Marital, unitive, procreative

[onmyknees]

I guess what I’m saying is that there are still instances when killing another is allowed. However, there is never an instance when the other is allowed (and I’m not talking about accidental just as you arenot talking about accidental killing).

And to a certain extent I know it’s ridiculous to compare the two…but I guess that’s my point. If ejaculation outside actually killed life, then I would agree wholeheartedly…but we know that it doesn’t.

Potential for life is not the same as life. Just ask a pro-lifer who believes that life begins at conception and a pro-choicer who says it’s not life…it’s potential for life. Two very different things.

baylee,

Ejaculation outside the wife is not murder but it is a form of contraception which is killing the possibility of creating life. When a married couple comes together in the marital embrace an immortal soul may be created by God at that very moment. When they contracept they are slamming the door in God’s face.

Maybe this will help you more, And Mary said: “Behold I am the handmade of the Lord; let it be done unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). And then, “the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us” (John 1:14)

 

[onmyknees]

It seems that context can matter in very specific ways, so it is reasonable that certain acts of manual or oral stimulation, when done to promote the marital act, could become natural within the context of marriage.

carinapir,
I totally agree with you that it is ok for manual and oral stimulation to be done within the context of marital relations and ending with the life giving act. I am sorry I was responding to baylee when he said that he did not understand why it was wrong to ejaculate outside of the wife.

 

[John21652]

baylee,

Ejaculation outside the wife is not murder but it is a form of contraception which is killing the possibility of creating life. When a married couple comes together in the marital embrace an immortal soul may be created by God at that very moment. When they contracept they are slamming the door in God’s face.

Maybe this will help you more, And Mary said: “Behold I am the handmade of the Lord; let it be done unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). And then, “the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us” (John 1:14)

And what if you just can’t help it?

 

[baylee]

baylee,

Ejaculation outside the wife is not murder but it is a form of contraception which is killing the possibility of creating life. When a married couple comes together in the marital embrace an immortal soul may be created by God at that very moment. When they contracept they are slamming the door in God’s face.

But when a man ejaculates outside of his wife he is not purposely contracepting. It is not done in the same spirit as the use of artificial contraception while having intercourse (where the intent is not to conceive). I see these two things very differently.

 

[FiberZilla]

… of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

… snip…

The absence of climax does not cause an intrinsically evil sexual act to become moral because the moral object remains unchanged; the moral object is the sole determinant of the moral species of any deliberately chosen act. The result called sexual climax is a consequence in the third font, and so it does not affect the moral object in the second font.

1. circumstances - the circumstance that the unnatural act lacks sexual climax does not change the moral object from evil to good; the circumstance that the wife cannot achieve sexual climax without the aforementioned act does not change the moral object from evil to good. No circumstance or context can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Pop .

Where is any of this in scriture???

I’m sorry, but this stuff renders sex completely devoid of even a shread of the physical and emotional pleasure which is the driving force behind a good climax in the first place! If for some strange reason a person is still able to experience one after reading this stuff, the heavy guilt is guaranteed to be not far behind! It makes a lot of people hate their sexuality Ron.

God did not design sex to be drowned in such a cloud of darkness and shame.

 

[onmyknees]

But when a man ejaculates outside of his wife he is not purposely contracepting. It is not done in the same spirit as the use of artificial contraception while having intercourse (where the intent is not to conceive). I see these two things very differently.

If the man ejaculates outside of his wife accidentally it is not contracepting nor is it a sin. But if he does this on purpose than it is contracepting.

 

[OraLabora]

If the man ejaculates outside of his wife accidentally it is not contracepting nor is it a sin. But if he does this on purpose than it is contracepting.

And if the marriage is (naturally or through medical necessity) sterile? You can’t contracept what’s impossible.

 

[PaulinVA]

And if the marriage is (naturally or through medical necessity) sterile? You can’t contracept what’s impossible.

The point here is that the act has to be ordered towards procreation. If you have an oops outside where you should be, it’s simply an accident unless you did it on purpose.

It doesn’t matter if you are fertile or not.

 

[OraLabora]

The point here is that the act has to be ordered towards procreation. If you have an oops outside where you should be, it’s simply an accident unless you did it on purpose.

It doesn’t matter if you are fertile or not.

And of course it means if you are impotent or your wife is unable to receive you, even if the disability is permanent, you’re out of luck.

I’m afraid I don’t see how that can be unitive at all.

I can certainly understand it theoretically.

 

[PaulinVA]

And of course it means if you are impotent or your wife is unable to receive you, even if the disability is permanent, you’re out of luck.

I’m afraid I don’t see how that can be unitive at all.

I can certainly understand it theoretically.

Well, you need both aspects, the unitive and the procreative.

I think the Church sees it simply as a cross to bear; we are all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus.

