Masturbation in Marriage

[fpt]

By definition, the masturbation is made by a human, by itself and on itself, out of the context of the sexual union. Per se, masturbation is a self-erotism on itself by itself, without the presence of the other sex, without link with the phenomenology of the sexual act, and not in the context of the marital act. Be careful, you must not have the acception of the definition from Ronald Conte Jr.

 

[fpt]

Masturbation is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. Adultery is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. **Both are sexual sins that are against the chastity. But, they are different. The constitutive elements are different.
**
Each member of the couple has to try to avoid that the other falls into those sins: the medical end of marriage and of the marital act (the medicinal end). The fact of avoiding the wrong effect of the concupiscence is important, a right, a duty and an obligation for each one. Yes, the wife is the nurse and the doctoress of the sexuality of her husband, and the husband is the nurse and the doctor of the sexuality of his wife.

 

[fpt]

A correction:

Masturbation is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. Adultery is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. **Both are sexual sins that are against the chastity. But, they are different. The constitutive elements are different.
**
Each member of the couple has to try to avoid that the other **does not fall **into those sins: the medical end of marriage and of the marital act (the medicinal end). The fact of avoiding the wrong effect of the concupiscence is important, a right, a duty and an obligation for each one. Yes, the wife is the nurse and the doctoress of the sexuality of her husband, and the husband is the nurse and the doctor of the sexuality of his wife.

Each member of couple is like a keeper angel for the chastity of the other.

 

[fpt]

A correction:

Each member of couple is like a keeper angel for the chastity of the other.

Other correction:

Masturbation is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. Adultery is an offense to the conjugal institution and to the conjugal contract. Both are sexual sins that are against the chastity. But, they are different. The constitutive elements are different.
**
Each member of the couple has to try that the partner does not fall into those sins:** the medical end of marriage and of the marital act (the medicinal end). The fact of avoiding the wrong effect of the concupiscence is important, a right, a duty and an obligation for each one. Yes, the wife is the nurse and the doctoress of the sexuality of her husband, and the husband is the nurse and the doctor of the sexuality of his wife.

 

[Vico]

By definition, the masturbation is made by a human, by itself and on itself, out of the context of the sexual union. Per se, masturbation is a self-erotism on itself by itself, without the presence of the other sex, without link with the phenomenology of the sexual act, and not in the context of the marital act. Be careful, you must not have the acception of the definition from Ronald Conte Jr.

Really the Catechism has the definition:2352 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

Oxford dictionary: masturbate
verb
[no object] 1 Stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure.

1.1 [with object]
Stimulate the genitals of (someone) to give them sexual pleasure.

 

[fpt]

Really the Catechism has the definition:2352 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

Oxford dictionary: masturbate
verb
[no object] 1 Stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure.

1.1 [with object]
Stimulate the genitals of (someone) to give them sexual pleasure.

For you, between wife and husband in the context of the marital act, the sin of masturbation is constituted:

When the wife touches, massages, licks, sucks and kisses the external sexual organs of her husband like sexual foreplay, in the love with tenderness. Thus, the wife has to go confess the sin of masturbation on her husband, she is active (the donation), and the husband has to confess the sin of masturbation, he is passive (the reception).

Do you think like that? If yes, are you serious? And why?

When the husband touches, massages, licks, sucks and kisses the external sexual organs of his wife like sexual foreplay, in the love with tenderness. Thus, the husband has to go confess the sin of masturbation on his wife, he is active (the donation), and the wife has to confess the sin of masturbation, she is passive (the reception).

Do you think like that? If yes, are you serious? And why?

Do you agree with the acception of the definition of the masturbation coming from Ronald Conte jr? Only, for information about his particular definition of sin of masturbation. Good reading and good luck.

