Husband bringing Wife to "completion" after the marital act?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sealabeag

Guest
Hi quick question, and please forgive the delicate language but I know there’s a rule that posts must not be graphic.

I recently read on these forums, on an old thread, someone saying that Pope John Paul II said, possibly in Love and Responsibility, that whilst a man should try to delay his completion of the marital act in order to reach completion alongside his wife, if he completes before her, he may bring her to completion “after” the act.

Is this true and if so I’m looking for the specific quote this comes from in JPII’s writing. Thanks.
 
I can’t cite anything for you, but my moral intuition (to the extent you care about that) tells me that this would be completely unobjectionable, although I’m sure people will come storming in with quotes from Aquinas to say I’m wrong. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
It’s a good question.

I know she can “go first” if ya know what I mean but I don’t know about her “going second.”
 
I believe the quote you may be looking for is indeed from Love and Responsibility:


^ This is to google books. If you preview the book and search for page 275, you will find the quote:

“the need for tenderness during physical intercourse, and also before it begins and after its conclusion, is explicable in purely biological terms.”
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Bumpity bump.
Click to expand...
Geez… impatient much? 🤣

First thought: Love and Responsibility is not a teaching of the Church, per se, nor is it a magisterial document. (If memory serves, he had recently been made a bishop at the point at which the book was first published.). So, if you want to use the book for reflection, great. If you want to claim it as the official teaching of the Church, then you’re out of luck.

In the final chapter of the book, “A Supplementary Survey”, there’s a section entitled “Marriage and Marital Intercourse.” Woytyla doesn’t make the claim that “a husband may bring his wife to completion after the act.” Rather, he talks about the need for sexual intercourse to be pleasurable and unitive for both spouses in the marriage. He discusses the negative effects if sex is being used merely to meet one spouse’s physical desires. He asserts that “[t]here exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” He points out that there is the danger that, if there is not such care on the part of both spouses for the experience of the other, then the experience of the wife may be “qualitatively inferior”, leading to “an aversion to intercourse” and “a disgust with sex.”

I am not seeing that Woytyla recommends what you say he does.

Now… other commentators, reading L&R, might claim what you have mentioned… but I don’t think Woytyla did.
 
Actually St. JPII famously wrote this. It’s a fact, he wrote it.

Whether you agree or disagree with that is different but you can’t deny he wrote it when we have physical proof he did
 
Where? I already know it doesn’t exist on the virtue of faith.
 
Last edited:
Read Good News About Sex And Marriage by Christopher West as he delves into TOB and Love And Responsibility. The book is at my house where I am not so I cannot quote it atm
 
Last edited:
Dolphin said:
Read Good News About Sex And Marriage by Christopher West as he delves into TOB and Love And Responsibility. The book is at my house where I am not so I cannot quote it atm
Click to expand...
OK. Thanks.

I did a quick Google Books search. West himself says “it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result
of oral stimulation
, so long as it’s within the context of a completed act of intercourse.”

Three thoughts:
  • West isn’t quoting Woytyla.
  • West is offering his own personal interpretation.
  • West does not teach magisterially, so he’s really just offering his opinion, and not providing Church teaching as such.
So, in retrospect, we’re at the same place where we started: no, Woytyla didn’t make the claims that @Dolphin and @sealabeag suggest he did.

(NB: modesty shield added to West’s quote, to avoid scandalizing those of delicate sensibilities.)
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Geez… impatient much?
Click to expand...
You have no idea. 🤣
Gorgias said:
First thought: Love and Responsibility is not a teaching of the Church, per se, nor is it a magisterial document. (If memory serves, he had recently been made a bishop at the point at which the book was first published.). So, if you want to use the book for reflection, great. If you want to claim it as the official teaching of the Church, then you’re out of luck.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, was just trying to source the quote and its accuracy.
Gorgias said:
In the final chapter of the book, “A Supplementary Survey”, there’s a section entitled “Marriage and Marital Intercourse.” Woytyla doesn’t make the claim that “a husband may bring his wife to completion after the act.” Rather, he talks about the need for sexual intercourse to be pleasurable and unitive for both spouses in the marriage. He discusses the negative effects if sex is being used merely to meet one spouse’s physical desires. He asserts that “[t]here exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously.” He points out that there is the danger that, if there is not such care on the part of both spouses for the experience of the other, then the experience of the wife may be “qualitatively inferior”, leading to “an aversion to intercourse” and “a disgust with sex.”

I am not seeing that Woytyla recommends what you say he does.
Click to expand...
Okay very interesting thank you! The quote didn’t sit right with me morally, which is why I’m intent on tracking it down, if it exists. The quote you provided may be what others have read and extrapolated from.
 
Thanks for the quote but it doesn’t actually say what I had questioned about. Which is fine, maybe he never said it!
 
It’s funny you recommend this book: The reason I’m learning about this topics is because that book was recommended for my men’s group, and I’m objecting to read it due to Mr. West’s views on sodomy. In the process of researching him this question came up.
 
Thanks guys for the replies (oh, it rhymes) however I still haven’t found this quote, so I will assume it does not exist, and was something others had read into the quote @Gorgias provided, unless I can find the exact excerpt.
 
Last edited:
Both of these links, which I read in full, quote Church teachings, and the Pope, then go on to draw conclusions, implications, and suggestion that is in neither. This is why the Magisterium, Tradition, and Scripture are the best sources for learning about God and the things of God, and teachers who do justice to all three.
 
I believe it is present in the Aggies blog link, but Gorgias found what she quotes, and it doesn’t say what people think it does.
 
What are his views on sodomy? I wasn’t aware he had some controversial view there
 
Well, in the first edition of the book you mentioned (I believe it has been removed or the wording changed), he stated that whilst not necessarily recommended on health grounds, sodomy between married couples, so long as ending in the marital act (which, is actually impossible, on hygiene grounds), wasn’t necessarily morally illicit. There was a big controversy at the time, apparently (2008ish). There’s a great article online of Alice VonHildebrand’s critique of his work.
I don’t know what his views are today, they may have changed, but I googled it and can’t find him taking a different position more recently.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top