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.
He had a different lesson to impart at the wedding feast of Cana.

Think of the adulteress condemned to be stoned. He could have cast stones against her to demonstrate that He alone of them, the Son of God, could judge her soul. But that was not the lesson He had to reach that day, in that manner.
 
That’s quite a reach IMO.

I mean, obviously, you’re free to live however you like, but you should recognize that a flat rule that worldly pleasures are per se sinful and to be avoided is not supported by the Church.
 
I’m not setting up any false dichotomy. Just saying that Augustine’s view of sex may not be in line with the thought of the church. The fact is that the church has thought about these things long and hard throughout the ages and prettymuch decided that the husband and wife’s desire for each other sexually is a good thing.

Have to agree with Boom on this. As Catholics we don’t view worldly pleasures as bad. That would be getting into Manichaeism or Albigensianism.
 
Here is the answer given by Pope Pius XII in Address to Midwives:
  1. The same Creator, who in His bounty and wisdom willed to make use of the work of man and woman by uniting them in matrimony for the preservation and propagation of the human race, has also disposed that, in this function, the spouses should experience pleasure and happiness in body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses, by seeking and enjoying this pleasure, do not do anything wrong. They accept what the Creator has intended for them.
  2. Nevertheless, here also, the spouses must know how to keep themselves within the limits of a just moderation. As with the pleasure of food and drink, so also with the sexual, they must not abandon themselves without restraint to the impulses of the senses. The right rule is this: the use of the natural procreative disposition is morally licit only in matrimony, in the service of, and in accordance with, the ends of marriage itself. Hence it follows that only in marriage, with the observing of this rule, is the desire and fruition of this pleasure and of this satisfaction lawful. For the pleasure is subordinate to the law of the act from which it is derived, and not vice versa – the act from the law of pleasure. And this law, so very reasonable, concerns not only the substance, but also the circumstances of the act, so that, even when the substance of the act remains morally safe, it is possible to sin in the way it is performed.
  3. The transgression of this law is as old as original sin. But in our times, there is the risk that one may lose sight of the fundamental principle itself. At present, in fact, it is usual to support in words and in writing (and this by Catholics in certain circles) the necessary autonomy, the proper end, and the proper value of sexuality and of its realization, independently of the purpose of procreating a new life. There is a tendency to subject to a new examination and to a new norm the very order established by God, and not to admit any other restraint to the way of satisfying the instinct than by considering the essence of the instinctive act. In addition, there would be substituted a license to serve blindly and without restraint the whims and instincts of nature, in place of the moral obligation to dominate the passions. And this, sooner or later, cannot turn out to be other than a danger to morals, conscience, and human dignity.
  4. If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” [the generation and education of offspring] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.
  5. Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.
 
AdamPeter said:
Just saying that Augustine’s view of sex may not be in line with the thought of the church. The fact is that the church has thought about these things long and hard throughout the ages and prettymuch decided that the husband and wife’s desire for each other sexually is a good thing.

Have to agree with Boom on this. As Catholics we don’t view worldly pleasures as bad. That would be getting into Manichaeism or Albigensianism.
Click to expand...
I can’t see how you think Augustine is saying pleasure is bad. Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is bad, which is what he is likely saying, which sadly is contrary to how many Catholics view sex: for pleasure primarily/only.
 
john1513 said:
I can’t see how you think Augustine is saying pleasure is bad. Pleasure for the sake of pleasure is bad, which is what he is likely saying, which sadly is contrary to how many Catholics view sex: for pleasure primarily/only.
Click to expand...
It seems to be what some people here are getting at. That sexual pleasure is bad and should be avoided
 
Sampson_Brass said:
He had a different lesson to impart at the wedding feast of Cana.

Think of the adulteress condemned to be stoned. He could have cast stones against her to demonstrate that He alone of them, the Son of God, could judge her soul. But that was not the lesson He had to reach that day, in that manner.
Click to expand...
Not to keep poking you, but what do you think is meant by the unitive goal of sexuality? Do you think it refers to just physical union, i.e the penis enters the vagina?
 
I see unitive purpose as consummation of marriage, this putting it (at least on these grounds) outside annulment.

Glad to have Ron Conte join in.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
I see unitive purpose as consummation of marriage, this putting it (at least on these grounds) outside annulment.

Glad to have Ron Conte join in.
Click to expand...
So you don’t see any value in the emotional bonds that develop through mutual sexual satisfaction?

Frankly, I think your “disgust” (your words, not mine) at the sexual act is a product of the medication you’re taking. It’s not a normal reaction to the idea of sexual intimacy.
 
My disgust long predated the use of SSRIs. I went through puberty and 20 years thereafter without sex and could have kept on going without it but for marriage.

And while we’re on the subject of emotional bonds, I would point out that romantic love as a basis of marriage has only achieved prominence as a primary end in Western culture over the past 200-250 years or so. Has it ever been disastrous! “Falling out of love” has essentially driven the divorce culture; “Recognizing our love” is the battle cry of homosexuali activism especially for civil marriage.

We need a root and branch rethinking of the role of emotions as a driver of marriage, because what’s happening now is not working for us as Catholics, or the broader society!
 
That didn’t really answer my question.

