Fecundity in marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter humanavitae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

humanavitae

Guest
Hello,
Let me give you some background. I am happily married and have 3 beutiful kids (ages, 1,2,and 3). We are devout catholics and want to live according to church teaching. We practice NFP and are open to life. However, due to difficulties of having 3 little ones, we have decided to space the pregnency of our next child a couple of years because we cannot handle having another child at this time in our life.

That said, my wifes fertility is now “trying” to come back, and we have been trying to use the “Billings” method to determine when she would be infertile so that we can love each other in the conjugal act of marriage. Unfortunately, thus far, her symptoms have preculed the marriage act for 2+ months and we are quite frustrated.

Now…here comes my question:

Is there any clear church teaching that cleary says a married couple cannot intentionally and mutually achieve climax
if they do not have intercouse.

I see a lot of confusion out there…and I have yet to see the vatican clearly address this issue. They address masterbution and say some things in there that some take out of context and think apply to the question I am asking about. Likewise, most of the famous excerpts from Humana Vitae and the CCC are in reference to the “martital act” or the “conjugal act”. Well, what if you don’t invoke that specific act (intercouse) and the couple wants to bond occassional, especially in a time in which they decide to abstain from intercourse (due to valid reasons of delaying their next child). [in my case, the abstinece can last 3+ months until my wifes menstrual cycle comes back and we can apply normal NFP rules]

The chuch teaching is very clear on what has to happen if one invokes the marital act *. It must be both unitive and procreative. And that explains why withdrawel during ejaculation is a sin. The church clearly states that anything that renders the procreative aspect of the marital act impossible is also a sin. NOTICE that it specifically refernecing the marital act.

I have read the CCC several times and have read Humana Vitae and several other Papal documents as well as done searches online and at vatican.va to find a CLEAR answer to my question.
And have not found one.

Please realize, as much as possible, I do not want a personal opinion(I’ve seen both sides online and in the confessional), but want references and links to official church teaching answering my question. Specifically, I want them in context and not when talking about something else.*
 
humanavitae said:
Hello,
Let me give you some background. I am happily married and have 3 beutiful kids (ages, 1,2,and 3). We are devout catholics and want to live according to church teaching. We practice NFP and are open to life. However, due to difficulties of having 3 little ones, we have decided to space the pregnency of our next child a couple of years because we cannot handle having another child at this time in our life.

That said, my wifes fertility is now “trying” to come back, and we have been trying to use the “Billings” method to determine when she would be infertile so that we can love each other in the conjugal act of marriage. Unfortunately, thus far, her symptoms have preculed the marriage act for 2+ months and we are quite frustrated.

Now…here comes my question:

Is there any clear church teaching that cleary says a married couple cannot intentionally and mutually achieve climax
if they do not have intercouse.

I see a lot of confusion out there…and I have yet to see the vatican clearly address this issue. They address masterbution and say some things in there that some take out of context and think apply to the question I am asking about. Likewise, most of the famous excerpts from Humana Vitae and the CCC are in reference to the “martital act” or the “conjugal act”. Well, what if you don’t invoke that specific act (intercouse) and the couple wants to bond occassional, especially in a time in which they decide to abstain from intercourse (due to valid reasons of delaying their next child). [in my case, the abstinece can last 3+ months until my wifes menstrual cycle comes back and we can apply normal NFP rules]

The chuch teaching is very clear on what has to happen if one invokes the marital act *. It must be both unitive and procreative. And that explains why withdrawel during ejaculation is a sin. The church clearly states that anything that renders the procreative aspect of the marital act impossible is also a sin. NOTICE that it specifically refernecing the marital act.

I have read the CCC several times and have read Humana Vitae and several other Papal documents as well as done searches online and at vatican.va to find a CLEAR answer to my question.
And have not found one.

