Marital, unitive, procreative

[FiberZilla]

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life. To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. This threefold meaning of the marital act is the moral object of sexual relations. If any one or more of these three meanings is absent in any sexual act, then the moral object is evil and the sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are non-procreative, intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances, even within marriage. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be justified as a type of foreplay in order to prepare for the natural marital act because the end never justifies the means. And the absence of sexual climax does not change an intrinsically evil, gravely immoral, unnatural sexual act into an act that is good or morally defensible.

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men… by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife… But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

“And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).

“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ [vessel, orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 54)

“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 61)

“For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 21)

Contrast anyone?

*How beautiful your sandaled feet,
O prince’s daughter!
Your graceful legs are like jewels,
the work of a craftsman’s hands.

2 Your navel is a rounded goblet
that never lacks blended wine.
Your waist is a mound of wheat
encircled by lilies.

3 Your breasts are like two fawns,
twins of a gazelle.

4 Your neck is like an ivory tower.
Your eyes are the pools of Heshbon
by the gate of Bath Rabbim.
Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon
looking toward Damascus.

5 Your head crowns you like Mount Carmel.
Your hair is like royal tapestry;
the king is held captive by its tresses.

6 How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
O love, with your delights!

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.

8 I said, “I will climb the palm tree;
I will take hold of its fruit.”
May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
the fragrance of your breath like apples,

9 and your mouth like the best wine.

Beloved
May the wine go straight to my lover,
flowing gently over lips and teeth.
10 I belong to my lover,
and his desire is for me.

11 Come, my lover, let us go to the countryside,
let us spend the night in the villages.

12 Let us go early to the vineyards
to see if the vines have budded,
if their blossoms have opened,
and if the pomegranates are in bloom—
there I will give you my love.

13 The mandrakes send out their fragrance,
and at our door is every delicacy,
both new and old,
that I have stored up for you, my lover.

(Song of Solomon 7:1-13)*

:coolinoff:

 

[Ron_Conte]

1. Marital Act. Surely you don’t mean the outward sacrament of marriage is required here. How many sacramental marriages do you believe occurred the moment after Christ’s death? Not very many.

There are two types of marriage, natural marriage and the Sacrament of Marriage. Those unbaptized persons who have natural marriage have the marital meaning, and so they are not committing fornication or adultery by having natural relations with their spouse. A baptized couple can have the Sacrament of Marriage (which includes natural marriage), but they cannot have a merely natural marriage.

1. Unitive. Then tell us exactly what sexual behavior does not qualify. Oral sex? Masturbation of a partner? Come on. We are adults here. We just want to understand what your interpretation is of non-unitive behavior.

The unitive and procreative meanings are inherently joined by God, so that any type of sexual act that is non-procreative is also non-unitive, e.g. oral, anal, or manipulative sexual acts.

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men… by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ [vessel, orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

1. Procreative. Women past menopause cannot have children. Neither can sterile couples. Is sex forbidden for these folks then?

The type of sexual act must be inherently ordered toward procreation. The procreative meaning is in the moral object. But an act derives its moral species not from attaining the moral object, but from being inherently ordered toward that moral object. So if a couple uses contraception, but they conceive a child anyway, the sexual act was gravely immoral because it was not ordered toward procreation (it was a contracepted sexual act). But if a post-menopausal wife has natural intercourse with her husband, the act is not contracepted; it is the type of act inherently directed at procreation, even though it does not attain procreation, and so it is moral.

 

[Bookcat]

q. is touching of the genitals of ones spouse permitted within the context of the marital act.

a. yes.

q. is it permitted to the point where the husband has climax outside of the “actual marital embrace”?

a. no

 

[Ron_Conte]

q. is touching of the genitals of ones spouse permitted within the context of the marital act.

a. yes.

q. is it permitted to the point where the husband has climax outside of the “actual marital embrace”?

a. no

Your post summarizes one of the problems with this issue in the works of some theologians, they state that one act is moral and another act is immoral: Yes, it is. No, it is not. But they do not give a theological basis for this claim. The words of Augustine and Aquinas are ignored. The basic principles of moral theology are absent. They make no reference at all to any magisterial documents. And many of the above posts on this subject by various posters have the same fault. A position is stated without any basis.