Free booklet: The Immorality of Pornography
catholicplanet.com/ebooks/the-immorality-of.pdf
The Distinction between Ordinary Foreplay and Sexual Acts
ronconte.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/the-distinction-between-ordinary-foreplay-and-sexual-acts/
Is all marital foreplay moral?
ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/is-all-marital-foreplay-moral/
Unnatural sexual acts as marital foreplay
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/unnatural-sexual-acts-as-marital-foreplay/
unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil
ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/unnatural-sexual-acts-are-intrinsically-evil/
Marital Seual Ethics: post-coital unnatural sexual acts
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/marital-sexual-ethics-post-coital-unnatural-sexual-acts/
What determines the morality of a sexual act?
ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/sexual-ethics-01/
Marital sexual ethics, reply to objections 1
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/marital-sexual-ethics-reply-to-objections-1/
Marital sexual ethics, reply to objections 2
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/marital-sexual-ethics-reply-to-objections-2/
Marital sexual ethics, Reply to objections 3
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/marital-sexual-ethics-reply-to-objections-3/
A Common Question in Marital Sexual Ethics
ronconte.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/a-common-question-in-marital-sexual-ethics/
Which sexual acts are moral, and which are immoral? Sexual ethics and the three fonts of morality
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/sexual-ethics-and-the-three-fonts-of-morality/
In Roman Catholic moral theology, what is a moral object?
ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/in-roman-catholic-moral-theology-what-is-a-moral-object/
Ethics 101: The three fonts of morality
ronconte.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/ethics-101-the-three-fonts-of-morality/

If you agree with him, there are many issues and problematics!!!

 

[fpt]

Really the Catechism has the definition:2352 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure.

Oxford dictionary: masturbate
verb
[no object] 1 Stimulate one’s own genitals for sexual pleasure.

1.1 [with object]
Stimulate the genitals of (someone) to give them sexual pleasure.

Today, the confusion and the doctrine of the confusion are very powerful, are very strong and are so present in the collective imaginary of many catholic lay persons. That is so sad for the intelligence, for each member of couple and thus for the conjugal erotism of the marital act within the marriage.

In the context of the marital act:

What are the sexual physical rights of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy ??? What are the sexual physical obligations of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy ??? What are the sexual physical duties of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy, to have, not to have, to get, not to get, to obtain, not to obtain, to consent, not to consent, to agree with, not to agree with, to disagree with, not to disagree with, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no, not to say no, to ask, not to ask, to require, not to require, to request, not to request, to will, not to will, to wish, not to wish, to desire, not to desire, to want, not to want, to be active, not to be active, to be passive, not to be passive, to act, not to act, to react, not to react, to allow, not to allow, to implore, not to implore, to supplicate, not to supplicate, to beg, not to beg, to plead, not to plead, to refuse, not to refuse???
*
What are the sexual physical rights of the husband on the body of his wife:* to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy??? What are the sexual physical obligations of the husband on the body of his wife: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy??? What are the sexual physical duties of the husband on the body of his wife: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy, to have, not to have, to get, not to get, to obtain, not to obtain, to consent, not to consent, to agree with, not to agree with,to disagree with, not to disagree with, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no, not to say no, to ask, not to ask, to require, not to require, to request, not to request, to will, not to will, to wish, not to wish, to desire, not to desire, to want, not to want, to be active, not to be active, to be passive, not to be passive, to act, not to act, to react, not to react, to allow, not to allow, to implore, not to implore, to supplicate, not to supplicate, to beg, not to beg, to plead, not to plead, to refuse, not to refuse???

The foreplay and the sexual foreplay *are rights, obligations and duties for each member of couple, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act. It is not negociable, in my humble opinion. Only a mutual temporary agreement between wife and husband, for particular reasons, could be possible. The doctrinal exclusion of foreplay and of sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act is against the structure of the marital act and is against the rights, the duties and the obligations of each one. This moral theology is dangerous, is heretic, is crazy, is a shame, is stupid, it is a disease of the intelligence of the understanding of the real. ***

 

[Vico]

Today, the confusion and the doctrine of the confusion are very powerful, are very strong and are so present in the collective imaginary of many catholic lay persons. That is so sad for the intelligence, for each member of couple and thus for the conjugal erotism of the marital act within the marriage.

