S
Spirithound
Guest
May I ask you to clarify your position a bit? How often does ejaculation have to occur in the vagina to qualify as “open to life” ?
- Status
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Actually, it is an awesome choice!
But the Church doesn’t force anything. You have this thing called free will. You can learn the correct way for sex to work and ignore it all you want. The Church merely teaches what is Truth. Accept it or ignore it, up to you.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
While a funny song, it’s inaccurate. It’s not that sperm is sacred, it’s SEX that is sacred. A sacrament. A renewal of the marriage vows. SACRED…
Society has affected us so much that we can’t even see how sacred sex is anymore…you can watch it on tv, see it in stores, hear about it in music…
E
Ella
Guest
Most of the time. On the other hand, how often does it have to occur outside the vagina for it to qualify as ‘closed to life’? Once out of a hundred? Once out of a thousand? Once out of thousands? According to current interpretation of TOB, it’s once out of millions… instead of reduction ad absurdum, why not consider that this is not something the Church needs to declaim about?
E
Ella
Guest
It’s an expected statement in this discussion, but it is not true in this matter. The Church can change Her position on this, without departing from the Truth.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Ummm, I don’t think so. Go read Gaudium Et Spes, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, ets. Here’s a handy link with all of them and more:
wf-f.org/CatholicSexEdResources.html
Can’t change…not a discipline or small “t” tradition…faith and morals. infallibally stated.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Most of the time? 51%?Most of the time. On the other hand, how often does it have to occur outside the vagina for it to qualify as ‘closed to life’? Once out of a hundred? Once out of a thousand? Once out of thousands? According to current interpretation of TOB, it’s once out of millions… instead of reduction ad absurdum, why not consider that this is not something the Church needs to declaim about?
How often must a person attend Mass to qualify as “obedient to the Magesterium” ?
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Wow. This has been a fun thread to read. Rarely does one see a topic that contains so many running subtopics and interthreaded conversations and still somehow manages to remain coherent.
Now, I’m an NFP-lovin’, TOB-readin’, single Catholic. I am entirely on board with the principle, “Each sex act must be open to life,” and so I am not in agreement with Ella or Lucky7 or that gang. At some point in each and every sex act, from a strictly legalistic standpoint, some semen’s got to end up in some vagina, or it thwarts the whole point of sex. (This is a terrible way to approach the question, I think–the question should not be “What is the most I’m allowed to do without getting God angry at me?” but “How can I best love and unite myself to my spouse?”–but it serves our purposes for the moment.)
I’m with baylee and newbie2 on multiple male orgasm, though. There’s no reason that a man could not ejaculate in both his wife’s vagina and, say, her mouth, as long as it’s in the context of a single act of sexual congress. I don’t recall any definition of “sex act” in any Church document that says “after the man has ejaculated, any further activity counts as a new sex act,” and, indeed, the Church teaches that the wife may still orgasm after ejaculation (multiple times, if possible!), and that this does not constitute masturbation, but an extension of the same sex act! I draw the conclusion, then, that, if the man can experience multiple orgasms during a single act of intercourse, only one of them need be directed toward explictly reproductive purposes. This is not mutual masturbation, it is not thwarting or frustrating the reproductive facet of sex, and that old Monty Python song “every sperm is sacred” (and its many derivative “Catholic” principles) are, I think we would all agree, too heretical to warrant rebuttal.
I can certainly understand where a lot of you are coming from–it strikes one as “common sense,” from a strictly legalistic, mechanistic (and, honestly, not very human) standpoint that one act of sex ends with ejaculation and another begins immediately thereafter, but I do not believe this is supported by the letter or the spirit of Church teaching on the glorious act that is human sexual intercourse. Nor is it, in the final analysis, supported by common sense about our chaotic, often messy, rarely textbook sex lives. In fact, I think it runs contrary to both.
I’m more than willing to be taken to the drycleaners on this by someone who can quote Gaudium et spes, Humanae vitae, et. al. at me, if I deserve such drycleaning.
Now, I’m an NFP-lovin’, TOB-readin’, single Catholic. I am entirely on board with the principle, “Each sex act must be open to life,” and so I am not in agreement with Ella or Lucky7 or that gang. At some point in each and every sex act, from a strictly legalistic standpoint, some semen’s got to end up in some vagina, or it thwarts the whole point of sex. (This is a terrible way to approach the question, I think–the question should not be “What is the most I’m allowed to do without getting God angry at me?” but “How can I best love and unite myself to my spouse?”–but it serves our purposes for the moment.)
