Explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

[tafan]

In regards to the question about Pre-vatican II teaching, this is one of my favorite documents on Catholic sexual ethics and it was published in 1936. It is very good and goes to show that the church had a really good line on this subject prior to Vatican II or TOB stuff. Not to dimensish JP II’s Theology of the Body, but reading this document will show that the it’s implications are not as revolutionary as some of its proponents like to point out.

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.txt

 

[RB2]

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

Hey Bookcat, let me know if you need some special resources.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

As an outsider I would like to say that it appears that prior to Vatican II what is described above was the ideal. Sex was only for procreation (within marriage) and was to be enjoyed as little as possible.

The older Catholics I have talked to seem to agree with this assessment. In my experience its only younger and/or more liberal Catholics that say that the Church has always taught that sex is meant to be both procreative AND unitive, and that taking pleasure in the activity is not necessarily sinful.

 

[tafan]

As an outsider I would like to say that it appears that prior to Vatican II what is described above was the ideal. Sex was only for procreation (within marriage) and was to be enjoyed as little as possible.

The older Catholics I have talked to seem to agree with this assessment. In my experience its only younger and/or more liberal Catholics that say that the Church has always taught that sex is meant to be both procreative AND unitive, and that taking pleasure in the activity is not necessarily sinful.

But they would be wrong. The most you can say is that that procreation was given a priority over the unity at that time. But it was a priority without any real result, so it was discarded. Read the link I posted above and you will see that even the priority was not necessarily stressed. You can also read Fulton Sheen’s books and writings and you will see that your statement is wrong.

IMO, older catholics have corrupted memories based on current stereotypes on many issues, this being a key one. If you read Catholic material from prior to vatican II you will not find statements that sex was only for procreation or that it was to be enjoyed as little as possible. I find it hard to believe many priests would have given conflicting advice from the widespread moral theological thinking of the time.

Anedoctally, seeing how there were lots of big catholic families, it would appear these same older catholics were enjoying it just fine.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But they would be wrong. The most you can say is that that procreation was given a priority over the unity at that time. But it was a priority without any real result, so it was discarded. Read the link I posted above and you will see that even the priority was not necessarily stressed. You can also read Fulton Sheen’s books and writings and you will see that your statement is wrong.

IMO, older catholics have corrupted memories based on current stereotypes on many issues, this being a key one. If you read Catholic material from prior to vatican II you will not find statements that sex was only for procreation or that it was to be enjoyed as little as possible. I find it hard to believe many priests would have given conflicting advice from the widespread moral theological thinking of the time.

Anedoctally, seeing how there were lots of big catholic families, it would appear these same older catholics were enjoying it just fine.

I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation. It can be argued that their views did not represent the official teaching of the Church, but saying that such material simply did not exist is untrue.

As for the idea that large families = lots of marital sex, that is not necessarily the case.

If a married couple has 9 or 10 kids in a decade that’s a lot of children for such a short time frame (and very hard on a woman’s body). But assuming that neither one is using birth control it just means (with regard to their love life) that they had sex at least once a year.

Considering how many days are in a year that’s not often at all.

 

[Bookcat]

I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation. It can be argued that their views did not represent the official teaching of the Church, but saying that such material simply did not exist is untrue.

As for the idea that large families = lots of marital sex, that is not necessarily the case.

If a married couple has 9 or 10 kids in a decade that’s a lot of children for such a short time frame (and very hard on a woman’s body). But assuming that neither one is using birth control it just means (with regard to their love life) that they had sex at least once a year.

Considering how many days are in a year that’s not often at all.

I too have read the works of Catholic Theologians from prior to the Council and they taught in accordance with the Church (PS I have a degree in Theology and know my field reasonably well)…and not in the way you note. Now perhaps some thought this …or taught this…or perhaps they did not write clear enough …but such was not and is not the teaching of the Church. Sometimes perhaps the emphasis that children where understood as the primary end of marriage could be confusing. But this did not mean that sex was only for having Children…(it needs of course be open to life)

The other conclusions are not correct either. First off pregnancy is only a possibility at certain times…and then it is only a possibility. So if they had relations only once a year not knowing what we know now about the fertility cycle …they would likely not have many if any kids…

I imagine sex was common…and during infertile times…and even in pregnancy certainly not a fertile time…and even after menopause etc… (if there was not risk to the child as it could be in some occasions) …heck even the moral manuals of period talked about such…they also support what I say regarding the main question. And these were written to guide Priests…especially in the confessional…

 

[Mijoy2]

Not true.
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. .

Isn’t sex impossible without foreplay? The only thing in question is the degree of foreplay. At what point does arousing one another cross over to “unnatural”? Human beings were designed to require arousal. Arousal is not immediate and certainly not spontaneous (well perhaps for 18 year olds). Arousal needs to be fed.

Is not kissing on the lips arguably “unnatural” in the same context?

A stance such as this appears ludicrous.

 

[tafan]

I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation. It can be argued that their views did not represent the official teaching of the Church, but saying that such material simply did not exist is untrue.

