A
ahs
Guest
Great post!
- Status
L
Lapey
Guest
Saint John Chrysostom
“To this end every marriage should be set up so that it may work together with us for chastity. This will be the case if we marry such brides as are able to bring great piety, chastity, and goodness to us. The beauty of the body, if it is not joined with virtue of the soul, will be able to hold the husband for twenty or thirty days, but will go no farther before it shows its wickedness and destroys all its attractiveness. As for those who radiate the beauty of the soul, the longer time goes by and tests their proper nobility, the warmer they make their husband’s love and the more they strengthen their affection for him. Since this is so, and since a warm and genuine friendship holds between them, every kind of immorality is driven out. Not even any thought of wantonness ever enters the mind of the man who truly loves his own wife, but he continues always content with her. By his chastity he attracts the good will and protection of God for his whole household.” (Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 1986, trans. Roth and Anderson, p. 100.)
A married couple must still practice chastity. The virtue of chastity is sexual purity according to one’s state of life. For married persons, this does not refer merely to refraining from adultery. Every kind of sexual immorality must be driven out of the holy matrimonial bond, so that not even any unchaste thoughts enter the mind of the husband or the wife. The chastity of husband and wife should extend to their entire selves, body and soul, even reaching to the inner thoughts of the heart and mind. There are no exceptions to chastity. No one is exempt from chastity according to their state of life. Even when a husband and wife have marital relations, the conjugal act cannot be lustful in heart or mind, nor can it be morally disordered in the particulars of the act itself.
The idea that unnatural sexual acts can be used in the service of natural marital relations open to life is fundamentally incompatible with the holiness and chastity required of all married couples. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil, and so they cannot be used as the servants of natural marital relations open to life. No good employer would knowingly choose to hire employees entirely lacking in what is good and necessary to the task at hand. No holy king and queen would choose advisors or assistants who were fundamentally opposed to every good upon which their kingdom depends. No married Christian couple can morally choose to use unnatural sexual acts, partial or completed, even if the intention is to use these acts in the service of natural marital relations open to life. Evil cannot be used in the service of good, because good and evil are fundamentally incompatible.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
“To this end every marriage should be set up so that it may work together with us for chastity. This will be the case if we marry such brides as are able to bring great piety, chastity, and goodness to us. The beauty of the body, if it is not joined with virtue of the soul, will be able to hold the husband for twenty or thirty days, but will go no farther before it shows its wickedness and destroys all its attractiveness. As for those who radiate the beauty of the soul, the longer time goes by and tests their proper nobility, the warmer they make their husband’s love and the more they strengthen their affection for him. Since this is so, and since a warm and genuine friendship holds between them, every kind of immorality is driven out. Not even any thought of wantonness ever enters the mind of the man who truly loves his own wife, but he continues always content with her. By his chastity he attracts the good will and protection of God for his whole household.” (Chrysostom, On Marriage and Family Life, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press: 1986, trans. Roth and Anderson, p. 100.)
A married couple must still practice chastity. The virtue of chastity is sexual purity according to one’s state of life. For married persons, this does not refer merely to refraining from adultery. Every kind of sexual immorality must be driven out of the holy matrimonial bond, so that not even any unchaste thoughts enter the mind of the husband or the wife. The chastity of husband and wife should extend to their entire selves, body and soul, even reaching to the inner thoughts of the heart and mind. There are no exceptions to chastity. No one is exempt from chastity according to their state of life. Even when a husband and wife have marital relations, the conjugal act cannot be lustful in heart or mind, nor can it be morally disordered in the particulars of the act itself.
The idea that unnatural sexual acts can be used in the service of natural marital relations open to life is fundamentally incompatible with the holiness and chastity required of all married couples. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil, and so they cannot be used as the servants of natural marital relations open to life. No good employer would knowingly choose to hire employees entirely lacking in what is good and necessary to the task at hand. No holy king and queen would choose advisors or assistants who were fundamentally opposed to every good upon which their kingdom depends. No married Christian couple can morally choose to use unnatural sexual acts, partial or completed, even if the intention is to use these acts in the service of natural marital relations open to life. Evil cannot be used in the service of good, because good and evil are fundamentally incompatible.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
L
Lapey
Guest
Saint Jerome, Doctor and Father of the Church
Illicit sexual acts within marriage are equivalent to fornication and adultery, as Saint Jerome taught:
“And it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity. Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that ‘He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer.’ It is disgraceful to love another man’s wife at all, or one’s own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress.” (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Bk 1, n. 49)
Notice that St. Jerome states that “it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity.” In other words, the intention which motivates a man to sin is irrelevant to the morality of the act. If a sexual act is a sin, it does not matter how honorable the man’s intentions are, it is still a serious moral disorder, comparable, as a figure of speech, to the serious mental disorder of insanity.
