to use Contraception…especially after the sexual revolution…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

What happened historically was a door opened somewhat via the lambeth conference in England …which…and then one after another Protestant Christians began to use Contraception…especially after the sexual revolution…

Yes, the Seventh in 1930. But, I was asking FiberZilla about biblical interpretation. Would he admit that historically Christian churches seemed to find in the Bible reasons for prohibiting contraception. What changed?

VC

 

[Rach620]

Could you quote for us where he says the husband can permissibly cause the wife to climax after the completion of intercourse?

A couple of quotes for you, from pg 272 of Love and Responsibility:

From the point of view of another person, from the altruistic standpoint, it is necessary to insist that intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing sexual excitement to reach its climax in one of the partners, i.e. the man alone, but that climax must be reached in harmony, not at the expense of one partner, but with both partners fully involved…In the present case love demands that the reactions of the other person, the sexual ‘partner’ be fully taken into account.

Also:

The female organism, as was mentioned above, reacts more easily to excitation in various parts of the body, which to some extent compensates for the fact that the woman’s excitement grows more slowly than that of the man. The man must take this difference between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.

The bolding is mine. In L&R there is nothing clearly forbidding a husband from helping his wife to climax after intercourse. The context is one marital act. Completed intercourse is integral and necessary for the marital act, and we can never frustrate this end, but the unitive aspect of the marriage bed involves more than the strictly procreative element. AS FAR AS POSSIBLE we should aim for “harmony,” while remembering the over-arching principle of generosity and self-gift throughout the marital act.

In my reading, Pope John Paul II was being incredibly perceptive and understanding when he wrote that “as far as possible” male and female climax should occur simultaneously. Spouses are imperfect, and any married person can tell you that each act of marital intimacy is different. It is one thing to write these words and to counsel married couples to their effect, and quite another to expect every Catholic married couple to perfectly conform to the “simultaneous climax” goal, each and every time, while warning “if you fail, it’s all over!”

Whenever someone criticizes “old, celibate men” for their lack of understanding of marital relations, I point them to John Paul II. He’s a good deal more understanding, generous, and helpful in this area than some posters on this thread.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In L&R there is nothing clearly forbidding a husband from helping his wife to climax after intercourse.

Thanks Rach.

I mentioned that passage above (although not directly – just the page numbers where it is found in the Ignatius edition). But, my question was really about JPII permitting it. As you said, there is nothing clearly forbidding it, but then it could also be read as not endorsing it, or even (I suppose) prohibiting it.

The point was that I’ve seen JPII referred to as teaching this, but I’ve never seen anyone quote that teaching. In this thread, there was an allegation that X was heresy. Then there was an allegation that JPII taught X and therefore to hold X is a heresy is to say that JPII taught that heresy. So. . . it is somewhat important to establish whether JPII taught it or not, if you see my meaning.

VC

 

[hellopeople]

Why try to orgasm at the same time? I don’t get it?

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks Rach.

I mentioned that passage above (although not directly – just the page numbers where it is found in the Ignatius edition). But, my question was really about JPII permitting it. As you said, there is nothing clearly forbidding it, but then it could also be read as not endorsing it, or even (I suppose) prohibiting it.

The point was that I’ve seen JPII referred to as teaching this, but I’ve never seen anyone quote that teaching. In this thread, there was an allegation that X was heresy. Then there was an allegation that JPII taught X and therefore to hold X is a heresy is to say that JPII taught that heresy. So. . . it is somewhat important to establish whether JPII taught it or not, if you see my meaning.

VC

By the way…the fact that it was permitted in the older standard moral manual of causistry …by H. Jone and I do not find anything saying such is sinful in the other older manual I have from Prummer (in fact one can take from it that it was permitted since it is nowhere prohibited…and it would fit under things he did say were permitted) …I think one can presume that in the Moral Manuals …and in the seminaries…In Poland …it was presumed to be within the norm of marriage…and thus Karol Wojtyla (JPII) would have presumed such was perfectly moral and thus presumed in as a background to his writing… For it would seem that this was not a new understanding! No new wheels being invented here.

 

[Rach620]

Thanks Rach.

I mentioned that passage above (although not directly – just the page numbers where it is found in the Ignatius edition). But, my question was really about JPII permitting it. As you said, there is nothing clearly forbidding it, but then it could also be read as not endorsing it, or even (I suppose) prohibiting it.

The point was that I’ve seen JPII referred to as teaching this, but I’ve never seen anyone quote that teaching. In this thread, there was an allegation that X was heresy. Then there was an allegation that JPII taught X and therefore to hold X is a heresy is to say that JPII taught that heresy. So. . . it is somewhat important to establish whether JPII taught it or not, if you see my meaning.