In the context of the marital act:

What are the sexual physical rights of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy ??? What are the sexual physical obligations of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy ??? What are the sexual physical duties of the wife on the body of her husband: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy, to have, not to have, to get, not to get, to obtain, not to obtain, to consent, not to consent, to agree with, not to agree with, to disagree with, not to disagree with, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no, not to say no, to ask, not to ask, to require, not to require, to request, not to request, to will, not to will, to wish, not to wish, to desire, not to desire, to want, not to want, to be active, not to be active, to be passive, not to be passive, to act, not to act, to react, not to react, to allow, not to allow, to implore, not to implore, to supplicate, not to supplicate, to beg, not to beg, to plead, not to plead, to refuse, not to refuse???

What are the sexual physical rights of the husband on the body of his wife: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy??? What are the sexual physical obligations of the husband on the body of his wife: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy??? What are the sexual physical duties of the husband on the body of his wife: to do, to take, to receive, to offer, to give, to donate, to sacrifice, to please, to satisfy, not to do, not to take, not to receive, not to offer, not to give, not to donate, not to sacrifice, not to please, not to satisfy, to have, not to have, to get, not to get, to obtain, not to obtain, to consent, not to consent, to agree with, not to agree with,to disagree with, not to disagree with, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no, not to say no, to ask, not to ask, to require, not to require, to request, not to request, to will, not to will, to wish, not to wish, to desire, not to desire, to want, not to want, to be active, not to be active, to be passive, not to be passive, to act, not to act, to react, not to react, to allow, not to allow, to implore, not to implore, to supplicate, not to supplicate, to beg, not to beg, to plead, not to plead, to refuse, not to refuse???

The foreplay and the sexual foreplay *are rights, obligations and duties for each member of couple, in the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act. It is not negociable, in my humble opinion. Only a mutual temporary agreement between wife and husband, for particular reasons, could be possible. The doctrinal exclusion of foreplay and of sexual foreplay in the context of the marital act is against the structure of the marital act and is against the rights, the duties and the obligations of each one. This moral theology is dangerous, is heretic, is crazy, is a shame, is stupid, it is a disease of the intelligence of the understanding of the real. ***

A spouse does not have rights to their spouses body. Conjugal relations are a gift and a gift is not a right but a thing given willingly without payment. If the spouse is not willing it is not morally acceptable to take. The marital duty refers to the obligation to propagate that comes with the exercise of moderate and morally just conjugal relations within matrimony.

Charity must rule. St. John Paul II explained in Love and Responsibility “if a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person”.

Matrimony is actually a consortium (the word used in canon law), which is a broader meaning than communio and means: close association of individuals sharing the same fortune fate and destiny.

It is also justified for the wife to refuse when it is medically inadvisable to become pregnant, even if for the entire time of the marriage. This was addressed by Pope Pius XII.

 

[fpt]

A spouse does not have rights to their spouses body. Conjugal relations are a gift and a gift is not a right but a thing given willingly without payment. If the spouse is not willing it is not morally acceptable to take. The marital duty refers to the obligation to propagate that comes with the exercise of moderate and morally just conjugal relations within matrimony.

Charity must rule. St. John Paul II explained in Love and Responsibility “if a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person”.

Matrimony is actually a consortium (the word used in canon law), which is a broader meaning than communio and means: close association of individuals sharing the same fortune fate and destiny.

It is also justified for the wife to refuse when it is medically inadvisable to become pregnant, even if for the entire time of the marriage. This was addressed by Pope Pius XII.

