Marital Foreplay and Sex

[fpt]

If they want to get physical affection without the marital act, it is possible, of course. Per se, there is no moral problem. They can caress each one with moderation, I mean in avoiding the orgasms.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

**OK…so I get the teaching…however, I want to push the envelop to see how far I can go.
**
In phase 2 we have no intention of having full intercourse. He does not penetrate me, nor does he climax. There is no sin of Onan.

We want to be intimate. If the intention is purely wanting to be together but refraining from intercourse, can we mess around a lot if we both don’t orgasm?

I know that would drive most people crazy, but we like it. As long as we don’t climax, it sounds like, in Church teaching, we can pretty much everything.

Is this really intimacy, or is it merely lust? “As long as we don;t…”

Is that the approach you want to take? You can, I suppose a lot of people come at Church teachings like that. It’s a shame though, because God wants more for us.

 

[searching04]

OP, I think Twoangels gives you the best advice here in this post.

It’s not a list, nor a technicality, but an integrated vision of who a human is: A child of God and of the love of a man and his wife in God’s will/plan. Remember that underlying and driving the church’s teaching on marriage, love and sex is the value that God has placed in each of his children which cannot be measured.

The sin of lust in whatever area it manifests itself: marriage, single life, in action or thought etc- involves nothing other than this- objectifying the children of God, making means and tools of your spouse and fellow human beings. It is using one who is you brother or sister in the Lord. This objectifying, when happens in the context or geared towards sex, is called lust in motivation, or unchastity in action, thought and behavior. It’s the value of the human being that makes every sin of lust grave matter, even just thoughts. It’s not just about the actions that you do by themselves, its what these actions signify, what they mean also- it’s the degrading that you do to another in your heart, whom you should value for themselves when you see them as tools for pleasure.

Read the teachings of Pope John Paul II and other Popes and the Catechism on marriage, love and sex for yourself. Do it even as spiritual reading and part of prayer as Twoangels has said. Read the writings of the Saints- No one is better able to identify the selfish, lustful, self-seeking impulses in us better than the Saints. They are the experts on the inner life of man, and the church has put them up before us as the ideal/example to emulate and teachers to follow. After a while, you will get the “mind” of the church, her perspective on things and you’ll be able to tell in all sincerity whether each thing you do in your marriage is motivated by lust or genuine Christian charity. The mistake is to just assume that every impulse we feel is OK just because we are married- Some are purely geared towards selfishness of some kind or other, which in sex the Church calls lust. Prayer and reading the Popes, Saints and Doctors will help you see in time just what is legitimate (That is- with love as its center and driving force) and what is not (with lust at its centre).

Blessing,
From: I love Mary!

The problem is that this is assuming something that is in her question. Who says that just because they enjoy the highly physical aspect of arousing each other to the brink - out of love - that it is lust instead? That in itself is highly subjective. It may not be others’ cup of tea or interpretation, and as someone posted many times, the church doesn’t give a darn manual. Not everything becomes lust automatically.

 

[Marybeloved]

The problem is that this is assuming something that is in her question. Who says that just because they enjoy the highly physical aspect of arousing each other to the brink - out of love - that it is lust instead? That in itself is highly subjective. It may not be others’ cup of tea or interpretation, and as someone posted many times, the church doesn’t give a darn manual. Not everything becomes lust automatically.

Talk about assumptions! Who is accusing her of lust? Please point it out- especially the part where I said that it was automatically lust- I would really love to see that part.

I said that she should educate herself on the teaching of the church regarding sex and marriage, which is all about avoiding lust and doing everything for love, so that she can be able to see clearly for herself (which is what she wants) just where the line is and which things in her marriage may be lust and which ones are not. You seem to want people to tell her unequivocally that it’s not wrong- I am pointing her to the Popes, Saints and prayer and telling her the underlying reasoning/principle in determining this line is love vs lust- Just to read the Church and saints and to Pray!- Or perhaps you just did not understand my post before you decided to write?

 

[fpt]

During continence periods, we are spouses, thus we are not brother and sister: intimacy without sex is possible, you need to find your creative abstinence.

 

[searching04]

Talk about assumptions! Who is accusing her of lust? Please point it out- especially the part where I said that it was automatically lust- I would really love to see that part.