St. Jerome plainly taught that there are sexual sins within marriage. The idea that “nothing is shameful” as long as the marital act occurs at some point in time is plainly rejected by St. Jerome. It is contrary to wisdom and good judgment for a man to have sexual relations with his wife in an inordinate manner. Though St. Jerome does not, like modern-day moral theologians, give explicit descriptions of various sexual acts, it is clear that he rejects the idea that the mere deposit of semen in the correct location justifies all other acts.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
Illicit sexual acts within marriage are equivalent to fornication and adultery, as Saint Jerome taught:
“And it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity. Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that ‘He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer.’ It is disgraceful to love another man’s wife at all, or one’s own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress.” (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Bk 1, n. 49)
Notice that St. Jerome states that “it makes no difference how honorable may be the cause of a man’s insanity.” In other words, the intention which motivates a man to sin is irrelevant to the morality of the act. If a sexual act is a sin, it does not matter how honorable the man’s intentions are, it is still a serious moral disorder, comparable, as a figure of speech, to the serious mental disorder of insanity.
St. Jerome plainly taught that there are sexual sins within marriage. The idea that “nothing is shameful” as long as the marital act occurs at some point in time is plainly rejected by St. Jerome. It is contrary to wisdom and good judgment for a man to have sexual relations with his wife in an inordinate manner. Though St. Jerome does not, like modern-day moral theologians, give explicit descriptions of various sexual acts, it is clear that he rejects the idea that the mere deposit of semen in the correct location justifies all other acts.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
L
Lapey
Guest
St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church
Notice, in the quote below, that St. Thomas held sexual sins within marriage to be worse than adultery, because the act occurs within the good of marriage. He did not teach that all sexual acts within marriage are moral, nor did he teach that all sexual acts between a husband and wife are moral.
“And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).
The phrasing ‘if he use her indecently’ refers to unnatural sexual acts within marriage. This is clear because the good of marriage emphasized by St. Thomas is the procreation of children (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 2). St. Thomas could not be referring to natural marital relations when he says ‘if he use her indecently’ because even natural marital relations done with some disorder of desire still retains the unitive and procreative meanings. But unnatural sexual acts lack both meanings, and so they are contrary to the good of marriage. The use of unnatural sexual acts within marriage is therefore worse than adultery. St. Thomas again condemns this same type of act later in the same question.
“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).
First, the word ‘vas’ is Latin for vessel, referring to the use of other bodily orifices for sexual acts. If a husband treats his wife lustfully during natural marital relations, he sins. But he commits a more grievous offense, which is called by St. Thomas an abuse, if he sins by committing unnatural sexual acts (i.e. using an unnatural part of the body as a ‘vessel’ for sexual intercourse). Here St. Thomas explicitly (but in discrete language) condemns the sin of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.
Second, it is clear (in the quote from article 8 above) that St. Thomas taught that a married couple is not justified in committing any sexual acts whatsoever within marriage. Otherwise, he would not have taught that a man who is too ardent a lover of his wife commits a sin that is like adultery and yet worse than adultery. Therefore, those who claim that there are no sins for a husband and wife having sexual relations with each other are in error.
Third, neither does St. Thomas even consider the absurd argument that acts which are intrinsically evil and gravely immoral by themselves could become good and moral when combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life. If this were the case, then St. Thomas could not have compared a man who is too ardent a lover of his wife to an adulterer. For if he took the position of these modern-day moral theologians, then he would have to say that a husband’s ardent love would be entirely justified, as long as “the semen are not misdirected.” Notice that Saint Thomas takes no such position; he does not sum up the marital act as merely the proper direction of semen. And his teaching is fundamentally contrary to the set of errors promoted by these theologians.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
Notice, in the quote below, that St. Thomas held sexual sins within marriage to be worse than adultery, because the act occurs within the good of marriage. He did not teach that all sexual acts within marriage are moral, nor did he teach that all sexual acts between a husband and wife are moral.
