martial sex

[fpt]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

my comments

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage: thus, by presumption they are morally okay, per se, only as sexual preliminaries!!! Question??? If the church does not talk, that means implicitely that it is okay, not very immoral???

There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.
**
What are the unnatural sexual acts? How to define? Could you give met he list?**

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

Okay, but indirectly it is easy to find the natural answer???

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

If no official doctrine of the catholic church, the principle is that is okay.???

 

[fpt]

Do you have documents coming from catholic theologians, very orthodox, who comment in the detail, the articulation that has to be done between the encyclical " Casti Connubii" , the encyclical " Humanae Vitae", the Vademecum for “Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life”, the Apostal Exhortation " Familiaris Consortio “, John Paul II, the encyclical “Evangelium Vitae”, the " Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2795, 3634” concerning the conditions where it is morally licit for the innocent spouse to request the marital act if the other spouse is under contraception without abortive effects (three cumulatives conditions) or if the other spouse is under contraception with abortive effects (four cumulatives conditions),

In order to know the natural rights or the natural obligations of this innocent spouse (to do the marital act without sin, or to be in obligation to refuse the act and not to ask the act).
**
I would like to get very good theological comments, very academical, very philosophical.**

A. The contraception without abortive effects, if and only there are three cumulative conditions:

1. “the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself”???
2. “proportionally grave reasons exist”???
3. “when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion). Holy Church knows full well that not infrequently, one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin”???

B. The contraception with abortive effects, if and only there are four cumulative conditions:

1. “the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself”???
2. “proportionally grave reasons exist”???
3. “when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion). Holy Church knows full well that not infrequently, one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin”???
4. 4.Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect. "48 That means, that has to be present the same cumulative conditions that if there was no abortive effect, and more.
   48 “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it”

What is the nature of the action of husband that can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?

What is the action of husband, by the form it takes in a concrete situation, that can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?

What is the nature of the action of wife that can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?

What is the action of wife, by the form it takes in a concrete situation, that can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?

How to define the nature of the action can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?
How to define the form takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life?
**
I would like to know your point of view?**

 

[fpt]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

The theologians have only as function to explain, to improve the understanding of the official teaching in the details without to be more liberal or rigid. Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less. Are you okay???

The fact of putting more is wrong and the fact putting less is wrong. Are you okay?

And your opinion is the truth??? It is only an opinon???

In general your questions are interesting, but one part of your intellectual approaches for solving are not very clear. For instance, your acception of the defintion of masturbation for sexual preliminaries before the union of bodies is very strange. Your definition of masturbation is very large (largo sensu)??? very simplistic definition, not realistic? **
**
I would like to know the black list of immoral acts before, during and just after the union of bodies, per se (of themselves, in themselves and for themselves) between spouses. Do you have this list?

** Do you have the white list???**

In my knowledge, there is objectively one, only, that is very wrong (per se), and all of us,we are very aware of that. The name is in link with the denaturation of the marriage in the modern societies, that is very simple to understand!!! !!!

Do you see a difference between the words “oral sex” (wrong) and the"oral stimulation on the exterior genitalia as foreplay (okay) "?

 

[fpt]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

**

This is a public list of questions for Ronald. L. Conte Jr., because I would like to understand, your moral theology (your understanding of catholic doctrine with your interpretations) on the intimate acts between spouses, in the context of marital act. As, I do not know how to send you a private message, I use this public forum.**

