Marital Foreplay and Sex

[Nate13]

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???

Catechism:

Intentional homicide
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful.

The above describes the requirements for something to be considered murder as opposed to killing. Determining where an act is “intentional” gets hairy and there are lots of things to consider including whether someone was negligent, not in a state of mind to make an intentional choice, etc…

Saying “direct killing” is just another way of saying the object of the action is to kill an innocent person. It speaks directly towards the action itself and has no bearing on what the person who commits the act is thinking or what their intent is. You can determine whether an action was “direct” purely by looking at the action itself alone. If the object of the action is evil, or the means used to obtain some good end is evil, the action is intrinsically evil and in the case of killing you would have a direct killing.

This is why during an ectopic pregnancy it is not considered murder to remove the fallopian tube to save the woman’s life even though it will also kill the child inside. The object of the action in this case is not the killing of the innocent child. In the case of shooting a chemical in there to destroy the child though, it would be direct killing since the object of that action is to kill the child.

 

[Nate13]

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.

Ah opps I didn’t see that part of the question. My response before was just to RU486.

In response to this:

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 object of taking this medication for a legitimate medical reason would not be to cause an abortion. So first off it would not be intrinsically evil to do so. As MaryBeloved said though you could practice NFP while taking this medication. The moral dilemma would be similar to the one of the couple where the wife risks death if she got pregnant. In that case a couple could discern how great the risk was and whether to practice NFP strictly or to abstain completely. So to answer your question as to whether it would be morally acceptable to have sex during this time, I would respond with yes as far as it would be permissible for them to have sex were it the wife who had the same risk of death should she become pregnant. They would have to weigh the good and bad of the having sex at certain times (since its not intrinsically evil) and make a determination whether the good outweighed the bad.

 

[fpt]

Catechism:

The above describes the requirements for something to be considered murder as opposed to killing. Determining where an act is “intentional” gets hairy and there are lots of things to consider including whether someone was negligent, not in a state of mind to make an intentional choice, etc…

Saying “direct killing” is just another way of saying the object of the action is to kill an innocent person. It speaks directly towards the action itself and has no bearing on what the person who commits the act is thinking or what their intent is. You can determine whether an action was “direct” purely by looking at the action itself alone. If the object of the action is evil, or the means used to obtain some good end is evil, the action is intrinsically evil and in the case of killing you would have a direct killing.

This is why during an ectopic pregnancy it is not considered murder to remove the fallopian tube to save the woman’s life even though it will also kill the child inside. The object of the action in this case is not the killing of the innocent child. In the case of shooting a chemical in there to destroy the child though, it would be direct killing since the object of that action is to kill the child.

For instance, if a woman is pregnant and that it is an ectopic pregnancy the solution is to remove the fallopian tube to save the woman’s life. But, if it is possible to remove a small part of this tube (tissues around the baby’s egg with the baby’s egg) and thus to save the entir the fallopian tube, is it okay?

 

[Nate13]

For instance, if a woman is pregnant and that it is an ectopic pregnancy the solution is to remove the fallopian tube to save the woman’s life. But, if it is possible to remove a small part of this tube (tissues around the baby’s egg with the baby’s egg) and thus to save the entir the fallopian tube, is it okay?

Read the comments of one of the premier Catholic bioethicists out there.
catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0140.htm

My understanding is the “scoop method” is unacceptable morally and practically as well. Both the drug method and scoop method of fixing it leave a strong chance of leaving scar tissue and repeat ectopic pregnancies.

 

[igor1980]

…
So to answer your question as to whether it would be morally acceptable to have sex during this time, I would respond with yes as far as it would be permissible for them to have sex were it the wife who had the same risk of death should she become pregnant. They would have to weigh the good and bad of the having sex at certain times (since its not intrinsically evil) and make a determination whether the good outweighed the bad.

This is what I cannot accept, and as Marybeloved said I see terrible Pharisaical: while you can continue to have sex, risking your pregnacy at the point which is almost sure that you’ll have an abortion, an act of love with no victims, such as oral sex, is intrinsically evil.

Your intention is not to kill your baby. But you know that it will happen. But don’t care! you can do it anyway, because it is not “intrinsically evil”. Go ahead. But remember, when you are going to have sex again, you have to finish inside your wife, because otherwise it will be intrinsecally evil.