My posts on this subject offer quotes from Saints, from magisterial documents, and from Scripture, with my interpretation and theological arguments.

[Hebrews 13]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

 

[Bookcat]

Your post summarizes one of the problems with this issue in the works of some theologians, they state that one act is moral and another act is immoral: Yes, it is. No, it is not. But they do not give a theological basis for this claim. The words of Augustine and Aquinas are ignored. The basic principles of moral theology are absent. They make no reference at all to any magisterial documents. And many of the above posts on this subject by various posters have the same fault. A position is stated without any basis.

My posts on this subject offer quotes from Saints, from magisterial documents, and from Scripture, with my interpretation and theological arguments.

[Hebrews 13]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

I was summerizing what is the case in an aspect that was discussed in this thread. One does not have to repeat all that goes into such an understanding in Catholic Moral Theology. Some need clarity brought to the issue. In simplicity.

 

[PaulinVA]

My posts on this subject offer quotes from Saints, from magisterial documents, and from Scripture, with my interpretation and theological arguments.

[Hebrews 13]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

Yes, but quoting copiously from many good sources and using them to advance theories that the writers of those same sources did not make is likewise flawed.

I have read your posts on other subjects (use of ABC by a married couple that is still having relations) and find them persuasive even though I originally disagreed with you. But in this area I fear you are adding 2 plus 2 and getting x, which you define as something totally different from everyone else.

I think the discussion on foreplay and allowable touching is pretty much over unless someone finds a persuasive argument to change your mind, or you find something persuasive to change minds.

 

[Antrim]

I want to clear something up here that people are having trouble with and it is about the male ejackulation.
In the foreplay and during stimulation if the husband ejackulates intenionally it is a sin if it happens by accident it is not.
However oral and manual stimulation of the Penis to the point of orgasm is forbidden.
The man must orgasm in the woman at all times.

Antrim

 

[Antrim]

Ron
Do you disagree with Father Chad Ripperger.
Are you saying that he is not teaching true faith and morals in Sacramental Mariage?

Antrim

 

[Lauds]

I disagree with him

 

[Antrim]

Lauds
Why do you disagree with Father Chad?
Explain.
Bear in mind he is a franciscan Priest and a theologin.
Do you always disagree with people because they dont say what you think they should say right or wrong?
I worry about people like you who disagree with a priest like Father Chad because he is teaching the truth. If it was not the truth he would not be allowed to teach it.
Show me where you disgree with Father and where you disagree is backed by the Catholic Church.
Prove to me where he is wrong.

Antrim

 

[Prime]

Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. The end does not justify the means. Some acts of foreplay are moral, and other acts of foreplay are immoral. No act is justified merely because it is used as a type of foreplay. Each knowingly chosen act must stand on its own as to its morality.

Mere touching of private parts is not necessarily immoral. But any touching which is masturbatory, with or without climax, is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts, with or without sexual climax, are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, and such acts do not become moral by being done within marriage, nor by being done before or after natural marital relations open to life.

The only moral** per se sexual act** is natural marital relations open to life (any sexual position that is inherently procreative) – Tab A in Slot B, as you put it. In other words, every use of the genital sexual faculty must be marital, unitive, procreative.

I hesitated at first before I was about to type this reply. But as already stated in many apologetics, the marital act is likened to the sacrifice of the Mass: a sacrifice of love.
Now my reply:
Suppose we apply your doctrine to the liturgical activities of the Mass. We can also rule that any activity prior to the Consecration would all be ‘unnatural acts’ because if taken by themselves they have nothing to do with the process of Transubstantiation: the gospel readings, the homily and the offertory - since they don’t fit inside the procedure of Consecration where bread and wine are transubstantiated into body and blood of our Lord, they will all be unacceptable by themselves. By your rule, the readings and the offerings by themselves are “unnatural” because “No act is justified merely because it is used as a type of foreplay”.
Or will you just simply rule that we must only go directly to Consecration and skip the preparatory liturgical activities?

