Explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter notredame_999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

notredame_999

Guest
what was the pre-vatican II position on sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse in marriage? Were they permissible for any reason? I have read on this site that acts like oral sex are permissible in marriage as long as the finished act is intercourse. This seems like a total contradiction of catholic teaching before Vatican II.
 
notredame_999 said:
what was the pre-vatican II position on sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse in marriage? Were they permissible for any reason? I have read on this site that acts like oral sex are permissible in marriage as long as the finished act is intercourse. This seems like a total contradiction of catholic teaching before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Things would have been the basically the same…in the years leading up to Vatican II as the years that followed the Council.
 
In order to be moral, each and every marital sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. The teaching of the Church on the morality of sexual acts does not depend on the presence or absence of climax, but on the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings. These meanings are inseparable; it is never moral to engage in a sexual act that is non-marital or non-unitive or non-procreative.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

theologian Alice von Hildebrand: “It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior – even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception – should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The ‘pornification’ of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture.” (Catholic News Agency article: catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999)

Canon Jacques Leclerc: “There are many who believe that once they are married, they may do whatever they like… they do not understand [that] the search for every means of increasing pleasure can be a perversion… Now, there are even among the most Christian young people many who know nothing of the moral aspect of the problem and have only the rudimentary idea that everything is forbidden outside marriage, but that within marriage everything is allowed. It is thus a good thing to remember that the morality of conjugal relations does not allow that pleasure should be sought by every means, but calls for a sexual life that is at the same time healthy, simple and normal.” (Marriage: A Great Sacrament, 1951, p. 88).
 
Reasonable, moderate and chaste foreplay is fine…but you are correct the in any case the husband may not climax other than vaginally …outside “physical union with his wife in the martial act” …and Christians are not hedonists…

The martial act must be always unitative and open to life…

But back to your question…yes it was basically the same as today --as one would find in moral manuals prior to the Council.

(though now with the Theology of the Body --gift from Pope John Paul II–certain things are more richly explained etc…)

Oh also other moderately arousing kissing, holding hands, thoughts about plans for marital relations…can take place outside of the marital act…as a loving affection…but one needs to avoid vehemently arousing things…and any near occasions to climax…one does not need to be engaged in foreplay etc to kiss ones spouse! 🙂
 
Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

“The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only.”

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were “allowed”?🤷
 
dailey said:
Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

“The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only.”

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were “allowed”?🤷
Click to expand...
Tis 'zactly as he said…oral can be foreplay only, meaning oral play can happen, but the male cannot “finish” orally; he must “finish” within his wife. It should more appropriately be called “oral foreplay” instead of “oral sex”. Oral foreplay is fine.
 
So does a man have to orgasm in order for the sex to “count” and not be sinful?
 
dailey said:
Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

“The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only.”

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were “allowed”?🤷
Click to expand...
He meant the what the person was asking mainly about OS …just not the “interruptus” which is a form of contraception at the moment of the completion (not foreplay) of the marital act for the man…where the seed is outside the body.

He just was answering the question too fast and focused on the main question …his eyes skipped over the latin in the (example)…thats all…he and the Church recognize that such would be gravely sinful…

That was what I was talking about…I did not notice it at first either…and I have seen this answer posted before on this forum…and have read it without noticing…easy to do 🙂
 
Catholic90 said:
Tis 'zactly as he said…oral can be foreplay only, meaning oral play can happen, but the male cannot “finish” orally; he must “finish” within his wife. It should more appropriately be called “oral foreplay” instead of “oral sex”. Oral foreplay is fine.
Click to expand...
Not true. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they lack the procreative meaning. Neither are such acts truly unitive. If a particular sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, because it is non-procreative and non-unitive, the same act does not become procreative, nor unitive, by the absense of sexual climax.

Unnatural sexual acts are never chaste, never moderate, never reasonable, and never permissible, regardless of intention or circumstances, because such acts are intrinsically gravely disordered.