As for the idea that large families = lots of marital sex, that is not necessarily the case.

If a married couple has 9 or 10 kids in a decade that’s a lot of children for such a short time frame (and very hard on a woman’s body). But assuming that neither one is using birth control it just means (with regard to their love life) that they had sex at least once a year.

Considering how many days are in a year that’s not often at all.

I would be very interested in references to your readings on this, since your experience seems very opposed to mine.

As to my statements about large families = lots of sex, well it was said half in jest. But only half in jest. Speaking from experience as someone who has a bunch of kids, I can tell you often that it takes a lot more activity than once a year

I think the idea, particularly in this area, that the Church has substantially changed her teaching are simply false. JP II’s theology of the body may be revoluionary from a theological standpoint, but from a practical effect on sexual ethics in the church, not at all. Once again look at the online document I referenced.

But I do not want to seem too argumentative and am sincerely interested in your counter examples.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Isn’t sex impossible without foreplay? The only thing in question is the degree of foreplay. At what point does arousing one another cross over to “unnatural”? Human beings were designed to require arousal. Arousal is not immediate and certainly not spontaneous (well perhaps for 18 year olds). Arousal needs to be fed.

Is not kissing on the lips arguably “unnatural” in the same context?

A stance such as this appears ludicrous.

Technically only the man needs to be aroused for natural conception to occur. Of course if the woman is not at all aroused the process is likely to be uncomfortable if not outright painful for her, but a strict patriarch probably wouldn’t care.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I would be very interested in references to your readings on this, since your experience seems very opposed to mine.

As to my statements about large families = lots of sex, well it was said half in jest. But only half in jest. Speaking from experience as someone who has a bunch of kids, I can tell you often that it takes a lot more activity than once a year

I think the idea, particularly in this area, that the Church has substantially changed her teaching are simply false. JP II’s theology of the body may be revoluionary from a theological standpoint, but from a practical effect on sexual ethics in the church, not at all. Once again look at the online document I referenced.

But I do not want to seem too argumentative and am sincerely interested in your counter examples.

The first one that comes to mind are the Magdalene Laundries that operated in Ireland from the 1760s to the 1990s. The institutions were operated by Catholics religious sisters and served as a way for embarrassed families and the state to dispose of ‘fallen women.’

Irish women were sent to the laundries for ‘crimes’ like having a child out of wedlock, getting raped, or simply being too flirty or pretty. The Magdalene Laundries forced the women to work under grueling conditions, using their labor to generate wealth for the Sisters that ran the institutions.

Here is a website for survivors of the Magdalene Laundries:
magdalenelaundries.com/press_releases.htm

I think that the Laundries are a good illustration of the Catholic Church (as an institution) acting in an anti-sex and anti-women fashion, because unlike many of the recent Church scandals, the people behind it were not violating canon or state law. The Magdalene Laundries were running the way that they were supposed to.

This was Catholic Church policy (at least in Ireland).

 

[tafan]

Sorry, I do not see what the Magdalene Laundries have to do with the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics. Not at all.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sorry, I do not see what the Magdalene Laundries have to do with the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics. Not at all.

Sorry if I was unclear, I shall explain further then.

These women (and often their children as well) were punished by Church institutions for crimes like getting raped, having a child out of wedlock, and sometimes simply being judged too flirty or pretty (e.g. sexy). It should be noted that no similar standard was imposed on men.

This was official Church policy, at least in Ireland.

An anti-sex and anti-woman policy that punished women for their sexuality even if they were victims of sex crimes themselves (like rape).

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry if I was unclear, I shall explain further then.

These women (and often their children as well) were punished by Church institutions for crimes like getting raped, having a child out of wedlock, and sometimes simply being judged too flirty or pretty (e.g. sexy). It should be noted that no similar standard was imposed on men.

This was official Church policy, at least in Ireland.

An anti-sex and anti-woman policy that punished women for their sexuality even if they were victims of sex crimes themselves (like rape).

This movement began in Protestantism in the 19th century in the UK and Ireland. It was to rescue women who where involved in prostitution. Now I do not have enough knowledge to comment on if any women checked in there for other reasons. Or about and abuses that may or may not have occurred (though of course they may have well have)

But it being pretty is not sinful nor a crime…and the Church loves beauty…

What a local Catholic community did or did not do…does = The "policy"of the Catholic Church.

And as with other things…often myth or misunderstanding can be involved as well.

But yes…lots of bad stuff can go on in history and abuses can get into even the best intended things…such is the nature of sin.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

This movement began in Protestantism in the 19th century in the UK and Ireland. It was to rescue women who where involved in prostitution. Now I do not have enough knowledge to comment on if any women checked in there for other reasons. Or about and abuses that may or may not have occurred (though of course they may have well have)

But it being pretty is not sinful nor a crime…and the Church loves beauty…

What a local Catholic community did or did not do…does = The "policy"of the Catholic Church.

And as with other things…often myth or misunderstanding can be involved as well.

But yes…lots of bad stuff can go on in history and abuses can get into even the best intended things…such is the nature of sin.

