Christian Marriage Bed Ethics

[phil19034]

Most consider oral sex to be a matter of personal conscience that shouldn’t be demanded by either but is okay if they both are okay with it and want to bless each other in that way. You can find exceptions but that is the general attitude. But generally speaking, it is okay to “complete” each other in any way that is mutually agreeable, loving, and satisfying (physically and emotionally).

Here is a short article by the highly respected John Piper.

Just a side note. If you Google Christian Sex books there are a plethora of books by Non-Catholic Christian Marriage counselors, Pastors, and Psychologist that I’m sure would make a good Catholics head explode if they read them.

OK, what did all non-Catholic Christian denominations believe before 1930? They believed that oral sex was gravely sinful.

If they didn’t believe that, there wouldn’t have been laws against oral sex.

So if all Christian denominations believe that oral sex was a grave sin in the year 1920, why is it not a sin in 2020?

 

[F_Marturana]

Read Germaine Grizes. The way of Our Lord Jesus Christ, volume 2 chapter 9.

Also John Ford, SJ. Contemporary Moral Theology, marriage questions.

 

[phil19034]

Depends on what you mean by sodomy because the term sodomy is an English word that doesn’t accurately reflect what happened a Sodom or the overall Biblical teaching about sex.

I have already defined sodomy right here

SODOMY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Sodomy is:

1. anal or oral copulation with a person of a different sex.
2. copulation with a person of the same sex.
3. bestiality

And these sins were all practiced by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were giving into all forms of lust.

 

[phil19034]

Read Germaine Grizes. The way of Our Lord Jesus Christ, volume 2 chapter 9.

Also John Ford, SJ. Contemporary Moral Theology, marriage questions.

I will stick with St. Alphonsus Liguori (who is a Doctor of the Church), Catholic Answers, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, thank you.

 

[PaulinVA]

Every sex thread on CAF ends like this.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Who said it was the end of the thread?

@lanman87 , was your original question answered?

So my question is… Where did all these “rules” (that we Evangelicals don’t have) come from?

 

[PaulinVA]

Who said it was the end of the thread?

Maybe I should have said “ends up” like this.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I will stick with St. Alphonsus Liguori (who is a Doctor of the Church)

This is just rich. I love it when people act like Doctors of the Church can teach no wrong at all. It’s always the basis for some out-there claim like this.

Also John Ford, SJ. Contemporary Moral Theology, marriage questions.

Does this book have a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur?

 

[MNathaniel]

That’s really interesting, actually.

I may be in the minority here, but cheers and thanks for posting that link, haha. Fr. Hugh Barbour’s answer is super clear and to-the-point, and I’m surprised that I had so much trouble finding this answer a couple years ago when I was curious about it.

Back then I think the only ‘answer’ I found was from another Catholic Answers apologist (who I also respect!) who seemed to be saying the opposite of Fr. Hugh.

Really fascinating to see both perspectives expressed. Food for thought.

I mean not much thought at this point in my life, being not married, haha. But just to be aware that there really are legitimately authoritative persons (like Fr. Hugh) making specific, clearly stated arguments about why to (mostly) not engage in this practice, and giving specific reasons that can be engaged with.

Just wanted to say a ‘thanks’ to you because I genuinely found that link helpful. Hooked me up with new information that I didn’t have before.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

I will stick with St. Alphonsus Liguori (who is a Doctor of the Church)

This is just rich. I love it when people act like Doctors of the Church can teach no wrong at all. It’s always the basis for some out-there claim like this.

Also John Ford, SJ. Contemporary Moral Theology, marriage questions.

Does this book have a Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur?

Thank you for selectively editing what I said. I said, “I will stick with St. Alphonsus Liguori (who is a Doctor of the Church), Catholic Answers, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, thank you.”

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church has historically considered St. Alphonsu of Liguroi’s conclusions to be reliable.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

 

[Rozellelily]

to show and express love to each other in ways

OP I’ve never heard it referred to as “express love” before lol.
Personally I don’t tell people what to do with their love lives, and I don’t believing in splitting hairs and reducing things to a set of rules- I couldn’t imagine a bigger romance killer- but to put it bluntly, if you give a guy that, he will always expect that.

If you have issues having intimacy and feeling passion without that, then I would consider addressing how that came about.

Iow, society can condition people so much that they have never seen any other way.

 

[phil19034]

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?

Seeing what responses you have make throughout this thread, it doesn’t seem like you are interested in the Catholic positions. It seems like you are more eager to argue your own view on this topic.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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

Do you know their status when they married?

