Marital sexual relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blessed11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In St Augustine defense, his views are most often misrepresented in these discussions.
 
Tolle_Lege said:
Traditional teaching - and nothing has been written to refute it - condemns any oral sex, sexual aids, manual stimulation, etc. Many try to “loophole” out of this situation by drawing out the definition of “sexual act” to include all sorts of unnatural sexual stimulation methods that take place prior to the man finishing through vaginal intercourse. As if our Lord and Lady would approve of hours long unnatural stimulation, using sex toys, a woman demeaning herself by allowing her husband’s reproductive organ into places it doesn’t belong, etc.
Click to expand...
This (mis)understanding is part of what gives the Church such a bad reputation on this topic, This is not what the Church teaches at all. Stimulation of some sort is most always required. Women don’t just get lubricated and ready to go by looking into the eyes of their husband, usually. At least not after the honeymoon period.

Sorry to be so graphic, but stimulation is a must for a healthy sex life. Yes, even for a married Catholic couple.
 
Last edited:
It’s a little more complex than that in our case but thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut 🙂 I’ve spoken to a priest and have a good idea of what I need to do
 
In fact you know what - I’m going to share something very personal for any people who are new converts or maybe wondering about a ‘mixed’ marriage catholic/non. I converted, three years after my marriage to a non Catholic Christian. During my second confession I told the priest I still had a contraceptive implant and was it wrong to take communion until I have it removed (nexplanon) and he said ‘you’re still tying up loose ends from before you’re a catholic. You can have communion as long as you’re open to life’ - the upshot of the conversation was that there was the expectation to have it removed in due course (which I did ). Priests are so much more realistic and human about it all than you will ever expect them to be. I’ve never felt judged by a priest in my life. Every confession is so positive and helpful. Here I struggle sometimes. There are people here I would honestly not want to meet in real life if they are the same as they are online. But as John Wesley once said ‘I look upon the world as my parish’. (Couldn’t resist, am a former Methodist as was the priest I confessed to ). We were both converts 🙂
 
Last edited:
Great! There are so many different situations that there is not really a canned answer.
 
I try to be respectful as I am so new - but I must say I sometimes feel like I want to break out the hallelujahs and yes I’m saved side of me from the past and then remember where I am 😆 I honestly thought however much rejoicing there is in the non denom churches it must be times a million in the original church . I don’t always see it. But then my introvert self kicks in and enjoys the mystery and the scholarly side and the work of le maitre and Jenner in science and that’s deeper and more real. And also I love cemeteries and I found out you can do partial indulgences by praying in a cemetery for the dead and I love that. I am a goth on the inside I’m sure 😆
 
alphonsus1 said:
I disagree with this statement. Yes, it can be deduced that the Church has condemned these acts. I’ll do it right now.

…
Click to expand...
This is all a far stretch at fitting the issue into Church doctrinal teaching, which it demonstrably does not fit into. You are connecting a lot of dots by opinion.
Your assertion that the Church teaches oral stimulation between married partners as part of well ordered marital act is immoral…does not hold water.
 
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
Tolle_Lege:
Traditional teaching - and nothing has been written to refute it - condemns any oral sex, sexual aids, manual stimulation, etc. Many try to “loophole” out of this situation by drawing out the definition of “sexual act” to include all sorts of unnatural sexual stimulation methods that take place prior to the man finishing through vaginal intercourse. As if our Lord and Lady would approve of hours long unnatural stimulation, using sex toys, a woman demeaning herself by allowing her husband’s reproductive organ into places it doesn’t belong, etc.
Click to expand...
This (mis)understanding is part of what gives the Church such a bad reputation on this topic, This is not what the Church teaches at all. Stimulation of some sort is most always required. Women don’t just get lubricated and ready to go by looking into the eyes of their husband, usually. At least not after the honeymoon period.

Sorry to be so graphic, but stimulation is a must for a healthy sex life. Yes, even for a married Catholic couple.
Click to expand...
Good observations…
 
Last edited:
halogirl said:
There are people here I would honestly not want to meet in real life if they are the same as they are online. But as John Wesley once said ‘I look upon the world as my parish’. (Couldn’t resist, am a former Methodist as was the priest I confessed to ). We were both converts 🙂
Click to expand...
I think you address one of the fundamental problems of this forum.

I am sure most of us are probably quite OK to meet in real life, but sometimes the anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in people. It’s often not so much what they say but the negatitivity of the tone. I would have thought that this forum being about Catholicism and connected topics, that would happen less than on other forums. But unfortunately that is not always so.
 
Why does it matter if their in their late 50s? Not like she will get pregnant. It isn’t interrupting any pattern because there is no pattern possibly to be interrupted.
 
The reason why it is wrong is not really tied to the fertility.

Just to play devils advocate, if they are in their late 50s then what is the possible reason to finish outside of the intended way?
 
What? You do realise that this is the kind of attitude that Monty Python satirised in '‘Every Sperm is Sacred’? I would post a link, but it would be deleted.
 
