Marital, unitive, procreative

[FiberZilla]

Yes, it is a shame. I am not judging anyone in this thread, but most of the people I know, that hold the thought that sex, between man and wife, can only be done for the sake of procreation, in the missionary position, while all the while not enjoying it, are generally hiding\masking a deep, deep psychological issue that stems from either a very bad experience, a hidden “addiction”, or a very, very poor education, most likely during childhood, about what sexual relations are meant to be between man and wife.

The fact that these same people attempt to tell me, or my wife, what the correct way for us to have sex is, can be rather disturbing. I’ll generally tell them thanks, but I’ll stick to the rules set forth by the Church, and of course, God.

I think fear has a lot to do with it. The sex instinct is just as powerful as the drive for nutritional sustenance. It is very difficult to get solid unbiased biological / physiological information about it. Many sex researchers have an agenda and therefore their conclusions cannot be always trusted. Overzealous religious educators and theologians are not really much more reliable than the smut merchants who put no restraints on sexuality at all. People remain fearful because sound teaching is so hard to come by. Scripture is the only reliable guide for sexual morality as far as I am concerned.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I have read through a lot of the responses but not all of them. I didn’t see anyone mention that the rules as they’re set out by the OP are actually impossible to follow. It is just physically impossible to have sex without some “sexual act” (as it seems to be defined by the OP at least) being non-procreative. I thought maybe with a modesty bed sheet with a hole sewn in the appropriate spot, but even then it just isn’t possible.

 

[carinapir]

I have a question. If the context cannot transform an act then how can the Church justify the Just War doctrine? How can they not forbid Catholics from going to war and committing what is essentially still murder?

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.

I’m I totally off base here?

 

[OraLabora]

I’m I totally off base here?

Of course not. Context indeed changes everything for certain gestures posed within the marital act, which are licit, and those same gestures outside the act, which are not licit.

You don’t even have to go to the point of the Just War doctrine to prove that the same act or gesture can be both good or evil depending on circumstances.

An act of full sexual intercourse, with no obstacles to procreation, is a intrinsically evil outside of marriage.

It is a intrinsically moral act, within it. And it is an evil act, with artificial barriers to conception.

It’s a perfect precedent for an act being good in one context, evil in the another, but Mr. Conte cannot see the forest for the trees, and misses the point entirely.

 

[carinapir]

Of course not. Context indeed changes everything for certain gestures posed within the marital act, which are licit, and those same gestures outside the act, which are not licit.

You don’t even have to go to the point of the Just War doctrine to prove that the same act or gesture can be both good or evil depending on circumstances.

An act of full sexual intercourse, with no obstacles to procreation, is a intrinsically evil outside of marriage.

It is a intrinsically moral act, within it. And it is an evil act, with artificial barriers to conception.

It’s a perfect precedent for an act being good in one context, evil in the another, but Mr. Conte cannot see the forest for the trees, and misses the point entirely.

Thank you! I hope to hear from Mr. Conte on this question too.

 

[Antrim]

I am very happy to see that some people on here have it right and not paying any attention to false teachings. I just hope the others that are in doubt will follow suit. It is a shame that they are in doubt since there is no need for it.
All they have to do is seek the proper teachings of the Church. by the people I posted on an earlier thread.

Antrim

 

[littleoldme]

I’ve been a lurker on here for quite some time, but I’m finding some of your comments too disturbing to overlook, Ron…

I’ve read some of your comments on here, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you view a woman’s orgasm (if/when she has one) as just as important as the man’s to reproduction, so just like the man’s- the woman’s orgasm should only take place during actual intercourse, correct? So anything sexual involving the genitals-if it is not straight sex-is wrong in your eyes, correct? Even if the husband were to manually stimulate his wife himself, it’d still be a sin in your opinion. Again please correct me if I’m wrong. Well, what happens when a man finishes before his wife-and this can and does happen no matter how hard the man tries to control himself-and at this time his wife is still fully aroused. Is she not allowed the same release simply because the man has finished? How does this promote unity between the two, for one of them to derive pleasure from the other’s body while the other doesn’t derive the same? Sure, pleasure is not THE reason for sex- but for one thing, unless a man or woman experiences pleasure they will most likely not orgasm. This is how God created sex, so pleasure does have its role, and it is highly unfair to both the husband and wife to limit them so severely in what they may or may not do to help the woman along. Also, if, because of such severe limitations on what they can do to help her, the woman consistently does not get the same release as her husband, she will undoubtedly end up very frustrated and resentful towards her husband, and feeling like -sorry for being crude- a blow-up doll for her husband to masturbate in, and the man will feel like a failure for not being able to satisfy his wife. These limitations do not promote unity but disunity.

