Authority on Married Sex

[FiberZilla]

Hmmmmm. I’d think it was on par, rather, with an orthopedic surgeon trying to diagnose and heal bone diseases without having bones himself. Oh, wait.

Maybe on par with a orthopedic surgeon trying to diagnose and heal bone diseases without having bone disease himself. Oh, wait.



VC

Regarding “married sexual ethics” Celibates, particularly celibate clergymen do not have a dog in the hunt.

*“Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.; If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?” (from1 Timothy 3) *

Sorry Vic.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Fiberzilla,

The scripture quote doesn’t invalidate celibate clergy.

But, in any event, my response was to your analogy between a celibate and sexual ethics in marriage against an orthopedic surgeon and transmission problems.

Celibate clergy : sexual ethics in marriage
Orthopedic surgeon : transmissions

It would be the wrong SAT answer.

VC

 

[baylee]

Fiberzilla,

The scripture quote doesn’t invalidate celibate clergy.

But, in any event, my response was to your analogy between a celibate and sexual ethics in marriage against an orthopedic surgeon and transmission problems.

**Celibate clergy : sexual ethics in marriage **
Orthopedic surgeon : transmissions

It would be the wrong SAT answer.

VC

That’s funny. I haven’t thought about these sorts of SAT questions in years!

 

[KarmaChameleon]

After reading posts and threads on this topic here for days and going back and forth on the issues, I must say that I find this obsession with what is an is not permissible within a loving marriage between a husband and a wife somewhat disconcerting. Sex is supposed to be unifying, yes? How is that even possible with all of this guilt and restriction flying around? What happens during sex should not be some scripted, robotic routine wherein the couple has to be constantly paranoid about how far one is allowed to go this way or that or whether or not a sin was committed in thought and deed while worrying about the moral ramifications of whether or not they have a “grave reason” to practice NFP and THEN somehow they are supposed to climax simultaneously? Climaxing at all would be a miracle under these circumstances! That being said, these discussions HAVE made me more acutely aware of the necessity of loving, respectful sex that brings a married couple closer together both emotionally and physically.

And by the way, the Song of Solomon is rife with references to oral sex concerning both man and woman:

I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. (Song of Solomon 5:1)

2:3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

4:16. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

Maybe we all need to take a page out of the Song of Solomon and actually enjoy each other (respectfully and with love, of course) instead of bringing all this legalistic nonsense into the bedroom. The fact is that oral sex is not specifically condemned in scripture (no, it does not fall under Sodomy) and Onan’s sin was not wanting to father his brother’s children according to Hebrew law, not simply spilling his seed, which in the Old Testament is an act that makes one unclean (venial?) but not one that results in death (mortal?).

I agree with the poster who said we Catholics seem to be carrying a LOT of Augustine’s guilt around with us to this very day…of course, isn’t that what we Catholics have a tendency to do anyway, carry around someone else’s spiritual guilt with us regardless of our own personal culpability (thanks a lot, Adam and Eve)? O.K., I’ll stop being cheeky now, but I think my point is made.

 

[Major_Tom]

After reading posts and threads on this topic here for days and going back and forth on the issues, I must say that I find this obsession with what is an is not permissible within a loving marriage between a husband and a wife somewhat disconcerting. Sex is supposed to be unifying, yes? How is that even possible with all of this guilt and restriction flying around? What happens during sex should not be some scripted, robotic routine wherein the couple has to be constantly paranoid about how far one is allowed to go this way or that or whether or not a sin was committed in thought and deed while worrying about the moral ramifications of whether or not they have a “grave reason” to practice NFP and THEN somehow they are supposed to climax simultaneously? Climaxing at all would be a miracle under these circumstances! That being said, these discussions HAVE made me more acutely aware of the necessity of loving, respectful sex that brings a married couple closer together both emotionally and physically.

And by the way, the Song of Solomon is rife with references to oral sex concerning both man and woman:

I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. (Song of Solomon 5:1)

2:3 As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.

4:16. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.

