Marital Foreplay and Sex

[Marybeloved]

I can’t understand why is so important to interfere in other people’s private acts.

How can anyone tell a couple with 4, 5 or more kids that they are not open to life if they engage in non-vaginal sex?

Catholic couples are free to choose to have sex only during infertile days of the month (Which is most of the month) if they have good reasons to believe that they should not get pregnant at that time. People do it quite successfully, and I’m sure that you’ll find many threads here discussing it and people’s experiences with it.

The periods of abstinence can be very spiritually beneficial, sort of like fasting (Incidentally, Eastern and Oriental Christians fast a lot during the year and usually have to abstain from sex when they are fasting too) and can help with spiritual growth. But also, it can be beneficial for the couple’s relationship too! They get to miss each other and court each other in other ways in anticipation, which I hear may even improve things in the intimacy itself even. So, come on! Cheer up! It’s not a death sentence. When you were single you didn’t have sex and yet managed to live, didn’t you?

 

[Nate13]

Yes, I know what Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubi, and other Church’s documents says.

But try to ask a priest. I couldn’t find one that says the same. Even a bishop told me that ABC would be ok in certain circumstances.

Are lay catholic required to accept things that even priests don’t?

Yeah and even Humane Vitae says its acceptable in certain circumstances.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

It is acceptable in these circumstances for a woman to take the pill because the contraceptive effect of the medication is a side effect not the object of the action as it would be whenever its used to prevent conception during a sexual act.

This same principle is applied in many other circumstances. You should understand that the pill itself is not what the Church finds evil, but rather the act itself of contracepting no matter what means are used to achieve this. No action who’s object is to contracept can ever be justified.

It follows in other words that you can never try to “fix” a medical condition with action who’s object is to directly prevent childbirth. For example it would be immoral to go “your sick and shouldn’t get pregnant. Here is a pill to prevent that.” It would not be immoral to take the pill to address a hormone imbalance that was serious, because the contraceptive effect would then be the side effect of the medication, not the object.

It’s complicated but clear cut.

This breakdown on how morality of acts is determined may help you:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

You’ll notice that an action that’s object is evil is how you know something is intrinsically evil and unjustified by any good intention or end.

Any Bishop or priest who tells you contracepting is acceptable as the object of an action has either misspoke, or is teaching error, period.

 

[fpt]

By principle, the definition and the meaning of masturbation have to be seen with a strict acception (stricto sensu) and not with a large acception (lato sensu).

Thus, in the couple, what is masturbation? What are the material elements of masturbation and what are the intellectual elements of masturbation? In the past, concerning marital intimacy (sexual, non sexual or sensual) many catholic thinkers had a point of view making focus on only the material element, the intellectual element was forgotten.

Oral sex and oral stimulation as foreplay are not the same things . It is different.

In the context of marital act:

Wife can touch the exteriors genitals of her husband in the context of marital act with her hands, her fingers, her lips of her mouth (kiss), her tongue, her mouth, her breasts, her body (body to body) as foreplay (preparation for stimulating before the junction of body), it is the role of wife as lover and as soulmate).
Husband can touch the exteriors genitals of his wife in the context of marital act with his hands, his fingers, his lips of his mouth (kiss), his tongue, his mouth, his body (body to bodu) as foreplay (preparation for stimulating before juntion of bodies, it is the role of husband as lover and as soulmate).

In the other contexts:

For Medical issues, there is no problem about this. For instance, In France during the Reign of Louis the XIV (The Sun King), his second wife, by morganatic marriage, touched in the intimacy the genitals of her husband for the treatments; The Pope knew, it was not a problem.

For normal sensual tenderness, it is okay, if no intention to arouse too much: moderation.

 

[igor1980]

Catholic couples are free to choose to have sex only during infertile days of the month (Which is most of the month) if they have good reasons to believe that they should not get pregnant at that time. People do it quite successfully, and I’m sure that you’ll find many threads here discussing it and people’s experiences with it.

