Immoral sex within marriage

[Dakota_Roberts]

How do I explain to a Protestant that sexual acts within marriage like anal and oral sex can be sin along with masturbation and others?

PS It’s a Sola Scriptura Protestant

 

[passus]

How do I explain to a Protestant that sexual acts within marriage like anal and oral sex can be sin along with masturbation and others?

PS It’s a Sola Scriptura Protestant

I’m glad you made a separate thread all about this because I wanted to discuss it in the homosexuality thread but didn’t want to derail the topic.

Anyway, the Church has not explicitly taught that these acts are immoral or contrary to its teaching on sexuality when they take place within the context of marital intercourse which is open to life. Moral theologians will take both sides of the argument.

 

[ConstantinePX]

Immoral Sex is Sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage between two people. A valid sacramental marriage being a man and a woman. If they are married and their marriage is valid, who is anyone to tell them how not to express their love and intimacy to eachother? Oral and anal sex are ways that couples express their love. I dont see how this is considered ‘immoral’. There is nothing immoral about being intimate with your spouse. It is a very beautiful thing, and it should be treasured and encouraged, while discouraging truly immoral sex, that is, sex outside of a valid marriage.

EDIT: I have never seen anything in the bible or canon law, catechism, etc, that says specific acts of intercourse are unacceptable. It simply states that sexual relations are reserved for validly married couples, and rightful so.

 

[surritter]

Constantine (and the OP): Any type of sex that culminates with willful separation of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex is always wrong. That’s why contraceptive sex, anal sex, and homosexuality are all “covered” by the same moral law. It’s not that someone is “telling you what to do,” but it is a misuse of biology.

Think about bulimia: the person enjoys the pleasure of eating but then “refunds” the biological end of the food, which is nutrition. Everyone sees that as wrong, and that’s because it separates the two natures of eating. Same with sex. Read up on the “theology of the body.”

 

[ConstantinePX]

Any time of sex that willfully separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sex is always wrong. That’s why contraceptive sex, anal sex, and homosexuality are all “covered” by the same moral law.

As traditional as I am, I honestly dont think that the human race was made or intended to have sex only when trying to have a child. Yes, proactively trying to prevent contraception with condoms or pills is wrong, but having intercourse that involves anal or oral sex I dont think is wrong. It is an expression of love, and the two married couples are not trying to avoid having a child.

The church doesnt teach us that having anal or oral sex is wrong, the sperm and egg are separated and (presumingly) stay separated. If I recall it is the official stance of the Church that life begins only when the sperm enters the womb and begins the lengthy contraception and pregnancy process, granted an egg host and the sperm combine.

 

[ConstantinePX]

Constantine (and the OP): Any type of sex that culminates with willful separation of the procreative and unitive aspects of sex is always wrong. That’s why contraceptive sex, anal sex, and homosexuality are all “covered” by the same moral law. It’s not that someone is “telling you what to do,” but it is a misuse of biology.

Think about bulimia: the person enjoys the pleasure of eating but then “refunds” the biological end of the food, which is nutrition. Everyone sees that as wrong, and that’s because it separates the two natures of eating. Same with sex. Read up on the “theology of the body.”

Yes, but eating the food, in your analogy, is having full intercourse where penetration happens. Having oral or anal sex is a different situation and is more comparable to chewing gum or something of that nature.

You cannot say that oral or anal sex fits in that analogy. To prevent or refuse the end of the eating would be appropriate to compare to the use of condoms or pills. Oral/anal sex is a completely different form of intercourse.

 

[surritter]

No one said that you can only have sex when trying to have a child. What I was saying is that it’s wrong to take action to purposely thwart the possibility of conceiving a child. Notice the difference!

Certainly the Church teaches that anal sex is wrong. I think this is the point you’re missing: while we must certainly protect the life of a child once conceived (which is why abortion is wrong), this discussion is about the nature of the sex act itself.

Oral sex and other acts of “foreplay” may be moral, as long as the man climaxes inside the woman (and of course as long as both parties find it appealing). I think with this statement I can see some agreement with your prior post.

 

[ConstantinePX]

No one said that you can only have sex when trying to have a child. What I was saying is that it’s wrong to take action to purposely thwart the possibility of conceiving a child. Notice the difference!

Certainly the Church teaches that anal sex is wrong. I think this is the point you’re missing: while we must certainly protect the life of a child once conceived (which is why abortion is wrong), this discussion is about the nature of the sex act itself.

Oral sex and other acts of “foreplay” may be moral, as long as the man climaxes inside the woman (and of course as long as both parties find it appealing).

