B
beckycmarie
Guest
I think it would be helpful if we knew what the EWTN priest meant by “foreplay” and what Popcak meant by “making out.” Those terms can mean very different things to different people.
- Status
L
lizziebits
Guest
I don’t think it matters.
I don’t think there is some magical line that couples may not cross. It has to come down to intent. If couples are doing this in a truly loving, affirming, and non lustful way, then it would be ok. I think for every couple this is different, and there is no point trying to pick a list of activities that is or isn’t ok for every single couple.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
This is where we are.I am somewhat confused, having the minority opinion.
Back to the Popcak reference…“making out without going all the way”. He writes that it is permissible.
“All the way”, I’ve always interpreted as intercourse. i.e. Billy and Susan went all the way.
Making out, I’ve always interpreted as passionate kissing and petting. These activities don’t always need to lead to intercourse and climax. They don’t have to be lustful, selfish, etc. They can be an expression of love.
What I think might not be prudent is engaging in activity that would normally lead to climax, and stopping. These activities could be mutual masturbation, oral sex, or coitus interruptus.
A couple can kiss, hug,pet…and then leave it at that, and not sin.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
The ewtn priest meant foreplay as in the things that normally lead up to the martial act, including some petting and mild genital touching/stimulation with the hand. Reason I know is because I asked him to clarify for me as I was, too, confused with the original.
The only thing that I have found in MUCH research to be a clear cut mortal sin is stimulation of the genitals to climax outside of the marital act. We do not engage in this. We know where the seed is supposed to be planted.
EDIT: Please realize I’m not trying to be a brat here, just trying to find the truth. Like I said I know what is a definite mortal sin in this, stimulation to climax outside the marital act for either spouse, but from what I’ve gathered this other is seemingly not sinful if done in love and not lust.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
Just as to show a priest that has a different opinion:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8536
Although I would not say what specific actions would be ok or not, I have no authority and I think it varies by couple anyways, I was going to mention that what doesn’t seem right to me is the notion that a couple can try to get as much pleasure as they can (and I know its done in loving matter, etc, but sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure) without any plans of completing the act, as long as it doesn’t make them want to complete the act (as if completing the act was bad?), when the Catechism clearly states: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And if you are not planning on completing the act, then the procreative purposes are clearly not there (and here I will go back to the idea that you don’t have to be at a point in time where a pregnancy could result from the act in order to have an act that includes the procreative aspect). I think there are things that are ok as foreplay leading to the act, but not independent of it, regardless of the couples’ ability to not reach climax.
On the other hand, I personally don’t agree with the idea that youhave to act like you are still dating when you are not going to participate in the act, I mean, you shouldn’t even be sleeping next to a man if he isn’t your husband, but I think you have to be careful between affectionate actions, and actions in which sexual pleasure is involved apart from the marital act. I don’t buy the idea that marriage is an eternal foreplay, since eventually you will participate in the act. This analogy (not my own this time
) seems to explain it pretty well. Eating pleasure was made so we would nourish ourselves, since eating can be tedious etc, and so seeking the pleasure without its purpose (as in bulimia) would be disordered. Sexual pleasure was made to encourage the marital act (thus procreation etc) and, from the catechism, **2351 **…. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. Also: 2362 …**The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. **
Now, what actions would be considered seeking sexual pleasure, and which would not, I think are up to the couple to discern being honest with themselves, and if the have questions they can seek guidance of their confessor/spiritual director (hopefully they have chosen one that is a good, orthodox one). My experience is that threads on here on this subject never work out to find a clear Truth, that’s just my opinion though.
BTW, I think the book Love and Responsibility is very helpful in understanding sexuality, sexual pleasure, the marital embrace, etc.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8536
Although I would not say what specific actions would be ok or not, I have no authority and I think it varies by couple anyways, I was going to mention that what doesn’t seem right to me is the notion that a couple can try to get as much pleasure as they can (and I know its done in loving matter, etc, but sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure) without any plans of completing the act, as long as it doesn’t make them want to complete the act (as if completing the act was bad?), when the Catechism clearly states: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And if you are not planning on completing the act, then the procreative purposes are clearly not there (and here I will go back to the idea that you don’t have to be at a point in time where a pregnancy could result from the act in order to have an act that includes the procreative aspect). I think there are things that are ok as foreplay leading to the act, but not independent of it, regardless of the couples’ ability to not reach climax.
