Marriage and Sex

[Bookcat]

Thank you! Also, I think i might of used the wrong word when I said “dirty.” It’s just something I don’t think I would feel right doing, i don’t know why… maybe i’m just prude. i don’t find it sexy or appealing.

The marital act…if done in a chaste way…is holy…so one should not think of it as ‘dirty’ …not that you said that…

However…there is nothing wrong with one thinking the other action to be even repulsive to that person…just as certain other things in life are …repulsive to some. And one need never enter into such…

 

[Bookcat]

There is no magisterial document which says anything like this claim of moral unity.

HV specifically rejects this claim that acts can merge, such that an act which is intrinsically evil when done by itself somehow becomes moral by being done with other acts. Although HV is mainly on the topic of contraception, the same basic moral principles apply to all acts.

The teaching of the Magisterium in the CCC, the Compendium, and Veritatis Splendor make it absolutely clear, as a required belief and not an opinion, that there are three fonts of morality and that all three fonts must be good in order for an act to be moral.

The claim that a set of knowing choices becomes a moral unity is essentially a denial of the doctrine of the three fonts, because each act is not evaluated by the fonts that spring up from and apply to that act. This is only used to justify sexual acts for some reason.

The teaching of the Magisterium that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances is not an opinion, but a required belief. The claim of a moral unity also has the effect of justifying intrinsically evil acts as long as they are part of that ‘moral unity.’

There is no magisterial teaching which supports this claim, nor any magisterial document using the term ‘moral unity’.

In moral theology, an act is a knowing choice. A set of choices of various sexual acts is not one act. This approach of ‘moral unity’ has the effect of justifying any number and kind of intrinsically evil acts, merely on the basis that one act of natural intercourse occurs at some point in time. In this way, all manner of sexual sins are said to be justified, and the teaching of the Church on the three fonts and on intrinsic evil is nullified (or mostly just ignored).

Labeling an act as ‘chaste’ or as ‘foreplay’ does not justify the act. Labeling a set of acts as a ‘moral unity’ does not justify the acts.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

Therefore, all non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil, and are not justified by the intention to commit a subsequent act of natural intercourse, not by the circumstance that the non-procreative act occurs in conjunction with other acts.

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.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Where are the magisterial documents stating ‘moral unity’ or permitting unnatural sexual acts as foreplay? There are none. But I have repeatedly quoted Saints Augusting and Aquinas as condemning unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

However, there are documents teaching that the three fonts of morality are the basis for determining if an act is moral, and that intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, and that each and every marital act must be both unitive and procreative.

It is absurd and patently contrary to the plain meaning of HV to say that ‘each and every marital act’ permits any number of non-procreative and non-unitive sexual acts, supposedly even including climax for the wife. If that were true, then the phrase ‘each and every’ would be null and void.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is inherently non-unitive or non-procreative, that such intercourse would merge with unitive and procreative marital acts of past or future to form a single moral entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as those procreative acts (compare Humanae Vitae, n. 14).

“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)

Sorry…still have not produced even* one document*.

Misapplied or misread documents do not count…

 

[Ron_Conte]

for example the husband cannot climax outside of intercourse

The claim that everything is moral in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in an act of natural intercourse has never been taught by the Magisterium, and is incompatible with the magisterial teaching that certain types of acts are intrinsically evil and always immoral, and incompatible with the teaching that each knowingly chosen act must have three good fonts in order to be moral.

Secular society promotes the false teaching that every sexual act is moral between two consenting adults. And unfortunately, some Catholics have accepted a similar false teaching, that every sexual act is moral between two consenting married adults. Neither teaching is compatible with a correct understanding of Catholic teaching on morality.

 

[Bookcat]

There is no magisterial document which says anything like this claim of moral unity.

HV specifically rejects this claim that acts can merge, such that an act which is intrinsically evil when done by itself somehow becomes moral by being done with other acts.

Actually it is not. And you will not be able to produce any documents of the Church that say it does.

And HV does not reject the understanding of ‘Moral unity’ of the chaste acts that precede or directly follow the act of intercourse…with that act of intercourse.

HV rejects the idea that one can have most marital acts within a marriage be open to life…with some being contraceptive…and thus be ok. Such of course is not the case.

This is a misreading of the document.

 

[Bookcat]

The claim that everything is moral in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in an act of natural intercourse has never been taught by the Magisterium

Again I have never said such. Of course there are many acts that would be sinful…

 

[Bookcat]

Church documents are not ordinarily issued to say what moral acts one can do…

 

[Bookcat]

It is absurd and patently contrary to the plain meaning of HV to say that ‘each and every marital act’ permits any number of non-procreative and non-unitive sexual acts, supposedly even including climax for the wife. If that were true, then the phrase ‘each and every’ would be null and void.

again this is a Misreading of HV…it is NOT talking about what you are trying to promote.

Period.

 

[The_Bucket]

Why even bother humoring him by replying? I think we all understand now that Ron preaches his own interpretation of doctrine, not what has been laid down by the Church. In that way he’s as Catholic as your run of the mill sedevacantists or conclavists… meaning that he’s not Catholic at all.