VC

I read JP2 as endorsing it, and I think it is wrong to read L&R as prohibiting it (see pages 270-278 in full). If you read what I posted earlier, I think that the “as far as possible” phrasing used by the Holy Father is incredibly important to take into account. We need to realize that in this discussion of sex we are NOT envisioning “the best/holiest/purest marital intimacy”. Rather, we are stating moral guidelines and “goals” in keeping with the redemption of the body and the unity of husband and wife. For a variety of reasons, it is just not always possible for husbands and wives to achieve perfect, simultaneous harmony in the marriage bed. While we can understand the Holy Father’s words that simultaneous climax should be the ‘goal,’ we cannot fault married couples for their inability to achieve this (for sexual inexperience or whatever other reason)–especially because JP2 did not fault them for it!

He simply said that climax should be reached by both man and woman, and if possible they should reach it together. I read more there in support of the idea that a husband should help his wife to climax even after he himself has climaxed, than against it.

While stating that “as far as possible” this should be reached simultaneously, he still upheld the importance, for the marital union and for the good of each spouse, of discovering the “natural rhythm” for both husband and wife. L&R is over 300 pages long, and throughout all of those pages there is a stunning focus on marital union and on the complete gift of self of each spouse to the other, with respect to the natural order of marital relations. There is no obsessive focus on intercourse and male climax, but rather the objective importance of the good of each spouse in the context of the marital act, ONE single intimate encounter that involves different aspects/acts, not the least of which is intercourse.

The poster on this thread seems to find this irrelevant–intercourse and male climax are of primary importance. These two positions seem to be at odds to me, especially as the poster on this thread seems to be stating that any genital contact apart from intercourse and male climax are “objectively gravely disordered”.

Someone is disordered in their thinking here, and it’s not JP2.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

By the way…the fact that it was permitted in the older standard moral manual of causistry …by H. Jone and I do not find anything saying such is sinful in the other older manual I have from Prummer (in fact one can take from it that it was permitted since it is nowhere prohibited…and it would fit under things he did say were permitted) …I think one can presume that in the Moral Manuals …and in the seminaries…In Poland …it was presumed to be within the norm of marriage…and thus Karol Wojtyla (JPII) would have presumed such was perfectly moral and thus presumed in as a background to his writing… For it would seem that this was not a new understanding! No new wheels being invented here.

Hmmmm. I’m not so sure. There is an awful lot of presumption there, isn’t there? Actually, presumption from silence, except in the case of Jone (evidently).

(By the way, could you quote Jone for us?)

I would think one would have to do a survey of the manuals to get a an accurate sense. And even then, would we find agreement on the issue? And if not agreement, would we find common teaching?

But, even if we *did *find common teaching, it wouldn’t mean that JPII was in agreement, would it? We might presume it if there was no other indication in his work against it, but I’m not sure a presumption that he would have taught it is enough to say that he did teach it and thus be able to say that those who disagree with it disagree with JPII.

VC

 

[Bookcat]

Hmmmm. I’m not so sure. There is an awful lot of presumption there, isn’t there? Actually, presumption from silence, except in the case of Jone (evidently).

(By the way, could you quote Jone for us?)

I would think one would have to do a survey of the manuals to get a an accurate sense. And even then, would we find agreement on the issue? And if not agreement, would we find common teaching?

But, even if we *did *find common teaching, it wouldn’t mean that JPII was in agreement, would it? We might presume it if there was no other indication in his work against it, but I’m not sure a presumption that he would have taught it is enough to say that he did teach it and thus be able to say that those who disagree with it disagree with JPII.

VC

the Jone text was it seems quite the standard in the 60’s…I believe I gave the basics up above. Now i am off to get dinner so my wife does not do me in with a fork.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

He simply said that climax should be reached by both man and woman, and if possible they should reach it together. I read more there in support of the idea that a husband should help his wife to climax even after he himself has climaxed, than against it.

Rach,

I agree with you that it may be possible to read it that way. But, does it admit of another reading as well?

For instance this portion seems suggestive:

The female organism, as was mentioned above, reacts more easily to excitation in various parts of the body, which to some extent compensates for the fact that the woman’s excitement grows more slowly than that of the man. The man must take this difference between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons.

What do we make of a husband taking into account the wife’s slower reactions for hedonistic reasons? Here is what I mean: if we presume that the Archbishop is saying that a husband ought to help his wife reach climax after intercourse is completed, and he ought to do so for altruistic reasons – what is the explanation of the husband who does so for hedonistic reasons?

