Authority on Married Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lucky7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
yes…but note also Grisez speaks of other chaste actions that cause a moderate form of arousal in Marriage which are not immediately part of the marital act. And moral theology has in the past also recognized these as chaste in marriage…for example moderatedly arousing signs of affection between spouses (where there is of course no climax or either spouse or near occasion of such etc) …such as kissing…thoughts …planning a romantic get away…etc all these are part of marriage and good if within moderation and reason etc…see his work for detail.
 
Which is why we need to stick with the Teachings of the Church on the beauty of Marriage and of the goodness of the marital act…
Bookcat,
Thank you for being a light in this thread! You have offered wonderful material for us to study and have answered many questions that my husband and I have recently begun to have.

The teachings of the Church on marriage and the marital act are beautiful, and when embraced between a husband and wife bring about a true uniting of husband and wife as one. Thank you again!

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie
 
Bookcat,
Thank you for being a light in this thread! You have offered wonderful material for us to study and have answered many questions that my husband and I have recently begun to have.

The teachings of the Church on marriage and the marital act are beautiful, and when embraced between a husband and wife bring about a true uniting of husband and wife as one. Thank you again!

In Christ’s Love,
Maggie
Your very welcome and thank you for your kind words.

We must indeed follow Christ in his Church as his disciples…living our baptism…

Which certainly involves rejecting anything sinful…but we need to be clear as to what the Church teaches and what she does not…what is good and what is evil.

Of course there is much more that what we have covered here …for as you say …the teachings of the Church are beautiful…and rich.
 
To add to this thread: here is Fr. John Hardon, SJ, who was about as orhodox as one can get. The man would have never thought to go against Church teaching on any issue, and there’s a cause for his canonization. In my opinion, even he is sometie s abit rigoristic, but it shows just how far our Mr. Conte is:

therealpresence.org/archives/Moral_Theology/Moral_Theology_007.htm

By way of prelude, it will be useful first to mention the various privileges that married people have with respect to each other, and then, in contrast, the single limiting factor of contraception.

**1. Husband and wife are allowed everything that is necessary or useful or pleasing regarding intercourse, even for experiencing fully the pleasure attached to it, and then neither party can sin in looking at, touching or acting in any other way towards his own or his spouse’s body. Therefore no restriction is placed on them in showing to each other mutual love, so that they cannot sin either by look or touch or any other manifestation of love, no matter how long they continue, so long as they do not neglect other duties of greater moment. **They may also speak and think about and desire those things between themselves, with only the common sense proviso of not involving a third party in this communication.
  1. In all their marital relations they should be led more by the desire of pleasing the other than by the fear of sinning. They will act in a way more pleasing to God if they anticipate the desires of their spouse, rather than await a request. At the same time, true love also avoids demanding what the other would find inconvenient.
  2. These rights and duties remain unchanged during their whole life, even when they cannot have children. No mention of normal conjugal relations should be made in confession, otherwise the confessor may suspect that something sinful has been committed, whereas coition and all its accompaniments are not only not sinful but virtuous and sanctifying to husband and wife.
  3. Husband and wife must learn that their chastity is very different from what it was before they married. The whole state of their life is changed. They are neither brother nor sister, neither master nor servant. Before God, they will be held responsible for many things that do not concern the unmarried; their duties are different. For this reason, He has attached numerous privileges to the married state that no one else may legitimately enjoy.
  4. All sins of either with a third person are doubly more grave than those between unmarried persons, because they are adulterous. Thoughts about such sins, if deliberately fostered and indulged, are also gravely sinful. In order to protect oneself and spouse from occasions of sin with another, nothing (after the grace of God) is more important than sustained manifestation of affection, even when the feelings are contrary or the body is tired or worries and personal trials may occupy the mind. A constant and external reminder of their mutual love is the best human guarantee of a life-long fidelity.
Accordingly, husband and wife c**an commit only one sin that is grave (besides adultery) in what pertains to actions between themselves. That sin is knowingly and willingly to impede generation or to intend to have a pollution. If this happens without their wishing or foreseeing it, there is no sin. **

So, is Fr. John Hardon a heretic? I think not. And if anyone, perhaps Bookcat, has a copy of Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori’s Theologia moralis, because I found a book on google books (Shaji George Kochthara, The Concept of Sexual Pleasure in Catholic Moral Theology) which quotes the saint and patron of moral theology thus: “All concede that wives who are colder by nature excite themselves before copulation, so that they might seminate while having marital congress” (of course, there’s an erroneous biology here) … and this was in the 18th century. Also, I believe Thomas Sánchez, writing in 1602, had a profound influence on this debate (and he was a favorite whipping boy of Jansenists, of course) and on Liguori’s opinions. It’d be great if someone could find a quote. Also, it must be remembered that confessors since the 19th century have been given free reign to use Liguori’s opinions with impunity.
 
Thank you Mercury5 for those quotes. That is very helpful. However, what were the links that you used to find them?? I would like to see them myself.
 
The John Hardon quote, just google “John Hardon Moral Theology” … that site the real presence has a ton of his works. The other is a book called sexual pleasure in catholic moral theology, where the author refers to St. Alphonsus and to Thomas Sánchez as some of the first theologians to recognize that marital love is more than just “scratchin’ an itch” or “procreatin’”. I would love to know if someone has eith Liguori’s or Sánchez’s book and could quote them directly though.
 
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.

Very interesting, and thanks for posting this.

Does Mr. West speak for the Vatican? Has the Vatican approved his expression of these rules? I don’t always understand the relationship between lay book writers and the Holy See.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top