Christian Marriage Bed Ethics

[otjm]

The Church’s teaching on properly ordered sexuality and the sixth commandment are not “rules”.

Absolutely. Sadly, however, that is often how they are taught, and often how they are perceived.

The issue may be with the teacher(s); not everyone is comfortable discussing the subject; not everyone is creative enough to know are understand different approaches; and not everyone is adept at dealing with a listener who is uncomfortable for whatever reason. I am sure there are a number of other reasons which can be added.

And the issue may be with the student. Something which may be age appropriate but “short and sweet” may never be expanded upon; catechesis from the best of teachers may never occur later for a host of reasons. Society - both as one’s acquaintances and the devil’s workshop - the media - present an extremely secularized version of what sex is about and it is cacophony one rarely escapes, There are students who could read and absorb the Theology of the Body, and students not capable of grasping most of it. And by the time one is capable of moving beyond fairly straightforward rules one may have become so secularized that deafness has resulted.

 

[goout]

Except it’s not. Please speak with your priest.

 

[goout]

1ke:

both unity and procreation.

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.

Unitive is not secondary to procreative. The sexual embrace integrates the two.
Like so much in Catholicism, the concept of both/and is indispensable.

Intimacy can be awesome and not end in sexual gratification each time.
Love, generosity, compassion, and comfort are not necessarily ending in orgasm. They might lead up to it, they might not. The perfectly chaste husband forgoes sexual satisfaction if the wife is unable. Every couple has to know their boundaries and limitations.
As a middle aged couple, we can have full body contact without genital stimulation and that’s just fine.

 

[phil19034]

1ke:

You are misled that oral or manual gratification is a loving act.

Isn’t that up to the people involved.

Oral sex is a form of sodomy. Sodomy is not just homosexual in nature, it can also be heterosexual.

All Christian religions always taught that oral sex is immoral, until the mid/late 20th century. That’s why in most (if not all) US States, oral sex was against the law, and in a few states the law is still on the books (or was just officially removed).

 

[goout]

lanman87:

1ke:

You are misled that oral or manual gratification is a loving act.

Isn’t that up to the people involved.

Oral sex is a form of sodomy. Sodomy is not just homosexual in nature, it can also be heterosexual.

All Christian religions always taught that oral sex is immoral, until the mid/late 20th century. That’s why in most (if not all) US States, oral sex was against the law, and in a few states the law is still on the books (or was just officially removed).

You have to distinguish between sex acts involving oral stimulation to orgasm outside the full context, and acts that lead up to the completely ordered act.

 

[goout]

I encourage everyone to be married, if it’s your vocation. And embrace these issues at the level God intended them.
There’s a lot of patience, care, confusion, and fumbling around involved in the marital embrace. And no two human beings are alike. And that is what makes the whole thing maddening and challenging at times, and wonderful at the same time.

Some of the ideas presented as theology here are not only erroneous, they are not even realistic.

 

[otjm]

Why is it a lie to serve my spouse? Isn’t service an act of love.

Service is an interesting word. One can really believe that one is serving the other when one is engaged in an act which is not based on God’s intended relationship between man and woman.

An example: a woman of secular fame due to her career was interviewed by a national publication and freely admitted that she was in an “open” marriage. To anyone reading this not sure of what “open” means, she and her spouse had agreed that each could engage in “discreet sexual acts” with others.

True service is based on what is best for the other - as is love (meaning choice, not emotion). Service is - or at least should be - part of communication. So there are two parties to service; the leader and the follower. The leader may believe that what is proposed in the marital bed is for the good of the other; or the follower may, or both may.

That, in itself is not proof that what is proposed or done is God-intended.

We are beings who have both emotions and hormones, either or both of which can be significant driving forces. And we all are prone to assuming and believing that because a hormone or an emotion are strong, the response by the husband or the wife, or both is motivated for a “higher purpose” and not simply a response to our body’s impulses.

In short, one can serve one’s spouse in a way that is intended and/or perceived by the one serving to be an act of love, when in fact the spouse is engaging in that service (act) is responding to a spouse whose “needs” are selfish and, self-centered rather than an affirmative act to and with the serving spouse. We can go back to the “open marriage” comment by the individual noted above; I would not be the least bit surprised, if either she or her spouse, or both of them if asked would say that their choice is “loving” and "serves the (needs of) the other.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

lanman87:

1ke:

You are misled that oral or manual gratification is a loving act.

Isn’t that up to the people involved.

Oral sex is a form of sodomy. Sodomy is not just homosexual in nature, it can also be heterosexual.