At bare minimum, you should recognize that your extreme disinterest in sex is highly unusual, and what you’re suggesting would be disastrous for most married couples.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
My disgust long predated the use of SSRIs. I went through puberty and 20 years thereafter without sex and could have kept on going without it but for marriage.

And while we’re on the subject of emotional bonds, I would point out that romantic love as a basis of marriage has only achieved prominence as a primary end in Western culture over the past 200-250 years or so. Has it ever been disastrous! “Falling out of love” has essentially driven the divorce culture; “Recognizing our love” is the battle cry of homosexuali activism especially for civil marriage.

We need a root and branch rethinking of the role of emotions as a driver of marriage, because what’s happening now is not working for us as Catholics, or the broader society!
Click to expand...
Your view is unhealthy and not Catholic. You are taking your “disgust” and your phsycological issues about sex and applying them as the norm, or the desired and intended way God planned for everyone. This is not only dangerous to yourself, but to your relationships with other people. Sexual or not.

And bad theology/theologians can do intense damage to the vulnerable.
 
My disgust long predated the use of SSRIs. I went through puberty and 20 years thereafter without sex and could have kept on going without it but for marriage.

And while we’re on the subject of emotional bonds, I would point out that romantic love as a basis of marriage has only achieved prominence as a primary end in Western culture over the past 200-250 years or so. Has it ever been disastrous! “Falling out of love” has essentially driven the divorce culture; “Recognizing our love” is the battle cry of homosexuali activism especially for civil marriage.

We need a root and branch rethinking of the role of emotions as a driver of marriage, because what’s happening now is not working for us as Catholics, or the broader society!
 
Sampson_Brass said:
My disgust long predated the use of SSRIs. I went through puberty and 20 years thereafter without sex and could have kept on going without it but for marriage.

And while we’re on the subject of emotional bonds, I would point out that romantic love as a basis of marriage has only achieved prominence as a primary end in Western culture over the past 200-250 years or so. Has it ever been disastrous! “Falling out of love” has essentially driven the divorce culture; “Recognizing our love” is the battle cry of homosexual activism especially for civil marriage.

We need a root and branch rethinking of the role of emotions as a driver of marriage, because what’s happening now is not working for us as Catholics, or the broader society!
Click to expand...
I don’t think the church ever taught that emotions should be the driving force of marriage. And I doubt very much that marriage in the middle ages was completely devoid of romantic love.
I think most married couples would agree that love is a choice and a constant act of the will to put your spouses needs before your own. There may be a tendency in modern times to place too much emphasis on emotions, but what you’re suggesting seems to place too little importance on emotions. While emotions are not a great way to make decisions and should be under control, you can’t deny that people have emotional needs and in marriage, for the vast majority of couples, sexual intercourse meets a need for both spouses. This is not a small thing. Obviously the procreative function of marriage is important, but the church recognises that there are other important functions of sex and that sex strengthens the bond between spouses. This is also supported by scientific studies that show that bonding hormones are released in the brain during sex. The act is designed for more than just to procreate.

Also, as other posters have said, you should realise that it is highly unusual for any human being to be disgusted by the idea of sex. Also that you do seem to be trying to form a theological position around your own personal feeling on the matter rather than anything the church has said.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
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...
That’s a complex statement.

Do you say that the “principal end” (procreation) ought always to be the objective of the act? Thus - no sex after menopause or at any time where the couple is not fertile?

Do you say that one ought to consider how to eliminate pleasurable experiences during the act?

Puts XII (see post #64) would answer no.
 
No sex after menopause? Yes.

No sex outside the fertile period? Yes. Couples can flip NFP around for this purpose.

Avoiding pleasure in the act itself? Yes. Arousal and orgasm are the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. But no one would take medicine just to get the sugar, and the sugar itself does not make the medicine more efficacious.

A sexual counter-revolution has to go right to the root of the problem–legitimation of all sexual activity for the purpose of pleasure alone–and tear it right out.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
No sex after menopause? Yes.

No sex outside the fertile period? Yes. Couples can flip NFP around for this purpose.

Avoiding pleasure in the act itself? Yes. Arousal and orgasm are the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. But no one would take medicine just to get the sugar, and the sugar itself does not make the medicine more efficacious.

A sexual counter-revolution has to go right to the root of the problem–legitimation of all sexual activity for the purpose of pleasure alone–and tear it right out.
Click to expand...
Do you know how messed up that sounds?
 
Sampson_Brass said:
No sex after menopause? Yes.

No sex outside the fertile period? Yes. Couples can flip NFP around for this purpose.

Avoiding pleasure in the act itself? Yes. Arousal and orgasm are the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down…
Click to expand...
When you express these views, it would be good to acknowledge they are your personally held views, and not principles taught by the Catholic Church. In fact, the Church actually teaches the opposite.
 
Sampson_Brass said:
No sex after menopause? Yes.

No sex outside the fertile period? Yes. Couples can flip NFP around for this purpose.

Avoiding pleasure in the act itself? Yes. Arousal and orgasm are the spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down. But no one would take medicine just to get the sugar, and the sugar itself does not make the medicine more efficacious.

A sexual counter-revolution has to go right to the root of the problem–legitimation of all sexual activity for the purpose of pleasure alone–and tear it right out.
Click to expand...
This is simply not Catholic teaching. Debate over. Drop mic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top