So your saying that even if the Irish Catholic Church had anti-woman and anti-sex policies (which it did), that the Catholic Church as a whole should not be held responsible.

 

[Bookcat]

So your saying that even if the Irish Catholic Church had anti-woman and anti-sex policies (which it did), that the Catholic Church as a whole should not be held responsible.

No

I am saying…that if certain sins happened in seeking to help these women…they were sins. But they were sins of the persons involved…and perhaps of the local authorities if such where involved.

Sins happen.

But yes the Catholic Church is NOT anti- woman or anti-chaste-marital relations.

 

[Bookcat]

So your saying that even if the Irish Catholic Church had anti-woman and anti-sex policies (which it did), that the Catholic Church as a whole should not be held responsible.

No

I am saying…that if certain sins happened in seeking to help these women…they were sins. But they were sins of the persons involved…and perhaps of the local authorities if such where involved.

Sins happen. And there is not excuse. But again one needs to look at such “accusations” in context and with reason and circumspection. Not presume that something is true etc.

But yes the Catholic Church is NOT anti- woman or anti-chaste-marital relations.

 

[Bookcat]

Now of course…it is well known that certain evil things and abuse were done in Ireland (and other places)…where ever such is done by anyone…and especially by members of the Church …such is evil. Sinful.

Now like I said if anything bad happened in the movement to help these women…yes such is bad. But the Church is not anti-woman.

holyseemission.org/12Oct2010.html

 

[newbetx]

As an outsider I would like to say that it appears that prior to Vatican II what is described above was the ideal. Sex was only for procreation (within marriage) and was to be enjoyed as little as possible.

The older Catholics I have talked to seem to agree with this assessment. In my experience its only younger and/or more liberal Catholics that say that the Church has always taught that sex is meant to be both procreative AND unitive, and that taking pleasure in the activity is not necessarily sinful.

Unfortunately, the church in the past has done a poor job of explaining things. Many writings by church fathers are very good. Some miss the mark. Trying to determine which is which is sometimes a daunting task. But we’ve had many trained people studying this stuff for centuries if not millennia. My example would be the creeds. The Apostle’s creed and the Nicene creed. While both are correct in themselves, they are “different.” Therefore, while the teaching is the same, the latter was changed to include more information or made to be clear.

This is why it takes so long to make dogma. And it should.

We debate ad nausium if a teaching has changed or not. It depends on the definition of two things: what a church teaching is and what the definition of change is. Just because something was passed on to others by someone in the church, it does not make it church teaching. Just as some priests interpret things themselves today or get wrong direction from the bishops, does not make it church teaching. We are, after all, human.

However, some people “get it” better than others (I credit the Holy Spirit for this) and can put together great works that are based upon scripture and tradition that reinforce what many know is right in their hearts. I believe TOB hits that mark. While books that interpret it say much is “allowed,” it isn’t about what is external (where you can touch and how and when) but what is internal (Jesus focused upon what is in your heart). When we try to create a checklist of what is and what is not allowed, is when we mere mortals start to fall. The “what if’s” and such are guesses to what are in people’s hearts. God knows and will judge accordingly. We have a tendency to want to know how far we can go and still love. Maybe the question is how near we can go and still love? Some will have to go farther than others to obtain the real authentic experience as we attempt to achieve what sex is suppose to mirror. However, this is not meant say that anything goes. True love can be achieved and experienced without sex at all. We have to remember that, too.

There are many church approved books out there covering the issues. I suggest one can not figure out what is permitted or not from reading posts here, but by reading approved church texts, discussing with the spouse, and praying to understand.

 

[tafan]

Sorry if I was unclear, I shall explain further then.

These women (and often their children as well) were punished by Church institutions for crimes like getting raped, having a child out of wedlock, and sometimes simply being judged too flirty or pretty (e.g. sexy). It should be noted that no similar standard was imposed on men.

This was official Church policy, at least in Ireland.

An anti-sex and anti-woman policy that punished women for their sexuality even if they were victims of sex crimes themselves (like rape).

All horrible sins committed by members of the church, but what does that have to do with the church teaching prior to vatican II being that sex was only for procreation. Nothiing at all.

You exact post was
“I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation”. And all you come up with are these horror stories. Have a good day, sir.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No

I am saying…that if certain sins happened in seeking to help these women…they were sins. But they were sins of the persons involved…and perhaps of the local authorities if such where involved.

Sins happen.

But yes the Catholic Church is NOT anti- woman or anti-chaste-marital relations.

These institutions were not designed to help the women sent there. At least not in their final phase. They were sent there to make the women disappear from the public eye because these ‘fallen women’ were considered an embarrassment to their families and/or communities, even though in many cases the women’s only crime was being raped, or to represent too much of a temptation to the boys and men around (e.g. too pretty and/or flirty).

As the Ryan Report and other news items makes plain this was all part of a church-state system that abused and exploited women and children for the purpose of keeping up appearances and making a profit.

This was not the results of ‘the sins of a few’ and the idea that the institutional church bears no responsibility for the mess is ridiculous.