I said that she should educate herself on the teaching of the church regarding sex and marriage, which is all about avoiding lust and doing everything for love, so that she can be able to see clearly for herself (which is what she wants) just where the line is and which things in her marriage may be lust and which ones are not. You seem to want people to tell her unequivocally that it’s not wrong- I am pointing her to the Popes, Saints and prayer and telling her the underlying reasoning/principle in determining this line is love vs lust- Just to read the Church and saints and to Pray!- Or perhaps you just did not understand my post before you decided to write?

Maybe I did, but you have two paragraphs talking about lust - ?

 

[Marybeloved]

During continence periods, we are spouses, thus we are not brother and sister: intimacy without sex is possible, you need to find your creative abstinence.

Not brother and sister?

The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah* (Tobit 7:9c-10, 11c-17,** 8:4-9** )*

**Tobias spoke out, “I will not hear of eating and drinking till you have come to a decision about me.” Raguel answered, "very well. Since, as prescribed by the Book of Moses, she is given to you. From now you are her brother and she is your sister. She is given to you from today for ever. The Lord of heaven favor you his grace and peace."

• Raguel called for his daughter Sarah, took her by the hand and gave her to Tobias with these words, “I entrust her to you; the law and the ruling recorded in the book of Moses assign her to you as your wife. Take her; take her home to your father’s house with a good conscience. The God of heaven grant you a good journey in peace.”*
• Then he turned to her mother and asked her to fetch him writing paper. He drew up the marriage contract, how he gave his daughter as bride to Tobias according to the ordinances in the Law of Moses. After this they began to eat and drink.*…

Tobias rose up from the bed and said to Sarah, "Get up, my sister; you and I must pray and petition our Lord to win his grace and his protection." She stood up and they began praying for protection and this was how he began:

• “You are blessed, O God of our fathers; blessed, too, is your name for ever and ever. Let the heavens bless you and all things you have made for evermore. It was you who created Adam, you who created Eve his wife to be his help and support; and from these two the human race was born. It was you who said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make him a helpmate like himself.’ And so I do not take my sister for any lustful motive; I do it in singleness of heart. Be kind enough to have pity on her and on me and bring us to old age together.”*

 

[Marybeloved]

Maybe I did, but you have two paragraphs talking about lust - ?

That is the principle behind Catholic teaching on sex: Love and avoid lust. I was explaining to her just what lust is as she is interested in finding out how to determine prohibited acts in Catholic marriage. Who really cares that it is two paragraphs? Just one line on lust is what is acceptable, or how many? The principle is what I was focused on.

 

[searching04]

That is the principle behind Catholic teaching on sex: Love and avoid lust. I was explaining to her just what lust is as she is interested in finding out how to determine prohibited acts in Catholic marriage. Who really cares that it is two paragraphs? Just one line on lust is what is acceptable, or how many? The principle is what I was focused on.

Yep!

 

[searching04]

NFP1Kate - need to clear some space in your PM box!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

OK…so I get the teaching…however, I want to push the envelop to see how far I can go.

In phase 2 we have no intention of having full intercourse. He does not penetrate me, nor does he climax. There is no sin of Onan.

We want to be intimate. If the intention is purely wanting to be together but refraining from intercourse, can we mess around a lot if we both don’t orgasm?

I know that would drive most people crazy, but we like it. As long as we don’t climax, it sounds like, in Church teaching, we can pretty much everything.

John C. Ford, SJ.

Mutual incomplete acts which are preparatory to the natural marriage act, are per se’ permitted to married people to whatever extent they are necessary or useful in order to achieve satisfactory intercourse.

Mutual incomplete acts which are not immediately preparatory to intercourse but take place at other times are not per se’ illicit, they too are virtuous and meritorious when used in moderation,

At the very least it can be said that according to solid theological authority, that incomplete mutual acts of married persons, whether in immediate preparation for intercourse or at other times are never gravely sinful as violations of chastity unless they involve serious and unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside the marriage act

Father John Ford was the most preeminent moral theologian in the United States during and after WWII. He vigorously fought to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church on the intrinsic evilness of every contraceptive act. Without Ford’s personal support, and that of a few other uncompromising theologians, Humanae Vitae may have never been promulgated. Their Rapport, written at the request of the Holy Office in 1966, was the only morally sound one among several others written by liberals. With all the dissent permeating the Church at the time on the issue of contraception, Ford’s work was literally The Minority Report. Father Ford had much to suffer from his peers and students when he returned from Rome to his teaching post at the Jesuit’s Weston College in Massachusetts

 

[searching04]

