Celibacy in marraige

[Savonarola]

Jegow,

I appreciate your response to my post.

jegow:

Savonarola, I think you misquoted what was said. You only gave Ashen Lady credit for saying what is in blue that God gave humans sexual instincts - however - not that she said what was in the red as well, "When sex is engaged in properly."So it does not raise any question other than how it can be engaged in properly and not. Sex outside of marriage, fornication or adultery, are sinful and wrong for starters.

The reason I didn’t include the first part is because Ashen Lady did not say that God gave humans the instincts to engage in sex properly. He gave humans the instincts to engage in sex, period. These instincts are felt both inside and outside of the “proper” circumstances.

jegow:

Second, you seem to raise the question of why something should be bad if it feels so good - and that is a sad way to look at it because it is being looked at through the lens of sin. My questions to you would be - If sin were not alluring why would people be tempted to do it? Does just because something is alluring or enjoyable mean that it is always right?

Not all sins are alluring (e.g., murder, suicide, etc.). People tend to choose these out of pure desperation, not allure. I am not saying that something is always beneficial if it feels good but that certainly does not mean something is harmful or sinful just because it feels good. What I am saying is if there is no harm caused by doing it and it brings great pleasure then what is wrong with it?

There are many things in life that we do because they feel good and they are beneficial (e.g., eating, sleeping, love, sex, vacations). Sex is the only one that requires marriage and family expansion so I wonder about it. If we treated eating this way then we would only eat to gain sustenance for survival and it would be bread and water only.

Studies have shown that sexually active people tend to be healthier whether they are married or not. Based on this it would appear that perhaps God actually endorses it.

I think a lot of Catholics today are freer with their sex lives. It just seems to me that if God gave us an instinct to enjoy sexual pleasure in many circumstances then who are we to assume he got it wrong and limit what is otherwise a natural and beautiful expression of love? I know this goes against church teaching but I think it is a valid consideration.

 

[otm]

777:

I thought annullment and divorce were sinful.

And if the truth be known, me and my wife, secretly, don’t know HOW to have sex. Myself no less. My parents never gave me any sex ed and neither did the scholls me and my wife went to. Or something like that.

Annulments are not sinful; they are the official pronouncement by the Church that a sacramental union was not formed, only a natural one.

 

[jegow]

Savonarola:

I know this goes against church teaching but I think it is a valid consideration.

I agree, it is a valid consideration. Through my studies though I have found that the teachings of the Church point out why there are limitations on sexual action. In other words, the conjugal act only allows spouses to go so far. Such things as foreplay are considered sinful. You bring up Church teaching and so I know I don’t need to tell you what all that is. The biggest help to me has been to look at what the Church teaches and try to figure it out - most recently I have been able to appreciate the beauty of purity that the Church seems to be teaching us to get to. In other words - I really do believe that those limitations are there for a very good reason.

 

[YinYangMom]

jegow:

Such things as foreplay are considered sinful.

Whoa…this is not completely true. Foreplay leads into the sexual union, thus the term ‘fore’. When a couple stops at foreplay without uniting, the actions no longer are ‘fore’ but are reduced to mutual masturbation, and that is sinful. Climax outside the marital embrace is sinful because it is against the natural order.

 

[cynic]

jegow:

In other words, the conjugal act only allows spouses to go so far. Such things as foreplay are considered sinful. .

really? no kissing, hugging, physical affection of any sort that isn’t ‘procreative’. Hey why not do it through a hole in the sheet then? that way you could minimise all uneccessary body contact. Better still a hole in the wall so you wouldn’t have to see your spouse, reducing tha chances of lust almost completely… great

 

[jegow]

cynic:

really? no kissing, hugging, physical affection of any sort that isn’t ‘procreative’. Hey why not do it through a hole in the sheet then? that way you could minimise all uneccessary body contact. Better still a hole in the wall so you wouldn’t have to see your spouse, reducing tha chances of lust almost completely… great