Those that marry beyond child-bearing years do not have procreation as a reason to marry nor do they see it as a purpose of their marriage.

Procreation is not required of a marriage nor even the potential, for example a marriage of the infertile does does not invalidate it. What is required is to have the will to grant the proper marital act necessary to produce children.

For clarity on the issue see Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951:

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Thank you for selectively editing what I said.

If you want to paint your conclusion as the truth, don’t say it’s from (insert fallible source here) and the Magisterium, just say it’s from the Magisterium. The original phrasing could mean you view the Magisterium in the light of whatever the fallible source claimed.

 

[otjm]

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.

Yes, I read your OP.

Do you understand what an analogy is? Nothing in what I said indicates that I might think that evangelicals do not think adultery wrong.

At the risk of being pedantic, let me try it again. The individual I referred to in an “open marriage” I strongly suspect would say that she “serves” her spouse by accepting his adultery, and I also strongly suspect that her husband, if asked, would say that he “serves” her by accepting her adultery.

The point being that both would indicate that their conscience allows this - which both you and I can agree is a violation of God’s law.

Where we part is the issue of “serving” the spouse in a manner that is not procreative, as that is the bottom of what we are discussing.

Contrary to the interpretation that Angelicus Poena makes of the paragraph cited, the Church does not hold that foreplay is in and of itself wrong; it is wrong if it is done for the sexual stimulus itself rather than ending in intercourse. And that applies to both males and females.

I don’t know Evangelical moral theology as it was 100 years ago, or 80 years ago, but I would hazard a guess that it was stricter than it may be now, and what occurred since then? The “sexual revolution”, which was a massive assault on moral theology.

Paul tells us loave is to be self-giving. “Serving” a spouse outside of normal intercourse elevates an orgasm to achieving an orgasm for the sake of the orgasm, as opposed to a mutual sharing and mutual giving. One partner may feel they are other directed to the other’s pleasure; but that pleasure is one-sided and self seeking.

Presumably there is a reason (not an excuse - but a reason) that intercourse is not appropriate at the time. I grant that one spouse wants to please the other; but where is the self-giving and self-control of the other spouse? I fail to see any significant difference between self-induced orgasm and one induced by another person; the results are the same - orgasm for the sake of orgasm, not a self-giving love of both parties for the other. As in, unitive and procreative. They are not intended to be separated; they need to be one.

 

[F_Marturana]

I believe it does.

I think it is no longer in print becsuse it was written pre humana Vitae, and references Castae Conubbi as en encyclical.

Dr. Grizes definitely has both Nihil Obstat and imprimatur.

 

[goout]

goout:

Theology of the body has a lot to say about this issue.
The issue at hand is the using of another person as opposed to the mutual respect and mutual pursuit of good ends by a couple.
The other person should never be a means to an end. A person is never a means. If mere one sided pleasure is the end of an act, it’s not ordered well.

And this article on Catholic Answers says that when people try to argue that Theology of the Body approves of oral sex, they are 100% wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, SO I WILL HAVE TO TALK IN ALL CAPS NOW.
YOU ARE REFERRING TO ORAL SEX PER SE, FOR IT’S OWN SAKE, AS IT’S OWN END.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM FOREPLAY THAT IS ORDERED TO AND PART OF A PROPERLY ORDERED CONJUGAL ACT.

 

[F_Marturana]

Germs in Grizes is actually the last living lay theologian who worked on Humanae Vitae.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

goout:

Theology of the body has a lot to say about this issue.
The issue at hand is the using of another person as opposed to the mutual respect and mutual pursuit of good ends by a couple.
The other person should never be a means to an end. A person is never a means. If mere one sided pleasure is the end of an act, it’s not ordered well.

And this article on Catholic Answers says that when people try to argue that Theology of the Body approves of oral sex, they are 100% wrong.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING, SO I WILL HAVE TO TALK IN ALL CAPS NOW.
YOU ARE REFERRING TO ORAL SEX PER SE, FOR IT’S OWN SAKE, AS IT’S OWN END.
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM FOREPLAY THAT IS ORDERED TO AND PART OF A PROPERLY ORDERED CONJUGAL ACT.

Says who? Please show me one Church document that says oral sex is not sinful. Are you saying that this article on Catholic Answers is wrong?

https://www.catholic.com/qa/catholic-theology-and-oral-pleasure

 

[goout]

And this thread demonstrates why CA is wise to jettison the forum.