All Christian religions always taught that oral sex is immoral, until the mid/late 20th century. That’s why in most (if not all) US States, oral sex was against the law, and in a few states the law is still on the books (or was just officially removed).

You have to distinguish between sex acts involving oral stimulation to orgasm outside the full context, and acts that lead up to the completely ordered act.

It doesn’t matter. Oral sex between husband and wife is a sinful act - period.

If the act is involving stimulation to prepare of orgasm and the husband fully completes the act, then perhaps it MIGHT only be a venial sin.

But regardless, oral sex is always sinful. Whether it’s always a mortal sin or not might be debatable, but it is always sinful.

 

[Rau]

The secondary end must be directed to the primary end, as the mutual help of the spouses assists in the procreation and education of children.
[/quote]

If you hold such a strict and narrow view - how do you accept marriage between those who are beyond child-bearing years?

 

[Lobster_Johnson]

But regardless, oral sex is always sinful. Whether it’s always a mortal sin or not might be debatable, but it is always sinful.

I’ve been keeping a loose eye on this thread, and I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove this claim.

 

[lanman87]

Did you read my OP? Evangelicals do hold to adultery (which would include an open marriage, porn, or anything that is not between the two of them) as being sinful. It is clearly laid out in Scripture. But we also hold freedom between a loving Christian couple to show and express love to each other in ways that the Catholic church condemns.

 

[Rau]

If it is not permissible to seek sexual pleasure outside of its procreative purpose then Catholics must be sinning when they practice NFP because that is saving sex for the time in which they conciously know that pregnancy will not occur.

If this is not a complete double standard then please explain how it is not.

Please see countless other threads which correct that misunderstanding.

 

[Rau]

Sounds like someone’s been reading Ron Conte’s interpretation instead of official Church teaching again…it happens.

Which official teaching is specific enough to be found contrary to Conte?

 

[whatistrue]

But we also hold freedom between a loving Christian couple to show and express love to each other in ways that the Catholic church condemns.

Not surprising. But of course there are many other things that various Protestant groups adhere to that are opposed to (and by) the Church. I can think of several without trying hard, and I am sure you could as well. Doesn’t make them correct, however.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

But regardless, oral sex is always sinful. Whether it’s always a mortal sin or not might be debatable, but it is always sinful.

I’ve been keeping a loose eye on this thread, and I have not seen sufficient evidence to prove this claim.

Do you agree that Sodomy is immoral according to the Bible? If so, even dictionary.com defines oral sex as a form of sodomy.

SODOMY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Here is booklet on Catholic Sexual Ethics published by the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic Information Service in DC.

https://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/cis/cis314.pdf

Oral sex is mentioned twice in this booket.

solitary genital activity (masturbation) and sodomitical intercourse (anal and oral sex) with
another person, whether of the same sex (homosexual activity) or of
the opposite sex
– pp 17-18

Sodomy. Sodomitical acts, e.g., anal sex, oral sex, can be either
heterosexual (done by persons of the opposite sex) or homosexual
(done by persons of the same sex). Such acts are in many ways similar
to acts of masturbation insofar as sodomites choose to use their own
and each other’s bodies as a mere means of providing consciously
experienced satisfactions. They thus choose in a way that violates the
good of personal integrity as bodily persons insofar as they treat their
own and each other’s bodies as mere instruments of the consciously
experiencing subject. They thus violate the nuptial meaning of the
body and thus the body’s capacity for the marital act, and in this way
they violate the good of marriage itself.
– p. 25

 

[lanman87]

Doesn’t make them correct, however.

Doesn’t make them wrong either.

 

[whatistrue]

Doesn’t make them wrong either.

Well, from our perspective, it actually does.

 

[phil19034]

Did you read my OP? Evangelicals do hold to adultery (which would include an open marriage, porn, or anything that is not between the two of them) as being sinful. It is clearly laid out in Scripture. But we also hold freedom between a loving Christian couple to show and express love to each other in ways that the Catholic church condemns.

Do Evangelicals agree that sodomy is sinful, as it is mentioned in the Bible?

Because oral and anal sex (even amoung a hetrosexual couple) is a form of sodomy

sodomy

[ sod-uh-mee ]

noun

1) anal or oral copulation with a person of a different sex.

2) copulation with a person of the same sex.

3) bestiality.
SODOMY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com

 

[PaulinVA]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Vico]

The secondary end must be directed to the primary end, as the mutual help of the spouses assists in the procreation and education of children.

If you hold such a strict and narrow view - how do you accept marriage between those who are beyond child-bearing years?
[/quote]

Remember that Joachim and Anna, the parents of the Virgin Mary, were old and barren.