Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[LovesTheFather]

I have covered this in detail in other threads. Yes, it is selfish, but that is the not the larger problem. The real problem is that my wife has abandoned Christianity, and now calls herself an agnostic. Hence, I cannot use any scriptural or faith-based arguments, to address this issue with my wife. That too is pointless at this point, because she lends no credence to the scriptures.

The real problem is that my wife needs to be led back to faith. That has to be fixed first. The way that I intend to do this, is by setting the proper example to her. I plan on being the ideal Christian, by exemplifying charity, obedience, self-sacrifice, and prayer.

If I can do this, then hopefully at some point, I can draw he back to Christianity. This may take years - or it may not happen at all. But I must do what I can. This is necessary, to fulfill my vocation as a husband.

I must first endeavor to save my wife’s soul, before I can save our sex life. The first priority has to be worked on first.

“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”

This is one passage of MANY where Jesus says his words are truth…
You say that it is pointless for you to use anything scriptual…when in fact Jesus says his words will never go unheard…
So even though you think speaking scripture to your wife is like throwing “pearls to pigs” it is in fact Jesus’ words that will save her…you are planting seeds in her mind when you speak the words of God…

You and your wife will be in my prayers…for her sake I hope she will search for our Holy Trinity once again…

 

[Mike_Dye]

Suppose a temporary or even permanant medical condition exists that makes normal marital relations difficult yet the wife still desires to “take care of” her husband in a non-intercourse manner. Is this a mortal sin?

(How’s THAT for achieving clarity without using a naughty word?)

I am still trying to understand how a wife could “take care of her husband” in a non-intercourse manner with out figuring out a way to have relations with him in a way the Church approves?
I am sure that there must be an answer.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life.

A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation.

Any sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation.

All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Therefore, such acts cannot be considered moral under any circumstances, even if completed by, combined with, preceded by, or followed by an act of natural marital relations.

Each sexual act must be considered separately as to whether or not it is an act of natural marital relations open to life. A sexual act that is unnatural cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial (i.e. not brought to completion) or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations. A sexual act that is not open to life cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life.

All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

 

[Spirithound]

What if a wife has a full hysterectomy for medical reasons is her husband having sex with her casting his seed upon the ground?

I don’t think we can consider this just yet. Norms are established using people at their prime, then we can extrapolate and apply those principles to less typical cases.

 

[baylee]

Baylee, would it be a sin to use a condom during anal intercourse?

With that question, I don’t think you’re getting my point…or are choosing not to.

 

[baylee]

“If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception.”

Well not necessarily…if you are making love for a period of sometime some of the ejaculation may end up not only in the vagina but other places as well…this does not mean the couple was trying to avoid procreation just because some ejaculation took place outside the vagina at some point during the love making…
There are times where a married couple come together to please the other spouse in times of sexual need…and it does not mean the couple is not open to procreation…

I mean say a devout Catholic married couple had two kids and weren’t finacially viable to concieve another just yet…so being responsible adults and parents they choose to practice NFP…I mean that is knowing they are stopping procreation but for a responsible cause…is that evil…nope it isn’t…

Now in your quote of the Catechism you have the word ORDERED meaning-An Authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction
In my Catechism the word in that space is OPEN meaning-Willing to consider something (procreation of course in this matter)

…Huge differences in my book…now maybe that was just a typo on your part or maybe not…you should be a little careful one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence…

I think mrpathetic you need to open your mind and stop damning people to hell for there ejaculations…GOD IS LOVE…to know Love is to know God…God knows the heart of everyone…God knows the intention of every love making session…and to those married couples who enjoy making love and are open to children and maybe some ejaculations don’t happen inside the vagina I say SO WHAT…that doesn’t mean you are evil or against procreation in your marriage…

I believe Artificial contraception is evil…I love the Catholic Church and all of her teachings…I am a devout Catholic Married woman with two children…I am open to procreation…I have read every word of the Catechism that talks about marriage in every aspect as well as sexual sins…over and over…I still haven’t read anything that says I am going to be damned for pleasing my husband…I have actually read I should be fulfilling my husbands needs…and him my needs…why does that mean we are against procreation…well it doesn’t…we still welcome all children that God will bless us with…

LovestheFather…I agree with you and I think I could have written your post (although I don’t think mrpathetic is damning anyone). Although my Catechism words it the same way as yours, I don’t think the change in the wording really changes the overall meaning…which is focusing on remaining open to life when having intercourse (ie. no barriers). There seems to be a piece missing here and that is the intent of the couple when pleasing each other…some couples may use other things for contraceptive purposes, others do not…thankfully, God does not miss that piece.

 

[fix]

What if a wife has a full hysterectomy for medical reasons is her husband having sex with her casting his seed upon the ground?

You may be interested in this:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS

 

[baylee]

I am not calling anyone evil, or condemning them to hell, Baylee.

Just so you know mrpathetic, I do not think you are condemning anyone. I actually think you’re a good guy.

I am saying that there are deep, fundamental disagreements on this subject, based on different interpretations of the Catechism. If this debate has pointed this out, then clearly, our Church has not made this point very clear in the Catechism.

Agreed.

The Catechism should state specifically what sex acts within the marriage bed are licit, and which are illicit. It is simply too vague on this point. And quite frankly, too much is at stake.

I wonder whether it is vague for a reason.

 

[mrpathetic]

You may be interested in this:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS PROPOSED
CONCERNING “UTERINE ISOLATION”
AND RELATED MATTERS

My wife had stage 1 ovarian cancer. The doctors performed an immediate hysterectomy, after the cancer was discovered. If they had not performed the operation, she would most likely have died. Ovarian cancer is one of the most fatal forms of cancer.