It is not only about contraception. It’s also about the way a couple can express they love. Why it is ok to avoid the procreative aspect of intercourse with NFP, but extra vaginal sex is forbidden even if you want to have a baby?

The periods of abstinence can be very spiritually beneficial, sort of like fasting (Incidentally, Eastern and Oriental Christians fast a lot during the year and usually have to abstain from sex when they are fasting too) and can help with spiritual growth but also, it can be beneficial for the couple’s relationship too! They get to miss each other and court each other in other ways in anticipation, which I hear may even improve things in the intimacy itself even. So, come on! Cheer up! It’s not a death sentence. When you were single you didn’t have sex and yet managed to live, didn’t you?

It seems that not everybody in this forum thinks the same… there are many posts of people struggling with NFP

 

[Marybeloved]

Yeah and even Humane Vitae says its acceptable in certain circumstances.

It is acceptable in these circumstances for a woman to take the pill because the contraceptive effect of the medication is a side effect not the object of the action as it would be whenever its used to prevent conception during a sexual act.

This same principle is applied in many other circumstances. You should understand that the pill itself is not what the Church finds evil, but rather the act itself of contracepting no matter what means are used to achieve this. No action who’s object is to contracept can ever be justified.

It follows in other words that you can never try to “fix” a medical condition with action who’s object is to directly prevent childbirth. For example it would be immoral to go “your sick and shouldn’t get pregnant. Here is a pill to prevent that.” It would not be immoral to take the pill to address a hormone imbalance that was serious, because the contraceptive effect would then be the side effect of the medication, not the object.

True. But remember that if the medicating pill is an abortifacent, it would be illicit to have sex while on it, regardless of the good purposes. But if it has no abortifacent qualities, then yes, using it to help the body heal as any medicine does, puts it in exactly the same category as any medicine you may take to cure a headache, illness etc. The contraceptive qualities will be like if you took medicine for cancer which ended up messing your hormonal system so that you couldn’t get pregnant. No one would say you cannot be intimate with your husband just because your body is not in optimal condition.

 

[Nate13]

It is not only about contraception. It’s also about the way a couple can express they love. Why it is ok to avoid the procreative aspect of intercourse with NFP, but extra vaginal sex is forbidden even if you want to have a baby?

Humane Vitae:

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Here he explains some of the reasoning behind natural law. He gives some explanation here but then follows up with this:

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Note in the first apart above when it says “inseparable connection established by God”. This is a reference to natural law and the recognition of how we have been designed by God. If we act against this we are not respecting human dignity. If we are not respecting human dignity with an action, that action can never be an act of love.

To understand what “natural law” is and why it matters see this link from the Catechism as a start.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

 

[igor1980]

Yeah and even Humane Vitae says its acceptable in certain circumstances.
…

Note that I never mentioned the pill, I used the term ABC which, as you know, means Artificial Birth Control.
Again, I know what Humanae Vitae says. And it NEVER accepts ABC. It accepts taking the pill for medical reasons, although the side result would be the contraceptive action of it.

I haven’t talked about the pill, I’m talking about ABC. And every priest I asked told me what I stated about: ABC is ok for regulating pregnacies. This is totally opossed to Humanae Vitae, but seems to be what most priests think.

 

[Marybeloved]

It seems that not everybody in this forum thinks the same… there are many posts of people struggling with NFP

I imagine struggling is standard at some point if you’re denying nature’s impulses in any area- This Good Friday was the first time I seriously kept to the Church’s guidelines on how to fast and I tell you I was about to eat someone by midnight! :sad_yes:

Denying the body what it craves is very challenging- Therein lie all the spiritual benefits:yup:. I also read Jennifer Fulwiller’s blog on occasion and she says that this difficulty often helps her and her husband to discern from a more honest rather than a more selfish place whether this abstinence really is necessary. She says that many times they have found that it was not and have trusted God- Sometimes they find that it is and they abstain. God has never let them down. He always takes care of them when they trust him just a little bit more. Our Faith is spiritual and all its purposes are spiritual purposes. Sometimes our discussions can get technical and end up leaving that part out. But all the laws of God are good and will bring us better lives and greater holiness if we trust God and just live them. I really believe that.

