…He wants to take what can be reasonable aspects of foreplay and divide them off from the Marital Act as if they were different acts that people were trying to justify.
All moral objects also involve their own circumstances. Those circumstances are part of what make up the moral object.
We are discussing a different moral object. Not masturbation. But the “causing of the climax of the wife by the husband [or by the wife…] in the context of the marital act” but forming a moral unity with said marital act.
I have had discussions with Ron in the past on various topics of morality, and this point - whether the act considered is in fact the sinful matter in question, or something different - was the centre of the debate. I recall a discussion where he deemed a certain juxtaposition of events (a wife’s medical treatment) to be contraception, whereas I asserted they were not.
A reference on the topic of sexual behaviours, including masturbation, is Persona Humana.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
The key point that this document makes is respect for the finality of the sexual act. The document is explicit in declaring the immorality of the following, and connecting each with a lack of respect for the finality of the act:
- sex before marriage;
- homosexual relations;
- masturbation (and referring to acts broader than those providing “solitary pleasure”)
In regard to the last of these, it says:
*…the deliberate use of the sexual faculty **outside **normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.*While this does not explicitly give licence to all manner of actions in the course of conjugal relations, it also does not set tight restrictions on them.
There is a kind of “literalism” in Ron’s interpretation. If taken to an absolute extreme, such a view would permit no foreplay whatsoever, for that itself would need to be considered a sexual act (in fact, a set of acts?) apart from the marital act, leaving the latter very narrowly defined as coitus. I for one find it bizarre that female orgasm is properly sought during the course of coitus, but not if assisted by a hand while coitus continues, or if finalised after coitus. That one would see this situation [as Ron does] as just the same as “masturbation” seems very odd to me. For such an act, IMHO, simply is not separated in any meaningful way from the “finality of the sexual act”.
Ron is choosing to take a literal view of the definition of masturbation, and to assert that that definition of
physical actions supersedes any other - hence, any touch (say with the hand) of the genitals - including in foreplay, or in the very act of coitus, is an act of masturbation. This seems extreme. [However, Ron’s own website - in quoting St Augustine - appears to also hold that an act of sexual intercourse (even in a loving marriage) prompted by sexual ardour (“done to satisfy a somewhat impure desire” to quote Ron, who is interpreting St Augustine’s expression: “beyond the necessity of begetting”), is sinful too. I suspect many reasonable people would consider this extreme.]
I have tried to search for reliable sources that address this particular topic (women securing orgasm in the midst of conjugal relations beyond strict coitus) and which provide a basis for their position. One can find numerous “Examinations of Conscience” - but just as many include (marriage can be assumed):
“Caused a person to climax outside coitus” as include:
“Caused male climax outside coitus”
And as we know, various theologians take views on both sides of the question.
Church teaching does not appear to offer a black and white answer to this question.
How about “they’re both wrong…”
