Is the desire and enjoyment of sexual pleasure during marital intercourse sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God put the pleasure in the sex act not the Church…maybe God should have made it enjoyable only for married couples, though. :hmmm: 🤷
 
What he is stating is nothing more or less than the traditional teaching of the Church about sexual intercourse for the quieting, and not inflaming, of concupiscence:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN… For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN] and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved [intrinsic nature, that is, only the normal, natural and procreative marital act is allowed to be performed by the Church without sin].”

Simply put, sexual pleasure is not to be sought for its own sake in marriage, not should either husband or wife act in such a manner as to arouse lust in the other, or each other. If arousal happens, it may be sated so as to prevent temptations to masturbation, pornography, or extramarital sex, but it must not be encouraged.

It would be ideal for the act to be engaged in without physical arousal or orgasm. It is respectful of the husband and wife, in being open to life, not to treat each other as objects of bestial desire. We are better than that. We can love our spouses through acts of our rational will.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
I thought it was a no-brainer, but then I ran into this article by Crisis Magazine written by Dusty Gates.

crisismagazine.com/2014/sexual-desire-holy

He showed some shocking quotes from St. Augustine basically saying that sexual pleasure is not a good and should be fought off during sexual intercourse. Sexual desire and intercourse are ONLY for the procreation of children.

While Gates isn’t in agreement with this strict outlook of sex, he does say that sexual pleasure should be enjoyed, but not dwelled upon.

The transcendentals, in the Platonic sense, are not so much goods to be enjoyed themselves as instances of beauty which move us beyond the sensual to the realm of the true. In other words, as we enjoy them, we should begin realizing that we aren’t supposed to dwell in that enjoyment.

Aren’t supposed to dwell in the enjoyment?

Does that mean that we should treat sexual pleasure as some ‘side effect’ during intercourse and we should a “Have your eye on the prize. For a baby!” mentality in the bedroom?

One can’t consciously dwell on how awesome this pleasure feels and would like to continue feeling it?

If a husband sees his wife in a “sexy” outfit, gets really aroused to the point of wanting to have sex with her, he wouldn’t be allowed to morally do so? He has to have the mindset of “Let’s make a baby” in order to morally act on his desire with intercourse with her?

They can enjoy it, but there is some time limit or quota they are allowed to consciously enjoy it?
Click to expand...
Hmmm… I haven’t brushed up on Augustine. If we take your paraphrase of Augustine plainly, we might take it to mean that we should suppress our ‘appreciation’ of the sensation of sex. But is it possible that Augustine meant that sexual pleasure is not a good insofar as it is not a good in itself? In that we should never seek it for the enjoyment itself? If that’s what he was going for, I wouldn’t disagree. And if he uses the word pleasure, it may bear the connotation “for itself”, as that is what I think of when I think of the word pleasure: doing a thing to excess for the sake of itself.

I think we should enjoy sex in a not unsimilar way to the enjoyment of eating. Eating is ultimately done for sustenance, but we enjoy eating in the process. But we know that people who eat for the enjoyment of eating itself, without thought for the consequences, are afflicted. And so sex, insofar as it is an act that is ordered toward the simultaneous good of bodily union and procreation, ought to be enjoyed as such. But sex should never be enjoyed as an end in itself.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
What he is stating is nothing more or less than the traditional teaching of the Church about sexual intercourse for the quieting, and not inflaming, of concupiscence:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN… For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN] and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved [intrinsic nature, that is, only the normal, natural and procreative marital act is allowed to be performed by the Church without sin].”

Simply put, sexual pleasure is not to be sought for its own sake in marriage, not should either husband or wife act in such a manner as to arouse lust in the other, or each other. If arousal happens, it may be sated so as to prevent temptations to masturbation, pornography, or extramarital sex, but it must not be encouraged.

It would be ideal for the act to be engaged in without physical arousal or orgasm. It is respectful of the husband and wife, in being open to life, not to treat each other as objects of bestial desire. We are better than that. We can love our spouses through acts of our rational will.
Click to expand...
“Without orgasm?” Surely that us a frustration of the natural law process by which children are conceived. How many children are conceived through “acts of rational will?”
 
Orgasm may help people overcome the unpleasant nature of the sexual act itself.

However, once it passes from a tolerable by-product of coitus to being sought for its own sake, it becomes sinful. If a married couple have difficulty with this problem, they should consider how to engage in the act so as to permit procreation without causing orgasm.

The marriage debt is owed for the purpose of procreation. It is not owed simply to excite or relieve sexual desire.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Orgasm may help people overcome the unpleasant nature of the sexual act itself.

However, once it passes from a tolerable by-product of coitus to being sought for its own sake, it becomes sinful. If a married couple have difficulty with this problem, they should consider how to engage in the act so as to permit procreation without causing orgasm.

The marriage debt is owed for the purpose of procreation. It is not owed simply to excite or relieve sexual desire.
Click to expand...
Based on the posting history you seem to have an irregular sexual history. Many people including myself do not find the sexual act or organs unpleasant at all. In fact quite the opposite.