 

[LittleDeb]

And please Ron, please stop putting the terms out of order and then redefine them. You do that over and over.

Procreation is always supposed to be listed before unity as it is the *primary *purpose of the marriage act. The *secondary *purpose is unity. (and the tertiary is a cure for concupiscence.)

Procreation has always meant exactly as it is defined "ordered towards creation." If I have to put up with one more person telling an infertile couple that their act is not “procreative” I think I will scream. The act is always procreative as long as it is not ordered otherwise. Only God knows precisely if procreation has taken place. (FYI the word “procreation” has become a euphemism in our vernacular.)

To create new life is the primary *purpose *of the marriage act. Success can only be measured *after *the act.

Please show me Ron, exactly how the ECFs describe licit sexual arousal for the sole purpose of procreation. When you rule out oral stimulation you rule out kissing. Tell me please, exactly what spot on my husband’s body am I forbidden to kiss?

(Thank you Fiberzilla for reminding us all exactly where foreplay **is **spelled out. for Song of Solomon!!! :extrahappy: )

 

[LittleDeb]

“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men… by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife… But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

“And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).

“Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the ‘vas’ [vessel, orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

“Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

“No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 54)

“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 61)

“For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.” (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 21)

Amen to the quotes!!

But you are using them to prove something that does not exist in the original. Not once in any of the above quotes is foreplay ever defined. You keep defining foreplay as an “unnatural act.” Your opinions might make someone very confused. Please STOP!!!

Manual stimulation, and oral stimulation are NOT interchangeable with masturbation and so-called “oral sex.” They are NOT the same things!!!

Pope John Paul II went into actual *detail *in his many writings over the years. He would be aghast at what you are doing with some of his quotes. Masturbation and “oral sex” are used to **mimic **the marital act. Manual and oral stimulation are *preparation *for the marital act. HUGE, HUGE, HUGE difference!!

Your status as single is not at issue here, since our late Holy Father was celibate and *he *knew the difference. But the fact that **you **do not know the difference disqualifies **you **from teaching on it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I’ll reply to several posts above without quoting each one.

Some posters seem to be saying that it is wrong to quote from various sources, Saints, Scripture, Magisterium, and then argue to a conclusion. But this process that you are rejecting is called theology. I am making a theological argument. If you disagree, you might attempt to make a theological argument of your own.

The beliefs of the Catholic Faith are not confined to explicit teachings of the Magisterium. The truths of the Faith include everything found explicitly and implicitly in Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. So one cannot argue that because the Magisterium has not stated one particular point or another in explicit terms that the idea is not a teaching of the Church.

But on this point, I argue that my conclusion is merely a proper interpretation of the magisterial texts. It is not a complex or extensive argument. A proper understanding of the three fonts, the moral object of sexual relations, and the teaching of the magisterium on the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings makes this conclusion about the immorality of unnatural sexual acts clear.

Some general points:

1. It is not true that the private theology of Pope John Paul II has settled, or even addressed this question explicitly.
2. Everyone cites his private theology of the body, but no one cites his authoritative encyclical on ethics: Veritatis Splendor. If you have not studied that document, you should not be claiming to understand ethics.
3. Some posters unfortunately reply with ad hominem arguments; I generally just ignore this type of comment.
4. Some posters speak as if they must be right because several other posters agree with them. Most of you post anonymously, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with that, surely you do not expect other members or non-member readers to be convinced of your point of view, without a theological argument, merely because a group of anonymous persons agree.
5. Some posters speak in a condescending manner, as if they were speaking with authority, or as if they were necessarily correct, without a theological argument.
6. I am writing theology, I am not teaching with authority. You are free to disagree, but if you have no theological arguments, but merely a collection of comments on the topic, you should not be claiming that the question has been settled.
7. Many of the arguments presented in posts above state a premise, but do not establish it with quotes or a theological argument. Some posts above merely state a conclusion and support it with mere rhetoric.
8. West does not offer a theologial argument on this point. Neither does Fr. Ripperger; he merely cites unnamed moralists. I believe the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium. I also will accept a sound theological argument based on TSM. An assertion without either is not compelling.
9. It is absurd to claim that an assertion must be true because it is in a book with the imprimatur. Many books of theology have the imprimatur, and if you read enough of these books, you soon realize that they often contradict one another on matters of faith and morals. There are certainly errors on faith and morals in books with the imprimatur. And no theologian ever argues that a particular point in question must be true because it is in a book with the imprimatur.
10. It is absurd to claim that an assertion must be true because it is made by a priest, or it is made by a theologian with a good reputation. This is a pro hominem argument. One can easily point to theologial errors on substantial matters of faith and morals in the writings of Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and even the private theology of Popes. And neither is it true that if a theologian or priest were mistaken on a point, that he would be corrected by the Magisterium. Only rarely does the Holy See publicly correct a theologian or priest for theological errors, and then only if the errors are very severe.
11. The argument that the marital sexual act is like the sacrifice of the Mass, and that unnatural sexual acts are like the prayers before the sacrifice is absurd, is not based on Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, is not based on a proper understanding of moral theology, and is offensive to the holy Mass. There is no support for this idea in Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.

