How do you understand this paradox of the marital embrace?

[The_Bucket]

To be clear, I understand the moral permissability of all this. My questions are concerning the underlying theology that explains it all. I really like to dig deep into meanings and reasons why something is true. It helps me to fully internalize the truth and spot the lies.

Glad to see that you’re diving into this. Do keep in mind, however, that marital love is supposed to be a reflection of Trinitarian love. That is, the love that exists between the three Persons of God and the love each of those Persons individually and together have for us. That is to say, there is an element of mystery involved. Trying to parse all of it could be an exercise in frustration and futility.

We can explain and provide analogies, but we’ll never fully comprehend these mysteries. And that’s OK. We’re not God. And, at least in my case, that’s a very good thing.

 

[fpt]

Lol!

Fpt,
Your thoughts, as always, are welcome in response to my questions. Thanks.
!!!

In reality the paradox seems to be, but it is not a real paradox because of the sexual alterity, of the sexual complementarity, of the sexual difference, of the sexual equity, of the nature of the sexual relations (the sexual touchings, in the human fashion, of the marital act coming from husband on his wife are not the sexual touchings, in the human fashion, of the marital act coming from wife on her husband).

Alterity, complementarity, equity, differences are the keys for understanding.

 

[fpt]

It is a present, a gift, a donation coming from God and coming from the other spouse* of seeing, of staring, of looking at, of participating, of reaching, of provoking, of permitting the mutual and reciprocal conjugal orgasm during the marital act, in order to allow to the two fecundities of appearing.*

The fact of being the passive agent and the active agent of the marital act, with all the corollaries in the conjugal physical love, is a beatiful gift of the marriage. By the marital act with all the corollaries, we are in physical union and in spiritual union/emotional union of body and soul.

The fact of seeing the other in the complete sexual emotion of the marital act during the conjugal carnal love is so divine. It is a right of trying, it is an obligation of means, it is a duty of means, it is the conjugal sexual charity of the marital act.

 

[mommamaree]

Thank you to everyone who responded so far. This has really helped me to crystallize some thoughts that I had been having while pondering this lately. It is good to see that my thoughts are in line with how other Catholics see this issue.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is a present, a gift, a donation coming from God and coming from the other spouse* of seeing, of staring, of looking at, of participating, of reaching, of provoking, of permitting the mutual and reciprocal conjugal orgasm during the marital act, in order to allow to the two fecundities of appearing.*

The fact of being the passive agent and the active agent of the marital act, with all the corollaries in the conjugal physical love, is a beatiful gift of the marriage. By the marital act with all the corollaries, we are in physical union and in spiritual union/emotional union of body and soul.

The fact of seeing the other in the complete sexual emotion of the marital act during the conjugal carnal love is so divine. It is a right of trying, it is an obligation of means, it is a duty of means, it is the conjugal sexual charity of the marital act.

Forgive me for saying so, but although there is some really splendid poetry in here, I think it begs her original question, which was the kind of very reasonable and practical question that arises precisely after reading a piece of soaring prose like this. That’s not to say that I have anything against soaring prose–far from it!–but that soaring prose alone can raise far more questions than it answers.