I dont want to sound like an aggressor, but I have never in my life read or heard of any official Church doctrine stating:

A) Sex MUST end with a man climaxing in the womb of a woman and,

B) That foreplay is forbidden if it doesnt end in climaxing in the woman.

What your saying essentially is, “Sex doesnt have to end in a child, BUT you have to end in climaxing in your spouse.” Thats like me saying “You dont have to kill that person, BUT you have to shoot in his general direction and hope the bullet misses.”

Correct me if I misunderstand.

 

[ConstantinePX]

I understand we are talking about the morality of sex. But the OP was asking about the mortality according to the Church, I think, not so much the general opinion of the individual, which if that is the case, is totally up to the person, as again, the Magisterium does not have official teachings on that topic except that intentional contraception devices such as condoms and such are illicit and immoral.

 

[surritter]

I dont want to sound like an aggressor, but I have never in my life read or heard of any official Church doctrine stating:

A) Sex MUST end with a man climaxing in the womb of a woman and,

B) That foreplay is forbidden if it doesnt end in climaxing in the woman.

What your saying essentially is, “Sex doesnt have to end in a child, BUT you have to end in climaxing in your spouse.” Thats like me saying “You dont have to kill that person, BUT you have to shoot in his general direction and hope the bullet misses.”

Correct me if I misunderstand.

Most definitely this is in the Church’s teaching. The encyclical Humanae Vitae from Pope Paul VI explains the concepts about the proper use of sex (he doesn’t mention specific sex acts, but the moral teaching is VERY clear).

Also check out the Catechism, Part 3, Article 6. See especially paragraphs 2363-2369. But for more detail extracted from the ideas, Pope John Paul II taught extensively about the theology of the body.

The analogy you give doesn’t really apply because shooting a gun is not intrinsically linked to the killing of a person. Its intrinsic purpose is to fire a bullet, which can be for hunting, even noisemaking, or yes, to fire at a bad guy to slow him down, and ultimately if necessary, to kill him. But a man’s sex climax has an intrinsic purpose which is inseparable from the unitive act of intercourse with his wife. This is why masturbation is wrong.

To put a different spin on the discussion, this is the same reason why in vitro fertilization is immoral: it focuses on the procreative aspect while eliminating the unitive aspect. (See how that’s the flip side of artificial contraception?)

 

[surritter]

I understand we are talking about the morality of sex. But the OP was asking about the mortality according to the Church, I think, not so much the general opinion of the individual, which if that is the case, is totally up to the person, as again, the Magisterium does not have official teachings on that topic except that intentional contraception devices such as condoms and such are illicit and immoral.

Sorry if it sounds like I’m ganging up on you, CPX

But I want to ensure that the OP can fully explain this to his/her friend. Masturbation is also wrong for the reasons given above. See the Catechism, paragraph para. 2352.

If you study WHY the Church teaches that artificial contraception is immoral, then it’s a cinch to extend the same principle to these other things being discussed.

Also to the OP: since you’re talking to a sola scriptura believer, the Catechism itself might not be convincing. You have to approach it from a logic and “natural law” point of view. Everyone should agree that sex has two purposes. But you’ll try to show why they shouldn’t be separated.

 

[Redratfish]

I dont want to sound like an aggressor, but I have never in my life read or heard of any official Church doctrine stating:
Wait for it, someone will post a catechism link

A) Sex MUST end with a man climaxing in the womb of a woman and,
This is correct

B) That foreplay is forbidden if it doesnt end in climaxing in the woman.
**You can change words around to make it sound better, “Foreplay should lead to intercourse.” hows that? **

What your saying essentially is, “Sex doesnt have to end in a child, BUT you have to end in climaxing in your spouse.” Thats like me saying “You dont have to kill that person, BUT you have to shoot in his general direction and hope the bullet misses.”
Haha I must admit your example was funny, but you misunderstand, the Church allows the use of NFP (not the same as the Rythme method as it is widely misquoted). When used appropriately it is comparable to birth control in terms of effectiveness.

Correct me if I misunderstand.
You misunderstood

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Look, not being self-righteous here, just basic:

Climaxing in your wife’s rectum,
is as wrong as climaxing in a rubber condom.
For the same reason: The proper use of the male seed
has then been frustrated, and knowingly so.
Instead of the possibility of the seed fertilizing a possible egg,
it has instead been deposited into the fecal matter canal, into
the lower end of the large intestine.
Some people, men and women, may enjoy receiving anal sex.
But the fact that they enjoy it, doesn’t make it any less nasty and
extremely dangerous. The rectum/anus is chock full of extremely dangerous
bacteria. Get that into the tip end of your penis, and you could get a raging infection.
Conversely, your thrusting could tear your wife’s rectum and cause her bacteria
to pass through the lining into her blood and give HER an extremely dangerous infection.
Some men even pull out of the rectum and insert their member directly into their wife’s
vagina, thus running the risk of causing her to get a raging and dangerous infection throughout her female organs due to the rectal/fecal bacteria being inserted into her vagina. Men should not being doing this to their wives, it is not sanitary and it is very dangerous to the health of both partners. For that reason, it is not truly a “loving” thing to do.

