Marital sex in later years

[ahs]

Of course not. You’re overthinking it.

I don’t think I am. I think I am just expressing what the Church teaches, and asking for clarification of what you are writing, because it almost sounds like you are saying that, as long a couple loves each other and wants to give themselves fully to one another, that it is therefore okay to use the sexual faculty in a manner contrary to its purpose, while simultaneously trying to redefine what that purpose is?

In simplest of terms, oral sex to completion is a disordered use of the sexual faculty. That’s the simple version.
“Overthinking it” would be what you followed up with in the rest of your response.

Lust is not the desire…

Why do you keep bringing up lust? The discussion is about whether oral sex is properly ordered to Married sex. The answer was really simple: if foreplay, no problem; if completed as an act in itself, disordered use.

Meditating on the full meaning of sexual expression…

…isn’t even necessary in this case. It’s a really simple answer to a really simple question and the Church has taken all the guess work out for us.
“Can I orally stimulate my spouse as foreplay to the Marital Act?” - Sure.
“Can I replace the Marital Act with oral “sex” to completion?” - Nope.

Take it too seriously, and you’ll put so much performance pressure on yourself to have simultaneous orgasms rooted in such loving pure gentleness, you’ll be lucky to get very aroused at all. Moreover, you’ll be filled with guilt and frustration. That doesn’t mean that reflection isn’t worthwhile.

The above would be an example of “overthinking it”.

But the point is that you can only do what you’re able.

Right. You are either able to engage in the Marital Act, or not. Very simple. And if you are not, you cannot substitute masturbation is its place, no matter how much you think it expresses love. Also very simple.

Sexual temptation is…about expressing your sexual love in full appreciation of what prudent love demands.

Who said anything about sexual temptation? And how is it that “prudent love” does not demand that love be expressed the way God intended it?

You really seem to be all over the place with this, seemingly suggesting that it’s okay to engage in oral sex to completion as long as you “love” someone, without saying it outright. Do you believe this?

 

[KevinK]

In simplest of terms, oral sex to completion is a disordered use of the sexual faculty.

Would this be true if the man was infertile or had a vasectomy? In that case there is no potential for pregnancy regardless where ejaculation winds up.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

Yes, whether or not the man can have children is completely irrelevant. It is the act itself that must be open to life → sterile people can still have miracles and have children. The fact that there is a miracle possible means it can be reproductive.

Morality does not change if a guy has vasectomy (which is immoral anyway) since the act itself must still be ORDERED to reproduction

 

[ahs]

Would this […oral sex to completion is a disordered use of the sexual faculty…] be true if the man was infertile or had a vasectomy?

Yeppers. The Church’s teaching on sexual morality isn’t based upon whether conception “will occur”, but on whether the act “is ordered per se towards”.

 

[Fraevo63]

Is the Roman Catholic Church the only church in Christendom that has this much detailed doctrine on marital relations?

 

[1ke]

Would this be true if the man was infertile or had a vasectomy?

Yes Kevin, it’s always true.

 

[1ke]

Is the Roman Catholic Church the only church in Christendom that has this much detailed doctrine on marital relations?

Well, it was the only church in existence for the first 1500 years in the West. So the writings and teachings of the Church were already in existence when the others came along.

All Christian churches taught this until 1930, when the Anglican Communion broke with 2000 years of truth.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Catholic teaching in the Catechism and bible teaching is that acts of sodomy are grave matter; mortal sin if done deliberately, with full knowledge, and in full freedom.

Where does it say in an official vatican document that sodomy is permissable as foreplay?

Nowhere.

In the bible God rained down fire and consumed the town of Sodom for such actions.

 

[1ke]

Where does it say in an official vatican document that sodomy is permissable as foreplay?

Um, no one here is talking about sodomy. Except you. In a weirdly out of context post.

 

[iwritebooks]

It has more goods than simply procreation, per St. Thomas Aquinas:

Summa Theologiae > Supplement > Question 49. The marriage goods
Article 1. Whether certain blessings are necessary in order to excuse marriage?

Reply to Objection 3. From the very fact that marriage is intended as an office or as a remedy it has the aspect of something useful and right; nevertheless both aspects belong to it from the fact that it has these goods by which it fulfills the office and affords a remedy to concupiscence.

That’s a purpose Aquinas ascribes to marriage, not sex. And the root of his reasoning is that he views lust as sexual desire. Lust/sexual desire is bad. The holiest people are celibate, but not everyone has that level of self control, so therefore their lust can be managed by marriage.

This view is problematic and not in line with how the Church’s teaching has developed. The big thing is that Christ left people with a challenge not on celibacy but on divorce and remarriage. It spun the concept of adultery away from men not wanting to raise other men’s children and directed it onto the wellbeing of his wife. Women, for the most part, were financially dependent on men. One phrasing of Christ’s commandment states it this way:

But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt 5: 32)

So whereas, the other passages put equal responsibility on the man and the woman for remarrying, this passage blames the man divorcing his wife for causing her to commit adultery. How is the man at fault for his ex-wife’s adultery? Because women often found themselves having to find another husband or resorting to prostitution to make ends meet. This concern goes along with Christ’s concern for poor widows.

But Christ’s disciples challenged him on this because before divorce is usually a toxic or even abusive marriage. Overall, separating would seem a remedy for sin. They reason “Well, then it is better not to marry.” Likely, they’re challenging him there. Afterall, the solution to such conflict would seem to simply live as a married couple but without the commitment of marriage (like many couples do now to avoid divorce).

Instead, Christ says that no everyone can accept this word and that some are called to be eunuchs.