“And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).
The phrasing ‘if he use her indecently’ refers to unnatural sexual acts within marriage. This is clear because the good of marriage emphasized by St. Thomas is the procreation of children (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 2). St. Thomas could not be referring to natural marital relations when he says ‘if he use her indecently’ because even natural marital relations done with some disorder of desire still retains the unitive and procreative meanings. But unnatural sexual acts lack both meanings, and so they are contrary to the good of marriage. The use of unnatural sexual acts within marriage is therefore worse than adultery. St. Thomas again condemns this same type of act later in the same question.
“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).
First, the word ‘vas’ is Latin for vessel, referring to the use of other bodily orifices for sexual acts. If a husband treats his wife lustfully during natural marital relations, he sins. But he commits a more grievous offense, which is called by St. Thomas an abuse, if he sins by committing unnatural sexual acts (i.e. using an unnatural part of the body as a ‘vessel’ for sexual intercourse). Here St. Thomas explicitly (but in discrete language) condemns the sin of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.
Second, it is clear (in the quote from article 8 above) that St. Thomas taught that a married couple is not justified in committing any sexual acts whatsoever within marriage. Otherwise, he would not have taught that a man who is too ardent a lover of his wife commits a sin that is like adultery and yet worse than adultery. Therefore, those who claim that there are no sins for a husband and wife having sexual relations with each other are in error.
Third, neither does St. Thomas even consider the absurd argument that acts which are intrinsically evil and gravely immoral by themselves could become good and moral when combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life. If this were the case, then St. Thomas could not have compared a man who is too ardent a lover of his wife to an adulterer. For if he took the position of these modern-day moral theologians, then he would have to say that a husband’s ardent love would be entirely justified, as long as “the semen are not misdirected.” Notice that Saint Thomas takes no such position; he does not sum up the marital act as merely the proper direction of semen. And his teaching is fundamentally contrary to the set of errors promoted by these theologians.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
L
Lapey
Guest
- Second Vatican Council
“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children.” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 50).
Unnatural sexual acts lack both the procreative and unitive meanings; these meanings define not only the marital act, but the Sacrament of Marriage itself. For both marriage and the conjugal act are inherently ordered toward the procreation of children, and toward the unity of the husband and wife throughout the marriage (not merely in physical conjugal union). Unnatural sexual acts inherently lack the genuine human dignity and the great reverence for the family which can only be found in sexual acts having both the unitive and procreative meanings.
Notice that the Council also teaches that intentions and motives cannot be the sole determinants of marital sexual ethics. There are objective criteria for whether an act is moral or immoral. Sexual acts within marriage must be based on the nature of the human person and must preserve the full sense of the unitive (mutual self-giving) and the procreative meanings. Now when the Council exhorts married couples to practice “the virtue of conjugal chastity,” the Council is not suggesting celibacy for married couples, but rather conjugal chastity, which is sexual purity in accord with the married state of life. Such chastity is irreconcilable with the idea of using unnatural sexual acts as a type of so-called foreplay or stimulation, or as a means to achieve sexual climax after natural marital relations.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Roman Catholic theologian
January 2, 2008
catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm
I could go on, but I think you get the point…
A
ahs
Guest
Can we please dispense with the “Ron Conte, Jr, Roman Catholic theologian” bit? His criteria for being a theologian makes about 1/2 the members on this forum a theolgian (though he does have a B.S. in phil/theo…but then that’s about the same as a good chunk of members here still).
Ron’s views are not approved by the Church. Nothing he has written has been published via a Catholic Publishing company, and none of his work bears any Church approval, Nihil Obstat, or Imprimatur. He has made it clear that his views do not reflect the official teaching of the Church and are only his priavte understadings, based on his “theology”. At one point (not sure if this is stil on his site or not) he said that when the next Pope was elected, Ron’s theological writings would be condemned by the Pope, and that this would be evidence of the anti-Pope (paraphrasing) or something like that.