Maybe we all need to take a page out of the Song of Solomon and actually enjoy each other (respectfully and with love, of course) instead of bringing all this legalistic nonsense into the bedroom. The fact is that oral sex is not specifically condemned in scripture (no, it does not fall under Sodomy) and Onan’s sin was not wanting to father his brother’s children according to Hebrew law, not simply spilling his seed, which in the Old Testament is an act that makes one unclean (venial?) but not one that results in death (mortal?).

I agree with the poster who said we Catholics seem to be carrying a LOT of Augustine’s guilt around with us to this very day…of course, isn’t that what we Catholics have a tendency to do anyway, carry around someone else’s spiritual guilt with us regardless of our own personal culpability (thanks a lot, Adam and Eve)? O.K., I’ll stop being cheeky now, but I think my point is made.

Very nicely said…!

I think this is a textbook example of missing the forest for the trees. The level of detail discussed here can sometimes get to the point of minutiae… Knowing how quickly that human emotions (and pysiological reactions) can change, it seems almost absurd to think that a couple could execute something that is also passionate in such a textbook manner. It seems to threaten making the act machine-like. Which would also be a sin, wouldn’t it?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Unmarried couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Married couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Whoever teaches that married couples may morally commit unnatural sexual acts commits the objective mortal sin of formal cooperation with intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

[Ephesians]
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

 

[Bookcat]

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Unmarried couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Married couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Whoever teaches that married couples may morally commit unnatural sexual acts commits the objective mortal sin of formal cooperation with intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

[Ephesians]
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

yes of course.

No argument there.

 

[Bookcat]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2400

 

[KarmaChameleon]

Ron, Re: your quote from Hebrews, Sex within marriage neither rises to the level of fornication nor to the level of adultery, no matter what that couple is doing.

Fornication is sex outside of marriage and adultery is sex with someone other than one’s spouse, period. Not to mention the fact that many translations of that particular passage state,“The marriage bed IS undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers will be judged by God.”

Has it ever occurred to you that your obvious obsession with all things sexual in and of itself may rise to the level of sin? I mean no offense, but exactly how many hours a day do you spend thinking about/writing about/preaching about these so-called “unnatural” sex acts, hmm? This seems like a disordered fascination to me, and kind of a dangerous one.

 

[Major_Tom]

Has it ever occurred to you that your obvious obsession with all things sexual in and of itself may rise to the level of sin? I mean no offense, but exactly how many hours a day do you spend thinking about/writing about/preaching about these so-called “unnatural” sex acts, hmm? This seems like a disordered fascination to me, and kind of a dangerous one.

I very much agree. The horse has been dead for some time, now, and he’s keeps getting killed, again and again.

Agreed, persevarating on it like this seems over the top. And it threatens to reduce a vital, beautiful to something machine-like. We’re not automatons…!

 

[PaulinVA]

Brilliant response Christoper. I’ll put it another way. Unmarried (and therefore celibate) individuals, regardless of their literary accomplishments and level of education who profess expertise in area sexual morality within marriage are on par with an orthopedic surgeon trying to troubleshoot transmission problems common to Chevrolets.

Well, there’s John Paul II who wrote quite extensively, and quite well, on the subject. I don’t think that the single and celibate state precludes an understanding of marital love, per se. Just for some.

 

[Squanto]

Has Ron Conte responded to the idea that murder, stealing, and sexual intercourse describe a series of acts, which are grouped together under these terms. As someone else wrote, in different terms, you decide to take the gun, you find the person, you aim, you pull the trigger, you speed away. The “act” of murder is a series of acts.

This is true of stealing and sex and countless other things.

So, the “marriage act” refers to various “sexual acts” which involve getting organs and the persons ready for the marriage act. These acts may be unnatural if done by un-married people, but are natural for married people because they can licitly engage in sexual intercourse.

Just like taking the gun, aiming, and shooting may be valid self-defense, it also may be murder. The moral object of the act depends on a larger context. Same w/stealing and expropriation.

Has Ron Conte addressed this?