No offense, Ron, but I seriously think you don’t understand that men and women are not built the same. Unlike the penis, the vagina does not contain many nerve endings (and I take this as a blessing from God, because if there were any more just think of how much more painful childbirth would be!) so sex alone is not very satisfying for many-if not most-women. More direct stimulation is needed in other places to bring about orgasm. But according to you, such actions are mortally sinful. So, is it better in your opinion that women don’t even get aroused in order to keep the man from sinning by assisting her in other ways besides actual sex?

 

[FiberZilla]

I have read through a lot of the responses but not all of them. I didn’t see anyone mention that the rules as they’re set out by the OP are actually impossible to follow. It is just physically impossible to have sex without some “sexual act” (as it seems to be defined by the OP at least) being non-procreative. I thought maybe with a modesty bed sheet with a hole sewn in the appropriate spot, but even then it just isn’t possible.

Taking Ron’s rules to their logical conclusion:
Uniting the sexual organs for the amount of time necessary to join the necessary genetic materials while avoiding all unnecessary physical pleasure during climax seems to be the only way to avoid sin during the act of procreation.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Taking Ron’s rules to their logical conclusion:
Uniting the sexual organs for the amount of time necessary to join the necessary genetic materials while avoiding all unnecessary physical pleasure during climax seems to be the only way to avoid sin during the act of procreation.

Yes, but even uniting the sexual organs isn’t a procreative sex act unless you take into account the big finish. That is why the withdrawal is an effective method of birth control. Ron has determined to isolate every single aspect of the sex act and say that every act that isn’t procreative isn’t allowed. There is only one single act that is procreative so that would be the only one allowed, but with human biology there is no way to arrive at that one single act without other immoral and non-procreative acts. So the human race is doomed to a slow and agonizing death because there is simply no moral way to have children.

 

[baylee]

I have a question. If the context cannot transform an act then how can the Church justify the Just War doctrine? How can they not forbid Catholics from going to war and committing what is essentially still murder?

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.

I’m I totally off base here?

Actually, this is interesting. The Church offers circumstances when war/murder is allowed…and yet there are no circumstances when a man can ejaculate outside his wife…EVER. Apparently the latter is more sinful than murder…seriously?

 

[Major_Tom]

Apparently the latter is more sinful than murder…seriously?

Apparently, yes, seriously! That’s part of the reason that I left the Church; policies that just seem to miss the forest for the trees.

 

[PaulinVA]

Apparently, yes, seriously! That’s part of the reason that I left the Church; policies that just seem to miss the forest for the trees.

I agree somebody is missing something.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are quite a few off topic comments and uncharitable remarks above, which I will ignore. I also do not reply to posts which exaggerate or distort my position in order to claim to have refuted it. Also, I’m not participating in the discussion with Lauds, because he/she openly rejects Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

I’ve not read every post above, but I have not noticed anyone using the three fonts of morality to determine what is moral in the marital bedroom. The three fonts of morality is the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, which is also ignored in most of the above posts. Also, many posters above offer no real theological argument to support their position.

Let’s apply the three fonts of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “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.”

1. A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The moral object of an unnatural sexual act is evil because all such acts lack the procreative meaning (neither are such acts truly unitive or truly marital). To be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive, procreative, and marital. Therefore, every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

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.

Pope John Paul II: “The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species’, or ‘in itself’, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

In my several posts above, I’ve stated a clear theological argument, based on the writings of Saints and the teachings of the Magisterium. I’ve written a couple of articles on this subject, containing the same theological arguments, but in greater detail.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

 

[PaulinVA]

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

:clapping:

Your critics remain unanswered.

You have not addressed the posts that point out that you hold a position contrary to books with the Imprimatur, that your position is contrary to the actual words and the intention of Pope John Paul II.

And, quite frankly, dozens of posts have dealt with the fact to you are improperly applying one of the three fonts, that is, that stimulation is always wrong.

Just because people are not phrasing their responses in the form that you want does not mean they are not actually addressing your points. They are. Unfortunately, you do not have an answer.

Please engage the peanut gallery in a real discussion. I think it would be interesting.

 

[Lauds]

Just because I am not a perfect Catholic like most of you, doesnt mean I cant spot a devout Catholic, I mean no Disrespect to You Mr Conte for taking up for you, I feel that there are many uncharitable things said about you on these forums, One person said You should even be banned, yet they come in here with all their totally know it all remarks. LIke I said Maybe I am a poor Catholic or maybe I am a better catholic than I think I am. I Love piety & Holiness in a person, which is indeed hard to find

 

[carinapir]

In all honesty, Mr. Conte, I’m trying to understand your position. I have no problem with the fonts of morality, but with how you have applied them to sex acts. It seems reasonable to me that it would be an informative exercise to compare how one applies the fonts of morality on the Just War theory versus on sex acts.