 

[OraLabora]

Well, you need both aspects, the unitive and the procreative.

I think the Church sees it simply as a cross to bear; we are all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus.

Except in this case, it’s rather the Church imposing the cross. It’s as if you had a stroke and the Church said it was immoral to use a can or a walker.

 

[PaulinVA]

Except in this case, it’s rather the Church imposing the cross. It’s as if you had a stroke and the Church said it was immoral to use a can or a walker.

No, the Church says that certain things are True.

Sometimes following the Truth is hard.

We have a theology that interlocks, that makes sense in all cases. It isn’t relativistic or situational.

 

[LittleDeb]

And of course it means if you are impotent or your wife is unable to receive you, even if the disability is permanent, you’re out of luck.

I’m afraid I don’t see how that can be unitive at all.

I can certainly understand it theoretically.

The other part that is often missed is an that oral or manual act to ejaculation isn’t a unitive act. That is where the main difference in biology enters the discussion. An oral act that ends in orgasm for the wife during marital relations is a completely *different *act than an oral act to ejaculation for the husband.

If we were just talking about pleasure, or if the biology were the same, it would be a different discussion. But Church teaching has always followed natural law. God made the design. The Church can only pass on the message She has received. She has no authority to edit the message. She has no authority to re-design the design.

This is precisely why theories such as Mr. Conte can gain ground. His theory holds that an oral act to orgasm for the wife during marital relations is an *unnatural *act. At the same time, there are folks here who are fighting to say that vaginal penetration with a condom separating the couple is a *natural *act!

It is only contraceptive acts that are unnatural acts. That is the *definition *of an unnatural act because it is neither procreative or unitive. People can argue till the cows come home that an act with a condom is unitive. It isn’t. Condom using couples have the same divorce rate as any other type of contracepting couples. Contraception is contraception and it destroys marriage. Abstinence can bring couples to greater holiness. It is only their response to abstinence that is a negative.

 

[Paul1961]

… Abstinence can bring couples to greater holiness. .

But is much much more likely to tear them apart.

Lack of “unity”(sex) usually leads to isolation and destroys marriages. Let’s not pretend it’s a good thing.

 

[baylee]

Well, you need both aspects, the unitive and the procreative.

I think the Church sees it simply as a cross to bear; we are all called to pick up our cross and follow Jesus.

As if infertility isn’t cross enough.

 

[PaulinVA]

As if infertility isn’t cross enough.

Are we supposed to say,“This is the Truth, unless it’s really, really, hard to live”?

I know these are hard. Life is hard. I am very sorry for people who live with these kinds of issues.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The cross is entirely hypothetical and will never occur in real life. One of the best books on sexual ethics, Contemporary Moral Theology Volume II Marriage Questions by John C. Ford goes into this problem in detail.

archive.org/stream/contemporarymora012987mbp#page/n223/mode/2up

It will never occur in real life because partial insemination is all that is needed for the sexual act to be properly ordered.

 

[PaulinVA]

The cross is entirely hypothetical and will never occur in real life. One of the best books on sexual ethics, Contemporary Moral Theology Volume II Marriage Questions by John C. Ford goes into this problem in detail.

archive.org/stream/contemporarymora012987mbp#page/n223/mode/2up

It will never occur in real life because partial insemination is all that is needed for the sexual act to be properly ordered.

Thank you for the reference…

Page 224 -

"Mutual incomplete acts which are not immediately preparatory for intercourse but take place at other times are not illicit per se; they too are virtuous and meritorious when used in moderation.

At the vary least, it can be said, according to solid theological authority, that incomplete mutual acts of married persons, whether in immediate preparation for intercourse or at other times, are never gravely sinful as violations of chastity unless they include a serious and unjustifiable risk of orgasm outside the marriage act."

Wow. Oh, and it has the Imprimatur. I think the OP needs to respond to this…

 

[LittleDeb]

But is much much more likely to tear them apart.

Lack of “unity”(sex) usually leads to isolation and destroys marriages. Let’s not pretend it’s a good thing.

Abstinence can be a *very *good thing. It is only how the couple responds to it that is in question. When one partner forces abstinence on the other, it certainly can tear them apart. But that is not what the Church asks of us.

I second what PaulinVA said. Truth is Truth.

I can give you a list as long as my arm as when abstinence can draw a couple closer and how it brings them to greater holiness. Just because some people have decided that sex defines their marriage doesn’t make it true. It just means that they have not embraced sacrifice.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

No, the Church says that certain things are True.

Sometimes following the Truth is hard.

We have a theology that interlocks, that makes sense in all cases. It isn’t relativistic or situational.

Just because the Catholic Church says something is true DOES NOT make it true. The Catholic Church is not God; and the Catholic Church does not define truth.