Another possible reading could be had, it seems to me, by assuming that the husband cannot help the wife climax after intercourse. Therefore, in order to achieve the worthy goal of simultaneous climax (or at least the husband’s climax soon after the wife’s), the husband would have to take into account the wife’s more gradual approach to the plateau, and therefore attempt to prolong the marital embrace. But this prolongation isn’t to be sought by the husband for hedonistic reasons (i.e. the prolongation of pleasurable union), but rather for altruistic reasons. . . i.e. allowing for the wife’s slower response.

Do you think that could be a plausible alternative reading?

VC

 

[Christopher68]

I find it sad that there are good people on here who love God with all of their hearts, minds, soul and strength who read stuff like this and cry themselves to sleep with fear, dread and worry because they think that they may have had an “immoral” climax with their husband or wife.
I’m sure that people who write these things love God and are doing it with all good intention. But this is nothing short of a legalistic rat’s nest of spiritual abuse. Is arousal even possible with this stuff swimming in one’s head?

Where is any of this in scripture? Nowhere!

I would encourage all husbands and wives who seek to give to one another in such a beautiful and complete way refer to Ephesians chapter 5 and the Song of Songs instead.

:twocents:

I agree. I believe Ron is micro-analyzing things to a rigid extreme, and is doing a disservice to loving Catholic married couples with these types of posts. In an earlier post, Ron stated that he is single and has never been married. With that in mind - and with all due respect - he seems to have an unnatural preoccupation with activities involving married couples. Perhaps he should focus his scriptural analysis on those areas where he has some real world experience and can actually add to the dialogue.

 

[baylee]

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.

Why won’t you retract what you said about me? Why can’t you admit you’re wrong? Isn’t that what an honest poster would do?

If anyone has been disrespectful (and may I add, unChristian), it is you.

 

[Rach620]

Rach,

I agree with you that it may be possible to read it that way. But, does it admit of another reading as well?

For instance this portion seems suggestive: What do we make of a husband taking into account the wife’s slower reactions for hedonistic reasons? Here is what I mean: if we presume that the Archbishop is saying that a husband ought to help his wife reach climax after intercourse is completed, and he ought to do so for altruistic reasons – what is the explanation of the husband who does so for hedonistic reasons?

I would think a “hedonistic reason” would be a self-centered one, while an altruistic reason would be other-centered. This is the common distinction made by JP2 throughout the TOB.

Using his understanding of his wife’s arousal solely for the benefit of his own pleasure during intercourse would be a hedonistic reason for bringing his wife to climax. Helping her to climax for his own benefit, his own physical or visual pleasure, is hedonism. It turns her into an object. A husband is not instructed to help bring his wife to climax for his own benefit, but because he ought to seek the good of this other person in the marital embrace, just as she seeks his good.

Another possible reading could be had, it seems to me, by assuming that the husband cannot help the wife climax after intercourse. Therefore, in order to achieve the worthy goal of simultaneous climax (or at least the husband’s climax soon after the wife’s), the husband would have to take into account the wife’s more gradual approach to the plateau, and therefore attempt to prolong the marital embrace. But this prolongation isn’t to be sought by the husband for hedonistic reasons (i.e. the prolongation of pleasurable union), but rather for altruistic reasons. . . i.e. allowing for the wife’s slower response.

Do you think that could be a plausible alternative reading?

VC

Apart from the assumption you made at the beginning, yes, it’s plausible. From reading L&R what JP2 does explicitly suggest, again and again, is that the husband takes into account his wife’s sexual excitement. The reason for this is not so that his actions accord with some irrefutable, black and white moral law that sex is over when he climaxes, but in order to promote the good of both spouses and their mutual self-gift.

From my reading, it seems that the view of the marital embrace that reduces it to the singular event of a husband’s climax inside his wife is foreign to JP2’s teaching. That’s the issue here.

 

[lufty]

I agree. I believe Ron is micro-analyzing things to a rigid extreme, and is doing a disservice to loving Catholic married couples with these types of posts. In an earlier post, Ron stated that he is single and has never been married. With that in mind - and with all due respect - he seems to have an unnatural preoccupation with activities involving married couples. Perhaps he should focus his scriptural analysis on those areas where he has some real world experience and can actually add to the dialogue.

I will third this statement. I don’t think Ron has any business on this forum, and is doing more damage then good to all married couples, or those seeking marriage. I suspect this is the reason for the posts in the first place.

I would strongly suggest the forum admin take a look at this thread, and take administrative action against this type of behavior.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

the Jone text was it seems quite the standard in the 60’s…

You can add Ford & Kelly in agreement with Jone, by the way.

VC