1. Is there a natural moral order of the sexual intercourses in the catholic marriage?
2. What is the nature of the natural moral order of the sexual intercourses in the catholic marriage?
3. What is the marital act? What is the fact of making one flesh? What are the constitutive elements of marital act? Are there different moments in the context of marital act? Are there three steps (moments, periods, phases, and times) in the context of marital act? Could we call them: before during and after?
4. What does sexual cooperation mean? What do the words “in human fashion" mean? What is the sexual cooperation in the human fashion, during the marital act?
5. Are there rights of husband on the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the rights of husband on the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there rights of wife on the body of her husband during the marital act? What are the rights of wife on the body of her husband during the marital act?
6. Are there obligations of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the obligations of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there obligations of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act? What are obligations of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act?
7. Are there duties of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? What are the duties of husband toward the body of his wife during the marital act? Are there duties of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act? What are duties of wife toward the body of her husband during the marital act?
8. What are the moral ends of marital act? What are the moral intentions of marital act? What are the moral purposes of marital act? What are the moral objectives of marital act? What are the moral goods of marital act? What are the moral fruits of marital act?
9. What is the role of wife during the marital act? What is the role of husband in the context of marital act?
10. Could you give us the list of foreplay (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries, before the union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of wrong foreplay, in the details? Could you give us the list of foreplay (the preliminaries and the sexual preliminaries, before the union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of the natural foreplay, in the details?
11. Could you give me a list of intimate acts, during the union of bodies, in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of intimate acts, in the details? Could you give me a list of moral acts, during the union of bodies, in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of natural acts, in the details?
12. Could you give us the list of postcoital acts (just after the complete union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are immoral, per se, thus sinful? Do you want to give us this list of wrong postcoital acts, in the details? Could you give us the list of postcoital acts (just after the complete union of bodies), in the context of marital act, which are moral, per se, thus not sinful? Do you want to give us this list of natural postcoital acts, in the details?
13. Do you see a difference between the words “oral sex” (how to define, and wrong, per se, in my opinion, because there is a substitution or a replacement) and "oral stimulation on the exterior genitalia as foreplay ” (okay, per se, in my opinion)?

 

[fpt]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf

The Repentant Sterilized Couple
By John F. Kippley

What is your opinion on this type of moral theology???

 

[bzkoss236]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

From the closed topic “Is oral sex a sin between a married couple as foreplay?”:

cjforJesus;9694266:

Humanae Vitae was an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI regarding artificial birth control and marital relations.Maybe you are thinking about the “theology of the Body”.

Correct. Theology of the Body would be good to read for the OP, even Familiaris Consortio by the same Pope. I think Humanae Vitae is also appropriate to put things into perspective.

OP, any type of foreplay must be for the intent of engaging in and completing the Martial Act in a manner ordered to unification and procreation. Here is a good starting point:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P87.HTM

The person who said that oral sex is wrong is correct insofar as sex means taking it to completion (purposeful male ejaculation as a direct result or the oral stimulation). However, as an act of foreplay that will end in natural intercourse, oral stimulation of the genitals in preparation for natural sex is licit.

 

[fpt]

nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf

The Repentant Sterilized Couple
By John F. Kippley

What is your opinion on this type of moral theology???

When the catholic church gives a definition of the wrong immoral act, per se (in itself, by itself, for itself, from itself); What is the good understanding of this defintion? **Stricto sensu, or largo sensu? What are the constitutive elements of this very wrong act **(material object, intentional object, circunstances, active part, passive part, the context, ends or means, steps or purposes)?

 

[ahs]

nfpandmore.org/The%20Repentant%20Sterilized%20Couple.pdf

The Repentant Sterilized Couple
By John F. Kippley

What is your opinion on this type of moral theology???

I know this was directed to Ron Conte…but I decided to give it a read anyway. That is a well thought-out position. I didn’t realize Kippley wrote in such depth on that topic…the only book I knew of his was “The Art of Natural Family Planning” and I didn’t even read that one (my wife has it though).

Thanks for posting that!

 

[fpt]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage. There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

But here is an article from Catholic theologian Alice von Hildebrand on her answer to this question, as well as her late husband’s answer (Dietrich von Hildebrand). She rejects the “so-called ‘one rule’ – that married couples ‘may do whatever they wish,’ as long as they don’t use contraception, ‘both feel loved and respected,’ and the marital act culminates within the woman…”

In my opinion, Ronald. L. Conte Jr** seems** to refuse to use the method in link with the objective and realistic philosophy of the topic of study (here, the marital act, with three periods, before, during and after, and the different functions of members and organs of body). No phenomenology of the marital act, no personalist approach of human being during this act?

**The fact of making one flesh, with a sexual mutual and reciprocal cooperation in the human fashion, is the key. **

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Woah… I have heard the opposite… that it’s not okay. Cunnilingus is a sin and it’s degrading to both persons involved.

Why is cunnilingus a sin and fellatio not a sin?

I don’t think I’ve ever had the need to write or type either word before this? Or say them, really. Whew. Glad that’s over with.

 

[billcu1]

my comments

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage: thus, by presumption they are morally okay, per se, only as sexual preliminaries!!! Question??? If the church does not talk, that means implicitely that it is okay, not very immoral???