 

[Bookcat]

Has Ron Conte responded to the idea that murder, stealing, and sexual intercourse describe a series of acts, which are grouped together under these terms. As someone else wrote, in different terms, you decide to take the gun, you find the person, you aim, you pull the trigger, you speed away. The “act” of murder is a series of acts.

This is true of stealing and sex and countless other things.

So, the “marriage act” refers to various “sexual acts” which involve getting organs and the persons ready for the marriage act…

Has Ron Conte addressed this?

Nope he has not.

And yes…I have raised this …and even terms of how one would confess such in confession (in this thread)

 

[KarmaChameleon]

I very much agree. The horse has been dead for some time, now, and he’s keeps getting killed, again and again.

Agreed, persevarating on it like this seems over the top. And it threatens to reduce a vital, beautiful to something machine-like. We’re not automatons…!

Yes! I think one thing is perfectly clear no matter what you believe: God intended for sex between a man and wife to be FUN. I think it is safe to say that all of this legalism and obsession over minutia is going to do anything BUT put a couple at ease and in the mood and bring them closer together! Limiting sexuality between married persons so strictly not only takes away from any sort of spontaneity and creativity, but in many cases it throws romance right out the window as well. If sex is supposed to be unitive, then it stands to reason that activities which the COUPLE finds help to bring them emotionally and physically closer would serve that end, no? If a married couple is not satisfied with their sex life because of paranoia or guilt or arbitrary limitations, they will eventually stop doing it altogether, and some may even find occasion to stray outside of the marriage, which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what was intended by our Creator. Let’s face it, no sex at all is neither unitive NOR procreative is it? The reason it is supposed to be fun is so that we as couples KEEP DOING IT, which then will lead to procreation! No offense, but with some of the descriptions in this thread of such non-intimate, uninteresting and robotic sex, I’d rather have a root canal. Of course, I am not suggesting that anything goes, but geez, marriage is hard enough as it is!

Not to mention Mr. Conte, that from a biological perspective, the type of sex you are describing would quite possibly be rather painful for a woman. I won’t go into detail about this, but I’m sure you can find out why in any book describing human sexuality and the differences between men and women.

 

[Pug]

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Unmarried couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Married couples who commit unnatural sexual acts commit objective mortal sins.

Whoever teaches that married couples may morally commit unnatural sexual acts commits the objective mortal sin of formal cooperation with intrinsically evil and gravely immoral acts.

Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

[Ephesians]
{5:12} For the things that are done by them in secret are shameful, even to mention.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

We mostly agree on these points, depending on what you mean by some of those words, though I did not check your typing in your quotes. As I pointed out earlier, we do not appear to agree upon the definition of a sexual act. I agree with Grisez for the definition, and I asked in an earlier post for you to provide a Catechism or other source giving a definition that is otherwise. I have no reason to assume Grisez has gone off the deep end in defining what constitutes a sexual act. Why do you define it otherwise?

For your easy reference, he defines it at the top this link.

 

[Bookcat]

We mostly agree on these points, depending on what you mean by some of those words, though I did not check your typing in your quotes. As I pointed out earlier, we do not appear to agree upon the definition of a sexual act. I agree with Grisez for the definition, and I asked in an earlier post for you to provide a Catechism or other source giving a definition that is otherwise. I have no reason to assume Grisez has gone off the deep end in defining what constitutes a sexual act. Why do you define it otherwise?

For your easy reference, he defines it at the top this link.

And of course the “the marital act” can involve various chaste preambles… all forming a moral unity together.

He has simply not provided even one document from the Church that states such chaste acts of "foreplay’ (see the above link to grisez for detail) are sinful.

Not one …nor will he be able to square the circle and produce one.

For such is not the teaching of the Church.

What is sinful in marriage?..a few examples…contraception…masterbation (what we are talking about and grisez is talking about is not masterbation…even it as in the case of the wife…climax is permitted at any point during the marital act…from foreplay to immediately after he climax of the husband during physical intercourse), adultery, pornography, lustful thoughts (adultery…we are not talking about good sexual thoughts about ones spouse), lust, acts where the husband has climax outside of the physical intercourse, hedonism etc…

 

[Rach620]

Could you show us that in the Catechism, Rachel?