That is not what I meant by foreplay! I was referring to those acts which are considered disordered. I was not referring to kissing or hugging - I did not think those were considered as forms of foreplay. I was referring to any act that deliberately stimulates the genital area outside of the conjugal act - masturbation, mutual masturbation or oral sex being forms of those. Masturbation when defined does not distinguish between single people and married people completely but implies that it is always wrong to bring about that stimulation and so therefore any form that it that should take with a spouse or oneself, I think at least, is sinful as well. Being that it takes away from the unitive and procreative aspect that Humanae Vitae talks of. I have never thought that this meant doing it through a hole in a sheet (what an accusation!). What I have thought and meant was that there are things that ought not to be done sexually as husband and wife. That those things that are considered as disordered and grave have no place before or after the conjugal act and that those things that have no place are what I considered as foreplay. I also did not mean to minimize bodily contact! Again, there are things that spouses should never do - that was my point. If you look back to the post that I think you got this from you will notice that I was referring to foreplay and the limitations on sexual action as said by the Church. If something is neither unitive nor procreative or both in the conjugal act (not in acts of hugging or kissing) - there is something sinful going on.

 

[cynic]

If your talking about those specific things - oral etc then fine. But couples also hold each other …naked…when not in the ‘act’, and do other things that don’t involve those body bits, isn’t this foreplay? is this also bad then?

 

[porthos11]

T - masturbation, mutual masturbation or oral sex being forms of those. Masturbation when defined does not distinguish between single people and married people completely but implies that it is always wrong to bring about that stimulation and so therefore any form that it that should take with a spouse or oneself, I think at least, is sinful as well. Being that it takes away from the unitive and procreative aspect that Humanae Vitae talks of. I have never thought that this meant doing it through a hole in

Heh heh. What a great thread.

About the above. Theologians would disagree

Some people find oral sex disgusting. If you’re one of them, that’s fine. It is, however, a permissible form of foreplay for as long as it leads to sexual intercourse and the ejaculation of the husband inside his wife. Everything is actually permissible, for as long as the ultimate goal, procreative and unitive sexual expression, is accomplished.

 

[jegow]

porthos11:

About the above. Theologians would disagree

I would greatly appreciate it if would could email a list of some of those so I could maybe read some of their stuff. Also, I know theologians who agree with me so not all theologians would be in disagreement.

porthos11:

Some people find oral sex disgusting. If you’re one of them, that’s fine. It is, however, a permissible form of foreplay for as long as it leads to sexual intercourse and the ejaculation of the husband inside his wife. Everything is actually permissible, for as long as the ultimate goal, procreative and unitive sexual expression, is accomplished.

It is not only that I find that act disgusting but also a disordered act that is only meant for deliberate stimulation and sexual pleasure outside of the conjugal act. I think theologians would disagree with you for saying that everything is permissible as long as the ultimate goal is procreative and unitive sexual act.

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

jegow:

It is not only that I find that act disgusting but also a disordered act that is only meant for deliberate stimulation and sexual pleasure outside of the conjugal act.

Not only that, but how can anyone who respects their wife make (or let) her do that? And how could he ever kiss her afterwards?

 

[YinYangMom]

That is not what I meant by foreplay! I was referring to those acts which are considered disordered. I was not referring to kissing or hugging - I did not think those were considered as forms of foreplay. I was referring to any act that deliberately stimulates the genital area outside of the conjugal act - masturbation, mutual masturbation or oral sex being forms of those. Masturbation when defined does not distinguish between single people and married people completely but implies that it is always wrong to bring about that stimulation and so therefore any form that it that should take with a spouse or oneself, I think at least, is sinful as well. Being that it takes away from the unitive and procreative aspect that Humanae Vitae talks of. I have never thought that this meant doing it through a hole in a sheet (
what an accusation!). What I have thought and meant was that there are things that ought not to be done sexually as husband and wife. That those things that are considered as disordered and grave have no place before or after the conjugal act and that those things that have no place are what I considered as foreplay. I also did not mean to minimize bodily contact! Again, there are things that spouses should never do - that was my point. If you look back to the post that I think you got this from you will notice that I was referring to foreplay and the limitations on sexual action as said by the Church. If something is neither unitive nor procreative or both in the conjugal act (not in acts of hugging or kissing) - there is something sinful going on.

Stimulation of the genitals is permissible in marriage when it leads to and is brought to completion in the marital act. In and of itself, it is disordered and wrong, you are correct about that.