Links to his “credentials” as I have asserted (which also has his “predictions for 2013” which were revised after his predictions for 2012 failed to materialize…):
ronconte.wordpress.com/my-credentials-as-a-roman-catholic-theologian/
Ron’s views are not approved by the Church. Nothing he has written has been published via a Catholic Publishing company, and none of his work bears any Church approval, Nihil Obstat, or Imprimatur. He has made it clear that his views do not reflect the official teaching of the Church and are only his priavte understadings, based on his “theology”. At one point (not sure if this is stil on his site or not) he said that when the next Pope was elected, Ron’s theological writings would be condemned by the Pope, and that this would be evidence of the anti-Pope (paraphrasing) or something like that.
Links to his “credentials” as I have asserted (which also has his “predictions for 2013” which were revised after his predictions for 2012 failed to materialize…):
ronconte.wordpress.com/my-credentials-as-a-roman-catholic-theologian/
A
ahs
Guest
I’ve got no issue with quoting the ECF’s or Doctors, etc… I’m saying that Ron’s interpretation/understadning of those is not what the Church teaches. His theology is not in synch with the Catholic theology.
My “accusation of lack of credentials” is from his own site (I provided the link when I edited my post). Ron is a “theologian” on his own merit and standard, not the Church’s. The Church does not recognize him as a Theologian, nor does any other credible Theologian. That’s exactly Ron’s point when he states as much…in his own words:
"The role of theologian is not a title issued by the Church, nor is it a role given only to Bishops, priests, or religious. Theologians come from “every rank” among the faithful. No particular credential is needed; the role is open to believers of every rank…
…when any member of the faithful strives to understand and express the Faith in his own way, he is doing the work of theology. What distinguishes formal theology from informal, is that the former expresses this deeper understanding or clearer expression in writing, often in a systematic or structured manner, as a theological or philosophical argument. And what distinguishes a theologian from other members of the faithful is that the theologian writes formal theology on a continuing basis…
…A person who writes theology, on a continuing basis, is a theologian. The term ‘theologian’ is a descriptor, not a title…"
Anyway, let’s not get distracted arguing about Ron. No one is bound by his opinions…so what exacty about the topic in the thread were you trying to say while relying on Ron?
L
Lapey
Guest
Just stick to the words of the Doctors of the Church and the Vat II docs…they speak for them selves. I could not care less about whether, “Ron” as you call him is or is not a theologian, so on that we agree.
The quotes that matter specifically look at sexuality in marriage. What do you think they mean?
C
clem456
Guest
I hope I’m not repeating stuff, but I don’t have time to read the whole thread.
The Church does not forbid sexual foreplay that leads to completion of the marital act. Ron Conte’s “theology” is just wrong on this.
Anal sex is un-natural so that seems to be an obvious one.
Oral sex in preparation for is not addressed specifically by the Church. Does it violate the human dignity of the spouse performing it? I would think that for a woman to perform it, that might be very possible due to the inherent physical nature of it. If a spouse demands -anything-, that is out of bounds, including the demand for intercourse.
Oral sex on a woman maybe not so much ( I know a woman who would say my human dignity is just fine if it prepares her for intercourse).
Since there are no specific prohibitions for some of this, I trust the love of two people to figure this out before God’s eyes.
And just for the sake of being real. A spouse, a woman especially, has to prepare for intercourse physically and emotionally. This is where I think folks like Conte are living in a dream world. It just doesn’t work that way, it’s unnatural to expect a woman to be ready without foreplay. And it is pleasureable, and should be pleasurable. Foreplay should be enjoyed as a preparation for intercourse.
The Church does not forbid sexual foreplay that leads to completion of the marital act. Ron Conte’s “theology” is just wrong on this.
Anal sex is un-natural so that seems to be an obvious one.
Oral sex in preparation for is not addressed specifically by the Church. Does it violate the human dignity of the spouse performing it? I would think that for a woman to perform it, that might be very possible due to the inherent physical nature of it. If a spouse demands -anything-, that is out of bounds, including the demand for intercourse.
Oral sex on a woman maybe not so much ( I know a woman who would say my human dignity is just fine if it prepares her for intercourse).