Please realize, as much as possible, I do not want a personal opinion(I’ve seen both sides online and in the confessional), but want references and links to official church teaching answering my question. Specifically, I want them in context and not when talking about something else.*

Try *
Casti Connubii
*
Click to expand...
 
humanavitae said:
Hello,
Let me give you some background. I am happily married and have 3 beutiful kids (ages, 1,2,and 3). We are devout catholics and want to live according to church teaching. We practice NFP and are open to life. However, due to difficulties of having 3 little ones, we have decided to space the pregnency of our next child a couple of years because we cannot handle having another child at this time in our life.

That said, my wifes fertility is now “trying” to come back, and we have been trying to use the “Billings” method to determine when she would be infertile so that we can love each other in the conjugal act of marriage. Unfortunately, thus far, her symptoms have preculed the marriage act for 2+ months and we are quite frustrated.

Now…here comes my question:

Is there any clear church teaching that cleary says a married couple cannot intentionally and mutually achieve climax
if they do not have intercouse.

I see a lot of confusion out there…and I have yet to see the vatican clearly address this issue. They address masterbution and say some things in there that some take out of context and think apply to the question I am asking about. Likewise, most of the famous excerpts from Humana Vitae and the CCC are in reference to the “martital act” or the “conjugal act”. Well, what if you don’t invoke that specific act (intercouse) and the couple wants to bond occassional, especially in a time in which they decide to abstain from intercourse (due to valid reasons of delaying their next child). [in my case, the abstinece can last 3+ months until my wifes menstrual cycle comes back and we can apply normal NFP rules]

The chuch teaching is very clear on what has to happen if one invokes the marital act *. It must be both unitive and procreative. And that explains why withdrawel during ejaculation is a sin. The church clearly states that anything that renders the procreative aspect of the marital act impossible is also a sin. NOTICE that it specifically refernecing the marital act.

I have read the CCC several times and have read Humana Vitae and several other Papal documents as well as done searches online and at vatican.va to find a CLEAR answer to my question.
And have not found one.

Please realize, as much as possible, I do not want a personal opinion(I’ve seen both sides online and in the confessional), but want references and links to official church teaching answering my question. Specifically, I want them in context and not when talking about something else.*

Yes, what you describe is called mutual masturbation or a contraceptive act. There is to be no intentionally stimulating of the sexual organs to climax without intercourse occurring.The marital act must be procreative as well as unitive. The couple needs to be open to life in action and form the one flesh union .

For more on this you can read Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West or a moral theology book that priests use.
Click to expand...
 
humanavitae said:
Is there any clear church teaching that cleary says a married couple cannot intentionally and mutually achieve climax
if they do not have intercouse.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Church is very clear that masterbation is a sin.

The entire rest of your post is an attempt to call what you want to do something other than masterbation. You can do all the linguistic acrobatics you want but it doesn’t change anything.

What you propose is to seek unity without procreation, and that is contraception-- plain and simple.
humanavitae said:
I see a lot of confusion out there…and I have yet to see the vatican clearly address this issue.
Click to expand...
Well, no, the Church clearly teaches what you propose is wrong. I just think you are trying hard to believe it doesn’t.
humanavitae said:
Likewise, most of the famous excerpts from Humana Vitae and the CCC are in reference to the “martital act” or the “conjugal act”.
Click to expand...
That is because the only properly ordered genital activity IS the marital act. Everything else is disordered.
humanavitae said:
Well, what if you don’t invoke that specific act (intercouse) and the couple wants to bond occassional, especially in a time in which they decide to abstain from intercourse (due to valid reasons of delaying their next child). [in my case, the abstinece can last 3+ months until my wifes menstrual cycle comes back and we can apply normal NFP rules]
Click to expand...
Abstinence means NO sexual stimulation. Not masterbation.
humanavitae said:
The chuch teaching is very clear on what has to happen if one invokes the marital act *. It must be both unitive and procreative. And that explains why withdrawel during ejaculation is a sin. The church clearly states that anything that renders the procreative aspect of the marital act impossible is also a sin. NOTICE that it specifically refernecing the marital act. *

No, you are trying to make documents say things they do not say.
humanavitae;3484321:
to find a CLEAR answer to my question. And have not found one.
Click to expand...
The answer is clear, you are unwilling to accept it.
Click to expand...
 