That white sheet thing…I remember seeing that for the first time in the movie “Like Water For Chocolate”. Apparently it was quite customary for a while.

 

[Christian4life]

How about this. If you don’t want children, don’t get married. What’s the point of being married if you can’t have sex or raise children togethor? You may as well be roomates and skip the vows alltogethor.

Who here can HONESTLY say that they can’t afford another child. I know there are people making 10% as much as you that have at least as many kids and are getting along just fine. It’s all about managing what you have, working hard, and being grateful for what you have!

My grandparents had 11 siblings each! If my great-grandmother had not had that 12th child, I would not be here right now. And they were not rich! Far from it! They worked with thier own hands, and they had thier children help a little too, and I dont’ see one thing wrong with that. And yet we can sit here in the fattest, RICHEST nation on earth and complain that we can’t afford that 5th child. Phooey.

Can you HONESTLY tell me you can’t afford that next child, or are you just wanting to spoil the ones you have?

 

[Christian4life]

And another thing, what’s with everyone thinking that EVERYONE has to go to college? If you want to go to college and can afford it, great! Work hard and do what you need to do.

But you know what, there are people who sacrifice everything, abort thier children, leave their spouses, and for what?? A few letters beside thier name and a job they like a little bit better, and oh yes the all important Buck. It’s all about pride pride pride. Being able to say you have a degree in something so people think you’re smart. And Greed, being able to make more money so that you can have everything you want.

I don’t see any of you clamoring to have your children become missionaries, oh no, it’s all college college college.

 

[byzmelkite]

Black Jaque:

Byzmelkite,

So is it sinful to enjoy the taste of food? Are you better off feeding yourself foods you do not like to avoid the sin of gluttony?

I find your way of thinking very strange. We didn’t make our sexual drive, Satan didn’t make our sexual drive either - God did. God made orgasms pleasureable too. Therefore the pleasure is good. It just must be properly ordered.

God put us on this earth to LIVE. Engaging in sex but refusing to enjoy it strikes me as something akin to suicide.

What you seem to advocate sounds like Gnosticism or Buddism more than Catholicism.

The thing that makes Church Fathers like St. Augustine is that they were able to express theological concepts that all the Bishops and Pope understood but could put eloquently. What these Church Fathers were expressing was not simply their own thinking, but what the rest of the Church was thinking also. But, and this is a big but, not everything these theologians said and wrote was accepted by the Church as a whole. It is possible that St. Augustine was wrong about some of what he said and wrote.

Your comments about the Papal writings carry more weight. I would like some specific references. Again, because a Pope does not always speak with definitive authority. You have to understand the context of the document.

For example, Pope JPII told the U.S. that war is not the answer. That was not a definitive statement carrying the authority of infallibility. The biggest key to knowing that this is not something we must understand as official Church Doctrine is the fact that it was addressed to a single nation. Infallible teachings are addressed to the entire body of faithful.

You make some good points and so do the others. I’m just getting back to this forum now so it would be a lot of work to address everything that has been written. Let’s just say that you can look as recently as Pope Pius XI’s encyclical (Casti Connubi?) and see what he has to say about marriage and sexual pleasure. And yes, excessive enjoyment in eating food is a sin. We should be careful about how much pleasure we take in the taste of the food focusing instead on its natural purpose, which is nourishment. Our fundamental problem is that due to the Fall, our appetites and emotions are not under the complete control of reason and you will find that this is the constant view of the Church.

 

[byzmelkite]

SueG:

I believe this could be a form of “Josephite Marriage”.

I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact, you’ll be denying yourself to accomplish this goal. Been doing it myself for 9 years now.

May God bless you and your family.

God bless you. We need more couples like yours willing to show that there is a time for sex during youth when one is bearing children and a time to put such things away in order to live free from the shackles of lustful desire.

 

[byzmelkite]

777:

Don’t forget, at that time, Adam and Eve weren’t ashamed till they ate the forbidden fruit; after that, they sewed fig leaves to cover themselves.

There’s also the matters of God’s Laws Of Decency.