On the other hand, I personally don’t agree with the idea that youhave to act like you are still dating when you are not going to participate in the act, I mean, you shouldn’t even be sleeping next to a man if he isn’t your husband, but I think you have to be careful between affectionate actions, and actions in which sexual pleasure is involved apart from the marital act. I don’t buy the idea that marriage is an eternal foreplay, since eventually you will participate in the act. This analogy (not my own this time
) seems to explain it pretty well. Eating pleasure was made so we would nourish ourselves, since eating can be tedious etc, and so seeking the pleasure without its purpose (as in bulimia) would be disordered. Sexual pleasure was made to encourage the marital act (thus procreation etc) and, from the catechism, **2351 **…. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. Also: 2362 …**The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. **Now, what actions would be considered seeking sexual pleasure, and which would not, I think are up to the couple to discern being honest with themselves, and if the have questions they can seek guidance of their confessor/spiritual director (hopefully they have chosen one that is a good, orthodox one). My experience is that threads on here on this subject never work out to find a clear Truth, that’s just my opinion though.
BTW, I think the book Love and Responsibility is very helpful in understanding sexuality, sexual pleasure, the marital embrace, etc.
T
Tosk
Guest
Saying that foreplay is permissible with out completing the sex act doesn’t tell you much, because foreplay is too broad of a term. Foreplay can mean anything from a back massage to oral stimulation, basically everything short of p-v contact could be called foreplay. I would venture to say anything intended to stimulate the genitals belongs within the context of the completed marital act.
C
Convert_in_99
Guest
You have some really nice posts lifeisbeautiful. Thank you!Just as to show a priest that has a different opinion:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=8536
Although I would not say what specific actions would be ok or not, I have no authority and I think it varies by couple anyways, I was going to mention that what doesn’t seem right to me is the notion that a couple can try to get as much pleasure as they can (and I know its done in loving matter, etc, but sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure) without any plans of completing the act, as long as it doesn’t make them want to complete the act (as if completing the act was bad?), when the Catechism clearly states: **2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **And if you are not planning on completing the act, then the procreative purposes are clearly not there (and here I will go back to the idea that you don’t have to be at a point in time where a pregnancy could result from the act in order to have an act that includes the procreative aspect). I think there are things that are ok as foreplay leading to the act, but not independent of it, regardless of the couples’ ability to not reach climax.
On the other hand, I personally don’t agree with the idea that youhave to act like you are still dating when you are not going to participate in the act, I mean, you shouldn’t even be sleeping next to a man if he isn’t your husband, but I think you have to be careful between affectionate actions, and actions in which sexual pleasure is involved apart from the marital act. I don’t buy the idea that marriage is an eternal foreplay, since eventually you will participate in the act. This analogy (not my own this time
Now, what actions would be considered seeking sexual pleasure, and which would not, I think are up to the couple to discern being honest with themselves, and if the have questions they can seek guidance of their confessor/spiritual director (hopefully they have chosen one that is a good, orthodox one). My experience is that threads on here on this subject never work out to find a clear Truth, that’s just my opinion though.
BTW, I think the book Love and Responsibility is very helpful in understanding sexuality, sexual pleasure, the marital embrace, etc.
Explaining it in terms of practicing temperance is a very helpful one for me as I struggle a lot with temperance issues with food. I’m thinking that maybe this would be a good way for me to look at it to try to practice sexual temperance. I still am uncertain whether or not we are doing anything wrong. I mean I realize that it is at least not a mortal sin at this point, but don’t want to hurt God with venial sins either. I am definitely going to try to do these things less in practice of the virtue of temperance. I really just wish that the church made perfectly clear what was right and wrong in this area. It’s hard when things are so vague, one priest saying one thing and another priest saying the opposite, and all you want to do is please God, ya know?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
But the unitive aspect isn’t there either. A couple engaging in foreplay are not “uniting” that refers to the “one flesh union” which means intercourse.
You can’t separate the unitive from the procreative. I agree totally. But making out and fondling are not sex and aren’t “unitive”. Husband and wife can show love to each other in these ways. There is a line where the activity turns questionable, I’m assuming that would be when the couple becomes tempted to illicit behavior. That varies from couple to couple.
But to say unequivocally that it is mortal sin, is not correct. That isn’t the impression I got from the Popcak book, and it is endorsed by some orthodox people.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
That’s fine.This is where we are.
B
budgie2
Guest
I have absolutely no understanding why you would consider foreplay with your husband to be a sin of any sort. It is just one form of marital embrace. I think it is a venial sin if your husband has deliberately ejaculated outside of the vagina as we should respect the integrity of sperm. I do not think there’s any medical proof that it is wrong to have sex during pregnancy although I think there’s an old wives tale that it can increase miscarriage so I avoid it during the first 12 weeks and for a month after a bleed. If you don’t feel like having sex then hopefully you’ve got an understanding relationship with your husband.
S
Serap
Guest
I must be a “Cafeteria Catholic” on this issue b/c I really don’t believe that foreplay is a sin in marriage. I practice NFP; I refrain from lustful thoughts; I’m a loving mother and wife; I don’t masturbate; I go to church every Sunday; I pray the Rosary; I am pro-life; etc.