I’m with baylee and newbie2 on multiple male orgasm, though. There’s no reason that a man could not ejaculate in both his wife’s vagina and, say, her mouth, as long as it’s in the context of a single act of sexual congress. I don’t recall any definition of “sex act” in any Church document that says “after the man has ejaculated, any further activity counts as a new sex act,” and, indeed, the Church teaches that the wife may still orgasm after ejaculation (multiple times, if possible!), and that this does not constitute masturbation, but an extension of the same sex act! I draw the conclusion, then, that, if the man can experience multiple orgasms during a single act of intercourse, only one of them need be directed toward explictly reproductive purposes. This is not mutual masturbation, it is not thwarting or frustrating the reproductive facet of sex, and that old Monty Python song “every sperm is sacred” (and its many derivative “Catholic” principles) are, I think we would all agree, too heretical to warrant rebuttal.
I can certainly understand where a lot of you are coming from–it strikes one as “common sense,” from a strictly legalistic, mechanistic (and, honestly, not very human) standpoint that one act of sex ends with ejaculation and another begins immediately thereafter, but I do not believe this is supported by the letter or the spirit of Church teaching on the glorious act that is human sexual intercourse. Nor is it, in the final analysis, supported by common sense about our chaotic, often messy, rarely textbook sex lives. In fact, I think it runs contrary to both.
I’m more than willing to be taken to the drycleaners on this by someone who can quote Gaudium et spes, Humanae vitae, et. al. at me, if I deserve such drycleaning.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
M
MarieCB
Guest
Don’t worry. You’re definitely not the only one who thinks so. I used to belong to a rather conservative Baptist church. When I mentioned to some of the elders’ wives about whether or not birth control was allowed, they thought I was slightly silly for even thinking it wouldn’t be. The Salvation Army encourages contraceptive birth control.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Hi Jennifer,
Is there any particular section that’s especially relevant to our discussion here?
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Well, the whole this is good and worth a reading. I think the most relevant section would be part IV Morality of Intercourse.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Yes, it’s much easier to get on board with it when you are single…I thought I understood it too when I was single…because I didn’t have a clue about the intricasies and the variables involved when giving and receiving married love. I suspect that those married people that are on board didn’t have much interest in (or disliked) any other form of sex anyway…and therefore it’s easier for them to buy into it.
For anyone (and I know it wasn’t you) to compare the specific direction of a married couple’s sex lives (ie. where, when and how often a man should put his penis) to the general direction to attend mass on a weekly basis is really quite unbelieveable.
Another point…people keep saying that church teaching has not changed on this matter. However, after reading a number of threads on this topic it looks like at one time the Church taught that you must never engage in oral sex…as in never even starting the act. Now, it’s okay as long as the man finishes in the vagina. Looks like it’s changed to me.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Now I’m not really sure what I can possibly say to that, short of getting myself hitched to somebody and coming back and reporting on the experience. I guess I can say that I know some dozen of married couples who are happily living this teaching and find that it poses no difficulty to them. I also know (for a fact) that most of these couples have enthusiastic sex lives. I probably shouldn’t know that, but there it is.
As I suggested in my post, Church teaching on the very specific mechanics of the teaching are neither clear nor unchanging. Opinions on the propriety of (for instance) manual clitoral stimulation and multiple male orgasm have varied between various teachers over time, and have not, to my knowledge, ever been declared infallible. What is unchanging is the principle that each sex act must be open to life. This has always been true, and it always will be true.
What’s happening in this particular thread is a whole lot of Catholics using the most complete available teachings (TOB, HV, GES) and applying those to some very specific circumstances. It seems clear from the principle that a deliberate act of oral or anal ejaculation without any corresponding vaginal ejaculation would be a violation of both spouses’ human dignity. The consensus opinion supports the idea that oral or manual stimulation of the woman in the context of a sex act that is, overall, open to life, would be permitted and even encouraged. Other suggestions are more hotly debated, with some calling them great ideas and others calling them flagrant, obvious heresy. Welcome to the Catholic Church. This is pretty much what we do. Eventually, probably a few centuries from now, I expect these issues will be firmly sorted out and we’ll be debating still odder ideas.