Sure:

IV. RESPECT FOR THE TRUTH

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

2489 Charity and respect for the truth should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it.

It is true that the Catechism mentions that one is not bound to reveal the truth to one who does not have a right to know it, but this isn’t to be taken in the sense that one can tell an affirmative lie in those situations. Mental reservation is another issue. But here we seem to be speaking of an affirmative lie. And the example given is an affirmative lie.

Affirmative lie? I don’t really see that term fitting into the CCC. In the example of a Nazi demanding the ‘truth’ of where Jews are hiding, so that they can hunt them down and arrest or kill them, I do not think that the Nazis are owed the truth. In addition to that, my duty to my Jewish neighbors to protect their lives and serve their human dignity requires that I do whatever is in my power to conceal their whereabouts. If that involves telling an “affirmative lie” I still do not believe that the “affirmative lie” is an abuse of the truth, as explained in the CCC. It’s not a lie at all. It’s an act of defense, much like killing in self-defense is not the sin of murder.

If you want to start another thread (or revive an already-existing one) to discuss this, I’d be open to it. Just PM me the link…

There are quite a few threads on this subject, so I’d shy away from rehashing it here in its entirety, but it does illustrate a distinction I think between a context which is secondary to the moral object (and which therefore cannot change a bad object into a good one) and a context which acts as a principal condition for classifying the moral object in the first place.

In the CCC, the moral object is the truth, and human action is ordered with respect to the truth. It seems to me that the truth of the dignity of the human person is of greater importance than the truth of language in what we might tell someone seeking to do evil.

 

[Rach620]

Regarding “married sexual ethics” Celibates, particularly celibate clergymen do not have a dog in the hunt.

As I said earlier on this thread, Pope John Paul II provides an astonishing rebuttal to this position. He taught more beautifully, sensitively, and spiritually about marital love than any other non-celibate I’ve read.

After reading posts and threads on this topic here for days and going back and forth on the issues, I must say that I find this obsession with what is an is not permissible within a loving marriage between a husband and a wife somewhat disconcerting. Sex is supposed to be unifying, yes? How is that even possible with all of this guilt and restriction flying around? What happens during sex should not be some scripted, robotic routine wherein the couple has to be constantly paranoid about how far one is allowed to go this way or that or whether or not a sin was committed in thought and deed while worrying about the moral ramifications of whether or not they have a “grave reason” to practice NFP and THEN somehow they are supposed to climax simultaneously? Climaxing at all would be a miracle under these circumstances! That being said, these discussions HAVE made me more acutely aware of the necessity of loving, respectful sex that brings a married couple closer together both emotionally and physically.

Amen to that.

This is sort of what I was suggesting earlier. The TOB and Catholic teaching which I am familiar with does not describe precise “right” and “wrong” ways of marital intercourse. It lays out guidelines and emphasizes the most important moral issues relevant to married couples’ intimacy–primarily that they must never compromise the unitive and procreative meanings of sexual intercourse. The what-happens-when or what happens before-or-after-x-y-z does not fall within the scope of Catholic teaching, as long as the procreative and unitive are not willfully compromised.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hi Rachel,

If you are interested, I would suggest searching the forums on this issue. Or, you might try the Catholic Encyclopedia [here.

](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm)One of the crucial bits of the CCC you quoted is this one:

The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought not be known or for making use of a discreet language.

And, take a look at CCC 1753

**1753 **A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just.

VC

 

[Squanto]

Grisez wisely distinguishes between a “sexual act” (basically, anything that brings arousal) and “marital intercourse” which is comprised of many sexual acts. This distinction is lost when one interprets “marriage act” or “marital act” in HV (and other papal documents) to mean “sexual act.”

The marriage act is capable of being unitive and procreative, and must be. Other sexual acts are not capable of being unitive AND procreative, but they must still be used consistent with the purpose of the marriage act - for instance, stimulation is OK as part of a marriage act, but not just by itself, w/o a marriage act.