Sorry,** but the marriage is a natural institution, a natural contract, a natural covenant and a natural consortium. **Of course yes, the marriage is a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of bodies and a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of bodies. **That means a natural donation and a natural reception of persons, **in the three dimensions, the body, the soul and the heart. **The wife gives her own body to her husband, the husband gives his own body to his wife, the wife receives the body of her husband and the husband receives the body of his wife (donation/ reception). **

In the Catholic Canon Law, the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the conjugal sexual cooperation, the fact of making one flesh in the human fashion are elements of this Contract - Covenant - Consortium - Institution, whatever the good word. Only, the Roman Catholic Church has the power to explain what is the natural moral regime of the marriage for the Validity/ Invalidity and for the morality of the Execution/ Non-excecution: rights, obligations, duties, functions, roles, states, competences, privileges, liberties and responsibilities. The same reasoning has to be held for the natural moral order of the marital act. The body of wife is the husband’s body and the body of husband is the wife’s body: a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable possession of bodies during the marital act. What are the sexual physical rights of the husband on the body of his wife? What are the sexual physical obligations of the husband on the body of his wife? What are the sexual physical duties of the husband on the body of his wife? What are the sexual physical rights of the wife on the body of her husband? What are the sexual physical obligations of the wife on the body of her husband? What are the sexual physical duties of the wife on the body of her husband? You need to know that each right, each obligation and each duty can be passive or active. Of course, this Contract - Covenant - Consortium - Institution is not like a secular contract, with, only, material rules. But, the laws of marriage and the laws of the marital act are existing.

In Catholicism, there is the natural moral regime of the marital act that is composed by: the contractual natural moral regime of the marital act and the institutional natural moral regime of the marital act; the absolute natural moral regime of the marital act and the relative natural moral regime of the marital act; the objective natural moral regime of the marital act and the subjective natural moral regime of the marital act;

The natural moral regime of the bilateral refusal of practice of the marital act;
The natural moral regime of the unilateral refusal of practice of the marital act;
The natural moral regime of the bilateral request of practice of the marital act;
The natural moral regime of the unilateral request of practice of the marital act;

The fair reasons for saying yes or for saying no???

 

[fpt]

Can. 1055 §1. **The matrimonial covenant, **by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament. Can. 1057 §2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage. Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Thus, the marriage is a covenant, a contract, an act of the volition, a consortium and an institution with **some rights, some obligations, some duties, some debts, some roles and some functions. This covenant, this contract and this consortium is a donation and a reception: the fact of giving and the fact of receiving. ****The notions of conjugal debt, of conjugal obligations, of conjugal rights, of conjugal privileges and of conjugal requests are still taken in consideration **by the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Vico]

…

You said “In the Catholic Canon Law, the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the conjugal sexual cooperation, the fact of making one flesh in the human fashion are elements of this Contract - Covenant - Consortium - Institution, whatever the good word.”

There is no right to the body in the 1983 CIC or 1992 CCEO canon law. This was clarified at Vatican II and canon was modified later. The gift of the body is a symbol of the real giving of the whole person. (Familiaris Consortio 80)The Church, for her part, cannot admit such a kind of union, for further and original reasons which derive from faith. For, in the first place, the gift of the body in the sexual relationship is a real symbol of the giving of the whole person: such a giving, moreover, in the present state of things cannot take place with full truth without the concourse of the love of charity, given by Christ. In the second place, marriage between two baptized persons is a real symbol of the union of Christ and the Church, which is not a temporary or “trial” union but one which is eternally faithful. Therefore between two baptized persons there can exist only an indissoluble marriage.
1983 CIC Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
Canon 1081.2 of the 1917 canon law stated (narrowly) that it was an act of will giving right to the body (ius in corpus):Can 1081

§2. Consensus matrimonialis est actus voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem.

§ 2. Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual and exclusive right to the body, ordered to acts per se apt for the generation of offspring.

 

[fpt]

You said “In the Catholic Canon Law, the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the conjugal sexual cooperation, the fact of making one flesh in the human fashion are elements of this Contract - Covenant - Consortium - Institution, whatever the good word.”