Have you looked into other methods of fertility monitoring? Perhaps other methods will allow you to p(name removed by moderator)oint her fertility and give you guys a rest from the constant wondering game. 🙂

The Church does teach that sexual acts done in and of themselves, without the completion of the marital embrace, are sinful and contraceptive.

That is not say you can’t have foreplay or stimulation, it just has to all be in the sexual act.

I really feel for you! Two months would be unbearable to me. Does your wife exclusively breastfeed? Is she receiving regular doctor exams?
 
I read casti connubii…and here is what I found…

54 and 55 clearly refer to intercourse and that is not what I am talking about.

59
"…For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. "

(this statement seems to suggest that there are “secondary ends” that are allowed in our “matrimonial rights”. The verbage is very vague, but the “cultivating of mutual love” and the “quieting of concupiscence” language is purposefully vague and broad language. Could this be in reference to my question?
It qualifies the statement by mentioning that these “secondary ends” must be subordinated to the primary end". The primary end of marriage is procreation and that obviousally involves the conjugal act. Does subordination simply mean that these “secondary ends” must be less frequent than the “conjugal act”? Lastly, the last qualification is that “the nature of the act is preserverd”, suggests to me that if the conjugal act is enacted it must be complete (i.e. ejaculation inside the vagina) so as to preserve the nature of “the act”. Essentially, it means that one cannot engage in foreplay, have intercourse, and then go back to foreplay for ejaculation. [that would not be preserving the nature or primacy of the act]
Besides this vague and confusing paragraph, I still did not see anything clearly forbidding the question I posed earlier today. Why can’t anyone point me to a specific OFFICIAL church teaching that clearly, (and in context) addresses the question I posed. The church has so clearly addressed contraception, abortion, masterbation, artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, etc.

I noticed that some people classify the type of sexual stimulation in my original post as masterbation. I do not see how that follows the definition given by the CCC (paragraph 2352). In fact, the actions I am talking about are typically considered “foreplay” if followed by the conjugal act. (e.g. I don’t want to get graphic, but hopefully I made myself clear. I am not talking about self-masterbation at all. I am talking about occasional situations where the husband stimulates the wife, while the wife simultaneiousally stimulates the husband, resulting eventually in mutual climax without engaging in any intercourse [aka marital act, conjugal act, or simply the “act”]

Please provide a link or directions to get to an official church teaching (paragraph number appeciated, if possible) that clearly addresses this act as being inherrintly evil and sinful.
I took it for granted that it was wrong for a long time, but now find myself sincerly questioning wheather it is even a venial sin?
 
humanavitae , Anyway you cut it, that is masterbation! You don’t see that?🤷
 
Hello Like, to reply to your post…please see the following:

from the CCC:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

So, by your interpretation of the last sentance of the paragraph below…that means “foreplay” in marriage is a sin also. The sentence does not say that acts of foreplay cease to become the sin of masterbation if immediatly followed by procreative intercourse. Also, like I mentioned before…Why do we have to resort to the church addressing a topic on Masterbation in order to answer a genuine question of fecundity in Marriage? Are you sure we are not taking the meaning of the last line out of context.

I would have thought that if the church had clear guidelines on this topic, it would have clearly addressed it in an appropriate section.

Anything along the lines as this would be sufficient: (paraphrasing)
“Deliberate Male Ejaculation must always occur during intercourse” or in other words “every time a male ejaculates it must be in a procreative manner”. Instead, the church basically asserts a subset of this by saying “if intercourse is invoked, male ejaculation must be pro-creative”.

Do you see the difference?