Labeling an act foreplay does not make the act moral. The intention to use the first act (foreplay) as a means to accomplish the second act (natural intercourse) does not justify the first act. The end of natural marital relations does not justify the means of non-procreative sexual acts.
 
thirdworld said:
So does a man have to orgasm in order for the sex to “count” and not be sinful?
Click to expand...
yes …(and in the actual marital act)

unless of course it is an unintended “in-completion” …like nature does not permit it at that moment even though one has been reasonably trying for a good amount of time (it just cannot happen) …or some interruption happens like a kid wakes up screaming and is sick and he has to be taken to the hospital …and one can not “complete the act” due to the emergency…

(one can then try again …)

oh another example…

the husband has a heart attack 🙂
 
Some relevant quotes on this topic:

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men… by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife… But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

“And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).

“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ [vessel, orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

“Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2399)

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 54)

“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 61)

“For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 21)
 
Ron_Conte said:
Not true. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they lack the procreative meaning. Neither are such acts truly unitive. If a particular sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, because it is non-procreative and non-unitive, the same act does not become procreative, nor unitive, by the absense of sexual climax.

Unnatural sexual acts are never chaste, never moderate, never reasonable, and never permissible, regardless of intention or circumstances, because such acts are intrinsically gravely disordered.

Labeling an act foreplay does not make the act moral. The intention to use the first act (foreplay) as a means to accomplish the second act (natural intercourse) does not justify the first act. The end of natural marital relations does not justify the means of non-procreative sexual acts.
Click to expand...
Such is not the teaching of the Church. Foreplay is not per se unnatural. Nor is it some separate act not taken together with the intercourse.

In is good to note that these are Mr. Conte’s own ideas which he from time to time posts here on the forum. He also has in the past quoted certain documents…but in this regards to this area they are “misreadings” of the documents (not how the Church reads them or very sound and orthodox Catholic moral theologians read them)

(To call an act unnatural of course does not make it so…though of course truly “unnatural” or otherwise sinful acts (such as pornography etc ) are mortal sins…one should never do an evil for “a good”…all three aspects must be good…the moral object,the intention and the circumstances…)

I would suggest of course other sources…for example Catholic Answers themselves or well known orthodox Catholic Moral theologians etc for a good understanding of this area.
 
Mr. Conte’s opinions are just that - HIS opinions, not the official teaching of the Church.

If it were up to Mr. Conte, both partners would be grim faced, never smiling, the woman would never move from her back, and absolutely no pleasure must ever be experienced. There must be no foreplay - go straight to the male “doing his thing”, regardless if the female is excited or not. The only acceptable kiss would be closed mouth, preferable on the cheek, most certainly NEVER below the jaw line, and the hands must not touch ANYTHING. The lights must never be on, preferably each party will still retain some clothing, and the location of anyplace other than the darkened bedroom would be an abomination. After all, married intimacy is a chore to be endured, not a fun bonding activity to be enjoyed. Again, this is Mr. Conte’s opinion, NOT the official Catholic Church teaching, nor my opinion. :rolleyes:
 
There are no magisterial documents teaching the idea that married couples may engage in non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts, as long as these acts are used for the purpose of foreplay, or as long as the husband climaxes only in natural intercourse. Neither the Magisterium, nor the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church, nor Sacred Scripture, teaches such an idea.

Therefore, this idea (expressed by several posters above in various ways) is merely their own opinion, and not the official teaching of the Church.

The Magisterium does teach that each and every marital act must be procreative and unitive, and that a husband and wife may not separate the procreative and unitive meanings.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between** the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.**” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

“Neither is it valid to argue … that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

Therefore, a series of non-procreative and non-unitive acts cannot be justified by saying that these acts merge with prior or subsequent acts of natural intercourse, so as to have the same moral goodness as natural marital relations open to life.

Although HV is on the subject of contraception, the teaching that marital acts must be both unitive and procreative necessarily excludes all unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, because such acts are neither inherently procreative, nor inherently unitive.

Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that only the climax of the husband is restricted to natural intercourse, and not also the climax of the wife. The moral law applies equally to both the husband and the wife.
 