 

[Nate13]

True. But remember that if the medicating pill is an abortifacent, it would be illicit to have sex while on it, regardless of the good purposes. But if it has no abortifacent qualities, then yes, using it to help the body heal as any medicine does, puts it in exactly the same category as any medicine you may take to cure a headache, illness etc. The contraceptive qualities will be like if you took medicine for cancer which ended up messing your hormonal system so that you couldn’t get pregnant. No one would say you cannot be intimate with your husband just because your body is not in optimal condition.

That is not what the Church teaches…don’t start an argument about that here lol. According to your argument pregnant women would not be able to eat or take anything that has ever been found to increase the chance of miscarriage. Maybe you haven’t looked into it much but there are a lot of things that can increase the chance of miscarriage for a woman. Most anti-depressants could possibly do harm for a child, so by your reasoning any woman who was on anti-depressants would be unallowed to have sex.

Fortunately this is not what the Church teaches and for good reason. Since the possible increased chance of miscarriage (not abortion because an abortion by definition means deliberate and intentional) is a side effect of the medication, it can be weighed against the good effects of taking the medication. If the possible good effects of the medication do not outweigh this risk, then it would be evil to take it. Thus for example fixing acne would not be a legitimate enough risk for a married woman to take the pill while still having sex and putting a potential child under that risk. I think you would agree treating depression is a sufficient enough reason, and treating hormone imbalances that are putting women into extreme pain for a week that is making them wish they could get a hysterectomy is a sufficient reason.

There are other methods to treat many of these conditions without the pill and I would fully recommend to seek those methods out first, but the fact remains it would not be immoral to use the pill in these circumstances and still have sex.

 

[Nate13]

Note that I never mentioned the pill, I used the term ABC which, as you know, means Artificial Birth Control.
Again, I know what Humanae Vitae says. And it NEVER accepts ABC. It accepts taking the pill for medical reasons, although the side result would be the contraceptive action of it.

I haven’t talked about the pill, I’m talking about ABC. And every priest I asked told me what I stated about: ABC is ok for regulating pregnacies. This is totally opossed to Humanae Vitae, but seems to be what most priests think.

Any Bishop or priest who tells you contracepting is acceptable as the object of an action has either misspoke, or is teaching error, period. The vast majority of U.S Bishops are in alignment on this issue, and those that disagree do not express their opinions in public because they know it is in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches. There are a lot of priests in error on this issue and there are threads that discuss why this is the case in detail. In short for awhile many seminaries were teaching error to their students and we are still feeling the effects of this today. I’m sorry if you have many priests who are in error on this issue where you live. A majority of the priests in my area are on track though, and you should not assume the rest of the country is the same as where you happen to be.

 

[fpt]

Note that I never mentioned the pill, I used the term ABC which, as you know, means Artificial Birth Control.
Again, I know what Humanae Vitae says. And it NEVER accepts ABC. It accepts taking the pill for medical reasons, although the side result would be the contraceptive action of it.

I haven’t talked about the pill, I’m talking about ABC. And every priest I asked told me what I stated about: ABC is ok for regulating pregnacies. This is totally opossed to Humanae Vitae, but seems to be what most priests think.

Direct and voluntary contraception for an active sexually person is wrong and sinful.
Indirect and involuntary contraception for an active sexually person is not wrong and sinful.

Direct and voluntary contraception for an passive sexually person is not wrong and is not sinful.

Direct and voluntary abortion is wrong and sinful, per se.
Indirect and involuntary abortion is not wrong and sinful.

The question is: the sense of these terms " indirect and involuntary" in the natural and catholic way.