I will never agree on this.

 

[Nate13]

This is what I cannot accept, and as Marybeloved said I see terrible Pharisaical: while you can continue to have sex, risking your pregnacy at the point which is almost sure that you’ll have an abortion, an act of love with no victims, such as oral sex, is intrinsically evil.

Your intention is not to kill your baby. But you know that it will happen. But don’t care! you can do it anyway, because it is not “intrinsically evil”. Go ahead. But remember, when you are going to have sex again, you have to finish inside your wife, because otherwise it will be intrinsecally evil.

I will never agree on this.

Morality is not determined based on how much suffering an action causes or how much we perceive it to cause. If so euthanasia of people who had uncurable cancer and were doomed to be in bed for 6 months suffereing greatly would be the most incredibly moral choice. While it may remove the suffering, it would require an intrinsically immoral act to do so though. I urge you to read the Catechism and ask questions to help your understanding of how the morality of acts is determined and why. I think that is where many of your questions truly lie.

Every natural law argument at its core is an argument for the respect of the dignity of the human person. As the pope discussed in Humane Vitae most people can recognize how a forced sex act within marriage does not respect the dignity of the spouse. Such an act ignores the unitive purpose of sex. He compares the lack of dignity for the human person of that act to the lack of dignity for the human person when the procreative purpose is ignored. When either of these is ignored human dignity is ignored. I assume your American and as such you believe greatly and understand full heartedly why freedom is so important. This aspect of natural law is bred into us and taught explicitly. We take it to be common sense even though this was not so in the past. The aspect of respecting the procreative meaning of sex has not been taught and is not respected though which is why so many more people do not recognize how this is just as great an insult to human dignity as a forced sex act within marriage would be.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[fpt]

In the context of marital act, as foreplay, I say like foreplay and per se, are you against the “amplexus reservatus”, “reservata” or « copula reservata" or " karezza", I mean the coitus interruptus without ejaculation??? Do you think that it is okay to make love very long time with this method, before the ejaculation in the vagina?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It’s complicated but clear cut.

This breakdown on how morality of acts is determined may help you:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/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.

Hmmn. “an action that’s object is evil.”
Human Acts can be judged good or evil but doesn’t it get much more complicated when we want to say that the component “object” (the “matter” or the “what” of a Human Act) can be isolated out as standalone “evil” in the same way?

The **object **of a Human Act seems to be able to be described as “serious” or “grave” but perhaps going any further would be a confusing of “object” back with the very “Act” we are attempting to analyse/explain?

Maybe an example would help.
“Murder” is intrinsically evil. Even a good intention cannot make it good. I agree.
But isn’t murder a **human act **rather than the object of a human act?
That is, murder is when we intentionally kill an innocent person. So of course it is an intrinsically evil human act, that is the nature of the definition! It seems to have little to do with the object being evil. It is semantics only.

I would suggest that the “object matter” of the above human act is “homocide” (to kill a human) because intention is excluded from this definition. It then appears, stand-alone, morally neutral. Of course this “object” is a grave matter of law (both human and divine)

A careful reading of vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s1c1a4.htm does not seem to clearly support this use of that phrase (though I know what you mean).

What do you think?

 

[Nate13]

Hmmn. “an action that’s object is evil.”
Human Acts can be judged good or evil but doesn’t it get much more complicated when we want to say that the component “object” (the “matter” or the “what” of a Human Act) can be isolated out as standalone “evil” in the same way?

The **object **of a Human Act seems to be able to be described as “serious” or “grave” but perhaps going any further would be a confusing of “object” back with the very “Act” we are attempting to analyse/explain?

Maybe an example would help.
“Murder” is intrinsically evil. Even a good intention cannot make it good. I agree.
But isn’t murder a **human act **rather than the object of a human act?
That is, murder is when we intentionally kill an innocent person. So of course it is an intrinsically evil human act, that is the nature of the definition! It seems to have little to do with the object being evil. It is semantics only.

I would suggest that the “object matter” of the above human act is “homocide” (to kill a human) because intention is excluded from this definition. It then appears, stand-alone, morally neutral. Of course this “object” is a grave matter of law (both human and divine)

A careful reading of vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p3s1c1a4.htm does not seem to clearly support this use of that phrase (though I know what you mean).

What do you think?

