Christian Marriage Bed Ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter lanman87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lanman87

Guest
As the Catholic answers forum comes to a close, I’m asking questions I never got around to asking.

It seems to me that one of the major differences between what is taught in American Evangelical churches and the Catholic church comes on what is considered sinful in the marriage bed. (I’m attempting to be discrete in this post)

What I was taught is that activity in the marriage bed is a matter of personal conscious except for a few hard and fast Biblical exceptions.
  1. No one else is in the marriage bed either literally (adultery) or mindfully (pornography, lusting after others and so forth)
  2. Both the husband and wife must be “on board” with what is happening. Neither should be pressured into going against their conscious/comfort level but both should be willing to be loving and generous in how they treat their spouse.
  3. Both feel loved and respected by each others actions and attitudes in the marriage bed.
Other than those few things, in most American Evangelical churches, there aren’t really any “prohibitions” as to what happens in the marriage bed. Now, you will find specific preachers who have much more strict “guidelines”. I’m relaying what I feel is the majority guidance as pertaining to the marriage bed in the circles I’ve lived in all my life.

I contrast that with what I’ve read about Catholic guidelines pertaining to the marriage bed and it seems that the Catholic church has many more “rules”. And considers things as sinful that your average American Evangelical does not consider sinful.

One thing I’ve notices is that we (Evangelicals) don’t have as big of an issue with “pleasure” in the marriage bed as we see the enjoyment of the marriage bed to be a gift from God that is intended to strengthen and build up the marriage. From my perspective, that part of the marriage bed is every bit as important as procreation.

So my question is… Where did all these “rules” (that we Evangelicals don’t have) come from?
 
This came up in a thread I started:
48.png
Avoiding jargon, please can you explain "being open to life" to a non-Catholic? Moral Theology
I have searched for this topic and found some useful answers. However, nothing that answers my exact questions, so please bear with me. I understand what Catholic teaching is on every sexual act being open to life and not separating the unitive and procreative functions of sex. However, what I am struggling with is why this the church’s teaching. As we all know, to maintain a replacement level of reproduction, every woman has to give birth to 2.1 live young. Given that the planet is now danger…
Click to expand...
It basically seems to come down to the fact that Catholic sexual morality is largely based on natural law.
 
Pleasure is not bad in and of itself.

I assume you mean the point that sexual relations should all be open to life?

As far as I know, the prohibition to contraception was fairly common to all Christians until about the Lambeth Conference where it was allowed in certain circumstances (of course opening the way for it to be allowed easily). It was seen as the sin of Onanism, so named after Onan, in the Bible.

Not only do we take this into account, but also the natural law (reproductive organs are ordered toward reproduction).

Against doubt concerning this teaching, the Church clarifies the attitude Christians should have toward these matters in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
Where did all these “rules” (that we Evangelicals don’t have) come from?
Click to expand...
The Church’s teaching on properly ordered sexuality and the sixth commandment are not “rules”. These are moral truths. There are a number of things that are sexual sins, as you’ve noted: fornication, adultery, pornography, masturbation, and so on.

As to properly ordered marital sexuality, there really is only one thing: each act of marital intimacy must be per se ordered to both unity and procreation.
 
Kei said:
As far as I know, the prohibition to contraception was fairly common to all Christians until about the Lambeth Conference where it was allowed in certain circumstances (of course opening the way for it to be allowed easily). It was seen as the sin of Onanism, so named after Onan, in the Bible.
Click to expand...
From what I have read, every Christian denomination had the same teaching against contraception as the Catholic Church from the Reformation up until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. It was a doctrine agreed on by all Christians everywhere.

That Lambeth Conference opened a small exception loophole, but it became a flood, paving the way for the sexual revolution
 
1ke said:
both unity and procreation.
Click to expand...
Is unity (I assume you mean as a expression of love, generosity, compassion, and comfort) a secondary thing to procreation?

The reason I ask, it is possible to express love, generosity, compassion, and comfort in the marriage bed when procreation isn’t advised or possible. Maybe due to health reasons or special circumstances.
 
lanman87 said:
Is unity (I assume you mean as a expression of love, generosity, compassion, and comfort) a secondary thing to procreation?
Click to expand...
unity and procreation are inseparable.
lanman87 said:
The reason I ask, it is possible to express love, generosity, compassion, and comfort in the marriage bed when procreation isn’t advised or possible. Maybe due to health reasons or special circumstances.
Click to expand...
If you mean stimulating sexual organs to orgasm outside a completed act of intercourse, i.e. manually or orally, that violates the inseparable elements of unity and procreation as it pertains to the marital embrace.

If you mean non-genital/non-sexual acts of unity, certainly couples show affection all the time. Which aids intimacy, but isn’t what we speak of when we speak of sexual morality.
 
1ke said:
If you mean stimulating sexual organs to orgasm outside a completed act of intercourse, i.e. manually or orally, that violates the inseparable elements of unity and procreation as it pertains to the marital embrace.
Click to expand...
Well, I disagree with this. In certain situations, those things can be one of the most loving things a spouse can do for the other. Being loving toward the other certainly builds and strengthens the marriage.