Pope Pius 12 says that neither the husband nor the wife may “complete” the sexual act outside of natural intercourse, for this is always intrinsically evil and against nature.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...ocuments/hf_p-xii_spe_19560519_fertilita.html

Saint Alphonsus says it’s a mortal sin to commit sodomy, even as foreplay, in which the husband climaxes later, during natural relations. And he condemns the idea that the wife or husband can bring the wife to climax after the husband withdraws.
On Matrimony, Book VI, Q. 916, 919
 
Oral sex isn’t allowed. Oral stimulation is allowed. Stop conflating the terms, its confusing people.

Go by the book Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West.

We have this question come up every few weeks. The answer is ALWAYS the same. Oral stimulation is okay, oral sex is not.
 
Last edited:
This is false. The entire purpose of Denzinger 2044 from Pope Alexander VII was to condemn Juan Caramuel de Lobkowicz’s “one rule” that sodomy is of the same species as masturbatory acts, procuring a pollution. This is what the pope was condemning. Therefore, the “one rule” must be false. The Holy See was not using this theory in the 1660s. Period. Then what could possibly make heterosexual sodomy different than pollution? Tradition answers this question: it is an undue mode of copulation.

Why trust Lobkowicz, who according to St. Alphonsus was the “Prince of the Laxists,” over the Doctors of the Church: St. Alphonsus, St. Peter Damian, St. Thomas, St. Albert the Great, and St. Augustine? Lobkowicz could probably make the record for holding the most positions that the Holy See then condemned. His positions in Denzinger 2044, 2149, 2150, etc, all over the place, were all condemned.

I must ask again, why would you go with Lobkowicz over the Holy See? People falsely claim a consistent orthodox tradition supporting the one rule. Almost every single theologian listed in St. Alphonsus’s Moral Theology claiming that these acts were not mortal sins, were condemned as laxists: Thomas Sanchez was condemned in Denzinger 2125, Tommaso Tamburini was condemned in Denz. 2125 (among other places), Caramuel was condemned in Denz. 2142, Antonio Diana was condemned in Denz. 2154, Martin de Azpilcueta was condemned in Denz. 2033, Marchant was condemned in Denz. 2065. Why are you trusting these laxist authors condemned by the Holy See in the 1600-1700s? Why not trust Saint Alphonsus, who was not condemned by the Holy See? (Rather, in Denzinger 2725, St. Alphonsus received absolutely astounding Magisterial affirmation. The decree said that the Holy See found nothing worthy of censure in his works and that you could safely hold his positions without weighing the arguments on either side. Wow, just wow.
 
Last edited:
@ScouseGirl
You are correct! I was born in 1940 and taught, Catholic HS pre Vatican II, as long as the act is open to procreation and acceptable to both partners it is permitted. What you are hearing is a bunch of Catholic Pharisees wanting to micro manage people’s sex lives. IMO they can do what they want but shouldn’t try to burden others with their rules. In addition, you will be judged by what is in your heart and mind not what is in a rule book!
 
alphonsus1 said:
This is incorrect. I will keep coming up with Magisterial contradictions to the one rule, until people stop supporting unnatural acts.

The Holy See in Denzinger 2715, 2758, 2795, and 3634, all say that a wife can cooperate with the Crime of Onan, even though her husband plans on spilling the seed. If sex acts were moral based on their ordering to insemination (at the end of the act), then given the husband is all three (intending, anticipating, and planning) on spilling the seed, his sexual intercourse before his Crime of Onan would be non-procreative and therefore intrinsically evil. This is because the supposed “one rule” by definition says that sex acts are intrinsically evil if you do them while intending/ planning/ anticipating spilling the seed. Since sex acts require two people, the wife would then be formally cooperating in the evil of her husband, so should not be able to cooperate. Denzinger 2715, 2758, 2795, and 3634 all say the exact opposite: that the wife can cooperate for grave reason in the Crime of Onan. Therefore, the Holy See could not have possibly been using the “one rule.” Otherwise, they would have said: stimulation before Onan is intrinsically evil since the husband plans on ending the act wrong. He is planning on spilling the seed. Therefore, it is also intrinsically evil for the wife to knowingly cooperate. The very definition of formal cooperation with evil according to the National Catholic Bioethics Center: formal cooperation happens when a person, for the sake of a good aim, establishes the structure (procedure, protocol, or contractual agreement) by which a specifically described immoral action will take place, grants formal approval to an immoral action, or wills the principal agent’s evil action as the means for achieving some other good.

The wife would directly giving aid to an intrinsically evil act, since sex acts cannot occur without two people. Therefore, if it is intrinsically evil for one participant, the husband, and the wife knows this, then it is also intrinsically evil for her as well. Conclusion: the “one rule” contradicts the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
You are distorting the teaching of the Catholic Church. Are you doing that intentionally?
Maybe we should start a thread on the morality of causing scandal.
 
People need to stop coloring the Church’s Teachings to support what they want. Stop making this a big scene and confusing people.

Oral stimulation is fine. Oral sex is not. Once again, read Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West. There is a section devoted to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top