The Catechism breaks down acts as such:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

The object of an action is described as this:

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

It then goes on to say this:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

and this:

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

I think your getting confused in that you believe “murder” includes the intention within it. Saying something is murder does mean that the act was intended. It does not however explain why the person committed the murder. That is what is meant by the intention part of the equation. Looking back I didn’t explain this well at all. The “why” that is not included is the intention/ends part of the action equation. The circumstances part would take into account the fact that maybe there was an addiction or in the case of theft how much was stolen.

So in other words saying an act was direct and intentional purely describes the object of the action in question. I think referring to the second part as the desired ends rather than intention helps clarify what the Church means by the second part. Think of the second part of an action being when you ask someone why they committed murder.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think your getting confused in that you believe “murder” includes the intention within it. Saying something is murder does mean that the act was intended. It does not however explain why the person committed the murder. That is what is meant by the intention part of the equation.

Well explained. Latin obviously doesn’t translate well into English! “Intention” does NOT mean that you deliberately intended (“chose”) the object (as opposed to sleep-walking) - it is **the purpose why **you intended the object.

OK, there are some other confusions here you may be able to clarify.
(1) What is your understanding of object/circumstances? For example fornication, adultery and conjugal sex are exactly the same external behaviour. Is this common behaviour the “object” of each of the above three “human acts” - or does each of those three human acts describe three different objects? In other words what is the difference between “external behaviour”, “the object of a human act” and the “human act” itself.

In English thinking I would suggest that these three words describe exactly the same thing except the circumstances are different (i.e. in fornication the couple are both unmarried, in adultery the couple are married but not to each other, in conjugal sex the couple are married to each other). Obviously the Latin philosophical mind sees things differently. (Which is why your elucidation above may not be as clear as we might think!).

And just to confuse things more … mistaken “intention” (but obviously not the “end” above) could change the object (or is it a circumstance) as when Oedipus “marries” his mother. That was, for him, fornication (or worse)?

(2) You haven’t directly touched on my main point above yet - can the object of a human act (i.e. without consideration of “end”) be validly described as evil? I see “grave”, I see “serious” I might even see “disordered” - but not evil. I am not sure a moral adjective (“evil”) can be applied to “object” except very loosely by analogy. But something may of course be lost-in-translation.

 

[Marybeloved]

Morality is not determined based on how much suffering an action causes or how much we perceive it to cause.

I’m sorry but how can you say this? Words are very important, you know. How about the Law of Charity? Love your neighbor as you love yourself? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This type of reasoning can only come from perceiving the whole faith through an extremely narrow lens of technicalities. Is this really the substance of Our Catholic faith? How about reading the gospels of our Lord as our foundation for everything? No Catholic parent has a right to “not care” whether their action (which is easily avoidable, by the way) can have the effect of killing their child. That’s why people who look for technicalities end up presenting a false picture of Christian faith. I mean, this faith that would have us give up our own lives and possessions for others, doesn’t care if our actions harm others?.Where is this most fundamental law of Christ in this?

If so euthanasia of people who had uncurable cancer and were doomed to be in bed for 6 months suffering greatly would be the most incredibly moral choice. While it may remove the suffering, it would require an intrinsically immoral act to do so though. I urge you to read the Catechism and ask questions to help your understanding of how the morality of acts is determined and why. I think that is where many of your questions truly lie.

That example of Euthanasia is not analogous to that statement you made. First of all, there’s no “action” on your part that causes suffering- The disease is doing that. It’s carrying out Euthanasia that requires an action from you. Secondly, carrying out euthanasia would trump the first law- Love the Lord your God …above everything. Carrying it out usurps God’s place, the giver of human life, of whom Job said: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away”, No-one can do that without committing blasphemy. Euthanasia involves committing Blasphemy in-order to end human suffering, not possible. But if an action of yours causes suffering, it behooves you to consider its morality based on the Law of Charity. If an over-riding duty of love does not command you to take that action, you must avoid things that harm lives and/or cause unnecessary suffering to others.

Every natural law argument at its core is an argument for the respect of the dignity of the human person.