Obviousally, the topic on Masterbation is talking about what we all initially think about when someone says Masterbation. I don’t see why the church would try to slip in an extra guideline, about something so prevalent that occurs in marriage, as what I am talking about.
 
**"…the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure." **

It doesn’t say “one’s own” genital organs. Therefore, it can be inferred that the deliberate stimulation of anyone’s sexual organs for pleasure would be masterbation. This alone would seem to forbid “foreplay”, except that other documents (and, no, sorry, I can’t name them offhand) have stated that foreplay (def: the “play” occuring “before” intercourse, which infers that intercourse, fully open to life, will follow) is allowed.

Believe me, I understand your frustration. Dh and I are currently expecting our 4th child in 6 years, and we nearly climb the walls waiting for the 6th week postpartem “ok” from the doctor. This may well be our last child (we’ll be constantly discerning, though, for circumstances to change, but at this point we’re physically, emotionally, and financially tapped out), so our future use of NFP will need to be super conservative. I wish there was a “loophole”, but there’s just not. It’s one of those crosses we have to bear.

You’ll definately be in my prayers. You said your baby’s one year old? Can your wife speed up the weaning process? (I’m assuming he or she is eating solids several times a day by now and drinking milk? My kids always weaned-against my wishes-themselves at 12 or 13 months). Maybe cutting out just a feeding or two a day would bring on her cycle. Sorry I have no other advice for you. 😦

In Christ,

Ellen
 
I just wanted to add:

As much as these topics are debated around here, wouldn’t be nice if the Pope had a “hotline” for questions like these, when the documents can be kinda ambiguous? Is there anyone in Rome we could contact about setting up something like that? I’m serious! With the internet, it shouldn’t be too difficult.

In Christ,

Ellen
 
humanavitae said:
Hello Like, to reply to your post…please see the following:

from the CCC:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

So, by your interpretation of the last sentance of the paragraph below…that means “foreplay” in marriage is a sin also. The sentence does not say that acts of foreplay cease to become the sin of masterbation if immediatly followed by procreative intercourse. Also, like I mentioned before…Why do we have to resort to the church addressing a topic on Masterbation in order to answer a genuine question of fecundity in Marriage? Are you sure we are not taking the meaning of the last line out of context.

I would have thought that if the church had clear guidelines on this topic, it would have clearly addressed it in an appropriate section.

Anything along the lines as this would be sufficient: (paraphrasing)
“Deliberate Male Ejaculation must always occur during intercourse” or in other words “every time a male ejaculates it must be in a procreative manner”. Instead, the church basically asserts a subset of this by saying “if intercourse is invoked, male ejaculation must be pro-creative”.

Do you see the difference?

Obviousally, the topic on Masterbation is talking about what we all initially think about when someone says Masterbation. I don’t see why the church would try to slip in an extra guideline, about something so prevalent that occurs in marriage, as what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
There is more to the churches teaching than what is obtained in the CCC. The CCC is a starting point with many references. I’m going to give you an article that is not exactly what you are asking but it related and does obtain the answer to your query and it too has references that you should look up.

nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm
 
humanavitae said:
I am talking about occasional situations where the husband stimulates the wife, while the wife simultaneiousally stimulates the husband, resulting eventually in mutual climax without engaging in any intercourse [aka marital act, conjugal act, or simply the “act”]
Click to expand...
OK, maybe I shouldn’t have used the word masturbation.
If I understand your quote, above bold-ed, you are still saying the male seed is not spent inside the female, correct? If that is correct, then that is a mortal sin.
Also below bold-ed from the CCC
humanavitae said:
Hello Like, to reply to your post…please see the following:

from the CCC:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. No matter who stimulates who, married or not, is sinful if not within the conjugal act, or simply the “act”! NO?“Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

So, by your interpretation of the last sentance of the paragraph below…that means **“foreplay” in marriage is a sin also.**Foreplay in marriage before or after intercourse is not a sin as long as the male’s seed is spent within the female! The sentence does not say that acts of foreplay cease to become the sin of masterbation if immediatly followed by procreative intercourse. Also, like I mentioned before…Why do we have to resort to the church addressing a topic on Masterbation in order to answer a genuine question of fecundity in Marriage? Are you sure we are not taking the meaning of the last line out of context.

