Marital sexual relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blessed11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. According to St. Alphonsus, even mere oral genital contact in passing (while kissing many areas of the body), is “danger of pollution” (but not proximate danger). According to St. Alphonsus, it would only be justified to make oral genital contact in passing for grave reasons. Therefore, if a husband was going to harm his wife or commit adultery, the acts would only then be excused from sin. However, since healthy marriages should never involve danger of adultery, the reason for making this contact will almost never be grave. Therefore, in reality, it is almost always guaranteed to be a sin to even make oral genital contact in the first place, even in passing.
  2. Even if St. Alphonsus was wrong about intercourse other than sexual intercourse being proximate danger of pollution, would St. Alphonsus really be so wrong that it was no danger at all (while he thought it was proximate danger)? If so, why would Denzinger 2758 from the Holy See call him a “most learned expert” on Onanism, when he was really no expert at all, but had no clue about pollution/ danger thereof? And from the argument above, even if the act was merely “danger of pollution” (not proximate danger), then from this condition alone, it would still essentially never be justified except in grave circumstances like adultery.
  3. Up to this point I have only considered spilling the seed. I have not even considered undue modes of coition. Intercourse other than sexual intercourse is also unnatural. Therefore, you commit a most grievous sin by uniting in this way, by performing an unnatural act. Heterosexuals can perform sodomy too. If you do not know, or are greatly uncertain, whether an act is a Crime that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance (Catechism 1867), for which an entire city (Sodom), was destroyed for this crime, would you do it? NO!
 
Last edited:
It is also uncharitable and morally hypocritical to condemn these types of acts between same-sex people, even despite the disordered attraction between them, but then try to justify certain instances of unnatural acts within a Catholic marriage.
 
Now I’m dating myself and remembering the “honeymoon” episode from Mork and Mindy.
 
Could we have any clarification from @edward_george1 or any other clergy please? This thread is not going to end well. I’d also like to clear something up via DM if I could please Father ? Non urgent time frame but regarding this topic
 
Actually this thread for a moment made me wonder if converting was worth it if every thing you do all the Iive-long day seems to be a mortal sin. Also where do I stand with a non Catholic husband? It’s just a minefield. Also what about those with medical issues or where not everything works in a textbook way?
 
Thank you. I added the clarification “material mortal sin.” That is, an act willed which is grave matter by nature of its object. It is then an actual mortal sin if the act also has sufficient knowledge and consent, judged by God.
 
Last edited:
I just feel like I’ve made some major lifestyle changes already in such a short time and guess what ? Still ain’t enough and I’ll go to hell no matter how much I try. That’s honestly what I feel like sometimes on CAF. There is nothing I’ve ever done with my husband where I’ve thought this is wrong and I’m doing it anyway. I’ve always worked towards getting as close to church teaching as I can
 
Well that’s what I thought too! I feel in some ways I’ve stepped back spiritually since converting. I am less sure of my own salvation and worry more than I did.
 
I hope so. I really do. Thank you for your encouragement both of you
 
I am sorry that you have been so misinformed that you now have to make changes to your life. This is why I wish all our theologians could just get on the same page, so we do not mislead people, and then force them to have to make lifestyle changes from bad advice. Before I became a strong Catholic, I literally thought “waiting until marriage” was the only condition to be moral, but it isn’t. All we can do is hope and pray. We must trust in God’s Mercy and remember, God loves us so much.
 
Last edited:
Cirdan_XII said:
40.png
Tolle_Lege:
Traditional teaching - and nothing has been written to refute it - condemns any oral sex, sexual aids, manual stimulation, etc.
Click to expand...
Is this really so?

I’m reaching the age where, to put this in a delicate way because I know there may be young people reading, well, I’m reaching an age where the male sexual organ doesn’t respond as well as it used to and some manual stimulation is necessary to even get started …

So that’s a no go?
Click to expand...
The sex act is the totality of the sexual encounter between a man and woman, not just the moment of ejaculation. Under the false rigor proposed by some, kissing your wife almost anywhere is sinful.

This leads to a preposterous and almost comic scrupulosity which is not helpful for marital intimacy.

“Oral sex” (which is more accurately called oral stimulation if it is not a complete sex act…) has never been specifically addressed by the Church. Oral stimulation is never just for it’s own sake, anymore than any other foreplay, it should be ordered to a complete act of intercourse.

And this is a real and practical matter for me since I happen to have a spouse who is unable to achieve orgasm any other way, and that kind of stimulation aids in the completion of the act. So it can be part of a healthy marital relationship. And besides, it is also an occasion for joy, and part of my job as a husband is to provide. So…
 
Last edited:
goout said:
The sex act is the totality of the sexual encounter between a man and woman, not just the moment of ejaculation. Under the false rigor proposed by some, kissing your wife almost anywhere is sinful.
Click to expand...
Actually, under the false rigor proposed by some on this thread, the only chaste sex act would be immediate ejaculation after coitus starts.
 