There are no magisterial documents teaching the idea that married couples may engage in non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts, as long as these acts are used for the purpose of foreplay, or as long as the husband climaxes only in natural intercourse. Neither the Magisterium, nor the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Church, nor Sacred Scripture, teaches such an idea.

There are no magisterial documents that teach that such is Unnatural or immoral…and there certainly would be by now cause such has been understood and taught by Catholic Mortal theologians …Priests in confession…text books…moral manuals etc for years

Therefore, this idea (expressed by several posters above in various ways) is merely their own opinion, and not the official teaching of the Church.

not merely our opinion…

The Magisterium does teach that each and every marital act must be procreative and unitive, and that a husband and wife may not separate the procreative and unitive meanings.

Yes martial relations must be open to life and unitive …etc but this does not mean foreplay is not permitted as part of the marital act.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between** the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.**” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

This is where Mr. Conte wrongly reads the document. Pope Paul VI is not meaning what Mr. Conte would read him to mean…each and every act yes must be open to life…etc …and foreplay is part of the martial act …the Church is not breaking off foreplay as some “separate act”…it is part of the martial act and the marital act must be open to life and unitive etc…

“Neither is it valid to argue … that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

AMEN! yes all marital acts …each and every one must be open to life…one can not have some that are contraceptive with most being not contraception and lump them together and say --there the marriage is open to life! (this is what Pope Paul VI was opposing here…some were saying this…we studied this at Franciscan University in Sexual and medial morality) Each act of marital relations must be open to life…

Therefore, a series of non-procreative and non-unitive acts cannot be justified by saying that these acts merge with prior or subsequent acts of natural intercourse, so as to have the same moral goodness as natural marital relations open to life.

In applying this to legit foreplay…Ron again is breaking things into parts…when foreplay is part of the marital relations…they form a moral whole…in this regards

Although HV is on the subject of contraception, the teaching that marital acts must be both unitive and procreative necessarily excludes all unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax, because such acts are neither inherently procreative, nor inherently unitive.

Yes…one must reject all unnatural acts or otherwise sinful acts

Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that only the climax of the husband is restricted to natural intercourse, and not also the climax of the wife. The moral law applies equally to both the husband and the wife.

Well then gee when I look at a moral manual from prior to Vatican II (widely used) and other sources such be it moral theologians (very faithful to the teachings of the Church) or Priests answering at EWTN etc…who are say the same thing…I guess they are “are absurd” (in your book) …for the wife may climax within the context of the marital act …be it during foreplay or even right after the husband if such has not occurred yet. In fact statistically a number are unable to by the formal act of intercourse per se. What you state is not the moral law …the wife may climax at any point during the martial relations…ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=marital+act&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=57&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

and your opinion here is CERTAINLY NOT THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
 
Ron_Conte said:
**
Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that only the climax of the husband is restricted to natural intercourse, and not also the climax of the wife. The moral law applies equally to both the husband and the wife.**

Well then gee when I look at a moral manual from prior to Vatican II (widely used) and other sources be it moral theologians (very faithful to the teachings of the Church) or Priests answering at EWTN etc…who are saying the same thing…I guess they are “are absurd” (in your estimation…) …for the wife may climax within the context of the marital act …be it during foreplay or even right after the husband if such has not occurred yet. In fact statistically a number are unable to by the formal act of intercourse per se. What you state is not the moral law …the wife may climax at any point during the marital relations…

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=marital+act&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=57&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

and your opinion here is CERTAINLY NOT THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH
Click to expand...
 
Ron_Conte said:
Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that only the climax of the husband is restricted to natural intercourse, and not also the climax of the wife. The moral law applies equally to both the husband and the wife.
Click to expand...
Clearly you know little to nothing about female sexuality or how a woman is “wired”. If you are married, I pity your wife. She must be so frustrated.

There is a very distinct, VERY distinct difference between a woman’s climax and a man’s. One is life-giving, one is not! Therefore it is NOT necessary for a woman to climax ONLY during the act of penetration. In fact, very, very few women do climax during penetration.

If you cannot see that, then I feel sorry for you. I feel more sorry for your wife.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top