O
- Status
O
OraProNobisIHM
Guest
How so?I know that wasn’t addressed to me, but I feel it’s b/c in regards to the original issue of this thread - she’s already pregnant!
She and her hubby were obviously open to life. Withdraw is a deliberate act w/the intent of not “taking the chance” of getting pregnant.
There are many cicrumstances where “normal” intercourse can’t happen - medical reasons, etc… and that would make climaxing outside of actual intercourse appropriate btwn the husband and wife - in my opinion.
Are you a canon lawyer or priest?
Methinks you need to ask a priest about all this business - an orthodox/traditional one too.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
But for the record it makes clearly certain that climax outside of vaginal intercourse is gravely immoral…mortal sin. Just so you know. I couldn’t quite tell from your post if you knew that.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
Great post!Riiight…because the man makes the woman ovulate…
I have to disagree with you there. The whole “procreative and unitive” ideas is about getting both physiological makeups to work together.
“Foreplay” is a relative term. There are ways to be physically intimate without frustrating each other because you have good communication about how you feel and when to stop. This is completely subjective to each couple. It’s an intimate act of self-giving without objectifying the other person or doing it purely for personal gain or any other ulterior motives.
That’s where perception is all based on intention, and we can’t know anyone else’s intention, in their marriage, for sure. We can only know our own intentions and dispositions, and be as open and communicative with our own spouses as possible.
T
tampagrl
Guest
rude, sarcastic comments aren’t helping, but thanks for playing.
B
baylee
Guest
Ah, yet another poster calling it mortal sin. How do you know that? Got a CCC quote for that?But for the record it makes clearly certain that climax outside of vaginal intercourse is gravely immoral…mortal sin. Just so you know. I couldn’t quite tell from your post if you knew that.
B
baylee
Guest
Yes, and I find it ironic that it’s usually the posters who know Church teaching better than anyone else. They must have skipped over the teaching on charity.rude, sarcastic comments aren’t helping, but thanks for playing.
S
Serap
Guest
This is not true. Look at LifeisBeautiful’s previous post from the CCC about a married couple who have a marital embrace that doesn’t end in intercourse. It calls it “disordered”, not a grave matter. Disordered = Venial Sin…Grave Matter = Mortal Sin…BIG DIFFERENCEBut for the record it makes clearly certain that climax outside of vaginal intercourse is gravely immoral…mortal sin. Just so you know. I couldn’t quite tell from your post if you knew that.
Please be responsible when you state facts as it can create unnecessary fears and anxieties.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Please provide reference that shows this distinction is an official teaching of the Church.
The CCC definition of Venial Sin:
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
Acts called disordered by the CCC:
Lust = 2351
Lying and calumny = 1753
Deep-seated homosexual tendencies = 2358
Greed = 2424
Masturbation = 2352
Homosexual acts 2375
Use of things in contempt of the Creator = 339
CCC 37 speaks to the discussion we have going on (italics added):
The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.
Many of the Church’s Moral Theologians have explained the teachings on maritial sex in the light of ALL the Church’s teaching authority. You will not find where they have taught that it is okay for married people to perform the type of sex acts this thread discusses.
Yes, this is a hard teaching to learn. Do the study, pray and fast for your heart to be open. God will give you the wisdom and the grace to accept all of the teachings of His Church.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
This is the reason I bowed out long ago. Language can get a bit confusing
The catechism does use some inconsistent language, but we should avoid doing anything disordered regardless whether it is venial or mortal or not. Anything else would probably fall under presumption.
My point several pages ago, is that any male climax (or attempt) outside of the proper place is grave matter. This is backed up by scripture, church documents and the CCC.
T
tampagrl
Guest
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to find this. At least you’re trying to add to the productivity of the conversation. I may throw out my feeble attempts to be funny and try to break the tension in here, but I think the woman that originally made this post has asked a genuine question, and while I think we’ve covered every single surrounding issue, we still haven’t come up with the answer to her question…well, not really.