 

[Marybeloved]

Note that I never mentioned the pill, I used the term ABC which, as you know, means Artificial Birth Control.
Again, I know what Humanae Vitae says. And it NEVER accepts ABC. It accepts taking the pill for medical reasons, although the side result would be the contraceptive action of it. I haven’t talked about the pill, I’m talking about ABC. And every priest I asked told me what I stated about: ABC is ok for regulating pregnacies. This is totally opossed to Humanae Vitae, but seems to be what most priests think.

I believe they are misleading you, my friend. Unfortunately, that’s the current state of affairs. It is being remedied, thankfully. But why don’t you try to understand Catholic faith as a whole? Sometimes focusing on one thing distorts perspective and focusing and learning the whole helps one see the full understanding and “logic” beneath it all.

 

[igor1980]

That is not what the Church teaches…don’t start an argument about that here lol. According to your argument pregnant women would not be able to eat or take anything that has ever been found to increase the chance of miscarriage. Maybe you haven’t looked into it much but there are a lot of things that can increase the chance of miscarriage for a woman. Most anti-depressants could possibly do harm for a child, so by your reasoning any woman who was on anti-depressants would be unallowed to have sex.

Fortunately this is not what the Church teaches and for good reason. Since the possible increased chance of miscarriage (not abortion because an abortion by definition means deliberate and intentional) is a side effect of the medication, it can be weighed against the good effects of taking the medication. If the possible good effects of the medication do not outweigh this risk, then it would be evil to take it. Thus for example fixing acne would not be a legitimate enough risk for a married woman to take the pill while still having sex and putting a potential child under that risk. I think you would agree treating depression is a sufficient enough reason, and treating hormone imbalances that are putting women into extreme pain for a week that is making them wish they could get a hysterectomy is a sufficient reason.

So extra-vaginal sex is a grave offense and a mortal sin, but taking an abortifacient for “medical reasons” while pregnant is ok. Which “good effect” can outweigh the risk of killing your baby in the womb?

Forgive me, but I will never understand and I will never agree with this, no matter what HV says.

 

[Nate13]

So extra-vaginal sex is a grave offense and a mortal sin, but taking an abortifacient for “medical reasons” while pregnant is ok. Which “good effect” can outweigh the risk of killing your baby in the womb?

Forgive me, but I will never understand and I will never agree with this, no matter what HV says.

Principle of double effect as long as:

1. The evil is not the object of the action.
2. The evil is not the means of doing good.
3. The good outweighs the potential evil.

Number 1 and Number 2 are just different ways of saying the same thing. We have already established in the case described the increase in the possibility of miscarriage would not the object of the action. Thus it follows the only thing to look to is whether the good of the action outweighs the bad.

I will again ask though directly, would you tell a woman on an anti-depressant that she could not have sex? In my mind that good outweighs the potential bad effects of the medication. We make decisions on a daily basis that could put our kids at more risk than this.

You do understand that the risk of the pill causing a miscarriage is at max 3% and in all reality less than 1%. If it was 50% then I highly doubt anyone could consider it justifiable, but it is not. We make decisions that balance risk every day.

 

[Nate13]

Stress can increase the chance of miscarriage. Would a woman who worked while pregnant be guilty of an abortion, since working would most likely increase her stress level and increase the chance of miscarriage? This gets ridiculous after awhile but you can see the point.

 

[igor1980]

Principle of double effect as long as:

1. The evil is not the object of the action.
2. The evil is not the means of doing good.
3. The good outweighs the potential evil.

Number 1 and Number 2 are just different ways of saying the same thing. We have already established in the case described the increase in the possibility of miscarriage would not the object of the action. Thus it follows the only thing to look to is whether the good of the action outweighs the bad.

I will again ask though directly, would you tell a woman on an anti-depressant that she could not have sex? In my mind that good outweighs the potential bad effects of the medication. We make decisions on a daily basis that could put our kids at more risk than this.

You do understand that the risk of the pill causing a miscarriage is at max 3% and in all reality less than 1%. If it was 50% then I highly doubt anyone could consider it justifiable, but it is not. We make decisions that balance risk every day.

I wasn’t talking about the “normal” pill as abortifacient. As you say, there is a very little risk of abortion with the pill. And it is not fully demonstrated.