 

[FiberZilla]

And please Ron, please stop putting the terms out of order and then redefine them. You do that over and over.

Procreation is always supposed to be listed before unity as it is the *primary *purpose of the marriage act. The *secondary *purpose is unity. (and the tertiary is a cure for concupiscence.)

Procreation has always meant exactly as it is defined "ordered towards creation." If I have to put up with one more person telling an infertile couple that their act is not “procreative” I think I will scream. The act is always procreative as long as it is not ordered otherwise. Only God knows precisely if procreation has taken place. (FYI the word “procreation” has become a euphemism in our vernacular.)

To create new life is the primary *purpose *of the marriage act. Success can only be measured *after *the act.

Please show me Ron, exactly how the ECFs describe licit sexual arousal for the sole purpose of procreation. When you rule out oral stimulation you rule out kissing. Tell me please, exactly what spot on my husband’s body am I forbidden to kiss?

(Thank you Fiberzilla for reminding us all exactly where foreplay **is **spelled out. for Song of Solomon!!! :extrahappy: )

You are welcome! The Song of Solomon is one of the most beautiful expressions of sexual pleasure ever written in the history of mankind.

I stand firmly with the Catholic Church on the sanctity of marriage, abortion, end of life and homosexuality issues. But on certain matters, these self appointed authorities often overstep the bounds of moral guidance and good sense.

Nowhere in the Bible can one find such obsessive, legalistic intrusion on the physical intimacy that is to be shared between a husband and wife of faith. Sex is being treated as a necessary evil. One must wonder how many god fearing catholics experience shame and guilt as a result of the physical pleasure they might have experienced immediately after or even during sex.

There seems to be this no-win situation when it comes to the physically pleasurable aspect of sex. One look through these forums is proof that many good people are suffering terribly with an unhealthy fixation on all of the sexual legalism that has been set up by celibate clergymen to the point where there is no room left for pleasure that the Almighty has designed into our sexual being.

Catholic Authors like Popcak and Christopher West can say what they want, but sexual legalism is always there lurking in the background. A Hatian father of 9 hungry children spends ten days digging in the rubble of the earthquake looking for survivors is tired but wants to be with his wife tonight. If he uses a condom he commits mortal sin? It’s all a bit creepy.

 

[John21652]

May I join you?

 

[Ron_Conte]

LittleDeb,

You are making a series of baseless assertions, with the assumption that your understanding is correct, but without a theological argument, and without any citations to support what you are saying. And you have no authority to tell me to stop saying one thing or another.

The Church does not teach that terminology or ideas need to be presented in a particular order, or that procreation needs to be listed first.

Casti Connubii presents primary and secondary ends only, and the secondary ends are several: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

The primary end, as Humanae Vitae makes clear, is the single threefold moral object of sexual relations, which is marital, unitive, procreative. The order in which the terms are listed does not matter. Although the procreation of children is the primary purpose of marriage as a whole (without which the human race would not exist), every sexual act must have all three elements in its moral object: marital, unitive, procreative. Also, the importance of procreation makes it all the more clear that non-procreative acts are intrinsically evil.

