I think you know what I am asking... delicately.

[PyroAlchemist]

In answer to the several private messages I received and to those who have wondered but have not asked:

As with Galileo Galilei, I have certain beliefs that I have determined to be correct although they are not in strict agreement with the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. As with Galileo Galilei, out of respect for the church I love I will not openly challenge that magisterium or attempt to influence other Catholics to come to my way of thinking. But as with Galileo Galilei, I am deeply saddened that I can not do so.

Given the sincerity of that statement I cannot with clear conscience, debate my views here. It is with some trepidation that I even state them but I feel that I owe an explanation for starting this thread.

I believe that any monogamous sexual practice within the bonds of matrimony that is completely consensual and not harmful to either spouse can be a valid expression of sacramental love as long as that practice does not cause harm to the participants or to a fertilized human embryo. I do not believe that masturbation, non vaginal intercourse or artificial birth control are inherently sinful within these confines. That said, I would emphasize that those practices can easily become seriously sinful if they are not performed in a spirit of mutual love or if human life or health is endangered so they should only be practiced after sincere and open spousal communication and only if it is certain that no physical risk to human life or health is involved.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your beliefs are your beliefs and outside the control of others. Sins are committed by all, neither you nor I are exceptions. I would ask you to consider WHY you have the need to perform these types of acts. You need not post answers or even tell others. I am sure your ultimate answers will not be things as to have fun, or upset the Magistruim. If it helps I too wish the Church had either been silent or gave only advisory teachings on marriage and sexual issues, but that is not the situation.

 

[DailyBread]

Well PyroAlchemist, it appears that you know the original answer to your question about sexual practices and church teaching. It takes this stance because vaginal intercourse and sexual practices open to communication of life giving love speak of the unique union between man and woman and are complete gifts of oneself where one’s whole body is given including one’s seed and it is not witheld from the spouse. Acts not open to life do not communicate that full gift of oneself as male or as female to ones spouse (mutaul masturbation, oral sex in place of intercourse can be preformed by anyone male to male, female to female and hence are not expressions of the unique nuptial union of husband and wife ultimately). The Church calls married couples to imitate Christ’s love for the church and her love for him. He gave his complete self to her forever as a sign of the covenant and so we are called to do the same. Some may feel it may not be a big deal, but Christ elevated marriage to be a sacrament which reflect its need to conform to the complete gift of self as Christ is to us. I think we would all be upset if Christ decided to withhold grace when we desire to recieve it. Christ always unites himself to us so we may have “life and more abundantly.” This does not mean sex reformed by Christ as taught by the church cannot be a blissful union… if anything it allows for the joy one recieves in giving oneself to your spouse, to another I and works to reform hearts of couples to truly love and not lust. Also if you feel you need to space children NFP is just as effective and the beauty is that the sacrifice in abstaining teaches spouses about the beauty of the sexual union; that it is a union of two people seeking more the joy for the other and for the others good. Contracepted sex leads to the mentality of have sex whenever I want it and I do not need to be responsible for consequences of it. I think this is backed up by the fact that many marriages end in divorce (50%) while for NFP couples its like a slim 1% at most. Continue in your spiritual quest for the truth pyroAlchemist. I a sure you may disagree with me in many ways about my post, but I just offer them for words to chew on. May grace and mercy be with you always.

 

[StephanieC]

In answer to the several private messages I received and to those who have wondered but have not asked:

As with Galileo Galilei, I have certain beliefs that I have determined to be correct although they are not in strict agreement with the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. As with Galileo Galilei, out of respect for the church I love I will not openly challenge that magisterium or attempt to influence other Catholics to come to my way of thinking. But as with Galileo Galilei, I am deeply saddened that I can not do so.

Given the sincerity of that statement I cannot with clear conscience, debate my views here. It is with some trepidation that I even state them but I feel that I owe an explanation for starting this thread.

I believe that any monogamous sexual practice within the bonds of matrimony that is completely consensual and not harmful to either spouse can be a valid expression of sacramental love as long as that practice does not cause harm to the participants or to a fertilized human embryo. I do not believe that masturbation, non vaginal intercourse or artificial birth control are inherently sinful within these confines. That said, I would emphasize that those practices can easily become seriously sinful if they are not performed in a spirit of mutual love or if human life or health is endangered so they should only be practiced after sincere and open spousal communication and only if it is certain that no physical risk to human life or health is involved.