I was talking about really abortifacient drugs. Would be RU486 morally licit for “medical reasons”?

Let me ask you about another situation. Misoprostol is a drug used to prevent gastric ulcers. It carries about 65%–93%(source: Wikipedia) of inducing an abortion. It would be morally licit to take this drug?

 

[Marybeloved]

So extra-vaginal sex is a grave offense and a mortal sin, but taking an abortifacient for “medical reasons” while pregnant is ok. Which “good effect” can outweigh the risk of killing your baby in the womb?

I do see the inconsistency you see, Igor and how ridiculously Pharisaical it makes us look. But please don’t blame HV or the Church- Nowhere does she say that you can do this. Some Catholics have the attitude that if they don’t find an explicit sentence saying Don’t do This exact thing in this exact circumstances in the Church’s documents, that we can then pretend that we have no duty to employ moral judgment in any matter even those involving the likelihood of killing your own child. (As if Our duty to value life more than sex alone is not reason enough).

The “balance” claimed is false- One in that situation is not weighing between the good effects of the drug (curing you) against the likelihood of destroying a human being, rather one is weighing the choice of NOT having sex during that time against the risk of killing your own baby and then determining that having sex trumps avoiding the risk of killing your child and going ahead and doing it.

Forgive me, but I will never understand and I will never agree with this, no matter what HV says.

It’s got nothing to do with HV- *(Did Pope Paul VI even know about abortifacent pills when he wrote HV? Or was he talking about pills which he only believed simply prevented pregnancy?)

*The question doesn’t even have anything at all to with HV or contraception, It’s in the ten commandments and respect for life. It’s a false moral equivalence. Just think of it in other situations and do what you would do elsewhere. If doing something could risk killing a person (Like firing bullets in a certain direction) but you don’t know if a person is there or not, think of those situations that you responsibly believe would justify such a risk and apply them to that situation. If we change the standards with our babies, we are essentially denying that we equate Our baby’s value with the value of that stranger who may or may not be in that bush we are shooting at.

But please don’t take this as Catholic teaching by any means.

 

[Nate13]

I wasn’t talking about the “normal” pill as abortifacient. As you say, there is a very little risk of abortion with the pill. And it is not fully demonstrated.

I was talking about really abortifacient drugs. Would be RU486 morally licit for “medical reasons”?

Let me ask you about another situation. Misoprostol is a drug used to prevent gastric ulcers. It carries about 65%–93%(source: Wikipedia) of inducing an abortion. It would be morally licit to take this drug?

Lol absolutely not. What medical reason would that pill fix? Murdering someone is not the answer to a medical reason regardless of what the pro-abortion groups might say. I hope this answered that misunderstanding. I cannot think of a use for that drug where the action of taking it would have a object other than the direct and intentional killing of a human life can you?

 

[fpt]

Lol absolutely not. What medical reason would that pill fix? Murdering someone is not the answer to a medical reason regardless of what the pro-abortion groups might say. I hope this answered that misunderstanding. I cannot think of a use for that drug where the action of taking it would have a object other than the direct and intentional killing of a human life can you?

How to define indirect and involuntary abortion in the context of medical issues?

In medical issues, are there differences of approaches of the catholic moral between these terms: to cure, to heal, to mend, to restore, to get well…etc. To stop a disease, to cure a disease…etc???

 

[Marybeloved]

Let me ask you about another situation. Misoprostol is a drug used to prevent gastric ulcers. It carries about 65%–93%(source: Wikipedia) of inducing an abortion. It would be morally licit to take this drug?

The question is not whether it would be licit to take the drug- Of course it would be OK if it heals you. Rather the question is if you can legitimately risk preganancy while taking it. A woman who cannot conceive has no worries here at all. But a healthy woman who is taking it, if she’s at all Christian in her conscience cannot risk pregnancy while using this drug, IMHO. Perhaps the couple can avoid this by using NFP while she’s on the drug so that she doesn’t risk a pregnancy as much as possible.