There is no right to the body in the 1983 CIC or 1992 CCEO canon law. This was clarified at Vatican II and canon was modified later. The gift of the body is a symbol of the real giving of the whole person. (Familiaris Consortio 80)The Church, for her part, cannot admit such a kind of union, for further and original reasons which derive from faith. For, in the first place, the gift of the body in the sexual relationship is a real symbol of the giving of the whole person: such a giving, moreover, in the present state of things cannot take place with full truth without the concourse of the love of charity, given by Christ. In the second place, marriage between two baptized persons is a real symbol of the union of Christ and the Church, which is not a temporary or “trial” union but one which is eternally faithful. Therefore between two baptized persons there can exist only an indissoluble marriage.
1983 CIC Canon 1061.1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
Canon 1081.2 of the 1917 canon law stated (narrowly) that it was an act of will giving right to the body (ius in corpus):Can 1081

§2. Consensus matrimonialis est actus voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem.

§ 2. Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual and exclusive right to the body, ordered to acts per se apt for the generation of offspring.

§ 2. Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual and exclusive right to the body, ordered to acts per se apt for the generation of offspring. ** Right to the body!!!
**

The marital debt, the marital obligation and the marital right are catholic notions.

Ask to your priests, they will tell you that in the marriage there are a donation of persons and a reception of persons, in all the dimensions, for all the life: the body, the soul and the heart. One part is the conjugal vow with a focus on the marital act. Thus, the marriage is a sexed and sexual institution and an sexed and sexual contract / covenant / consortium. The mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of bodies and the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of bodies. The marital vows are sexed, sexual, complementary and in the alterity. The union of bodies is one of hard cores of the marriage.

FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO

Pastoral Action in Certain Irregular Situations

1. In its solicitude to protect the family in all its dimensions, not only the religious one, the Synod of Bishops did not fail to take into careful consideration certain situations which are irregular in a religious sense and often in the civil sense too. Such situations, as a result of today’s rapid cultural changes, are unfortunately becoming widespread also among Catholics with no little damage to the very institution of the family and to society, of which the family constitutes the basic cell.

a) Trial Marriages

1. A first example of an irregular situation is provided by what are called “trial marriages,” which many people today would like to justify by attributing a certain value to them. But human reason leads one to see that they are unacceptable, by showing the unconvincing nature of carrying out an “experiment” with human beings, whose dignity demands that they should be always and solely the term of a self-giving love without limitations of time or of any other circumstance.

The Church, for her part, cannot admit such a kind of union, for further and original reasons which derive from faith. For, in the first place,** the gift of the body ** ** (the fact of giving the body to the spouse)** in the sexual relationship is a real symbol of the giving of the whole person: such a giving, moreover, in the present state of things cannot take place with full truth without the concourse of the love of charity, given by Christ. In the second place, marriage between two baptized persons is a real symbol of the union of Christ and the Church, which is not a temporary or “trial” union but one which is eternally faithful. Therefore between two baptized persons there can exist only an indissoluble marriage.

Here the topic is on the Trial Marriages

Such a situation cannot usually be overcome unless the human person, from childhood, with the help of Christ’s grace and without fear, has been trained to dominate concupiscence from the beginning and to establish relationships of genuine love with other people. This cannot be secured without a true education in genuine love and in the right use of sexuality, such as to introduce the human person in every aspect, and therefore the bodily aspect too, into the fullness of the mystery of Christ.

It will be very useful to investigate the causes of this phenomenon, including its psychological and sociological aspect, in order to find the proper remedy.

 

[Vico]

§ 2. Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual and exclusive right to the body, ordered to acts per se apt for the generation of offspring. Right to the body!!!..

What was the purpose of quoting the* former* canon law that I posted?

 

[fpt]

What was the purpose of quoting the* former* canon law that I posted?