Christ’s response is strange and one that even St. Paul seems to wrestle with. His advice about not refusing sex he admits is a concession and does not come from Christ. This makes it similar to Moses’ concession to divorce.

 

[iwritebooks]

You really seem to be all over the place with this, seemingly suggesting that it’s okay to engage in oral sex to completion as long as you “love” someone, without saying it outright. Do you believe this?

No, I have quite clearly stated several times that there is a difference between thwarting sexual intercourse by resorting to oral or manual stimulation, and expressing your love to the fullest capacity you are able.

Coitus is not sex. It is a part of sex that sometimes happens and sometimes doesnt. In fact, I’d say when sex begins can be quite unclear. The notion that there is foreplay and then there’s sex is misleading. Sometimes you’re not very aroused to begin with and you have limited time, so there’s more deliberate effort. So you can definitely say “Yeah, this was when we started sex.” But even if you call the start of sex foreplay, that’s still sex. Because the beginning of sex is ambiguous, the question of how far is too far is important for dating couples and viewing it as simply avoiding masturbation and coitus is reductionistic. Heck, if you’re advocating no kissing before marriage because you can’t stop yourself from engaging in coitus or masturbation from just a kiss, you’re lack of chastity is abysmal.

But overall sex is something you surrender to. Controlling yourself sexually is like learning how to sail. There are a lot of factors you’re not in control of. And there is a difference between expressing yourself to your fullest ability and trying to avoid the procreative purpose of sex by thwarting intercourse. In fact, it is unclear how far is too far for charity sake when single even if masturbation isn’t tempting you. Stop obsessing over the orgasm. Appreciate the fullness of the act and stop micromanaging people.

 

[jeannetherese]

Likely, they’re challenging him there. Afterall, the solution to such conflict would seem to simply live as a married couple but without the commitment of marriage (like many couples do now to avoid divorce).

I wonder if you might not be reading this in light of 21st century U.S. millennial behavior rather than thinking about the times of Christ?
On what historical grounds do you find your interpretation of this passage to be the “likely” interpretation?

 

[jeannetherese]

Christ’s response is strange and one that even St. Paul seems to wrestle with. His advice about not refusing sex he admits is a concession

Have you Bible passages to connect this to? One for Our Lord and another for Saint Paul?

 

[iwritebooks]

I wonder if you might not be reading this in light of 21st century U.S. millennial behavior rather than thinking about the times of Christ?
On what historical grounds do you find your interpretation of this passage to be the “likely” interpretation?

The Jews saw marriage as a divine command for all. Whatever sexual immorality they were contemplating as a consequence of not marrying, they were not expecting Christ to talk about eunuchs and suggest that not all are called to be sexually active.

I believe what I said after that parenthesis was that they may have also been thinking prostitution since they didn’t already have a dating culture.

 

[iwritebooks]

Have you Bible passages to connect this to? One for Our Lord and another for Saint Paul?

I’m referring to Christ’s statements on divorce and remarriage as it is connected to his other comments about Eunich’s. This occurs on a few occassions in the scriptures which I have already quoted

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul is dealing with Christians who have written to him about “It is better that a man not touch a woman.” The advice he gives he admits is a moral concession and not a command from the Lord. Paul overall doesn’t give advice as good as Jesus. anywhere in the Epistles. At times, his marital advice is stuff that can encourage domestic violence and has been used to justify it. I don’t believe that was his intention, but he was not the Word made Flesh. If you’re just going to insist that Paul can say nothing wrong, well then you can’t say that slavery is a sin either.

I think if we can learn anything from God’s relationship with the Isrealites in the Old Testament, is that God can talk directly to you, and you’ll often not understand Him and screw around trying to get it right only to get it wrong, and yet God is still working through it all.

 

[Sophie111]

, isolated from it’s unitive and procreative purposes

What we have here, though, is a couple who is seeking the fullest expression of sexual expression as they are capable of giving each other…

I would think oral ejaculation is somewhat at odds with procreative purposes?

 

[ahs]

[By ahs] “You really seem to be all over the place with this, seemingly suggesting that it’s okay to engage in oral sex to completion as long as you “love” someone, without saying it outright. Do you believe this?”

[By iwritebooks] No.

Okay. Well, that’s the simple answer to the OP, then.

Coitus is not sex. It is a part of sex that…

You are overthinking it.

 

[Ryan1]

Whatever happened to the marriage covenant being sealed with a kiss?

 

[Ryan1]

Sodomy includes:

oral sex
anal sex
contraceptive sex/
masturbation/
onanism
bestiality

 

[Vico]

…

That’s a purpose Aquinas ascribes to marriage, not sex. And the root of his reasoning is that he views lust as sexual desire. Lust/sexual desire is bad. The holiest people are celibate, but not everyone has that level of self control, so therefore their lust can be managed by marriage.

This view is problematic and not in line with how the Church’s teaching has developed. …

The teaching of the Catholic Church today is that sexual pleasure in isolation is sinful – It must fulfill both purposes simultaneously. This is like St. Thomas Aquinas taught before in S.T. II, II, Q153 Lust:

“On the part of the will there results a twofold inordinate act. One is the desire for the end, to which we refer “self-love,” which regards the pleasure which a man desires inordinately, while on the other hand there is “hatred of God,” by reason of His forbidding the desired pleasure. The other act is the desire for the things directed to the end. With regard to this there is “love of this world,” whose pleasures a man desires to enjoy, while on the other hand there is “despair of a future world,” because through being held back by carnal pleasures he cares not to obtain spiritual pleasures, since they are distasteful to him.”

And Q49 (S.T. Supplement)

Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt, otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.

Catechism

Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.