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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is sodomy within a Catholic marriage ending in completion in the act an outlawed thing? I didn’t know it was
 
I cannot go into extreme detail, but God’s grace is with the Popes. May His grace be with us all. By faith I can know things, like, we know no one can prove God doesn’t exist, and we know that the bodies of Mary and Jesus cannot be found, same thing here.
 
Last edited:
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...erent-approaches-to-love-marriage-and-sex-999

That’s the article I mentioned.

Regarding sodomy within marriage, you’ll find some modern thinkers arguing that it is acceptable based on the principle of “anything goes so long as it ends in “proper” intercourse” (my wording). And I’m sure if it was to become a debate here on this forum you’d get many differing opinions. However for the likes of Aquinas and (I believe, I’d need to find the quote) St. Liguori, it was not. And to be honest, on a personal level, common, natural sense tells me that it is not okay. It is in the word - “sodomy”.

Edit: This article has the St. Ligouri quote, it is very clear. Saint Alphonsus Ligouri and Saint Thomas Aquinas view sodomitic foreplay in marriage as a serious violation of the moral law | Catholic Strength
 
Last edited:
All intrinsically evil acts are condemned, by changing the circumstance of it (who it is done with, where it is done, when, etc) does not change the morality of the act. See the catechism on the three fonts. Same thing with adultery, no matter the intent or circumstance, it is always grave matter and at least an objective mortal sin. So, unnatural sex acts are the same. St. Ligouri is a moral master, worth following.
 
Last edited:
From Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, which incidentally is a pre-Vatican II source (morality never changes):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Without getting any more specific than I have to, if it is acceptable for the woman to take care of this matter herself, surely it is acceptable for the husband to assist with it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Would “procure” signify the husband doing it for her as opposed to her doing it herself? Hmm… I just looked up that book and he has some strange ideas. I don’t think his opinions on this, whilst carrying weight, are enough to sway me.
 
Last edited:
Read Germain Grisez, The Way of Our Lord Jesus.

Volume 2, chapter 9

It’s available online.
 
sealabeag said:
Interesting. Would “procure” signify the husband doing it for her as opposed to her doing it herself? Hmm… I just looked up that book and he has some strange ideas. I don’t think his opinions on this, whilst carrying weight, are enough to sway me.
Click to expand...
In this context, “procure” means the same thing as “obtain”. She may obtain this gratification for herself, or her husband may obtain it for her.

Jone is a compilation and condensation of commonly accepted Catholic moral teaching. The book is overwhelmingly reliable, even if he gives short shrift to theologians who hold less-than-majority views on this issue or that. That said, I will acknowledge there are a few things here and there, that are troubling. One involves the licitness of a husband and wife obtaining pleasure by resorting to
an act that is commonly regarded as sodomy
(modesty blur here). Many have questioned this, and I would be among them. It is basically the same argument as discussed by @sealabeag in #22 above.
 
Thanks for the recommendation, it will take me a while to read through the chapter but seems like a good source!
 
What I’m saying is that the Church teaches that there are three fonts of morality, and that any act with an evil moral object is always of grave matter, no matter the circumstance or intention of the actor. Do you disagree?
 
Ok, I see. Personally I would have thought that would have been a sin, but of course I’m no theologian. I wonder would other saints like Aquinas have commented on this particular question? I find it hard to see the difference between that and
masturbation
.
 
sealabeag said:
Ok, I see. Personally I would have thought that would have been a sin, but of course I’m no theologian. I wonder would other saints like Aquinas have commented on this particular question? I find it hard to see the difference between that and .
Click to expand...
At first blush, I would have thought so too, but then when you give it a little more consideration, it’s obviously not sinful. There is also a school of thought (pretty much debunked in modern times) that a woman’s completion assists in conception, and following the reasoning that we want to make conception more likely, not less, then it seems this act would be licit.
 
I don’t mean to be crude, but to those who believe a husband stimulating his wife by oral or manual means is contrary to natural law…how do you square that with the fact that the clitoris exists? It serves no reproductive function. Surely if God only meant for women to experience sexual gratification via vaginal intercourse, the epicenter of female sexual pleasure would be inside the vagina.
 
Last edited:
There are different levels of certitude in the faith. Infallible truths, non-infallible but authoritative, religious submission, human faith, etc. Not everything is believed with as much intensity. Not everything is known with the same certainty. The point of the post I made that you responded to was that knowing one truth, you can exclude another idea without even looking into it. Because I know Jesus is God, I can exclude any claim that He is not. This is not to compare the certitude of things, but just to explain what it means when I say: “on faith I know the Pope didn’t say xyz.”
 
Last edited:
I think some people get a bit too prideful on certain moral issues and despite all evidence against it, they stay stuck in their ways because they do not want to admit they were wrong. I’ve felt and acted this way before too I’m sure
 
LumineDiei said:
then will link to a misquoted, taken out of context, or just all around erroneous website smothered in some guy’s personal planetary opinion disguised as a catechetical domain (you all know what I’m talking about here)
Click to expand...
I hate that website. It caused me a ton of problems for a while until I realized it wasn’t official teaching, just some dude’s opinion.

To the OP, I honestly don’t think there’s a clear answer here. I’ve never heard of it being denounced, I’ve also never heard of it being explicitly accepted. My personal opinion is that’s it’s less desirable than simultaneous climax / climax as a result of sexual intercourse, but still acceptable within the context of the martial embrace.
 
Last edited:
Haha, oh yes, you’ve touched upon (ahem) the central issue. That is, Catholic sexual ethics are built upon a male-dominant model. Male climax is achieved concomitant with ejaculation as a matter of natural design. The absolute rule of “procreative + unitive” functions for every single sex act is understandable only if you are looking at sex through a male viewpoint. Male reproduction is always linked with pleasure. Thus, any time the “natural law” argument is presenting that sex is always for reproduction, not pleasure alone, know that that argument is predicated on masculine sexual function.

Female sexual design, on the other hand, does not link reproduction with pleasure. It naturally and frequently occurs apart from any pleasure or orgasm. Just read the experiences of many poor women who’ve undergone FGM who are also mothers. Conversely, the function of pleasure is not dependent upon reproduction at all, as the clitoris has zero need for penetration to induce orgasm. In fact, for many women, it seems penetration is frequently ill-equipped to stimulate that way, requiring other apparatus, such as manual or oral.

Mate, I am not Catholic and never have been. But much as I admire its art, history, philosophical and legal contributions, there are certain attitudes and dogmas like the idea that women’s experience of sex must happen according the default design men work with that strikes me as profoundly…well, sexist. Or at least tone deaf. I can see well why any erudite pope or theologian, who having attained a modern scientific understanding of female sexuality, might try to modify that and make allowances for the woman’s experience.

After all, if sex is for reproduction, then it makes better sense to me to base the rules about it round the party who is doing heavy lifting of 9 months gestation, plus how many hours of labor, versus the party whose reproductive role comprises approximately 15-25 minutes of the process. (No judgments on those toward the lower end.)

But what do I know, I’m just an agnostic observer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top