In Catholicism,** the organic development of some mysteries (here the marriage and the marital act) via the Magisterium and the principle of non contrariety between the past and the now concerning the doctrine of some mysteries (here the marriage and the marital act) are the rules.** The Canon Law of 1983 does not contest the notion of right on the body and Co. The canonical doctrine, the case law and the jurisprudence about the right to the body, about the right on the body and about the right of the body are still existing. Indeed,** the contract of donation of bodies implies the “ius in corpus” via the donation and the reception, even if, per se, the Canon Law of 1983 stays silent.** Yes, yes, yes, the husband has still rights on the body of his wife and the wife has still right on the body of her husband. The Canon Law of 1983 does not change the past / former doctrine concerning the “ius in corpus”. The day of wedding, at the moment of the exchange of vows, the bride and the bridegroom (each one) say yes to the mutual, bilateral and reciprocal donation of bodies for making one flesh, with the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. The marital vows imply, also, the sexual vows.The right of the body (the right on the body, the right to the body) is a huge part of the marriage. It is one of hard cores of this contractual institution or of this institutional contract that means a conjugal sexual debt, a conjugal sexual obligation and a conjugal sexual duty, with all the conjugal sexual privileges, in respecting the natural moral order of the state of marriage. Thus, the principle is the practice of the marital act, the exception is the non-practice of the marital act under special conditions. In Catholicity, the right to the body, the right of the body and the right on the body **are opposable rights to the other. **It is a contractual obligation and an institutional duty coming from the natural moral law. In the conjugal vows, the donation and the reception of bodies are rights, obligations, duties and debts and they are not free.

**The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the notion of right on the body **can be a cause of the declaration of nullity of marriage.

 

[fpt]

For information, in the canon law:

Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

If the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh???

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1° those who lack sufficient use of reason;

2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;

The essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted, conjugally sexually speaking???

3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

The essential obligations of marriage, conjugally sexually speaking???

Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

Through some form of sexual cooperation, conjugally sexually speaking???

The triptych (right / obligation / duty) stays, even if that can be seen like an odd thing. The right of the body, the right on the body and the right to the body are catholic notions, it is like that, I am sorry.

 

[Vico]

In Catholicism, the organic development of some mysteries (here the marriage and the marital act) via the Magisterium and the principle of non contrariety between the past and the now concerning the doctrine of some mysteries (here the marriage and the marital act) are the rules. The Canon Law of 1983 does not contest the notion of right on the body and Co. The canonical doctrine, the case law and the jurisprudence about the right to the body, about the right on the body and about the right of the body are still existing. Indeed, the contract of donation of bodies implies the “ius in corpus” via the donation and the reception, even if, per se, the Canon Law of 1983 stays silent. Yes, yes, yes, the husband has still rights on the body of his wife and the wife has still right on the body of her husband. The Canon Law of 1983 does not change the past / former doctrine concerning the “ius in corpus”. The day of wedding, at the moment of the exchange of vows, the bride and the bridegroom (each one) say yes to the mutual, bilateral and reciprocal donation of bodies for making one flesh, with the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. The marital vows imply, also, the sexual vows.The right of the body (the right on the body, the right to the body) is a huge part of the marriage. It is one of hard cores of this contractual institution or of this institutional contract that means a conjugal sexual debt, a conjugal sexual obligation and a conjugal sexual duty, with all the conjugal sexual privileges, in respecting the natural moral order of the state of marriage. Thus, the principle is the practice of the marital act, the exception is the non-practice of the marital act under special conditions. In Catholicity, the right to the body, the right of the body and the right on the body are opposable rights to the other. It is a contractual obligation and an institutional duty coming from the natural moral law. In the conjugal vows, the donation and the reception of bodies are rights, obligations, duties and debts and they are not free.

The doctrinal refusal of the existence of the notion of right on the body can be a cause of the declaration of nullity of marriage.

Yes, however you post, ignoring the change made to teach that the gift of the body is a symbol of the real giving of the whole person. (Familiaris Consortio 80) The existence of a right or duty does not ensure moral rectitude. A spouse is not justified to take against the will of the other, even within marriage.