There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after. The Church has never approved of these types of unnatural sexual acts within marriage.
**
What are the unnatural sexual acts? How to define? Could you give met he list?**

If anyone says that the Church approves of such acts, ask them to present a quote from a magisterial document making such an assertion. They cannot do so.

Okay, but indirectly it is easy to find the natural answer???

As a matter of opinion, theologians do not agree on this subject.

If no official doctrine of the catholic church, the principle is that is okay.???

I’m not quite sure why fellatio or cunnilingus especially the former leading to ejeculation outisde of the woman is a sin. I’m obviously missing something. I’m guessing paraphillias as defined by pschology is an unnatural act as well as things not listed there such as masterbation, homosexual acts and bestiality and maybe frotterism.

Bill

 

[fpt]

I know this was directed to Ron Conte…but I decided to give it a read anyway. That is a well thought-out position. I didn’t realize Kippley wrote in such depth on that topic…the only book I knew of his was “The Art of Natural Family Planning” and I didn’t even read that one (my wife has it though).

Thanks for posting that!

In my opinion, this father asks good questions, but the catholic church seems to give only a moderate penance. John F. Kippley penance is strong and **he puts more than the offical teaching of catholic church. Thus, I cannot be okay with him. **

**What is his point of view concerning the innocent spouse on this situation? no respond, he seems to me? The respect of rights on the body of other one?
**

The theologians have only as function to explain, to improve the understanding of the official teaching in the details without to be more liberal or rigid. Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less. The fact of putting more is wrong and the fact putting less is wrong.

Catholic penance cannot be the restriction of marital act, as a moral condition of validity of the confession. Very strict, no charity, very puritan.

 

[fpt]

Why is cunnilingus a sin and fellatio not a sin?

I don’t think I’ve ever had the need to write or type either word before this? Or say them, really. Whew. Glad that’s over with.

Do you want the answer with explanations without puritanism?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Do you want the answer with explanations without puritanism?

Both.

 

[ahs]

In my opinion, this father asks good questions, but the catholic church seems to give only a moderate penance. John F. Kippley penance is strong and **he puts more than the offical teaching of catholic church. Thus, I cannot be okay with him. **

**What is his point of view concerning the innocent spouse on this situation? no respond, he seems to me? The respect of rights on the body of other one?
**

The theologians have only as function to explain, to improve the understanding of the official teaching in the details without to be more liberal or rigid. Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less. The fact of putting more is wrong and the fact putting less is wrong.

Catholic penance cannot be the restriction of marital act, as a moral condition of validity of the confession. Very strict, no charity, very puritan.

Right. I do see Kippley’s point, as he goes into great depth and explanation, but yes, he does become more strict than what the Church seems to be…though there is no official pronouncement by the Church (on that particular topic). My main concern with Kippley’s argument that they MUST remain continent during the fertile period (who have had sterilization) is that…this could go against the spouse’s right to the marital act. One cannot deny his/her spouse the marital act unless they are both in agreement. Also, he does not consider if the couple actually WANTS to conceive, yet cannot due to sterilization. Are they not to hope for conception regardless in that case?

For those reasons I cannot agree completely with Kippley. But, he DOES present a very thoughtful arguement, and he is very clear that his views are only his opinion, and not Church teaching. I believe that Mr. Conte goes a step further than Kippley would…presenting as fact what is only his opinion.

 

[Dmitri451]

There are no magisterial documents approving of any unnatural sexual acts, even if they are used for the purpose of foreplay, even if a natural sexual act occurs before or after.

The problem with your argument, Ron, is that it presumes that it is unnatural to stimulate your spouse’s genitals with your mouth in preparation for sexual intercourse. Please cite a magisterial document that says that it is unnatural to do so. If such a document exists, why is there disagreement on this issue among reputable moral theologians?

 

[LightBound]

The problem with your argument, Ron, is that it presumes that it is unnatural to stimulate your spouse’s genitals with your mouth in preparation for sexual intercourse. Please cite a magisterial document that says that it is unnatural to do so. If such a document exists, why is there disagreement on this issue among reputable moral theologians?

While I don’t want to encourage anyone to visit his planet or his blog- he clearly states on his blog that he considers foreplay (of any kind) to be “unnatural acts”

ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/unnatural-sexual-acts-as-marital-foreplay/

Read #3 Third Font…on the above link. I posted it here only to show others what he thinks is acceptable for marital intimacy. It pretty much sounds like the only touching of anything is penis into vagina and that is it. I’m still trying to figure out how that can be accomplished without any touching of other body parts…

 

[ValPal]

There are no magisterial documents approving of these types of sexual act, even in marriage.