Since there are no specific prohibitions for some of this, I trust the love of two people to figure this out before God’s eyes.
And just for the sake of being real. A spouse, a woman especially, has to prepare for intercourse physically and emotionally. This is where I think folks like Conte are living in a dream world. It just doesn’t work that way, it’s unnatural to expect a woman to be ready without foreplay. And it is pleasureable, and should be pleasurable. Foreplay should be enjoyed as a preparation for intercourse.
A
ahs
Guest
Great…I just found it telling that only 5 out of the 17 paragrpahs you posted in those last 3 posts were Church Documents, and the rest were Conte explaining his “theology” on them.
I think they mean we should express true love for our spouse and not give in to lust.
L
Lapey
Guest
I admit, I should have just posted the quotes, not his commentary. The quotes stand on their own merit. His words I am learning are, well…as put by a fellow poster by PM, “loony”.Great…I just found it telling that only 5 out of the 17 paragrpahs you posted in those last 3 posts were Church Documents, and the rest were Conte explaining his “theology” on them.
I think they mean we should express true love for our spouse and not give in to lust.
I am not too big as to admit I made in haste a mistake by quoting him. For that I am sorry.
If I could go back and delete all but the quotes, I would…but I cannot.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
And these people are wrong. Period and full stop. As has been noted, the Church takes no position on these issues.
In fact, here are a few other related things upon which the Church has taken no position:
- Lingerie or other dress
- Lighting
- Positions
- Using suggestive/provocative language within the marital act or even outside of it
- Roleplaying/scenarios
However, what constitutes “degrading” is indeed different for each person. I think there are some universal lines to be drawn here at really extreme stuff upon which I will not explicate. But suffice to say that people who “enjoy” being degraded/humiliated are not excused for their behavior. The fact that they like it or claim to like it is not a logical loophole that permits really insane stuff.
Outside of that, I mean… who is to say that oral stimulation is degrading? Or that it’s not degrading? Some people will find it repugnant. Some will find it appealing. When the Church is silent, our consciences must guide us and a well-formed conscience would tell us that both perspectives on this particular issue and some of the other ones I outlined must be respected.
No one is justified in telling other people that oral stimulation or dressing up or certain positions or leaving the lights on is wrong. As it logically follows then, no one is justified in telling other people that it is a matter of doctrine or moral right and wrong that their lines are too narrow either.
These are issues for individual married couples to sort out. If you’re married, open to life with the act itself, not involving third parties be they real or virtual and respecting your spouse, the Church has no further explicit commands.
C
clem456
Guest
Talk to me when you’re in your 50’s, you may have a different point of view.
Some things are just better in 'soft" lighting.
But good post sir. Spouses need to stay in bounds of what the Church teaches about respect for each other, as well as about specific acts. That can be different actions for different people (no I’m not advocating moral relativism). We have some people who think the Church teaches submission on demand (no it does not). and others who believe that nothing other than genital intercourse is permitted. I get a chuckle thinking about a couple trying to make that happen.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Right-o clem. Moral relativism is not an issue here. The issue is a matter of taste. And a situation where matters of taste rise to personal boundaries. Some people are free with their affection in public, for instance. Others find it distasteful and tacky. Is a married couple kissing passionately committing a sin? I don’t think so. Pressuring a spouse into doing that, however, when he or she finds it to be distasteful IS sinful though. Because it’s a failure to respect a boundary.
Politely suggesting to a spouse that he or she do something in the bedroom that the other one wants, provided that it is not explicitly forbidden, is fine. We cannot, however, make judgments about whether committing those acts or NOT committing those acts is morally wrong. Because we are not that married couple.
The only issue at play here are personal boundaries, not universal truths, and personal boundaries differ for each person.
Politely suggesting to a spouse that he or she do something in the bedroom that the other one wants, provided that it is not explicitly forbidden, is fine. We cannot, however, make judgments about whether committing those acts or NOT committing those acts is morally wrong. Because we are not that married couple.
The only issue at play here are personal boundaries, not universal truths, and personal boundaries differ for each person.
J
Julianna
Guest
How about this, “What goes on in your bedroom, is none of anyone’s business.” Simple and to the point!