Unity and Procreation are separate. Being procreative certainly can be done is a way that isn’t unifying to the marriage.
 
Last edited:
lanman87 said:
…Where did all these “rules” (that we Evangelicals don’t have) come from?
Click to expand...
Read earlier Christian writings, including Saint Thomas Aquinas, and even since the Council of Trent till before the 1930 Anglican Lambeth Conference.

Lust takes both psychic or physical origin, so even includes independent delectation of the spouse. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2352 … “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

139 CDF, Persona humana 9.
Click to expand...
 
lanman87 said:
Well, I disagree with this. In certain situations, those things can be one of the most loving things a spouse can do for the other. Being loving toward the other certainly builds and strengthens the marriage.
Click to expand...
In this, we have to recognize the objective truth of how God created and ordered our sexuality, and how we have been influenced by the culture and our own disordered desires.

These acts are never moral. The ends cannot justify the means. And, feelings are subjective. We can be loving in many ways.

When it comes to sexuality, we may only express that sexuality in ways that are pleasing to God. The way he designed it.

Sexual pleasure is not the purpose or the “end” of the act of intercourse. It can never be sought for itself, apart from the procreative element of the act. It becomes disordered when that happens.
lanman87 said:
Unity and Procreation are separate.
Click to expand...
They are not the same thing. But they are not separable when we are talking about the proper use of our sexual faculties in marriage.
lanman87 said:
Being procreative certainly can be done is a way that isn’t unifying to the marriage.
Click to expand...
Which would be equally disordered. i.e., marital rape.
 
Maelstrom1 said:
Anyone who keeps a book with church allowed sexual activity listed as acceptable on the nightstand is more than a little warped.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where anyone on this thread has put this forward as a suggestion.
Maelstrom1 said:
The Church hierarchy should get out of the bedroom and start addressing the REAL world and human problems.
Click to expand...
“The Church”, i.e. the Magisterium, has a threefold role: to teach, to sanctify, and to govern.

Those in the Church engage in both the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. So we can do both: address moral concerns AND help those in need.

This is not a zero sum game.
 
Last edited:
Maelstrom1 said:
Anyone who keeps a book with church allowed sexual activity listed as acceptable on the nightstand is more than a little warped. The Church hierarchy should get out of the bedroom and start addressing the REAL world and human problems. Jesus is, at this moment, rolling His eyes yet again. How liitle humanity and the church leaders understand Him.
Click to expand...
Sexuality takes place in “the real world” and certainly can be the source of a lot of “human problems.”
 
1ke said:
In this, we have to recognize the objective truth of how God created and ordered our sexuality, and how we have been influenced by the culture and our own disordered desires.
Click to expand...
I think this is where the disagreement in the teaching that I was given and what the Catholic church teaches. We believe that God ordered our sexuality, not just for procreation but as an act of and expression of marital Love. And those expressions of love can build and support a marriage.

Which is why we don’t necessarily see those acts as immoral or sinful. They are, or can be, loving acts of kindness, generosity and comfort. You will not hear an American Evangelical teacher saying you “must” do those things but you will also not hear one saying “it is a sin”. It is strictly a mutual decision based on love, respect, and personal conscience of both spouses.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Which is where divergence from the objective moral law occurs.
Click to expand...
The Royal Law is to love God and Love others. This is especially, our spouse, with whom our relationship is blessed by God. I don’t see how any loving act goes against that law.
 
Last edited:
Because those “loving acts” alluded to are a lie communicated through your body. The marital embrace is supposed to be a total, free and complete gift of oneself to the other. Any other act is saying, “I love you, but I’m rejecting your reproductive faculties. I want you, but not necessarily all of you”. That is not what God envisioned when he said that man and woman should become “one flesh”.
 
These innuendos are giving me a headache. My understanding is that Spouses can “serve” each other till the sun comes up, before male completion, in terms of foreplay. I’m assuming that’s what we are alluding to here. However, before a man crosses the finish line, it must be within the marital embrace as God designed, open to the possibility of procreation. Nothing is held back, two become one flesh, one body gifted to another in totality.
 
lanman87 said:
Why is it a lie to serve my spouse? Isn’t service an act of love.
Click to expand...
That’s debatable. The Natural Law angle to this objection hasn’t been reasonably answered IMO. And it is basically why priests tell married couples not to sweat it when it comes to these sorts of things. Right now the Church takes an almost idealistic approach to sex between married couples, but doesn’t expect an idealistic sexuality. The Church is very cautious about things, and especially sex since it is a taking part in creation so to speak. The Church takes one position, the Evangelicals take another. But around the time the Evangelical churches changed their teachings about contraception the Catholic Church also changed, but not nearly as much. The term which you are questioning, unity, was added to the Church’s teaching on procreation. That effectively opened the door to NFP.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top