If this makes me a Cafeteria Catholic, then I will be judged accordingly when I die. I just don’t believe that I am in mortal sin if my husband and I engage in sexual activities that don’t end with the “final encounter” especially now that I’m pregnant. We are married; we are not using eachother. God knows my heart and my soul; not anyone on CAF.
I have read all of the arguments on this thread and I don’t get it. I just don’t. Even after prayer and meditation over it with the Rosary, I still just don’t see it as a mortal sin.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
Hi Serap,
I see where you are comming from. We don’t know your intentions and what not.
However, we are asked to remain obidient to church teaching. We may stuggle trying to understand something, however, that does mean it is okay to do it in the mean time. Heck, I’ve been known to struggle with church teaching from time to time, as well as many people here on CAF. But we learn to submit to church authority, avoid the acts, pray for guidence and seek out answers.
How is your situation differant than any other church teaching:
- I am Catholic, but I don’t understand church teaching regarding abortion so I will support/do it anyways.
- I am Catholic, but I don’t understand church teaching on gay “marriage” so I will support/do it anyways.
- I am Catholic, and I don’t understand church teaching on contraception, so I will support/do it anyways.
- I am Catholic, and I don’t understand church teaching on murder, so I will support/do it anyways
I think some others have pointed out some materials such as Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II and Christopher West wrote another piece about this piece of work. Maybe that would be a good start.
N
newbetx
Guest
I think we are running into a bit of logistical verbage. Christopher West and Popcak study this subject quite well and have church approval for their books. So I think it’s in the intent that we’re getting stuck.
“Foreplay” is usually approved as the precurser for intercourse. Certainly, if you intend to “go all the way” and something occurs that prevents this, no sin was intended.
Speaking about married couples, I have not seen anything that states that a couple may not touch each other any where they want at any time they want. (Certainly there IS consideration to where you might be at the moment such as a public place or in the company of children!
) Touching a “private” part is no different from touching an arm or face or lips or anything else. Our bodies are compleatly given to our spouses and aren’t split into “zones.” With some places “reserved” for only certain actions. Using the word “foreplay” in this context is where it’s use implies a different intent. The actual mechanics may be the same, but the intent is different. And neither is inhierantly sinful.What many here are concerned with is the lustful mutual stimulation that IS a problem. Key point here is, that as posters, we can not judge the love or lust between the couple. As a couple, we can also decieve ourselves into thinking that lustful actions are justifiable since we are married. We’re all called to love. And we’re allowed to show that love via touch, words, and actions. But it must be love and not lust.
If it’s not with the feeling of love that you gaze upon your naked wife/husband, then it’s a sin to look at your naked wife/husband. Because you are filled with lust. If you feel in your heart that that naked person is your “Eve” or “Adam” and recognize the gift God has given to you, and seeing the person in his/her fullness then it’s love.
This takes much mental training, prayer and dedication to love as God wants us to love each other. It’s up to the couple to determine what is an expression of that love to them and how best to express it without falling to mutual lust. I know many here think there is a check list. This is OK, this is not. The Church is as specific as She thinks is required. Much of the “grey area” is up to the prayerful consideration of the couple.
I know this isn’t helpful for those that believe there is a list, or a line or those seeking such. As far as I can tell, there isn’t one. What is important is what is in one’s heart. I know this is “fuzzy” but it’s what I really learned from Theology of the Body. Without a complete conversion of heart, it’s imposible to show real love. And God knows what’s in our hearts better than we do. He challenges us to that conversion of heart and to love as He loves us. We have the gift of sexuality on Earth and married couples are encouraged to enjoy that gift properly in love.
Discuss with your spouse and pray together that your actions will be the expression of love. The expression of true love is what is significant. The Church has Her guidelines, not checklists. If reading West’s or Popcak’s books would be of assistance in guiding you, I highly recommend them.
T
Tosk
Guest
Well to tell you the truth you don’t have to understand why the church teaches you should complete the sex act the way she says you should. If you think the church is right on NFP, lust, masturbation, going to church ect… you could just give her the benefit of the doubt. But still it isn’t as if it is a teaching, like the trinity or the real presence, something that you can’t find out using your natural unaided reason.
I guess to understand why there is such a concern about where sperm ends up you should study natural law. I would recommend reading a book called The Last Superstition by Edward Feser to get a good beginners presentation of natural law theory. I will try and paraphrase the argument from that book for you. We are able to discover the nature and purpose of things by using our reason. So for example the nature of a squirrel is to live in a tree, eat nuts and scamper around. If a squirrel has been trained to eat toothpaste and make its home in a cage that would make it a “bad” squirrel. The good for a squirrel is to realize its nature but there is no morality involved because a squirrel can’t choose good from bad. With people it is different though because not only are we able to discern the nature and purpose of things but we can choose to go against these purposes, so now a moral element exists.