 

[valient_Lucy]

That being said, there’s nothing wrong with thinking that oral stimulation is dirty. Some of the other posters were criticizing the OP for thinking that. But there’s nothing wrong with thinking that oral stimulation is dirty. For that matter, there’s nothing wrong with thinking that sexual intercourse is dirty.

Thank you! Also, I think i might of used the wrong word when I said “dirty.” It’s just something I don’t think I would feel right doing, i don’t know why… maybe i’m just prude. i don’t find it sexy or appealing. But, i don’t have a husband so i don’t really know i guess. it’s just how i am, so no one take offense!!

You’re welcome. Your opinions, feelings, gut reactions, etc. are your own, and **no one **should ever make you feel bad for them.

It really bothered me that the first few posters felt the need to criticize you for your opinions about this subject. (It almost makes me wonder if they’re trying to convince themselves of something that they don’t believe.) But I doubt that’s the case, and the reality is it’s neither here nor there. No one, whether its the posters on the forum or your future husband, has the right to criticize you or make you feel like a prude.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The marital act…if done in a chaste way…is holy…so one should not think of it as ‘dirty’ …not that you said that…

However…there is nothing wrong with one thinking the other action to be even repulsive to that person…just as certain other things in life are …repulsive to some. And one need never enter into such…

While the marital act is good, I think calling it “holy” is a stretch. However, I’m glad you realized that the OP is entitled to her opinions about the subject, and shouldn’t be criticized by anyone for them.

 

[valient_Lucy]

There’s also nothing wrong with thinking oral stimulation is fun and not dirty. Nor with thinking the same along with anything on a lengthy list of sexual activities you probably wouldn’t enjoy which I won’t list here because it would (a) be incomplete and (b) probably get me banned in a hot second.

The OP wasn’t criticized for thinking that oral stimulation was fun. She was criticized for thinking it was dirty. She’s entitled to her opinion, without people criticizing her or condescending to her because she’s young. That’s what upset me. It’s totally possible to tell a person that “X is permitted in these circumstances…” without criticizing the poster for her opinions, condescending to her because she’s young, and without being offended by the question.

Which begs the question, why did it bother you when I suggested that it’s perfectly ok to think that sex is dirty? Why would this bother anyone? When a vegetarian tells me they don’t like meat, it in no way diminishes my ability to enjoy steak. Isn’t the opinion “sex is dirty” just as valid of an opinion as “sex is holy?” (I don’t hold either opinions by the way, except during extreme moments in my life, and I’m never really happy until my opinion is back in the middle of these two extremes.)

 

[ThomasToo]

The OP wasn’t criticized for thinking that oral stimulation was fun. She was criticized for thinking it was dirty. She’s entitled to her opinion, without people criticizing her or condescending to her because she’s young. That’s what upset me. It’s totally possible to tell a person that “X is permitted in these circumstances…” without criticizing the poster for her opinions, condescending to her because she’s young, and without being offended by the question.

Fair enough. I apologize if I gave the impression that I don’t think she’s entitled to her opinion. She certainly is.

Which begs the question, why did it bother you when I suggested that it’s perfectly ok to think that sex is dirty? Why would this bother anyone? When a vegetarian tells me they don’t like meat, it in no way diminishes my ability to enjoy steak. Isn’t the opinion “sex is dirty” just as valid of an opinion as “sex is holy?” (I don’t hold either opinions by the way, except during extreme moments in my life, and I’m never really happy until my opinion is back in the middle of these two extremes.)

I wasn’t bothered but I think a lot of people are disgusted by the sorts of sex people like and I think that while they are entitled to think that such sex isn’t for them I don’t know that they’re entitled to think that other people are dirty because of what they like to do without their clothes. That was all.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Fair enough. I apologize if I gave the impression that I don’t think she’s entitled to her opinion. She certainly is.

I wasn’t bothered but I think a lot of people are disgusted by the sorts of sex people like and I think that while they are entitled to think that such sex isn’t for them I don’t know that they’re entitled to think that other people are dirty because of what they like to do without their clothes. That was all.

Thank you. I don’t think the OP ever said that such people were dirty, but that the acts themselves are dirty. There’s a difference. And as we both agree, she’s entitled to that opinion.

 

[Agrippa]

teachccd,

I’ll rephrase your questions as:

1. in terms of morality, what constitutes an act?

An act is a knowing choice. Each and every knowing choice in human life is either moral (at least morally permissible) or immoral. It is never the case in any area of human endeavor that a set of choices is morally evaluated as one act. Each act stands on its own as to its morality. Now a set of acts might all be sinful, or might all be moral. But it is never the case, in any area of morality, that an act that is sinful to do on its own becomes moral as part of a larger set of acts.

Any unnatural sexual act is intrinsically evil because it is a sexual act (a deliberate use of the genitive sexual faculty) that is non-procreative and also not truly unitive. Most Catholics agree that for a husband and wife to commit such an act by itself is gravely immoral. The reason is that the moral object is evil. But committing essentially the same type of act (the same species of act), before or after natural marital relations, does not justify the act.

And the claim that all the knowing choices of a session in the marital bedroom merge to form one moral unity has been explicitly rejected by the Magisterium.

“Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.” HV, n. 14.

“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.” Casti Connubii, n. 54.

Every knowingly chosen act has three fonts of morality. One act may not borrow the fonts of another act. A sexual act which lacks the procreative meaning (an unnatural sexual act) is intrinsically evil, and it cannot become moral by borrowing the procreative meaning from a different sexual act (natural intercourse). Each knowingly chosen act stands on its own as to its morality.

1. which types of foreplay are moral between a husband and wife?
   The lengthly answer is here:
   catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm#04
   Notice that my answer is based on the three fonts of morality, and on the teaching of the Magisterium about the unitive and procreative meanings of sexual acts.

In summary, each and every sexual act must be marital, unitive, and procreative. Natural marital relations open to life is the only moral sexual act. Unnatural sexual acts are therefore not moral to use as foreplay.

However, other acts of foreplay, which are not sexual acts, are moral in marriage (always with three good fonts), such as kissing, embracing, caressing, etc.

For a comprehensive treatment of this subject by a credentialed, orthodox (and married) theologian, whose works contain imprimaturs, see Germain Grisez in this link:

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

 

[StJudePray4Me]

OK, am I correct that the bottom line here is that RonConte asserts that oral stimulation (AKA oral sex w/o climax) is always gravely immoral? And that this is, or should be, the Church’s official stand on that issue?

I read the link, and that’s how I interpret what he says. I also got out of it that the only “allowed” foreplay is kissing, hugging, and the caressing of the wife’s breasts. I was a little fuzzy about the touching of genitals – sounds like it’s OK if it’s not masturbatory, but I don’t get how that’s possible.

And one more questions – what are RonConte’s credentials which would make him a reliable “Catholic Theologian”? Or not?

 

[JBCatholicRN]

It appears Mr. Conte is well known throughout the atheist community as well.

rationalresponders.com/forum/15400
wikibin.org/articles/ronald-l.-conte-jr.html

Ronald L. Conte Jr. claims to be a Roman Catholic lay theologian. He received his degree in philosophy/theology from Boston College where he was taught by Peter Kreeft. Since then, he has written and self-published several books and articles in the several areas of Catholic Theology such as Eschatology, Mariology, Biblical Chronology, and Dogmatic and Moral Theology. Currently he is translating the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Sacred Bible . In addition he is publisher and editor of a Catholic theology website and moderator of an online Catholic discussion group
Conte gained some notoriety when he correctly predicted the name of the current pope, Benedict XVI, several years prior to the death of Pope John Paul II. However, he stated incorrectly that he would also be black. His forum grew as people intrigued with eschatology wanted to know what else he might predict. His rules for participating in his forum at catholicplanet.net/forum states strongly that he will only correspond with those who expressly believe in the teachings of Roman Catholicism, and labels all others as heretics . Critics on other forums have noted that Conte considers himself as the ultimate arbiter on all interpretations of those teachings.
One of his more significant predictions is due to take place very soon. He claims that on March 31, 2009, Father Petar Ljubicic, a catholic priest, will receive a parchment that contains information written in an unknown language about one of the secrets that Mary revealed to a child in 1985. Father Ljubicic will then fast for seven days and then reveal the secret to the world. The secret is due to take place three days later (April 10, 2009) and visible for the world to see. There have been no clear reports as to if the priest has started fasting yet, as that day has already passed. This secret will be a sign of the beginning of the first part of the tribulation of the world.
Conte was discounted on some popular Catholic web forums after another one of his predictions turned out to be false. He claimed that Hillary Clinton would win the U.S. presidential election. After the first secret (see above), she would change her position on abortion and urge others to do the same.
Works
*The Bible and the Future of the World, 7th Edition
*Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus and Mary
*New Insights into the Deposit of Faith
*The Secrets of Medjugorje and Garabandal Revealed

 

[micahmike]

Isn’t the opinion “sex is dirty” just as valid of an opinion as “sex is holy?”

Absolutely not,assuming the context of validly married husband and wife. There is absolutely nothing dirty about sex as God intended it and the oppinion that it is is not compatible with Catholocism.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Absolutely not,assuming the context of validly married husband and wife. There is absolutely nothing dirty about sex as God intended it and the oppinion that it is is not compatible with Catholocism.

I think we have a couple of different debates going on here…

I think what the OP meant was that she finds particular sexual activities unappealing and is uncomfortable with the thought of performing them. That is totally a legitimate opinion, I think anyone would agree.

I don’t think she ever said that all sex is “dirty.” I think this is a hot-button issue for a lot of Catholics, who may resent the stereotypes that we all are frigid and hate sex.

 

[micahmike]

I think we have a couple of different debates going on here…

Yes we do, one poster who states more or less that she is not interested in a specific type of foreplay (which is A-OK of course) and another poster stating that "sex is dirty"is and acceptable oppunion for a catholic to hold. It is not.

I think what the OP meant was that she finds particular sexual activities unappealing and is uncomfortable with the thought of performing them. That is totally a legitimate opinion, I think anyone would agree.

Absolutely!

 

[JBCatholicRN]

Moral of the story = sex and oral sex are good and clean. Next.