 

[ConstantinePX]

I took out my pocket Catechism and read the paragraphs. No where did it explicitly say that sex had to result in climaxing in the female or it had to end in a child. It went over A) That marriage and sex go hand in hand as it is an integral part of love and expressing love and fidelity. This I agree. It also went over that marriage and sex are to be fruitful. I also agree. That doesnt mean that every time you and your wife have sex you need to have a climax in her womb. That is very impractical. That would mean for a normal, healthy couple that is capable of having children, and granted they had intercourse when the woman was in the period of contraception, more then likely would result in a child. Are you saying then, for this example family, if they had 2 children, would have only had sex 2 times plus the amount of times they had sex if the first time they did not conceive due to the female not being in the period of conceiving?

And if the family does not want more then two children, then they should no longer me intimate. But, that in itself goes against the Catechism, as it states that ‘Marriage and the intimate relations are hand in hand with the spiritual bond and oneness of the couple’. (Sorta paraphrased.)

That is impratical and illogical. Even in the Bible, this fantasy is unrealistic. Man and woman by nature are sexual creatures, and they have sex, and in the Bible plenty of times this happens, and it doesnt always end in a child being born, and 9/10 the sexual interactions revolved around prophets, kings, and other chosen people of God.

 

[ConstantinePX]

Look, not being self-righteous here, just basic:

Climaxing in your wife’s rectum,
is as wrong as climaxing in a rubber condom.
For the same reason: The proper use of the male seed
has then been frustrated, and knowingly so.
Instead of the possibility of the seed fertilizing a possible egg,
it has instead been deposited into the fecal matter canal, into
the lower end of the large intestine.
Some people, men and women, may enjoy receiving anal sex.
But the fact that they enjoy it, doesn’t make it any less nasty and
extremely dangerous. The rectum/anus is chock full of extremely dangerous
bacteria. Get that into the tip end of your penis, and you could get a raging infection.
Conversely, your thrusting could tear your wife’s rectum and cause her bacteria
to pass through the lining into her blood and give HER an extremely dangerous infection.
Some men even pull out of the rectum and insert their member directly into their wife’s
vagina, thus running the risk of causing her to get a raging and dangerous infection throughout her female organs due to the rectal/fecal bacteria being inserted into her vagina. Men should not being doing this to their wives, it is not sanitary and it is very dangerous to the health of both partners. For that reason, it is not truly a “loving” thing to do.

Personally I would not do it. Even having ONLY sex which involves the penis and vagina can be unsanitary and risk certain sexual aliments in itself. Anytime two people come into contact, sexual or not there is the risk of transferring harmful bacteria, viruses, whatever, to another person. I was more leaning on the Oral side of things I suppose, but again, as with any sexual relation, health risks are involved.

To put it shortly, I dont think using sanitation as the sole justification is kinda null, as you can get an aliment from any number of sexual and nonsexual contact.

 

[surritter]

I took out my pocket Catechism and read the paragraphs. No where did it explicitly say that sex had to result in climaxing in the female or it had to end in a child. It went over A) That marriage and sex go hand in hand as it is an integral part of love and expressing love and fidelity. This I agree. It also went over that marriage and sex are to be fruitful. I also agree. That doesnt mean that every time you and your wife have sex you need to have a climax in her womb. That is very impractical. That would mean for a normal, healthy couple that is capable of having children, and granted they had intercourse when the woman was in the period of contraception, more then likely would result in a child. Are you saying then, for this example family, if they had 2 children, would have only had sex 2 times plus the amount of times they had sex if the first time they did not conceive due to the female not being in the period of conceiving?

And if the family does not want more then two children, then they should no longer me intimate. But, that in itself goes against the Catechism, as it states that ‘Marriage and the intimate relations are hand in hand with the spiritual bond and oneness of the couple’. (Sorta paraphrased.)

That is impratical and illogical. Even in the Bible, this fantasy is unrealistic. Man and woman by nature are sexual creatures, and they have sex, and in the Bible plenty of times this happens, and it doesnt always end in a child being born, and 9/10 the sexual interactions revolved around prophets, kings, and other chosen people of God.