In regards to this link. I gotta tell ya, my first impression was an audible, “uggghhhh” b/c I’m not a Notre Dame fan AT all. I realize it’s just a paper written by a well-intentioned Seminarian…but still. Without taking the time to disect the whole paper, I did focus on some points I found interesting. I’ve never heard of Christopher West, and while I certainly don’t mean any disrespect to him, as I assume he’s obviously well educated in his field, his opinions are just that - opinions. As far as I understand it, he doesn’t speak FOR the Church in any official capacity. He’s not a Priest, he’s not a Cannon Lawyer (nod to my fellow sassy poster down there
), he’s a well-educated man with opinions.The student writer of this paper quotes West as saying, "*The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, **it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter *(if she so desired) (my bold)
Keep in mind our original poster is already pregnant -so the issue of open to life is mute.
As a sidebar, I made this point a few pages back about how this is really all about the man. I honestly don’t see how a wife having an orgasm outside of genital intercourse is considered “loving”, but if a wife stimulates her husband to orgasm outside her, that’s perverted into “masturbation”, CONSIDERING we’ve been talking over the last 12 pages in here, about specific reasons a couple may not be able to have actual intercourse.
This student goes on to introduce Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia… with all due respect…A professor at a university… and what I found interesting is that the student quotes Genovesi, "… Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means (my bold emphasis)
Interestingly enough the student never sites Genovesi’s “Church’s teaching” reference, nor a CCC reference as it relates to that, just the opinions of the Theologians.
Where he does site the CCC is here (and the writer speaks more of “oral sex” specifially):
*…The Catechism states that lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[CCC 564] Secondly, the Catechism states: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘…Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’”[CCC 560] *
But okay, according to the moral theologians in the student’s paper, assuming the above CCC reference also applies to married couples, the wife is allowed to orgasm outside of the act of intercouse (so long as intercourse has actually taken place), but the man isn’t. But doing that is not masturbation, even though her sole purpose for doing so would be purely for her OWN pleasure?!.
According to Genovesi, as the student sites, the wife could use “other means” in order to reach orgasm - so, what? She could do it to herself? She could use a device? or could she could have her husband do it?
Seems according to the above CCC references, the WIFE would be engaging in an intrinsically and gravely disorderd action!
This gets curiouser and curiouser…The student then writes, *"If a couple decides to engage in oral sexual activity to the point of orgasm, what are they saying with their acts and their marriage? How does this particular action speak of love? Certainly, this is not a free and total gift of oneself to another, but merely a partial and incomplete gift. *
Who’s to say the husband and wife don’t have pure hearts in their mutural loving decision to pleasure each other this way?! If that’s all we can give each other, isn’t that a “total” gift?
The student writer wants to know how this particular action speaks of love? I say b/c if my husband can’t physically have intercourse w/me, whether the “problem” be with me or him, I understand that my husband has sexual “needs”. Why wouldn’t I want to help him orgasm in some other way? That’s a way of me showing him my love for him.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
As per quoted church documents it would be sinful, no matter the intention - not open to life.I appreciate the fact that you took the time to find this. At least you’re trying to add to the productivity of the conversation. I may throw out my feeble attempts to be funny and try to break the tension in here, but I think the woman that originally made this post has asked a genuine question, and while I think we’ve covered every single surrounding issue, we still haven’t come up with the answer to her question…well, not really.
In regards to this link. I gotta tell ya, my first impression was an audible, “uggghhhh” b/c I’m not a Notre Dame fan AT all. I realize it’s just a paper written by a well-intentioned Seminarian…but still. Without taking the time to disect the whole paper, I did focus on some points I found interesting. I’ve never heard of Christopher West, and while I certainly don’t mean any disrespect to him, as I assume he’s obviously well educated in his field, his opinions are just that - opinions. As far as I understand it, he doesn’t speak FOR the Church in any official capacity. He’s not a Priest, he’s not a Cannon Lawyer (nod to my fellow sassy poster down there
The student writer of this paper quotes West as saying, "*The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, **it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter ***(if she so desired) (my bold)
Keep in mind our original poster is already pregnant -so the issue of open to life is mute.