I’d caution you not to confuse your experience with Catholic teaching and theology on the subject.
 
Sampson Brass:
Orgasm may help people overcome the unpleasant nature of the sexual act itself.

However, once it passes from a tolerable by-product of coitus to being sought for its own sake, it becomes sinful. If a married couple have difficulty with this problem, they should consider how to engage in the act so as to permit procreation without causing orgasm.

The marriage debt is owed for the purpose of procreation. It is not owed simply to excite or relieve sexual desire.
Click to expand...
Ron, is that you?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Ron, is that you?

No, but I have found a great deal of wisdom and solace in Ronald Conte’s writings on Catholic sexual ethics; they helped me reach some degree of understanding and equanimity about my own situation where medicine and sex therapy didn’t.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
What he is stating is nothing more or less than the traditional teaching of the Church about sexual intercourse for the quieting, and not inflaming, of concupiscence:

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “THE PRIMARY END OF MARRIAGE IS THE PROCREATION AND THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN… For in matrimony as well as in the use of matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider, SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END [THAT IS, PROCREATION OF CHILDREN] and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved [intrinsic nature, that is, only the normal, natural and procreative marital act is allowed to be performed by the Church without sin].”

Simply put, sexual pleasure is not to be sought for its own sake in marriage, not should either husband or wife act in such a manner as to arouse lust in the other, or each other. If arousal happens, it may be sated so as to prevent temptations to masturbation, pornography, or extramarital sex, but it must not be encouraged.

It would be ideal for the act to be engaged in without physical arousal or orgasm. It is respectful of the husband and wife, in being open to life, not to treat each other as objects of bestial desire. We are better than that. We can love our spouses through acts of our rational will.
Click to expand...
If the husband is not aroused, intercourse is impossible. If the wife is not aroused, intercourse is very painful.

Source: God’s design for humans
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Ron, is that you?

No, but I have found a great deal of wisdom and solace in Ronald Conte’s writings on Catholic sexual ethics; they helped me reach some degree of understanding and equanimity about my own situation where medicine and sex therapy didn’t.
Click to expand...
Too bad they are just his opinions and not Church teaching. You really need some help on this and it’s not from Ron or that sedevacantist site you posted about last night that was removed. Try some St John Paul ll…a Saint, a Pope, and a Theologian. You’re not going to get any better than those credentials all in one person!
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Ron, is that you?

No, but I have found a great deal of wisdom and solace in Ronald Conte’s writings on Catholic sexual ethics; they helped me reach some degree of understanding and equanimity about my own situation where medicine and sex therapy didn’t.
Click to expand...
Nope. Just nope…
 
Sampson_Brass said:
Orgasm may help people overcome the unpleasant nature of the sexual act itself.

However, once it passes from a tolerable by-product of coitus to being sought for its own sake, it becomes sinful. If a married couple have difficulty with this problem, they should consider how to engage in the act so as to permit procreation without causing orgasm.

The marriage debt is owed for the purpose of procreation. It is not owed simply to excite or relieve sexual desire.
Click to expand...
Em…yeah…if that’s what you think the church teaches then you can follow that. But I hate to tell you that it’s actually necessary for the man to orgasm in order for procreation to happen.
 
But I hate to tell you that it’s actually necessary for the man to orgasm in order for procreation to happen.

There is a condition called ejaculatory anhedonia in which ejaculation occurs without orgasm, or at least the sensation of orgasm. It has multiple causes, some needing treatment of much more serious underlying health problems, some as a trade-off to ward off worse problems (taking SSRIs for psychiatric problems), some really not treatable at all, and one (hypoactive sexual desire disorder) which can be a problem or a blessing, depending on the individual situation and the spiritual good of the husband and the couple.

But all of this is an aside to the larger issue of combating a sexually depraved culture and its concomitant effects on families, society, and even the right relation of the state to the individual.

The pursuit of sexual pleasure as a good in itself is one of the most destructive forces to the soul. We are called as Catholics to resist the common culture. The restoration of procreation as the principal end of the sexual act in marriage, and the reduction of the pleasurable ends, if not outright suppression, is a witness to bear to a culture tiring itself out through the glorification of life-denying, hedonistic sex.
 
Sex between a loving husband and loving wife who respect each other and are open to the procreation is not sexual “depravity” of any kind. It is an expression of love for each other and including the love of God in the relationship. You don’t have to make it into a miserable, unenjoyable experience in order to make it permissible. If you choose to do this then I hope your partner is on the same page with you or else you are actually committing a sin by disrespecting her feelings.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
The pursuit of sexual pleasure as a good in itself is one of the most destructive forces to the soul. We are called as Catholics to resist the common culture. The restoration of procreation as the principal end of the sexual act in marriage, and the reduction of the pleasurable ends, if not outright suppression, is a witness to bear to a culture tiring itself out through the glorification of life-denying, hedonistic sex.
Click to expand...
Well…it’s good to have goals, I guess, but that’s going to be a difficult sell…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top