That clear it up for you at all?
I
Infinitesimal
Guest
Sorry, I know I’m new to this forum. It’s the union between man and woman that’s sacred, nothing to do with where the sperm goes. What matters most is intent. If a man rapes a woman and makes her pregnant I think it’d be obvious to anyone that he’s committed a more heinous sin than someone who’s, say masturbated, or used contraception. So it must have more to do with the intent than the mere mechanics - in God’s eyes surely?
S
SteveGC
Guest
As to the notion suggested that it is OK to ejaculate first in the vagina, and then subsequently somewhere else…
- why do you want to do that? what’s the end goal of that activity?
- what’s the cutoff point? A trickle in the women, and then the motherload somewhere else? Does that qualify as OK for you? If not, then what?
- do you believe that God created semen and egg to be partially united? By this I mean, do you think God is OK with you divying up the male seed, so long as his procreation purposes are somewhat adhered to?
- If The Church says it doesn’t want you to intentionally spill seed anywhere but where it is procreative…do you accept this admonishment, or not? If not, why would you put the word “Catholic” under the “religion” title of your profile?
S
Spirithound
Guest
This is only half a post. You tell us about the intent of rape, but not about the intent of masturbation or contraception. Please continue.
W
Wowbagger
Guest
Let me ask you a counter-question. What’s the end goal of female orgasm, which, the Church teaches, is a postive good to be pursued even once the procreative facet of sexual union has been completed?
“Motherlode,” not “motherload.” Also, capital letters. Also, “women”? Plural? If so, we have bigger problems here. But atrocious grammar aside.
I believe that–as the Church has traditionally done in the case of sexuality, which we have always tried to keep shrouded behind a veil of intimate mystery–we leave such considerations to the spouses and their well-formed, Theology-of-the-Body-following consciences, as we do in so many other circumstances surrounding sexual gray areas (e.g. “grave matters” and the just use of NFP). Such extraordinarily legalistic considerations as you suggest have not and never will enter into Church considerations–or would you like to see the Code of Canon Law filled up with measurements written out in milliliters of semen?
If that day ever comes, I’ll pay for your measuring cup.
Huh?
You need a total of one (1) spermatozoan to reach a total of one (1) available ovum in order to make a baby. 99.999% of male “seed” ends up dead in even your very narrow definition of a proper act of intercourse. So I’m not sure what the relevance of the question is or even what you exactly mean by it, but, clearly, yes, God created man’s ejaculation to distribute way more semen than can possibly unite with the egg.
Fortunately for my argument, the Church makes no such claim–at least, none that I have encountered in my entire, lifelong interest in Church teaching on sexuality, contraception and JPII’s teaching
If you’re going to manufacture your own teachings and call them the Church’s, why would you put the word “Catholic” under the “religion” title of your profile?
…I must admit, in my whole life, I have been accused of many, many things because of my Catholicism, but never of schism. Do you have any coherent points to make, Steve?
Infinitesmal, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a Catholic who would say that a contracepting couple is more evil than a rapist. However, Catholic theology (largely based on St. Thomas Aquinas) considers both intent and object. Both must be just for a given act to be just. Rape is a horrible crime against God and Man, but that fact doesn’t mean that contraception (a deliberate act whose intent and object is the frustration of God’s gift of fertility) is therefore okay. Does that help at all?
I
Infinitesimal
Guest
Well the “intent” of masturbation is often simply an act of self comfort. It’s officially considered a disordered act by the Catholic Church, and also an act against purity. But I think it’s wrong to single it out amongst a multitude of sins that we commit against purity all the time, it seems, just by existing in our present sinful nature. It’s not to be taken lightly though. Also with regard to masturbation, as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with where the sperm goes - but more to do with the stimuli, i.e. pornography, or the sinfulness of our thoughts.
With regard to contraception, I think it’s simply a case of partners wanting to have (normal) sex without extending their families. And here I think that what morally determines how sinful the act is, has to do with the genuine love involved in the act, and not necessarily whether the sperm gets fertilised.
Perhaps I’m over explaining this: my point can be simply summed up by saying that it’s the intent (heart) that’s most important to God.
I
Infinitesimal
Guest
Yes, I can’t disagree with that…it’s a shame that us imperfect beings find ourselves having to work within the shades of grey in our lives. But I love the Church for being a sure guide as to what’s black and white
.- Status