Your posts do not show any understanding of the three fonts of morality, nor especially of the moral object. The same is true for most of the other posters above. Your arguments on ethics are not convincing because you are ignoring the teachings of the Magisterium on the basic principles of moral theology, especially intrinsic evil and the moral object.

The moral object of sexual relations is marital, unitive, procreative. Any sexual act not inherently ordered to that threefold end is intrinsically evil because of a deprivation in the moral object. Kissing and hugging and other moral forms of foreplay (but not sexual acts) do not need to have that moral object because they are not sexual acts. And a sexual act of any kind which lacks any of those three goods in the moral object is not justified by being used as a form of foreplay.

An intrinsically evil act does not become moral by being labeled foreplay, nor by being used as an evil means to the good end of natural marital relations. The end does not justify the means.

Oral or manual stimulation of the genitals to the point of sexual climax is intrinsicaly evil because these acts are non-procreative sexual acts; the moral object is evil. (Neither are these acts truly marital or truly unitive in the eyes of God.) If sexual climax does not occur, the moral object remains the same. Sexual climax is a consequence in the third font, not the moral object in the second font. This type of unnatural sexual act is not comparable to kissing and is not a moral form of foreplay because it is a use of the genital sexual faculty that is non-procreative. Each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative.

This teaching does not rule out licit foreplay; it only rules out unnatural sexual acts. It is absurd to claim that a Christian husband and wife will be unable to have natural marital relations unless they commit a series of unnatural sexual acts. Such acts are a grave offense against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Pope John Paul II did not say that unnatural sexual acts or ‘stimulation’ is licit as foreplay. And it is absurd to make a claim as to how he would react to what I am saying.

I do not define foreplay as an unnatural act. Foreplay is a means to an end. It is a preparation for the marital act. The end does not justify the means. Anyone who claims that the end of natural marital relations justifies the use of any sexual acts as a means is contradicting the teaching of the Church that the end does not justify the means. Some acts of foreplay are moral, and other acts of ‘foreplay’ are immoral. The three fonts of morality determine which acts are moral and which are immoral.

The Song of Solomon does not contain any verses approving of unnatural sexual acts, with or without climax.

 

[PaulinVA]

I’ll reply to several posts above without quoting each one.

Some posters seem to be saying that it is wrong to quote from various sources, Saints, Scripture, Magisterium, and then argue to a conclusion. But this process that you are rejecting is called theology. I am making a theological argument. If you disagree, you might attempt to make a theological argument of your own.

No, Ron, we don’t. We can reject your writings on their face. There is no need to unpack the theology behind what the Church teaches, what it’s priests teach, and what biology dictates.

…

But on this point, I argue that my conclusion is merely a proper interpretation of the magisterial texts. It is not a complex or extensive argument. A proper understanding of the three fonts, the moral object of sexual relations, and the teaching of the magisterium on the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings makes this conclusion about the immorality of unnatural sexual acts clear.

But, you’ve made an argument totally lacking in an understanding of the biology involved. God would not create us the way we are and then inspire the Church to teach in a way that makes actual marital relations impossible to complete.

Some general points:

1. It is not true that the private theology of Pope John Paul II has settled, or even addressed this question explicitly.

I’ll take him over you every time. That is not ad hominen - that is recognizing the source.

1. Some posters unfortunately reply with ad hominem arguments; I generally just ignore this type of comment.

Well, I generally agree. But, I would hope you would look at the totality of the rejection of your theories on this particular subject and reflect on that.

1. Some posters speak as if they must be right because several other posters agree with them. Most of you post anonymously, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with that, surely you do not expect other members or non-member readers to be convinced of your point of view, without a theological argument, merely because a group of anonymous persons agree.

Once again, we might not all be able to string together a bunch of quotes and come up with a conclusion, but we believe we have well formed consciences. We are arguing from the view published by many authors and scholars.

1. Some posters speak in a condescending manner, as if they were speaking with authority, or as if they were necessarily correct, without a theological argument.

You have walked right into this one. I don’t think that producing an off-the-wall interpretation of some texts allows you to speak condescendingly, either.