From post #69 -

Father John Ford was the most preeminent moral theologian in the United States during and after WWII. He vigorously fought to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church on the intrinsic evilness of every contraceptive act. Without Ford’s personal support, and that of a few other uncompromising theologians, Humanae Vitae may have never been promulgated. Their Rapport, written at the request of the Holy Office in 1966, was the only morally sound one among several others written by liberals. With all the dissent permeating the Church at the time on the issue of contraception, Ford’s work was literally The Minority Report. Father Ford had much to suffer from his peers and students when he returned from Rome to his teaching post at the Jesuit’s Weston College in Massachusetts

Does this not then indicate just how much contention there was even among church leaders as to where the church should be on issues concerning sex? I have seen several times in these forums that there were just as many dissenters as supporters of HV and the church position on sex, contraception, etc, and that in the end, the pope made the final call. I am quite sure there is much more to it, just have not had luck in finding anything on-line. Point being that if church leaders were so conflicted, it is no surprise that Catholics are!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

From post #69 -

Father John Ford was the most preeminent moral theologian in the United States during and after WWII. He vigorously fought to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church on the intrinsic evilness of every contraceptive act. Without Ford’s personal support, and that of a few other uncompromising theologians, Humanae Vitae may have never been promulgated. Their Rapport, written at the request of the Holy Office in 1966, was the only morally sound one among several others written by liberals. With all the dissent permeating the Church at the time on the issue of contraception, Ford’s work was literally The Minority Report. Father Ford had much to suffer from his peers and students when he returned from Rome to his teaching post at the Jesuit’s Weston College in Massachusetts

Does this not then indicate just how much contention there was even among church leaders as to where the church should be on issues concerning sex? I have seen several times in these forums that there were just as many dissenters as supporters of HV and the church position on sex, contraception, etc, and that in the end, the pope made the final call. I am quite sure there is much more to it, just have not had luck in finding anything on-line. Point being that if church leaders were so conflicted, it is no surprise that Catholics are!

I’m not sure what you mean, Father Ford was on board completely with HV. His book that I quoted from carried an imprimatur.

I think there is a lot of contention because the Church teachings are somewhat difficult to understand, and many people are not catechized properly.

I also think many people have emotional baggage, many others are scrupulous, and many others are just too proud to think the Church could give guidance on these issues.

 

[twoangels]

Not brother and sister?

The Marriage of Tobias and Sarah* (Tobit 7:9c-10, 11c-17,** 8:4-9** )*

**Tobias spoke out, “I will not hear of eating and drinking till you have come to a decision about me.” Raguel answered, "very well. Since, as prescribed by the Book of Moses, she is given to you. From now you are her brother and she is your sister. She is given to you from today for ever. The Lord of heaven favor you his grace and peace."

• Raguel called for his daughter Sarah, took her by the hand and gave her to Tobias with these words, “I entrust her to you; the law and the ruling recorded in the book of Moses assign her to you as your wife. Take her; take her home to your father’s house with a good conscience. The God of heaven grant you a good journey in peace.”*
• Then he turned to her mother and asked her to fetch him writing paper. He drew up the marriage contract, how he gave his daughter as bride to Tobias according to the ordinances in the Law of Moses. After this they began to eat and drink.*…

Tobias rose up from the bed and said to Sarah, "Get up, my sister; you and I must pray and petition our Lord to win his grace and his protection." She stood up and they began praying for protection and this was how he began:

• “You are blessed, O God of our fathers; blessed, too, is your name for ever and ever. Let the heavens bless you and all things you have made for evermore. It was you who created Adam, you who created Eve his wife to be his help and support; and from these two the human race was born. It was you who said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make him a helpmate like himself.’ And so I do not take my sister* for any lustful motive; I do it in singleness of heart. Be kind enough to have pity on her and on me and bring us to old age together.”

Actually there are a number of characters in the bible who were brother and sister who married. I don’t think these texts really pertain to what is being discussed.

 

[searching04]

I’m not sure what you mean, Father Ford was on board completely with HV. His book that I quoted from carried an imprimatur.

I think there is a lot of contention because the Church teachings are somewhat difficult to understand, and many people are not catechized properly.

I also think many people have emotional baggage, many others are scrupulous, and many others are just too proud to think the Church could give guidance on these issues.

Let me see if I can clarify, and I am actually looking for help here. By saying that without Ford, HV may not have been promulgated, that tells me (and I’ve read here in CAF) that there was much contention over it and the church stand on sex. That is, there were just as many church leaders who did not agree as did agree. My question on this has been if the church is guided by the holy spirit, how the heck can you have so many people disagreeing on what the church stance should be on sex? In the end, JP II made the call and there we are - HV. So all those church leaders who honestly *believed * they were guided by the holy spirit and that the church should take different positions were just declared wrong?