I would have thought that if the church had clear guidelines on this topic, it would have clearly addressed it in an appropriate section.

Anything along the lines as this would be sufficient: (paraphrasing)
“Deliberate Male Ejaculation must always occur during intercourse” or in other words “every time a male ejaculates it must be in a procreative manner”. Instead, the church basically asserts a subset of this by saying “if intercourse is invoked, male ejaculation must be pro-creative”.

Do you see the difference?🤷
See above bold-ed red.

Obviousally, the topic on Masterbation is talking about what we all initially think about when someone says Masterbation. I don’t see why the church would try to slip in an extra guideline, about something so prevalent that occurs in marriage, as what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
In MHO, I think you are asking for what the Church has always taught but not seeing it.
 
Correction: I said I shouldn’t have used the word “masturbation”.
WRONG: It is a form of masturbation.👍
 
Ok, you are very stubborn so here you go:

the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

Persona Humana, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
 
Dear Seatuck,
Regarding your article you posted…I am now even more disturbed and confused as to what true marital fecundity is…
(nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm)

The article essentially says that, if a wife did not achieve orgasm after the male ejaculates, it is okay for a woman to finger herself after intercourse in order for her to achieve an orgasm!
(This opinion seems to be shared by Christopher West, and definitely shared by Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia, and by Nicholas Halligan, author of the series, The Ministry of the Celebration of the Sacraments).

I find this repulsive and sinful and definitely a form of masterbation!

Within this same article, the author tries to piece together the definition of lust and an “extended” definition of masterbation in order to say that it is sinful when married couples climax during oral sex (e.g 69). How can I take any of these authors seriousally after what they said earlier?

(My understanding of the CCC definition of masterbation is specifically addressing only “self-initiated” sexual acts. I think any other interpretation is an “extension” or “stretch” of the true intent of what the church was trying to address.

If everyone is so clear about what the chuch intended, and seems to be able to write it down so clearly in these forums, why didn’t the church do that in their encyclicals? Why would they resort to “infering” or "piecing together extending definitions clearly addressing different topics (lust, self-masterbation, contraception during the conjugal act) in order to answer my simple question?

Could it be because the church never intended to answer that question? We all know that the church teaching is infallible. If our Holy Father answered my specific question tomorrow and deemed it not a sin, I would assert that the church had not never made a “mistake” and is not changing its teaching. I say this because in my opinion, as I carefully look at the words chosen and topics addressed [IN THE CONTEXT they were intended], they clearly did not address the issue directly. They addressed almost all the other issues directly, clearly, and without room for error.

God Bless.
 
Having read through all the posts thus far on this thread, I have come to the conclusion that perhaps you are (without realizing it) trying to “get a pass” on the subject. The posters here have answered your question (it is NOT a new question, but has been discussed several times in the past here in these forums). While it is understandable that you and your wife find this answer frustrating, it is in fact the truth. However, should you continue to not believe the people here who are attempting to help you, please, by all means post your question directly to Father Serpa (Private Message). God bless.
 
Dear 1KE and
Dear Brothers and Sisters who are kindly taking the time to respond to me. Please realize that your advise and time are very much appreciated. I just got out of mass and refrained from taking the Eucharist, just in case I really was sinning. I have been earnestly praying and contemplating and researching this topic for the last 2 weeks, and am still not at peace. Believe me, I would be happy to embrace what you are all telling me, it would take away a lot of doubt, frustration, anxiety of offending my God, and then I would at least know and believe in “THE LAW” regarding my question.

Regarding your post…It is the best reply I have seen yet…but it is still questionable…let me explain why:

“the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty.”