I don’t know why you keep talking about the idea that sex MUST result in pregnancy. That’s not Catholic teaching. Paragraph 2366: “Each and every act of marriage must remain open to the transmission of life.” And you agreed that “marriage and sex are to be fruitful.” So while pregnancy might not be the desired intent, a couple must never do anything to purposefully slam the door on that possibility while still engaging in intercourse. The Church might say it this way: Rightly ordered sex is to retain the fruitful characteristic; thus, to purposely “spill the seed” into another orifice is not rightly ordered – the Church would call that an objectively sinful action. (It doesn’t matter if it’s “impractical.” We’re talking about the objective nature of an act.)

I get that you don’t get it, but don’t say that the Church doesn’t teach these things.

If the Catechism didn’t do it for you, I recommend Humanae Vitae, available here.

Glad to discuss the other scenarios you present, if you wish. All very good questions!

 

[ConstantinePX]

So while pregnancy might not be the desired intent, a couple must never do anything to purposefully slam the door on that possibility while still engaging in intercourse.

This is the main part I find objectable, which went back to me posting this

I dont want to sound like an aggressor, but I have never in my life read or heard of any official Church doctrine stating:

A) Sex MUST end with a man climaxing in the womb of a woman and,

B) That foreplay is forbidden if it doesnt end in climaxing in the woman.

What your saying essentially is, “Sex doesnt have to end in a child, BUT you have to end in climaxing in your spouse.” Thats like me saying “You dont have to kill that person, BUT you have to shoot in his general direction and hope the bullet misses.”

Correct me if I misunderstand.

I think its kinda silly, you say that pregnancy may not be the intent but the possibility must be open. Pregnancy is VERY easy to cause. Even when people practice ‘pulling out’ it still can happen. There are thousands of stories of pregnancy happening despite people taking every step to prevent it. You know as well as I do, that climaxing inside of a woman, 9 times out of 10 will cause a pregnancy unless there are preexisting medical complications.

That is why I said it makes about as much sense as *“You dont have to kill that person, BUT you have to shoot in his general direction and hope the bullet misses.” *

You dont have to get pregnant, but you have to shoot your sperm into her womb. See what Im getting at?

 

[surritter]

If you shoot the sperm, as you say, and it results in pregnancy, then the sexual act followed its intrinsic nature, and resulted in pregnancy. Here’s the key: If it didn’t result in pregnancy, the act would still have followed its intrinsic nature. So both cases are licit. And this is why natural family planning is perfectly fine.

If someone engages in masturbation or the other variants that were presented, then the intrinsic nature of the sex act has been twisted by being removed from its rightful arena, so to speak.

 

[ConstantinePX]

Call me whatever, but quite honestly, I think it is more immoral to use Natural family planning to avoid pregnancy and devolve sex to nothing more then a scheduled, rhythmic/systematic thing that takes away the spontaneous, romantic element of spiritual and emotional bonding then a couple having oral sex and not climaxing into the female.

I suppose I will have to pray to understand the teaching and to come into complete conformity of thought, but for now I remain skeptical that any extraordinary forms of sex that dont result in climaxing in a womans womb are sinful or immoral, while making sex a systematic static practice is not. I can understand contraceptive devices being immoral and wrong, as they are 100%, both practically and in theory, used only to prevent pregnancy. Oral sex, and any extraordinary form of sex for that matter, is not centered around the sole idea of not bearing fruit.

Im also a believer that Morality is subjective and constantly being explored and changed through other theological and behavioral studies as well as with circumstances and thought.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion points, and trust me, I do put myself in others shoes and I do understand how and where you are coming from, just as I am sure you understand my own points and views on the matter.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Call me whatever, but quite honestly, I think it is more immoral to use Natural family planning to avoid pregnancy and devolve sex to nothing more then a scheduled, rhythmic/systematic thing that takes away the spontaneous, romantic element of spiritual and emotional bonding then a couple having oral sex and not climaxing into the female.

I suppose I will have to pray to understand the teaching and to come into complete conformity of thought, but for now I remain skeptical that any extraordinary forms of sex that dont result in climaxing in a womans womb are sinful or immoral, while making sex a systematic static practice is not. I can understand contraceptive devices being immoral and wrong, as they are 100%, both practically and in theory, used only to prevent pregnancy. Oral sex, and any extraordinary form of sex for that matter, is not centered around the sole idea of not bearing fruit.

Im also a believer that Morality is subjective and constantly being explored and changed through other theological and behavioral studies as well as with circumstances and thought.

Anyways, thanks for the discussion points, and trust me, I do put myself in others shoes and I do understand how and where you are coming from, just as I am sure you understand my own points and views on the matter.

Self-contradictory.