 

[Marybeloved]

Actually there are a number of characters in the bible who were brother and sister who married. I don’t think these texts really pertain to what is being discussed.

Umm…No,Tobias and sarah were NOT brother and sister, they were related. Secondly, Sarah’s father says to Tobias after giving them in marriage “NOW you are brother and sister”. I don’t know if you just missed my point. Spouses are brothers and Sisters in the Lord because they are both children of God. That’s how they are to regard each other and that’s how Tobias regards Sarah in his prayer. That’s true love.

 

[twoangels]

From post #69 -

Father John Ford was the most preeminent moral theologian in the United States during and after WWII. He vigorously fought to maintain the traditional teaching of the Church on the intrinsic evilness of every contraceptive act. Without Ford’s personal support, and that of a few other uncompromising theologians, Humanae Vitae may have never been promulgated. Their Rapport, written at the request of the Holy Office in 1966, was the only morally sound one among several others written by liberals. With all the dissent permeating the Church at the time on the issue of contraception, Ford’s work was literally The Minority Report. Father Ford had much to suffer from his peers and students when he returned from Rome to his teaching post at the Jesuit’s Weston College in Massachusetts

Does this not then indicate just how much contention there was even among church leaders as to where the church should be on issues concerning sex? I have seen several times in these forums that there were just as many dissenters as supporters of HV and the church position on sex, contraception, etc, and that in the end, the pope made the final call. I am quite sure there is much more to it, just have not had luck in finding anything on-line. Point being that if church leaders were so conflicted, it is no surprise that Catholics are!

The Church teaches that Divine Revelation is contained both in the Bible and in Sacred Tradition. There is a difference between disagreeing with Divine Revelation contained in Sacred Scriptures and disagreements over the specifics. There is room, after all, for areas of theological speculation. The Church is very clear that the use of contraceptives are gravely immoral. There is no question there.

I think what people forget is that Pope John Paul II went against the grain of the conversative theologians in the area of sexual ethics all while still upholding what was contained in Divine Revelation. He did after all order that the nude artwork in the Vatican be un-covered up. The Theology of the Body is a doctrial development that gives us more to work with in the area of thinking about sexual ethics. But regardless, anyone who says starts adding a list of examples of sins in addiction to what Divine Revelation teaches us is telling us what their conscience is telling them. Taking these things as objective realities is problematic as sin occurs in the heart. There is morally objectively good behavior that is motivated out of vice. Some people are so controlled by such vice that they cannot imagine the behavior being done with any virteous motivation. It can be at times like taking advice from a recovered alcoholic. The alcoholic may become very insistant that it is immoral to even step foot in a bar.

Ok that’s my two cets. My daughter is having a temper tantrum now

 

[Bookcat]

This is an area to be treated by Orthodox Catholic Moral Theology…the Church does not get into issuing documents necessarily that goes into all the “details”.

But Moral Theology applies the various Christian Moral Principles to Marriage…can thus get more into the “details”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9173987&postcount=18
*
Certainly* neither the husband or the wife may seek or consent to or be in a near occasion of climaxing apart from the marital act (see my other posts above)

Prior to TOB there was yes still this sort of teaching.

We need to also avoid any taking on the “approach of the surrounding culture”…which can easily happen today without much reflection…etc

and one needs to remember that sexual pleasure is to be subsumed under the communion of the persons …their love etc…

And as the Catechism notes too:

“At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.”

 

[Havard]

It seems to me that common sense goes a long way here. Look at the spirit of the law, not just the letter. That’s what Pharisees do.

And I say this as a lawyer, it’s my job to look for legal loopholes. Morality is one area where you certainly do not want to do that.

For example, here, just because the Magisterium doesn’t explicitly define how quickly foreplay must precede intercourse, that does not mean that the amount of time passed is of no consequence. First, recognize any bias you may have, and keep it mind. Then consider: what is the spirit of the rule? Finally, try to objectively apply common sense. Be honest with yourself, don’t simply look for rationales which defend the position you want to be true. There’s much more peace of mind to be had in knowing you’ve gone through all that.

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems to me that common sense goes a long way here. Look at the spirit of the law, not just the letter. That’s what Pharisees do.

And I say this as a lawyer, it’s my job to look for legal loopholes. Morality is one area where you certainly do not want to do that.

You are!!! You never come off like it.