1. I am writing theology, I am not teaching with authority. You are free to disagree, but if you have no theological arguments, but merely a collection of comments on the topic, you should not be claiming that the question has been settled.

Already settled by other people. You are the one who is advancing a contrary argument. It doesn’t seem to be getting many takers.

1. It is absurd to claim that an assertion must be true because it is in a book with the imprimatur. Many books of theology have the imprimatur, and if you read enough of these books, you soon realize that they often contradict one another on matters of faith and morals. There are certainly errors on faith and morals in books with the imprimatur. And no theologian ever argues that a particular point in question must be true because it is in a book with the imprimatur.

RON! Stop saying that books that disagree with you that carry an Imprimatur must be wrong because you are right. It takes you further out of the mainstream of Catholic thought.

1. It is absurd to claim that an assertion must be true because it is made by a priest, or it is made by a theologian with a good reputation. This is a pro hominem argument. One can easily point to theologial errors on substantial matters of faith and morals in the writings of Saints, Fathers, Doctors, and even the private theology of Popes. And neither is it true that if a theologian or priest were mistaken on a point, that he would be corrected by the Magisterium. Only rarely does the Holy See publicly correct a theologian or priest for theological errors, and then only if the errors are very severe.

Well, if those learned, holy people through the ages can be wrong, why do you get so bent out of shape when we reject YOUR writings?

Ron, I don’t know what to say. I believe that single people have the ability to understand married sexuality and write on the subject. However, I think that you lack a basic understanding, a basic context, to filter your thoughts/writings through in this area.

 

[Major_Tom]

You are welcome! The Song of Solomon is one of the most beautiful expressions of sexual pleasure ever written in the history of mankind.

I stand firmly with the Catholic Church on the sanctity of marriage, abortion, end of life and homosexuality issues. But on certain matters, these self appointed authorities often overstep the bounds of moral guidance and good sense.

Nowhere in the Bible can one find such obsessive, legalistic intrusion on the physical intimacy that is to be shared between a husband and wife of faith. Sex is being treated as a necessary evil. One must wonder how many god fearing catholics experience shame and guilt as a result of the physical pleasure they might have experienced immediately after or even during sex.

There seems to be this no-win situation when it comes to the physically pleasurable aspect of sex. One look through these forums is proof that many good people are suffering terribly with an unhealthy fixation on all of the sexual legalism that has been set up by celibate clergymen to the point where there is no room left for pleasure that the Almighty has designed into our sexual being.

Catholic Authors like Popcak and Christopher West can say what they want, but sexual legalism is always there lurking in the background. A Hatian father of 9 hungry children spends ten days digging in the rubble of the earthquake looking for survivors is tired but wants to be with his wife tonight. If he uses a condom he commits mortal sin? It’s all a bit creepy.

Kudos. Very well said.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

You are welcome! The Song of Solomon is one of the most beautiful expressions of sexual pleasure ever written in the history of mankind.

I stand firmly with the Catholic Church on the sanctity of marriage, abortion, end of life and homosexuality issues. But on certain matters, these self appointed authorities often overstep the bounds of moral guidance and good sense.

Nowhere in the Bible can one find such obsessive, legalistic intrusion on the physical intimacy that is to be shared between a husband and wife of faith. Sex is being treated as a necessary evil. One must wonder how many god fearing catholics experience shame and guilt as a result of the physical pleasure they might have experienced immediately after or even during sex.

There seems to be this no-win situation when it comes to the physically pleasurable aspect of sex. One look through these forums is proof that many good people are suffering terribly with an unhealthy fixation on all of the sexual legalism that has been set up by celibate clergymen to the point where there is no room left for pleasure that the Almighty has designed into our sexual being.

Catholic Authors like Popcak and Christopher West can say what they want, but sexual legalism is always there lurking in the background. A Hatian father of 9 hungry children spends ten days digging in the rubble of the earthquake looking for survivors is tired but wants to be with his wife tonight. If he uses a condom he commits mortal sin? It’s all a bit creepy.

One of the best posts I’ve ever seen on this subject. I agree completely. Thank you.