Human suffering is part of this consideration of Human Dignity. That’s why we Catholics are at the fore-front of alleviating it in the world and defending the vulnerable everywhere. If a higher duty of Love does not trump it, we cannot morally engage in acts that cause suffering just because in other situations, these acts are not wrong in themselves.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Morality is not determined based on how much suffering an action causes or how much we perceive it to cause
I’m sorry but how can you say this? That example of Euthanasia is not analogous to that statement you made…

MaryBeloved
I think poster is saying that something is not bad simply because it is perceived to cause immediate suffering. Nor is something good simply because it is perceived to alleviate immediate suffering (which euthenasing does, but that does not make it good to do).

Moral judgements, in the Catholic tradition, tends to be based on long term and on-going causal effects/considerations emanating from “character” rather than the localised, “short-lived” effects of particular acts. Therefore a human act that is perceived to have no victims (in a particular context) may actually have oneself as the “victim.” One’s own moral character may be improved or degraded… eventually outing in other contexts and possibly other ways that are damaging (or healing) and on an abiding and ongoing basis.

Right reason (giving rise to recognition of natural law) rather than perceived consequences (which can be misleading at times) is usually considered the better tool for making these judgements. I believe that’s the theory of it and how I understood Nate13

 

[Marybeloved]

MaryBeloved
I think poster is saying that something is not bad simply because it is perceived to cause immediate suffering. Nor is something good simply because it is perceived to alleviate immediate suffering (which euthenasing does, but that does not make it good to do).

Moral judgements, in the Catholic tradition, tends to be based on long term and on-going causal effects/considerations emanating from “character” rather than the localised, “short-lived” effects of particular acts. Therefore a human act that is perceived to have no victims (in a particular context) may actually have oneself as the “victim.” One’s own moral character may be improved or degraded… eventually outing in other contexts and possibly other ways that are damaging (or healing) and on an abiding and ongoing basis.

Right reason (giving rise to recognition of natural law) rather than perceived consequences (which can be misleading at times) is usually considered the better tool for making these judgements. I believe that’s the theory of it and how I understood Nate13

I understand, but such a presentation leaves out too much, that it may end up giving a wrong picture. Christians are not supposed to only consider the technical requirements of the natural law, they are suposed to consider the good of others too- That’s the fundamental law of Love. Even if technically, something is not against the natural law, that does not mean that you don’t consider its effects on others and conduct yourself in a manner that will not unnecessarily cause others suffering. Charity is fundamental. So we have to say that so that people don’t get the wrong idea that we are not required to care about and put into considerations the consequences of our actions to others, just because it fits a certain legal criteria.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I understand, but such a presentation leaves out too much, that it may end up giving a wrong picture. Christians are not supposed to only consider the technical requirements of the natural law, they are suposed to consider the good of others too- That’s the fundamental law of Love. Even if technically, something is not against the natural law, that does not mean that you don’t consider its effects on others and conduct yourself in a manner that will not unnecessarily cause others suffering. Charity is fundamental. So we have to say that so that people don’t get the wrong idea that we are not required to care about and put into considerations the consequences of our actions to others, just because it fits a certain legal criteria.

Yes I agree with you. This is the “weakness” of traditional church moral theology … effective pastoral understanding/application in our daily life (and assisting others) must be human and not dry, dusty and indifferently communicated. Very difficult to master both.

 

[moon1234]

Yes, that is what I am looking for…I don’t think it does exist. I have done so much research, and the same HV 14 and Casti Connubi keep popping up but it doesn’t address this specifically.

My husband has many sessions where he climaxes (vaginally), but I don’t. I am ok with that, occasionally it goes in reverse. The last few days I have been told that is sinful. HOW?

If female orgasm is sinful without full intercourse, then where would we draw the line during foreplay? Kissing is ok…touch is ok…but then we’re cut off? I know Christopher West talks about it, but it seems to me he has taken some liberties.

Drop Christopher West. He is the Hugh Hephner of the Catholic Church in my opinion. MY OPINION (no flaming please).

NFP causes unwarranted tensions in marraiges. If there are not seriously grave reasons for avoiding, then don’t. (You will know if they are grave as you will both agree and usually you will NOT want to for fear of disease, health, etc.) There is NO law that says that if he can NOT climax that he must. If you have vaginal intercourse and can not orgasm without other stimulation, usually clitoral, then you are well within your rights to have an orgasm AFTER his vaginal orgasm by him manually stimulating you, you manually stimulating yourself while he continues foreplay, etc.