Okay! You sound pretty sure about that.
So I’m wondering…why did you start this thread?

I mean, if you knew going into the original post that you couldn’t debate your views with a clear conscience, then why did you post?!

I’m baffled & a little bemused, because I read your OP at face value, and assumed that you were asking out of innocent ignorance & a sincere desire to learn. Now it seems that there’s something else afoot.

 

[PyroAlchemist]

Okay! You sound pretty sure about that.
So I’m wondering…why did you start this thread?

I mean, if you knew going into the original post that you couldn’t debate your views with a clear conscience, then why did you post?!

I’m baffled & a little bemused, because I read your OP at face value, and assumed that you were asking out of innocent ignorance & a sincere desire to learn. Now it seems that there’s something else afoot.

Yes, I am sure about my own beliefs. I wanted to know what the official Catholic teaching was. I had gotten no response from the “ask an apologist” section so I posted here. I believe my questions have been answered so there is no need for me to participate further in this thread. Feel free to comment among yourselves in my absence. Sticks (when they are stacked for a good old fashioned burning at stake) and stones (let’s see… who is going to throw the first one) can break my bones but words can never harm me (when I am not around to read them.)

 

[StephanieC]

PyroAlchemist,

I’m going to just cut through the 25 posts of debate it’s taken so far and assume (perhaps incorrectly, if so, I apologize) that your question has to do with oral sex.

Typing in “oral sex” into the search function and specifying the “Ask and Apologist” turns up 11 threads, 8 of which are actually about oral sex; 3 of which have to do with “oral tradition” and “oral contraceptives.”

Here you go.

Take a look at the number of “views” each post has…some are over 2,000! You are most definitely not alone in wanting to know the official Catholic teaching. Why would anyone want to ‘burn you at the stake’ or ‘break your bones’ for simply wanting to know what so many other people also want to know?

God bless.

 

[Dale_M]

Can anyone tell me where I can find a more progressive Catholic discussion board?

I don’t think there is one, at least none that is very active. Why that is would be interesting to discuss, but I guess you have left?

But I am beginning to realize that I don’t belong here. To many people who believe they only have the truth and speak as if they have papal authority.

Nah, its in the nature of the beast - web forums tend to be like that. CAF isn’t better or worse in that regard, as far as I can tell.

 

[Ruthie]

PyroAlchemist,

Are you open to debate on this subject? If not, you may skip this post.

I used to believe as you did, but changed my mind after investigating why the Church teaches as she does. It has nothing to do with being prudish.

Consider the animals. They only have sex when the female is fertile. This proves that God meant sex to be fertile.

We humans were not made that way; for us, sex involves more than mere fertility. It also strengthens the marital bond. It becomes a mutual exchange of love, not just between man and wife, but also between them and God. (That concept takes a little getting used to!)

Since God intends sex to be fertile, the act must be open to fertility. If it’s necessary to avoid pregnancy, NFP does not take the decision out of God’s hands like ABC does. (And NFP is as effective as the pill, if not more so - even when the wife has irregular cycles.) And even us old crones who are no longer fertile still need to be open to fertility!

Masturbation and non-vaginal intercourse are not open to fertility. However, if they stop short of ejaculation, and ejaculation takes place where God intended to, then they’re fine. They are just part of foreplay.

The other problem is that masturbation and non-vaginal intercourse objectify women, turning them into sex toys. Each is using the other only for selfish gratification.

ABC also contributes to objectification - of both men *and *women - since it leads to “sex without consequences.” Sex turns into an itch that needs to be scratched, although God intends it to be the beautiful giving of each spouse to the other, and to God.

And don’t forget that the pill is also an abortifactant, since it prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterine wall.

Last but not least, masturbation tends to make your partner wonder whether they are inadequate. Taken too far, it can even be an act of mental cruelty towards them. (“You’re so lousy in bed that I prefer my hand to you.”) Not only that, it is sex outside marriage, since it only involves one spouse. Thus, it’s a form of adultery. (Please note that I am not being gender-specific.)