I can’t write theological arguments and I doubt many here would claim to be able to either, but we’d still like have a discussion.

 

[Major_Tom]

Also, many posters above offer no real theological argument to support their position.

In my case, correct. I used to be Catholic, but left the church. I do not necessarily seek a theological argument, to this level of detail, for many aspects of my life.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

I think the root of the diagreement is that you are applying a rigid definition to the act of intercourse that is in excess of how the majority of posters are defining it. In my opinion, you are introducing a level of calculation and precision that is not appropriate or warranted. Who is the arbiter of when a touch is either too much, too provocative, in the wrong place, at the wrong time… this is not how human beings, with messy things called hormones and emotions, operate. Supercomputers maybe, not humans.

Oh, and I’ve been DYING to ask: can I leave the lights on, when, you know… or is that a sin?

Sorry, I know it was snarky, but I had to ask.

 

[Bookcat]

There are quite a few off topic comments and uncharitable remarks above, which I will ignore. I also do not reply to posts which exaggerate or distort my position in order to claim to have refuted it. Also, I’m not participating in the discussion with Lauds, because he/she openly rejects Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

I’ve not read every post above, but I have not noticed anyone using the three fonts of morality to determine what is moral in the marital bedroom. The three fonts of morality is the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, which is also ignored in most of the above posts. Also, many posters above offer no real theological argument to support their position.

Let’s apply the three fonts of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “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.”

1. A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The moral object of an unnatural sexual act is evil because all such acts lack the procreative meaning (neither are such acts truly unitive or truly marital). To be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive, procreative, and marital. Therefore, every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

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.

Pope John Paul II: “The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species’, or ‘in itself’, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

In my several posts above, I’ve stated a clear theological argument, based on the writings of Saints and the teachings of the Magisterium. I’ve written a couple of articles on this subject, containing the same theological arguments, but in greater detail.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

It is within good orthodox Catholic moral theology that when the wife experiences climax either during foreplay or during actual physical intercourse or right after the climax of the husband (which can only take place during the actual physical act of intercourse) --it is a good act. All forms part of the maritial act. (of course the actions themselves need to be good…) All of these form a “moral unity” as part of the one marital act.

One source I will point you to off the top of my head from the ones you posted as good sources of moral theology – so I know you will have it is the the one from Germain Grisez – go look it up in the second volume pg 642.

others may find it online here: twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

section 1 h iii

 

[littleoldme]

There are quite a few off topic comments and uncharitable remarks above, which I will ignore. I also do not reply to posts which exaggerate or distort my position in order to claim to have refuted it. Also, I’m not participating in the discussion with Lauds, because he/she openly rejects Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.

I’ve not read every post above, but I have not noticed anyone using the three fonts of morality to determine what is moral in the marital bedroom. The three fonts of morality is the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, which is also ignored in most of the above posts. Also, many posters above offer no real theological argument to support their position.

Let’s apply the three fonts of morality to the act in question, which is an unnatural sexual act, lacking sexual climax, done prior to natural marital relations.

1. intended end (purpose) is said to be to prepare for natural marital relations; this end is good. Acts used to prepare for marital relations are called foreplay; this defines the intended end in the first font of morality. However, good intention is not sufficient to cause an act to be moral, and so the mere fact that an act is being used for the purpose of foreplay does not justify the act. Also, a good intended end does not justify an intrinsically evil means.

Pope John Paul II: “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.”

1. A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The moral object of an unnatural sexual act is evil because all such acts lack the procreative meaning (neither are such acts truly unitive or truly marital). To be moral, each and every sexual act must be unitive, procreative, and marital. Therefore, every unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil and always immoral.

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.

Pope John Paul II: “The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is ‘according to its species’, or ‘in itself’, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.”

In my several posts above, I’ve stated a clear theological argument, based on the writings of Saints and the teachings of the Magisterium. I’ve written a couple of articles on this subject, containing the same theological arguments, but in greater detail.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/index.htm

I don’t think any one else in this thread has offered a substantial theological argument to support the contrary position. So this post concludes my participation in this thread, at least for the present time.

Why do you expect anyone to listen to you when you won’t answer their sincere questions?

 

[Bookcat]

PS it is in the second paragraph–i did quote it due to reading the forum rules on copyright…they said to post the url for copyrighted things)

it is stated there in black and white…