We have a link to a video by a well known traditionalist priest on this thread where the good Father apparently teaches that it’s sinful to help a woman orgasm as part of foreplay… my question then is, what if it’s otherwise painful for her to complete the act and what if she is unable to orgasm during the act? It’s like I said earlier in the thread, some of these traditional Catholic views on sex seem to reduce it to a dirty but necessary mechanical “job” where it’s all about the man getting in and out as fast as he can. We have warnings from saints and popes of old that it’s sinful to enjoy sex “too much” as a married couple… so it kinda leaves you wondering “why bother?”
 
I disagree with this statement. Yes, it can be deduced that the Church has condemned these acts. I’ll do it right now.
  1. Denzinger 2044, from the Holy See, with Pope Alexander VII, is immediately below.
24. Voluptuousness, sodomy, and bestiality are sins of the same ultimate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that one has procured a pollution. -CONDEMNED
  1. Denzinger 3634 says that married heterosexuals can commit the Crime of the Sodomites.
What does this imply? Denzinger 2044, or 1124 in the old numbering (above), was condemning a decree from Juan Caramuel de Lobkowicz (the prince of the laxists according to St. Alphonsus. He was actually condemned for supporting theories akin to the “one rule.” He thought unnatural modes of copulation were not unnatural/ mortal sins). The decree above condemns this and shows that sodomy is not of the same species as pollution/ masturbatory acts. Therefore, given married heterosexuals can commit sodomy (from Denzinger 3634), and given sodomy cannot be confessed as a mere pollution (from Denzinger 2044), it must necessarily be wrong because of some other reason than pollution. This directly contradicts the “one rule theory” which states that heterosexual sodomy is only evil because it is an act of pollution/ spilling the seed. This shows that there are direct contradictions to the “one rule” in the Magisterium (there are many other contradictions as well).

Then what could make heterosexual sodomy different than pollution, since it does not suffice to confess a mere pollution/ masturbatory act?

Tradition, from St. Thomas, St. Augustine, St. Peter Damian, St. Albert the Great, to St. Alphonsus, thought that it was failing to observe the right manner of copulation that added the extra unnaturalness (beyond spilling the seed). If you take any other position, then you must argue what makes heterosexual sodomy different than mere pollution (masturbatory acts) in Denzinger 2044. Why did Pope Alexander VII think that sodomy (a subset of unnatural modes of copulation), could not be confessed in the same way that other “pollutions,” like spilling the seed with the hands of others, could be confessed. Like I have said, NNL has no explanation for why spilling the seed in a manner of intercourse, or spilling it with the hands of others, is any different, because it classifies all sexual acts that spill the seed in exactly the same way: as masturbatory acts. What makes sodomy of a different species for married couples is that it involves an undue mode of copulation. This can be defined roughly as: types of intercourse other than sexual intercourse (regardless of where this intercourse takes place in the body) Also, to repeat, the definition is “intercourse other than sexual intercourse.” It is more than a mere application of a hand or a foot!
 
Last edited:
Honestly, reading these posts and these quotes, it sounds like touching or kissing your spouse anywhere is a potential danger. Sex is described as a manual, tedious, yet dangerous duty that is almost always going to result in mortal sin.,. And certainly almost never result in any pleasure for the woman in particular.

If these posts represent authentic Catholic teaching, marriage is such a horrifying mine field of constant potential damnation, that if I wasn’t already married, I would want to flee from the very idea of marriage.

I can promise you one thing… if I ever shared this thread with my Protestant wife, she would divorce me quicker than you can blink.
 
Last edited:
To be honest…I’ve been Catholic my whole life and sometimes I need to take a step back from CAF.
 
Your posts are far more liberal than the more extreme views I was responding to. No touching of any sort that has even the smallest chance of “pollution” etc…

I recognize and appreciate that you said you personally disagree with the teaching that any sort of stimulation of the wife prior to intercourse is sinful.

As an aside, people make it sound so easy - “just decide to follow Church teaching”. A) as we have seen on this thread, there is a whole spectrum of interpretations of the Church’s teaching when it comes to specific acts. B) it takes two to tango. If your spouse isn’t 100% in agreement on any one of these issues, it can become very complicated.
 
Last edited:
Here’s the problem. The answer to the OP’s question is straightforward and simple. He must finish in the proper way. The reason why if needed is because that is how sex is ordered. To use sex in a disordered way is a sin. It has nothing to do with foreplay, oral stimulation or any other debated theological topics. And why we get into something that isn’t the subject or is a debated topic is odd. The OP is clear and do is the answer. It seems there are two types of people. Those who wish to carry the debate off subject into vague theology. And those who think that the Church is flexible in the OPs question. Why is it so hard for people who are married to just have sex!?
 
You are responsible for your actions in regard to your marital relations. If you have a non Catholic spouse what you do should not contradict your soul and faith. What he does is on him and it would be your job as his spouse to help him achieve heaven by gently trying to lead him to Christ. In layman’s terms, you could discuss why condoms are against the faith but he could use them. You however cannot use birth control. And I would hope that if you had a husband who loved and respected you he would not engage in acts with you that violated your conscience, enjoyment, and faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top