I suggest that you read Christopher West’s fine book, the Good News About Love and Marriage. It will educate you further in why the Church teaches as she does - and why it’s such good news!

Not to mention that he’s a better teacher than I am. :yup:

 

[Ron_Conte]

See my article for my citations from Magisterial documents and for my theological argument:

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

The Magisterium has clearly taught that intrinsically disordered acts are always gravely immoral. Yet the argument of those who try to give approval to unnatural sexual acts within marriage always ends up saying that such acts are immoral when separate from the marital act, and moral when these precede, accompany, or follow the marital act, or when these acts are partial and are completed with the marital act. The problem with this point of view is that the Magisterium has always taught that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral regardless of circumstances. See Veritatis Splendor on this point; the entire encyclical was written to counter this type of situational ethics. If it is immoral outside of the marital act, then it must be immoral when combined with the marital act, because it is intrinsically disordered and never justifiable.

The article link above makes this point in greater detail and with quotes from Magisterial documents.

Now I noticed that those who were claiming that Pope John Paul II taught their point of view in the theology of the body have yet to give a quote proving their claim.

Nor can any of you who disagree with my article give a Magisterial citation saying that such acts are moral when combined with the marital act, even though they are immoral apart from the marital act.

Ron Conte

 

[setter]

See my article for my citations from Magisterial documents and for my theological argument:

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

The Magisterium has clearly taught that **intrinsically disordered acts **are always gravely immoral. Yet the argument of those who try to give approval to **unnatural sexual acts **within marriage always ends up saying that such acts are immoral when separate from the marital act, and moral when these precede, accompany, or follow the marital act, or when these acts are partial and are completed with the marital act. The problem with this point of view is that the Magisterium has always taught that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral regardless of circumstances.

Ron Conte

The problem with your point of view is that the Magisterium has always taught that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral regardless of circumstances; where as you fail to provide clear Church documentation of the “unnatural sexual acts” which are “intrinsically disordered” as you repeatedly enumerate and contend. Again, your personal opinion independent of ecclesial approval.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The problem with your point of view is that the Magisterium has always taught that intrinsically disordered acts are always immoral regardless of circumstances; where as you fail to provide clear Church documentation of the “unnatural sexual acts” which are “intrinsically disordered” as you repeatedly enumerate and contend. Again, your personal opinion independent of ecclesial approval.

None of those persons arguing against me have provided Magisterial documents to support their point of view. And no one has been able to provide a quote from the Theology of the Body which supports this point of view, even though they keep refering to that set of talks.

you requested ‘clear Church documentation’ :

1. Each sexual act must be evaluated separately as to its morality

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”
(Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

Notice the term ‘each and every marital act’. This contradicts those theologians who try to group various sexual acts together with an act of natural marital relations open to life, in order to justify the former by combination with the latter. But the Church definitively teaches that each act must considered separately. Therefore, the arguments that many persons have presented, which group an act that is immoral by itself with a moral act of natural marital relations, in order to justify the one by the other, are contrary to Church teaching. Each and every sexual act must be considered by itself as to its morality.

1. Masterbation is always gravely immoral.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

A husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is intrinsically and gravely disordered. The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs” is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.

1. Intrinsically disordered acts are never justifiable in any circumstance:

“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain ‘irremediably’ evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. ‘As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?’. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

Therefore, acts whereby the husband deliberately stimulates the genitals of his wife for her sexual pleasure are intrinsically evil and cannot be justified by any circumstance, not even by being combined with an act of natural marital relations. An intrinsically evil act can never be transformed into an act which is good or defensible as a choice, even if that act occurs before, during, or after natural marital relations. For no circumstance or intention can make something that is intrinsically evil into something good.

Now, where are your Magisterial citations to support your argument?

Ron Conte

 

[setter]

None of those persons arguing against me have provided Magisterial documents to support their point of view. And no one has been able to provide a quote from the Theology of the Body which supports this point of view, even though they keep refering to that set of talks.

you requested ‘clear Church documentation’ :

1. Each sexual act must be evaluated separately as to its morality
2. Masterbation is always gravely immoral.
3. Intrinsically disordered acts are never justifiable in any circumstance:

Now, where are your Magisterial citations to support your argument?