So you can see that every one of our various abilities are ordered toward certain ends. The intellect is for finding truth, the eye is for seeing, feet are for walking, ect… Doing anything contrary to the natural ends is bad, but this time in a moral sense because people have an intellect and free will and are able to choose good from bad. So you can turn your attention to the purpose of a penis now
It should seem pretty obvious that the purpose of a penis is depositing sperm in a vagina. Any other way of using a penis, that frustrates this purpose, is against the natural law and is commonly referred to as sodomy or buggery.Hope all the rambling I have done clears things up. If not you can always just have a little bit of faith. It shouldn’t be that hard if you think the Church is right on everything else. After all if you believe that the Church is guided by God and right 98% of the time what are the odds they are wrong on this one subject? I don’t know if you gamble but when would you ever see odds that good?
G
grace68
Guest
I have a question. It isn’t exactly like the question previously asked that started this thread.
What if the wife comes to climax because of foreplay, but then the marital act is completed and the intention was there for it to be completed in the first place? Would this be sinful?
What if the wife comes to climax because of foreplay, but then the marital act is completed and the intention was there for it to be completed in the first place? Would this be sinful?
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
No, not a sin.
The issue at hand is whether it’s right to intentionally engage in sexual activity (including foreplay) lacking completeness. The marital union must be BOTH procreative and unitive. Unless BOTH aspects are there, then it degrades the sacramental nature of the marital union.
Foreplay, which may be unitive in nature, is not procreative. To intentionally engage in this ALONE is to go against the very nature of sacramental marital union.
G
grace68
Guest
Thanks for responding. That is something I am struggling with because it has been happening everytime me and my husband engage in the marital act. I feel guilty as though I am getting pleasure out of it instead of waiting to experience it with my husband. I just feel as though maybe I should wait. I just wanted to make sure I was not commiting a sin by this happening.
Kerri
Mary_Gail_36
New member
This is the confusion. Foreplay isn’t unitive. Unitive refers to intercourse, The one flesh union. As Catholics that union needs to be open to life. We aren’t permitted to do things to replace this union such as oral sex to completion or mutual masturbation. We are permitted to kiss and touch each other as a show of love. If a couple does this, they are not required to have intercourse. They can leave it at that.
In my eyes foreplay = making out without going all the way. That is how I understand Popcak meaning.
J
jwashu
Guest
No you can’t…
However even those you list have changed drastically throughout the years except for murder which in a sense makes them little d dogmas.
Abortion is murder since we have learned through science and faith that life begins at conception.
Gay marriage is difficult because the Church teaches that the State can “marry” anyway. So why not reduce to the state to civil unions for everyone. If the state wants to allow to people to share property it’s none of our business. However if they want to get married it becomes an issue for their religion to deal with. Problem solved and we know there will be none in the Catholic Church.
Contraception has been consistent however it’s difficult to support for a theological standpoint IMHO and my guess is that it will change as have other moral sexual teachings as new information was learned. Study Augustine and Aquinas, the Church use to teach their teachings on sexuality which we now know are completely off base and incorrect. IMHO Augustine’s were based more off his own guilt than anything else.
The problem with this though is that the definitions aren’t clear and this whole thread has, for the most part, been about arguing over semantics. That is why it’s so difficult to determine if it’s a mortal sin or not, there are extraneous variables. It’s not murder, it’s not abortion…
I’m not saying who is right or who is wrong or even what I exactly believe… rather I’m trying to point out it’s not as black and white as some of you try to make it seem.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
If unitive is missing too, that would just make it worse. I just mentioned the procreative missing since that is easier to understand. The Catechism says:But the unitive aspect isn’t there either. A couple engaging in foreplay are not “uniting” that refers to the “one flesh union” which means intercourse.
You can’t separate the unitive from the procreative. I agree totally. But making out and fondling are not sex and aren’t “unitive”. Husband and wife can show love to each other in these ways. There is a line where the activity turns questionable, I’m assuming that would be when the couple becomes tempted to illicit behavior. That varies from couple to couple.
But to say unequivocally that it is mortal sin, is not correct. That isn’t the impression I got from the Popcak book, and it is endorsed by some orthodox people.
**2351 **…. **Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. **
The line isn’t whether or not they will be tempted to illicit behavior (thought they should avoid anything that does tempt them to illicit behavior), the line is where they are seeking sexual pleasure for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes (ie sex/intercourse). There are all sorts of forms of affection that can be shared between a couple just fine without having to have intercourse, but couples need to figure out for themselves where to draw that line. Sexual pleasure is good, God put it in the marital act, its great for couple to enjoy it, just not for people to seek it outside the marital embrace.
- Status