Examples are:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. generally: medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. if a sinful mode is employed, for example condom use *

• Deposition of semen in the vagina is a necessary condition for the conjugal act to retain its unitive significance. Each and every conjugal act must embody the intention of complete “self-donation,” otherwise one is withholding from one’s partner something natural to the act, which deprives the conjugal act of the unitive significance, making it morally illicit.

 

[fpt]

For reading

cormacburke.or.ke/node/276

Canon 1057 and the Object of Matrimonial Consent
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 16:10 — webmaster

Conclusion

        The object of matrimonial consent is therefore the reciprocal gift of conjugal sexuality. We have expressed the right to which it gives rise as the "ius perpetuum et exclusivum in sexualitatem coniugalem procreativam". We would make some further brief remarks on this admittedly tentative formula.

        In a certain sense, one can say that the adjectives "perpetual", "exclusive" and "procreative" are redundant, as being all necessarily implied in any true conjugal sexual relationship; for, according to our earlier analysis, they simply specify the essential elements of conjugality. But, given modern reductive understandings of the married relationship, it seems important to specify each element. In particular the aspect of procreativity or openness-to-life (which must be accepted also by probably or certainly sterile couples) needs to be emphasized, given the tendency today to propose a type of "contraceptive conjugality".

        When compared to the "ius in corpus", the proposed new formula may seem at first sight seem to suffer from a certain vagueness. Yet I would maintain that it is more concrete in what is essential to conjugality. It relates the right exchanged directly to the complementary procreative power of the other party; and does not allow it to be limited, for example, to a mere corporal act which might be accompanied by a permanent contraceptive or abortive intention: a possibility that has always troubled the interpretation of the "ius in corpus".

        It is arguable that the analysis given draws juridic and anthropological principles together in greater harmony. Marriage establishes a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, in which each gives to the other an exclusive right over personal procreativity, so denoting, in a totally unique way, the "gift of self" proper to conjugal consent.

 

[fpt]

Yes, however you post, ignoring the change made to teach that the gift of the body is a symbol of the real giving of the whole person. (Familiaris Consortio 80) The existence of a right or duty does not ensure moral rectitude. A spouse is not justified to take against the will of the other, even within marriage.

Examples are:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. generally: medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. if a sinful mode is employed, for example condom use *

• Deposition of semen in the vagina is a necessary condition for the conjugal act to retain its unitive significance. Each and every conjugal act must embody the intention of complete “self-donation,” otherwise one is withholding from one’s partner something natural to the act, which deprives the conjugal act of the unitive significance, making it morally illicit.

**I am totally okay with your examples, you are alright. **The natural moral regime of the marital act **is maintained: ** the natural moral regime of bilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act and the natural moral regime of unilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act. Before 1983 and before Vatican II, the rules about the natural moral regime of bilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act and the natural moral regime of unilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act were. Nothing of new in those rules.

The Roman Catholic Church keeps the same line.

 

[mommamaree]

Yes, however you post, ignoring the change made to teach that the gift of the body is a symbol of the real giving of the whole person. (Familiaris Consortio 80) The existence of a right or duty does not ensure moral rectitude. A spouse is not justified to take against the will of the other, even within marriage.

Examples are:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. generally: medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. if a sinful mode is employed, for example condom use *

• Deposition of semen in the vagina is a necessary condition for the conjugal act to retain its unitive significance. Each and every conjugal act must embody the intention of complete “self-donation,” otherwise one is withholding from one’s partner something natural to the act, which deprives the conjugal act of the unitive significance, making it morally illicit.

Another example I have seen listed is
*lacking the proper amount of time or privacy

 

[Vico]

I am totally okay with your examples, you are alright. The natural moral regime of the marital act is maintained: the natural moral regime of bilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act and the natural moral regime of unilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act. Before 1983 and before Vatican II, the rules about the natural moral regime of bilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act and the natural moral regime of unilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act were. Nothing of new in those rules.

The Roman Catholic Church keeps the same line.

What happened from Vatican II, however, is that the Church’s description of marriage changed from considering marriage as an exchange of rights to an exchange of persons.