Ron Conte

None of these 3 points apply to the sexual stimulation as part of foreplay encompassed in the conjugal act. You have failed to make the case that you interpretations are correct over that of established Church teaching as brought by credible moral theologians. You fail to make the case with your indirect citations of ‘connect the dots as I direct you’ to arrive at your erroneous conclusions.

BTW – We are not a ‘take the hook, line and sinker’ crowd here at these CA forums.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Does the church teach that any sexual expression of love between a husband and wife that cannot lead to conception is inherently sinful?

That’s more or less it. In fact is is frustration of the procreative potential of the act which is sinful. Sterilisation, condoms, contraceptive pills, etc are all banned, as are sexual acts that are designed not to lead to conception.

However it is not sinful for a couple who know they are infertile to have sexual intercourse.

 

[CuriousInIL]

1. **Each sexual act **must be evaluated separately as to its morality

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act **must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”
(Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

Notice the term ‘each and every marital act’. This contradicts those theologians who try to **group various sexual acts together **with **an act of natural marital relations **open to life, in order to justify the former by combination with the latter. But the Church definitively teaches that **each act **must considered separately. Therefore, the arguments that many persons have presented, which group **an act **that is immoral by itself with a moral act of natural marital relations, in order to justify the one by the other, are contrary to Church teaching. **Each and every sexual act **must be considered by itself as to its morality

.

What are your definitions of marital act, sexual act, etc. as used above and what is the basis for those definitions?
Ron Conte;16920242. Masterbation is always gravely immoral.:

And regardless of whether this “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs” is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered

, according to the Catechism.Ron Conte
If one simply applies the words, doesn’t this also describe marital vaginal intercourse? Why is that acceptable? It too, is deliberate stimulation.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”
(Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

Notice the term ‘each and every marital act’.

I do notice the term. I also notive that in this context, “marital act” is intended to mean “sexual instance”, not “single action”. A kiss is also a non-procreative act–would you prohibit spouses to kiss as a part of the marital act? You must, in order to be consistent with the rest of what you say.

But the Church definitively teaches that each act must considered separately.

I don’t see that you have demonstrated this.

1. Masterbation is always gravely immoral.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

A husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is intrinsically and gravely disordered.

Your logic also precludes any and all sexual stimulation, including the stimulation of the man’s genitals in a normal, vaginal marital embrace. This is clearly not what is meant in the original text. You have also taken the quote out of context. The Catechism goes on to say in the same paragraph:

The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.

This contradicts your assertion that it is wrong to sexually stimulate another person in the context of marriage. This part, which you omitted, also makes it clear that the Church is defining masturbation as a solitary act.

The Catechism also states in paragraph 2362:

The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
‘The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.’

Notice that “acts” is plural in this case, implying that the marital embrace (so long as it remains open to life) can be comprised of many different actions. It is also clear from this passage that it is right and good for the spouses to seek pleasure and enjoyment in their relations. Your suggestion that it is wrong for the husband to stimulate the wife in the context of a procreative marital encounter is contradictory to what is taught by the Magisterium in the Catechism.

Also, are you aware of what our own Catholic Forum Apologists have to say on the matter? Are you implying that you’ve stumbled on some kind of truth that has eluded our bishops, priests, and professional, orthodox apologists?

Here are some links to related answers on the Ask an Apologist forum:

What kind of relations are allowed within marriage?

Re. the oral sex post, is it different for the woman?

Foreplay

Must all sexual actions be procreative?

God bless.

 

[Holland]

Can anyone tell me where I can find a more progressive Catholic discussion board? I am beginning to realize that I don’t belong here. To many people who believe they only have the truth and speak as if they have papal authority. They remind me of the fundamentalist protestant ministers of my youth. I am starting to be reminded of why I became an inactive Catholic. I just recently came back to the Church. Maybe I better leave before I am run off again.