As a sidebar, I made this point a few pages back about how this is really all about the man. I honestly don’t see how a wife having an orgasm outside of genital intercourse is considered “loving”, but if a wife stimulates her husband to orgasm outside her, that’s perverted into “masturbation”, CONSIDERING we’ve been talking over the last 12 pages in here, about specific reasons a couple may not be able to have actual intercourse.
This student goes on to introduce Vincent Genovesi, a professor at St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia… with all due respect…A professor at a university… and what I found interesting is that the student quotes Genovesi, "… Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means (my bold emphasis)
Interestingly enough the student never sites Genovesi’s “Church’s teaching” reference, nor a CCC reference as it relates to that, just the opinions of the Theologians.
Where he does site the CCC is here (and the writer speaks more of “oral sex” specifially):
*…The Catechism states that lust “is [a] disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”[CCC 564] Secondly, the Catechism states: “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. ‘…Masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.’”[CCC 560] *
But okay, according to the moral theologians in the student’s paper, **assuming the above CCC reference also applies **to married couples, the wife is allowed to orgasm outside of the act of intercouse (so long as intercourse has actually taken place), but the man isn’t. But doing that is not masturbation, even though her sole purpose for doing so would be purely for her OWN pleasure.
According to Genovesi, as the student sites, the wife could use “other means” in order to reach orgasm - so, what? She could do it to herself? She could use a device? or could she could have her husband do it?
Seems according to the above CCC references, the WIFE would be engaging in an intrinsically and gravely disorderd action!
The student then writes, *"If a couple decides to engage in oral sexual activity to the point of orgasm, what are they saying with their acts and their marriage? How does this particular action speak of love? Certainly, this is not a free and total gift of oneself to another, but merely a partial and incomplete gift. *
Who’s to say the husband and wife don’t have pure hearts in their mutural loving decision to pleasure each other this way?! If that’s all we can give each other, isn’t that a “total” gift?
The student writer wants to know how this particular action speaks of love? I say b/c if my husband can’t physically have intercourse w/me, whether the “problem” be with me or him, I understand that my husband has sexual “needs”. Why wouldn’t I want to help him orgasm in some other way? That’s a way of me showing him my love for him.
T
tampagrl
Guest
Duuuuude, are you even reading anything in here?!The original poster of this thread is already pregnant!!! Clearly, you’ve mastered clicking the “quote” button, and while that’s an exceptional accomplishment, could you please be a lamb and read b/f you comment?
K
kage_ar
Guest
Christopher West is an internationally known expert and one of the foremost teacher of JPII Theology of the Body. The CCC is a tiny work, it cannot hold and go deep into all the teachings of the Church.
Seems that some of the posters are the Catholic equivilent of sola scriptura protestants who say if it is not expressly in the King James Bible, they won’t believe it. We have Catholics who think if it is not expressly spelled out in the Catechism that is in their parish library, they will not believe it. Remember, we are not “people of the book”, we are to follow the Church - the Bible, the Tradition and the teaching of the pope in concert with the majesterium.
I was told that normal people will not read Church Documents, I am “lucky they go to Mass”. Perhaps you are above normal
and would read the documents?
In the CCC references are links that give the titles of the most widely recognized documents, begin with HV then read TOTB.
For those who do not wish to read the original documnets, try Christopher West’s “TOTB For Beginners” and follow it up with Popcack’s “Holy Sex!”.
Seems that some of the posters are the Catholic equivilent of sola scriptura protestants who say if it is not expressly in the King James Bible, they won’t believe it. We have Catholics who think if it is not expressly spelled out in the Catechism that is in their parish library, they will not believe it. Remember, we are not “people of the book”, we are to follow the Church - the Bible, the Tradition and the teaching of the pope in concert with the majesterium.
I was told that normal people will not read Church Documents, I am “lucky they go to Mass”. Perhaps you are above normal
and would read the documents?In the CCC references are links that give the titles of the most widely recognized documents, begin with HV then read TOTB.