What is NOT allowed is for him to give you oral sex, masturbate you or otherwise cause you to climax with the direct intention of him NOT having vaginal sex with you. This is why the Church stronly suggests that foreplay ONLY be part of a sex act that is intended to end in vaginal intercourse.

It is very common for young women (26 is still young) to not be able to have an orgasam by vaginal stimulation alone. YOU need to tell your husband this. There is nothing wrong with you or him stimulating other parts of your anatomy to your orgasam as long as the intention is a completed vaginal sex act. You can use vibrators, etc. as part of your sex session. Don’t settle for no orgasm, you should be able to have one EACH time or very nearly so. My wife could not have vaginal orgasams until she was over 30 and was pregnant. She said it was just not possible.

Sometimes things happen, kids pound the door down, the UPS guy shows up, etc. If you have already completed and he has not and you are interrupted, then there is no sin. You and he had every intention of completing, but were stopped by some other outside action.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Drop Christopher West. He is the Hugh Hephner of the Catholic Church in my opinion. MY OPINION (no flaming please).

That seems like… a serious exaggeration.

In any event, my problem with the people writing off both West and Popack is - where do you turn? Marybeloved refers me to Aquinas I believe, as if I have any clue in the world what he’s saying… I don’t, and I expect there are others in the same boat. So effectively we are left without instruction in this area. To many people, understanding Aquinas would be like taking advanced chemistry courses while you’re still struggling with basic science. The whole allure of these two men is that their works can serve as good stepping stones, but you pull those stepping stones out and you’re going to hit your head on the concrete, ya know what I mean?

Also it’s disheartening to be told that works with an Imprimatur can’t be trusted. I mean isn’t that the entire point of an Imprimatur in the first place?

The average person doesn’t have ten years to try to figure this stuff out nor the power of mind to weigh the arguments of various theologians against each other. So, what then, pick one at random? Could not the Church settle these debates?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

That seems like… a serious exaggeration.

In any event, my problem with the people writing off both West and Popack is - where do you turn? Marybeloved refers me to Aquinas I believe, as if I have any clue in the world what he’s saying… I don’t, and I expect there are others in the same boat. So effectively we are left without instruction in this area. To many people, understanding Aquinas would be like taking advanced chemistry courses while you’re still struggling with basic science. The whole allure of these two men is that their works can serve as good stepping stones, but you pull those stepping stones out and you’re going to hit your head on the concrete, ya know what I mean?

Also it’s disheartening to be told that works with an Imprimatur can’t be trusted. I mean isn’t that the entire point of an Imprimatur in the first place?

The average person doesn’t have ten years to try to figure this stuff out nor the power of mind to weigh the arguments of various theologians against each other. So, what then, pick one at random? Could not the Church settle these debates?

I think you can trust the imprimatur, really. It means the work is free of doctrinal error.
Also try reading John Kippley. He’s very good.

 

[homegrowntwinki]

Do what you want. If you only wanna have oral sex, or handjobs/fingering, then do it. You don’t have to go the whole 9 yards…jesus christ.

 

[shipwrkd]

Let your conscience, guided by God and your religion answer these hard questions. There may come a day when that’s how long it will take even if there is no longer a possibility of procreation and even then your spouse may not be able to finish where he’s supposed to. You’ve chosen the vocation of Marriage and it’s both of your responsibilities to keep that intact. In my 42 years of Marriage, I may have stretched the envelope of the Catechism a few times, but my Marriage is still strong.
Seems funny to me that something that is supposed to be beautiful in God’s eyes and can result in perhaps the only miracle that may occur in one’s life creates the most turmoil among Catholics. I’m with “anything goes after marriage” and if I think I’ve done something that God wouldn’t approve of I confess it and usually my Priest tells me that I didn’t need to.

 

[GraceDK]

Disagree and it goes to the OP’s point - there is no time frame whatsoever given for foreplay.

Thats real interesting… so if I start the foreplay with my fiance today and we marry in 2 months… then that foreplay (even with me climaxing) okay, because its part of the marital act that will occur on my wedding night?

I think you guys are STRECHING IT big time.
And yep. The OP describes masturbation.

The Church doesn’t think people are stupid, so she doesn’t think she needs to point out that sexual stimulation should not happen days before the marital act.
Its fascinating and sad to see how far people will go to find loop holes.