Don’t run away! I hope you come back to this Forum. There are some good people here that will give you sound advice that can be verified very easily. Don’t be afraid to deepen your knowledge of your Catholic faith even if it seemingly tries your patience when it challenges things that you believe. I would suggest that when you say you want a more “progressive” board to air your thoughts on you really want a board that is more in tune with what you believe right now. I would have to say there is no “progress” in thought when you align yourself with people who agree with you. Anyway, I hope you come back.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I believe that any monogamous sexual practice within the bonds of matrimony that is completely consensual and not harmful to either spouse can be a valid expression of sacramental love as long as that practice does not cause harm to the participants or to a fertilized human embryo. I do not believe that masturbation, non vaginal intercourse or artificial birth control are inherently sinful within these confines. That said, I would emphasize that those practices can easily become seriously sinful if they are not performed in a spirit of mutual love or if human life or health is endangered so they should only be practiced after sincere and open spousal communication and only if it is certain that no physical risk to human life or health is involved.

The Church definitively teaches that any act (whether sexual or not) which is intrinsically disordered is always objectively immoral. If you are sincere in wanting to form your conscience according to the teaching of the Church, you should read Veritatis Splendor, which makes this point at length.

Marriage is a Sacrament, so how is it that so many people think that they can do any sexual acts at all within marriage? Do you not recognize that certain kinds of sexual acts are inherently immoral? The ideas that you express come from secular sinful society, not from the Church.

Ron

 

[Ron_Conte]

None of these 3 points apply to the sexual stimulation as part of foreplay encompassed in the conjugal act.

If any act is intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral when completed by itself, then it must still be intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral even when it is only partial or is combined with an act which is moral. The morality of the latter act does not change the morality of the former act.

You have heard the expression ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. But I tell you that half an evil deed does not make for a good deed, not even if you combine that half an evil deed with something good. When an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot become moral by being only done partially, nor can it become mortal by combining that act, partial or whole, with a moral act.

Using unnatural sexual acts as foreplay prior to natural marital relations is sinful and offensive to God because natural marital relations is a part of the holy Sacrament of Marriage, whereas the unnatural acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. One can never do evil that good may come from it. Nor can one do evil partially, as if this would be in the service of good.

Ron Conte

 

[Julianna]

Can anyone tell me where I can find a more progressive Catholic discussion board? I am beginning to realize that I don’t belong here. To many people who believe they only have the truth and speak as if they have papal authority. They remind me of the fundamentalist protestant ministers of my youth. I am starting to be reminded of why I became an inactive Catholic. I just recently came back to the Church. Maybe I better leave before I am run off again.

Not sure if you will read this, but here goes. I agree with you. I don’t want the church in my marriage bed. I am married, legally and spiritually, that is enough. I didn’t say anything about not wanting God in my marriage bed, so don’t confuse the issue. The church is made up of people, human beings, those are the ones I don’t want in my marriage bed. They can quote canon law till the cows come home, written by human beings by the way, mostly, if not all by men (who don’t have the sole authority on sexual issues). Yes, there are some some fundamental catholics on here, (can’t use the words, I call them, or it will get bleeped). I am Catholic, and will remain so to my grave, no one can change that. The church is the guidance to my spirituality. Scare tatics don’t work for me, neither does the bandwagon mentality.

I suggest you keep your sexual preferences, your politics to yourself when on this board, unless you can handle the slamming. All one has to do is look around the American Catholic parish and it becomes apparent with the 1, 2, 3 children families, just who is using aritificial bc.

If you love your wife…make love to her the way you both agree on. Song 2:16

 

[Magicsilence]

Not sure if you will read this, but here goes. I agree with you. I don’t want the church in my marriage bed. I am married, legally and spiritually, that is enough. I didn’t say anything about not wanting God in my marriage bed, so don’t confuse the issue. The church is made up of people, human beings, those are the ones I don’t want in my marriage bed. They can quote canon law till the cows come home, written by human beings by the way, mostly, if not all by men (who don’t have the sole authority on sexual issues). Yes, there are some some fundamental catholics on here, (can’t use the words, I call them, or it will get bleeped). I am Catholic, and will remain so to my grave, no one can change that. The church is the guidance to my spirituality. Scare tatics don’t work for me, neither does the bandwagon mentality.

I suggest you keep your sexual preferences, your politics to yourself when on this board, unless you can handle the slamming. All one has to do is look around the American Catholic parish and it becomes apparent with the 1, 2, 3 children families, just who is using aritificial bc.

If you love your wife…make love to her the way you both agree on. Song 2:16

This is probably in line with how most American Catholics view the Church.

Although there are two contradictory messages in your post, I believe

God Bless,