L
Lapey
Guest
You are 100% correct, we all have free will to choose.How about this, “What goes on in your bedroom, is none of anyone’s business.” Simple and to the point!
T
The_Bucket
Guest
It’s surely God’s business. All of our business is His business. And therefore it’s the Church’s business as well.How about this, “What goes on in your bedroom, is none of anyone’s business.” Simple and to the point!
But we’re not the Church’s police force either.
J
Julianna
Guest
Did I have to say God to make the point? That is a given.
My point is, NO HUMAN BEING on this earth has any business telling, lecturing, using scare tactics, hell in a handbasket theocracy, or any other such thing to any other human married couple.
J
Joseph6279
Guest
This has become a very interesting thread! Good writing from a number of you.
Thanks Clem for the added humor–soft-lighting.
Julianna:
I think there needs to be a balance. Christ has established the Church to help people to make it to heaven, and therefore the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, instructs the faithful in what is pleasing to God and what is sinful. This mission effects all area of our lives, including our sex lives. So the Church has a duty to help married couples follow God’s will in that particular area of their life.
Lapey:
You are right to have disclaimed Ron Conti, as he’s famous now for his self-anointing. Your quotes are truly inspiring ones, but most are not clear about things like oral stimulation as part of foreplay, though the Aquinas quote comes the closest.
A couple things to keep in mind is that while St Thomas’s writings do carry a lot of weight, they are not infallible. Some of his writings have reiterated and explicated the Church’s official teaching, and others have led to future infallible and “constant” teachings. But if that piece of writing was referring to oral stimulation as part of foreplay, it didn’t make it into the Church’s official teaching nor reiterated an existing teaching
As has been mentioned by a few on these posts that while the Church is extremely clear about contraceptive behaviors, other acts within marriage have not been officially affirmed nor condemned by the Church and probably never will be. (Some acts are held to be contrary to dignity more or less universally by moral teachers/theologians and the sense of the faithful, and this consensus is a pretty good guide where the Church is less than explicit.)
Here’s a quote from the book “Catholic Sexual Ethics” by Lawlwer, Boyle, and May that I think sums up well how married couples should act within their marital relations.
After quoting Pope Pius XII’s Address to Midwives on the hedonistic “pursuit of the intensest possible enjoyment” the authors say:
“Spouses are required to seek the moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their lovemaking from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are being respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. One has hardly acquired sufficient self-possession if one could not accept peacefully a few weeks or a few months of abstinence in case of real need.”
Thanks Clem for the added humor–soft-lighting.
Julianna:
I think there needs to be a balance. Christ has established the Church to help people to make it to heaven, and therefore the Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, instructs the faithful in what is pleasing to God and what is sinful. This mission effects all area of our lives, including our sex lives. So the Church has a duty to help married couples follow God’s will in that particular area of their life.
Lapey:
You are right to have disclaimed Ron Conti, as he’s famous now for his self-anointing. Your quotes are truly inspiring ones, but most are not clear about things like oral stimulation as part of foreplay, though the Aquinas quote comes the closest.
A couple things to keep in mind is that while St Thomas’s writings do carry a lot of weight, they are not infallible. Some of his writings have reiterated and explicated the Church’s official teaching, and others have led to future infallible and “constant” teachings. But if that piece of writing was referring to oral stimulation as part of foreplay, it didn’t make it into the Church’s official teaching nor reiterated an existing teaching
As has been mentioned by a few on these posts that while the Church is extremely clear about contraceptive behaviors, other acts within marriage have not been officially affirmed nor condemned by the Church and probably never will be. (Some acts are held to be contrary to dignity more or less universally by moral teachers/theologians and the sense of the faithful, and this consensus is a pretty good guide where the Church is less than explicit.)
Here’s a quote from the book “Catholic Sexual Ethics” by Lawlwer, Boyle, and May that I think sums up well how married couples should act within their marital relations.
After quoting Pope Pius XII’s Address to Midwives on the hedonistic “pursuit of the intensest possible enjoyment” the authors say:
“Spouses are required to seek the moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their lovemaking from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are being respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. One has hardly acquired sufficient self-possession if one could not accept peacefully a few weeks or a few months of abstinence in case of real need.”
- Status