Okay…first lets remember that this topic is talking about masterbation…that is the background (and context) for this whole quote that you posted. More specifically, I would argue that they are talking only about self-masterbation. I think 99.999% of the world considers masterbation to be limited to self-masterbation. Why would the church want to take a common word and “overload” that word (or make it mean more than what is commonly understood and accepted), Isn’t that confusing? I think the church is smarter than that in its teaching. Any average catholic’s first pass at the definition that the church gave for masterbation would clearly say “yeah, they are talking about self-masterbation” and would not think twice about it. In fact, most catholics, like myself until I joined this forum, were never aware that some people have decided to throw “oral sex” into the same category as masterbation.

Anyway, that said, notice the choice of words was “conjugal relations” and not “the conjugal act”. Catholic Conjugal relations are simply Marriages. So, I think it is simply trying to say that the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of marriage is immoral.
This interpretation makes sense because remember, the background for this paragraph is self-Masterbation. So, it is simply saying that the “finality of the faculty” was meant to be used in marriage only. Then, in passing, it goes on to give a quick definition of what marriage is, “namely the relationship which realizes the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.”

And then later, when the church is actually addressing morality within marriages, the essentially teach about how the marital act must be both “unitive and procreative”. They do not say that that is the only act in which they are allowed to participate.

On the contrary, Casti Connubi [59] (see my previous post) and the CCC [2362] might be interpreted indicate that there are other “acts” which are allowed.
From CCC [2362]:
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.​

From Casti Conubbii [59]

"For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. "
 
I am finished with this thread.

If you want to continue to pretend the Church does not teach what it clearly does teach even after I provided you a Church document that DIRECTLY and CLEARLY answers your question then it’s on your soul and your conscience.

The term masturbation is NOT limited to self-stimulation-- not in the Church and not in society at large. It is limited only by you because you do not want to admit that what you want to do is against Church teaching.

I am very very sorry for you. You would rather play verbal acrobatics than submit to the teaching of the Church PLEASE reconsider. Two months without sexual relations is NOT that long, it’s not the end of the world, and I would suggest you have some disordered attachment to having an orgasm if you are THIS obsessed with getting around the Church’s teaching-- honestly, do some self assessment.

You have put more energy into trying to prove the writings of the Church don’t say what they say than Bill Clinton put into the definition of what “is” is.

That’s how I see it. Don’t be Bill Clinton.
 
Humanavitae,

Dictionary.com lists as its second definition of masturbation, “the stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of another’s genitals, esp. to orgasm”.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines masturbation as, “Excitation of one’s own or another’s genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.”

I suggest you re-read Catholic documents in light of these definitions. They present a common understanding of masturbation. Advocates of “safer sex” generally endorse what they call “mutual masturbation” which is exactly what you and your wife would be doing as you described in your first post. This practice displeases our Lord according to Catholic teaching.

I know all too well the situation you and your wife are experiencing. I gave in to the temptation to contracept (all masturbation is contraceptive because it is sex without the procreative element). It was one of the worst decisions of my life as this sin tends to grow deep roots very quickly. More than a decade later, my husband and I are still discovering the toll this sin has taken on our marriage. Undoing the damage has been difficult for us.

What you need more than anything right now is prayer. A close second is education. I too found Billings difficult to use after childbirth and your wife may have some additional factors that complicate the reading of her fertility. I discovered better NFP resources after joining this forum. I suggest you go to the Family Life section and do a search for NFP methods where you will find links to websites that promote Creighton, Sympto-Thermal, Marquette Model, etc., along with commentary from posters who use the methods successfully in real life. You (or your wife) may PM me if you’d like to discuss NFP resources. I would be happy to provide you with a few good NFP websites and resources that I’ve found helpful.

Please educate yourself on NFP that really works. It will probably reduce the need for both abstinence in your marriage and trying to find an obscure loophole in Catholic teaching that has never existed. I admire you search for the truth. God Bless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top