That’s what I thought, but is that clearly defined or written anywhere for reference that you know of?
Chris
It is not exactly spelled out, i.e., marital masturbation is gravely disordered act and moral illicit. But the same principles that pertain to preserving the integrity of the conjugal act and the grave disorder of self-masturbation apply to mutual marital masturbation (albeit the husband and/or herself bringing the wife to climax in the context of the maritalact). Bottom line, marital masturbation fails to fulfill the 2 essentials aspects of the marital act – obviously the *procreative aspect *of the conjugal act, and not so obviously the *unitive aspect *(unitive not solely being emnotional or psychological). Here are some pertinent Catechism of the Catholic Church citations:
2352 By
masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” (CCC)
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices. (CCC)
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. (CCC)
**2369 **“By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.” (CCC)
**2370 **Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (CCC)