The reason they became ashamed was that after eating the fruit, Adam got a spontaneous erection, embarrassing both of them. Prior to the Fall, Adam would have rationally commanded his sexual organ to fulfill its function without any desire or passion.

 

[byzmelkite]

YinYangMom:

In the beginning sex was not seen as bad.
Adam and Eve were in awe with each other, seeing each as God’s beautiful gift to the other, they couldn’t contain themselves so they united in their joy for having found ‘flesh of my flesh’…and God told them to be fruitful.
.

Two things, the command “be fruitful and multiply” is in the first creation story in Genesis 1, not the second. It is an independent tradition and many of the Church fathers held that it was a command given in light of the Fall. Secondly, “they couldn’t contain themselves” would not have been their experience. Not being able to contain oneself is a sign of sin and fallenness. If anything, they would have been pure contemplatives, showing very little emotion, only what was necessary to carry out their functions. In a way, you could say that God intended us to be Vulcans but we became Captain Kirk’s instead.

 

[byzmelkite]

Also, with regard to foreplay. Foreplay is fine if it is done in limited amounts in order to facilitate success in carrying out reproductive functions. But outside of such intended acts, foreplay should be cut off and only nonsexual contact should be made. Also, it is dangerous to experiment with different sexual positions, lingerie, and other things that entice and arouse the passions. Finally, though certain things like oral sex are technically permissible within the context of legitimate foreplay, it is rather imprudent to actually engage in such things. It is best to minimize desire and passion as much as possible in order to maintain a prayerful attitude while procreating. This is also why it is not a good idea to have sexual relations the night before going to communion. It is too dangerous to risk the chance of lusting excessively and then making a bad communion. This is why Saturday nights should be off limits.

 

[jegow]

byzmelkite:

Also, with regard to foreplay. Foreplay is fine if it is done in limited amounts in order to facilitate success in carrying out reproductive functions. But outside of such intended acts, foreplay should be cut off and only nonsexual contact should be made. Also, it is dangerous to experiment with different sexual positions, lingerie, and other things that entice and arouse the passions. Finally, though certain things like oral sex are technically permissible within the context of legitimate foreplay, it is rather imprudent to actually engage in such things. It is best to minimize desire and passion as much as possible in order to maintain a prayerful attitude while procreating. This is also why it is not a good idea to have sexual relations the night before going to communion. It is too dangerous to risk the chance of lusting excessively and then making a bad communion. This is why Saturday nights should be off limits.

I agree with you on everything except this issue of oral sex. I do not see how it is technically permissible in legitimate foreplay. I always believed that it was wrong because of the nature of that act – of it being oral and acts like that do not end in a way that is either unitive or procreative. I am hung up on the fact that the Church has spoken concerning the conjugal act and repeatedly saying that it must be unitive and procreative to be a morally acceptable action. Oral sex does not have that unitive or procreative element so how can it be considered technically permissible or morally permissible if it is easily distinguished from a morally ordered conjugal act?

 

[byzmelkite]

jegow:

I agree with you on everything except this issue of oral sex. I do not see how it is technically permissible in legitimate foreplay. I always believed that it was wrong because of the nature of that act – of it being oral and acts like that do not end in a way that is either unitive or procreative. I am hung up on the fact that the Church has spoken concerning the conjugal act and repeatedly saying that it must be unitive and procreative to be a morally acceptable action. Oral sex does not have that unitive or procreative element so how can it be considered technically permissible or morally permissible if it is easily distinguished from a morally ordered conjugal act?

I am quite sympathetic with you. I say its “technically” permissible insofar as it is used only to stimulate the genitals. My understanding is that this is generally acceptable according to the Church’s pastoral practice. That being said, I think you might be right that sodomy is sodomy whether one does it to finality or not. In that case, all genital touching with anything other than the genitals would be sinful. This would mean that even petting in marriage would be sinful. Personally, I think that this is why it is best not to marry and choose the monastic life. It is just too hard for a married person to get to heaven. Could I do things over again I would consider the monastic life instead. I did consider it. I am grateful for my wife and children but I can’t help but feel disgusted for the sexual lust and desire I feel. God did not mean for us to be animals but rational spirits. Sex, while pleasurable, is disgusting.