This is not the way the Church works. You don’t need Church approval to do something, otherwise I couldn’t eat my noodles with oyster sauce either…after all, there is no magisterial documents approving that either.

Certain things are prohibited because Christ, his disciples, or Tradition say so. Other things are allowed, unless they can be somehow shown they are against this revealed truth. It’s why, say, NFP can be utilized as birth control (with conditions), because the Church has never held a position contrary.

It’s the same with this issue. The Church has never held that these certain acts were illicit as foreplay, therefore they are permitted. Furthermore, they are ubiquitous, not unnatural, and are often interpreted to be acts described in the Song of Songs.

You don’t need Church approval for things that the Church does not prohibit. You may believe that, but the Church has never held that position, and you should not imply that the Church does.

 

[fpt]

This is not the way the Church works. You don’t need Church approval to do something, otherwise I couldn’t eat my noodles with oyster sauce either…after all, there is no magisterial documents approving that either.

Certain things are prohibited because Christ, his disciples, or Tradition say so. Other things are allowed, unless they can be somehow shown they are against this revealed truth. It’s why, say, NFP can be utilized as birth control (with conditions), because the Church has never held a position contrary.

It’s the same with this issue. The Church has never held that these certain acts were illicit as foreplay, therefore they are permitted. Furthermore, they are ubiquitous, not unnatural, and are often interpreted to be acts described in the Song of Songs.

You don’t need Church approval for things that the Church does not prohibit. You may believe that, but the Church has never held that position, and you should not imply that the Church does.

**The catholic theologians or the catholic moralists have as mission to explain, to improve the understanding of the catholic official teaching (catholic doctrine from the magisterium of Popes, of Councils), in the details, without to be more liberal or more rigid. Only, the teaching, nothing more, nothing less. The fact of putting more is not very honest, and the fact of putting less is not honest. **

For responding about the marital act, we have to use the following academic sciences:

1. The theology of the body of human beings that has three parts:
   The theology of the body of male;
   The theology of the body of female;
   Thus, the theology of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion (the theology of the marital act);
   And
2. The objective and realistic philosophy of body of human beings that has also three parts:
   The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of male [The metaphysics of the body of male];
   The objective and realistic philosophy of the body of female [the metaphysics of the body of female];
   Thus, the objective and realistic philosophy of the mutual and reciprocal union of bodies in the human fashion [The objective and realistic philosophy of the marital act with personalist approach with the phenomenology].

The Theology is coming from the Faith and the Philosophy is coming from the Reason. Faith and Reason, and Reason and Faith are very important for the understanding. The couple " Faith and Reason" is the principle of all reasonnings for understanding really the natural moral law of the human beings (dual humanity, male and female with body and soul with their corollaries) and thus for understanding the natural moral order of the marital act.

With Ronald Conte Jr, **no phenomenology of the marital act, no personalist approach of human being during this act!!! No study concerning the Songs of Songs. No taking in consideration missions and functions of exteriors organs?
**
Are there different moments in the context of marital act? For Conte, may be not!!!

Are there three steps (moments, periods, phases, and times) in the context of marital act? Could we call them: before during and after? For Conte, may be not!!!

Yes and yes, the marital act, between wife and husband, the fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion with the sexual cooperation, is composed and has to be composed in three moments: before, during and after the union of bodies.

The marital act is human thing, the time is one of element of humanity. Otherwise, it is absurd: absurdism is not catholic method.

 

[fpt]

By principle, on foreplay before the union of bodies (preliminaries and sexual preliminaries):

If the official catholic teaching does not talk about, what does it mean?
If the official catholic teaching does not ban, what does it mean?
If the official catholic teaching says yes without condition, that means that it is not a unnatural act (per se, by itself, for itself, in itself, of itself, from itself).
If the official catholic teaching says yes with conditions, that means that we have to study the special conditions. That means only that the non respect of special conditions is immoral and thus sinful: no unnatural act, per se.
If the official catholic teaching says no by principle, without condition for being okay: that is unnatural act.

What should be the acception of the definition of an immoral unnatural sexual act? Largo sensu, or stricto sensu?

Let’s be careful with the simplistic analogies.