For those who do not wish to read the original documnets, try Christopher West’s “TOTB For Beginners” and follow it up with Popcack’s “Holy Sex!”.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Yes I am reading and as I and others have stated, it does not matter the fertility of the couple.
L
Leonius
Guest
The action they are taking in that moment must be in keeping with the proper usage of the sexual organs, it makes no difference that the action they took in the past to get her pregnant was correct, just because they did it right in the past does not justify them abusing the sexual organs now. It is each and every marriage act that must be open to life, the act itself not merely them been interiorly open to life.(“Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful…each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life” [CCC 2366; cf. 2363, 2398].)
It would be a mortal sin if she was not pregnant, and her being pregnant does not change that one bit.
Deliberate manual stimulation that is not accompanied by intercourse to completion by the husband is sinful, it is that simple.
Deliberate manual stimulation on its own is an abuse of the body, is a sin against nature, defiles the marriage and gravely offends God. It is a perverted, degenerate behaviour in that it perverts the proper use of the sexual organs to an improper end.
It neither fulfils the primary purpose of marriage to procreate or secondary purpose of marriage to cure concupiscence. It is not an act that is ever able to bring about the creation of life and is a victory for concupiscence over temperance. It perverts the whole marriage as it is opposed to the purposes of the sacrament and will assuredly drive out God’s grace from the marriage and allow evil to enter within.
B
baylee
Guest
The CCC is a TINY work? It should have all grave sins clearly spelled out. If it doesn’t, then it needs to be updated and clearly spelled out. Catholics are not expected to read the original documents…why do you think John Paul II had the CCC put together in the first place? Original documents are referenced if a Catholic would like to learn more about the teaching already explained in the CCC…not to get additional critical information left out. Catholics are not sola scriptura Christians. However, with the CCC and the Bible together, they should have all the information they NEED to know (key word: need). If not, then the Church has failed us in putting together the CCC.Christopher West is an internationally known expert and one of the foremost teacher of JPII Theology of the Body. The CCC is a tiny work, it cannot hold and go deep into all the teachings of the Church.
Seems that some of the posters are the Catholic equivilent of sola scriptura protestants who say if it is not expressly in the King James Bible, they won’t believe it. We have Catholics who think if it is not expressly spelled out in the Catechism that is in their parish library, they will not believe it. Remember, we are not “people of the book”, we are to follow the Church - the Bible, the Tradition and the teaching of the pope in concert with the majesterium.
I was told that normal people will not read Church Documents, I am “lucky they go to Mass”. Perhaps you are above normal
In the CCC references are links that give the titles of the most widely recognized documents, begin with HV then read TOTB.
For those who do not wish to read the original documnets, try Christopher West’s “TOTB For Beginners” and follow it up with Popcack’s “Holy Sex!”.
And as for TOTB which is referred to constantly on this board, that is not even an official document of the Church …like Humanae Vitae is. I get the impression that much of what is taught from that work are interpretations of it anyway (by “moral theologians” who seem to be given the gift of infallibility by some on this board).
B
baylee
Guest
Once again the above comments refer to Humanae Vitae which discusses the regulation of births and the use of artificial contraception.
B
baylee
Guest
In your list, those things are described as disordered, but some of them are also described in more detail…gravely depraved, or gravely disordered or intrinsically evil. They are clearly not the same.
K
kage_ar
Guest
All the teaching of the Church, hundreds of popes and bishops, thousands of priests and teachers, 2000 + years of study, not to mention the works of the doctors of the Church - sure, that can all fit nicely in a paperback book that travels in your purse.
The current Catechism, as all Catechisms before, was put together as a reference book, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, for knowing the basics of the faith. Can you show where we are told in an OFFICIAL teaching document that the Catechism is the be all and end all of Church teaching?
You can choose to reject 2000 years of teaching, that is your free will at work.
Find me one official document of the Church from that 2000 years that says it is a permissable thing for married people to do the type of sex acts you are advocating. Unless you do that, I will stick with JPII and the other Popes, Bishops, Priests and lay teachers.
- Status