I am sure that her medical procedure falls under the first scenario, to “counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother”.

No, it was not done as part of a birth control procedure.

I and my wife have much to repent for, but no, her hysterectomy was not sinful.

 

[fix]

My wife had stage 1 ovarian cancer. The doctors performed an immediate hysterectomy, after the cancer was discovered. If they had not performed the operation, she would most likely have died. Ovarian cancer is one of the most fatal forms of cancer.

I am sure that her medical procedure falls under the first scenario, to “counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother”.

No, it was not done as part of a birth control procedure.

I and my wife have much to repent for, but no, her hysterectomy was not sinful.

I did not intend that for you or anyone in particular. I posted it to another poster who asked a question.

 

[BiologyBrain]

In light of my original post then, the man would have no other choice than to live as a celibate? It seems that this would be a nearly impossible standard of behavior for a married man.

Would it not be the same nearly impossible standard for the married woman? Do married men & women not periodically abstain for reasons such as illness, pregnancy troubles, after birth (6 weeks), to avoid having more children, separation of time & space, etc? There are countless reasons why married men & women should/can/do refrain from intercourse w/ one another. It is not nearly impossible if you have self control.

Quick question… If there’s a medical condition that prohibits the man from engaging in intercourse, is intercourse really in his best interest? Also, how/why would the woman be able to ‘take care of his needs’ w/o intercourse? If the man is not healthy enough for intercourse, it doesn’t matter if the woman is manually manipulating him or they are having vaginal/penile intercourse. The physiological effects on the man are the same - blood pressure rises, heart rate accelerates, etc. I can’t think of a way this wouldn’t be true.

I guess technically the only way it would be somewhat acceptable in the Church would be if the man were Catholic & said no, but his non-Catholic/believing wife persisted. Of course, you could also look at that as rape. Kind of like when the non-believer resorts to contraception, the believing spouse is not relegated to abstinence as long as they themselves do not act in a contraceptive way.

 

[Annn]

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life.

A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation.

Any sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation.

All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Therefore, such acts cannot be considered moral under any circumstances, even if completed by, combined with, preceded by, or followed by an act of natural marital relations.

Each sexual act must be considered separately as to whether or not it is an act of natural marital relations open to life. A sexual act that is unnatural cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial (i.e. not brought to completion) or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations. A sexual act that is not open to life cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life.

All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

Not to be vulgar, but how then does a couple “get ready” for sex, without any stimulation at all?

 

[LovesTheFather]

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life.

A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation.

Any sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation.

All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Therefore, such acts cannot be considered moral under any circumstances, even if completed by, combined with, preceded by, or followed by an act of natural marital relations.

Each sexual act must be considered separately as to whether or not it is an act of natural marital relations open to life. A sexual act that is unnatural cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial (i.e. not brought to completion) or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations. A sexual act that is not open to life cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life.

All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

Not to be rude but are you joking really?
your last paragraph…it sounds like a husband a wife can’t even touch eachother before intercourse…I mean I don’t know who you are but from what you’re saying I don’t think you have ever had sex…
come on really…?..I mean really…?..haha…
open your mind man…what about the “unity” based sex…by your words it is forbidden…
Where I have read in the bible and the CCC, that it is very important in a marriage.
I think the most important thing is that God is in the center of a marriage…the marriage is open to life…the married couple practice NFP if need be…and take care of eachother so Satan doesn’t temp them…after all we are all human beings…and God is the one that knows our hearts…
You sound like Humans are robots that can just turn on and off when needed…maybe that isn’t what you intended but that is what I took from this…

 

[katrntogo]

I am still trying to understand how a wife could “take care of her husband” in a non-intercourse manner with out figuring out a way to have relations with him in a way the Church approves?
I am sure that there must be an answer.

I hesitate to answer this but since there have been a couple of other posters that asked essentially the same question, I will try to elaborate without being too explicit. I am an RN & long before I converted, I worked in an erectile dysfunction facility on a contract as a travel nurse & education/discussion of risks was my area. It is possible to stimulate a man to ejaculation by oral means without him having the ability to achieve an erection (which this lack of ability makes insertion into the vagina difficult). I am guessing this is what the OP was referring to?

 

[rotlex]

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life.

A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation.

Any sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation.

All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Therefore, such acts cannot be considered moral under any circumstances, even if completed by, combined with, preceded by, or followed by an act of natural marital relations.

Each sexual act must be considered separately as to whether or not it is an act of natural marital relations open to life. A sexual act that is unnatural cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial (i.e. not brought to completion) or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations. A sexual act that is not open to life cannot be justified by the claim that it is partial or that it is combined in some way with natural marital relations open to life.

All unnatural sexual acts, including oral, anal, and manual stimulation, whether partial or completed, even if used as so-called foreplay with the sexual act being completed in natural marital relations, even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to completion, even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.

I have been reading through this thread since the beginning, and have found some very interesting points and reading. PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, but if you truly believe what you have said above, the only thing I can say is that I hope others pray for you. You have some seriously deep seated issues with sexual relations, and should most likely seek some professional help.

Again, this is the type of thinking that scares me, as well as others I’m sure when it comes to religious fanaticism. Our Lord does not expect a man and a woman, married of course, to simply be robotic baby producing machines with absolutely no intimacy or to not have fun while trying.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Not to be vulgar, but how then does a couple “get ready” for sex, without any stimulation at all?

I’m using the term ‘stimulation’ as an euphemism to refer to non-consummated unnatural sexual acts, i.e. these acts used as a type of illicit foreplay.

The husband and wife can engage in licit foreplay, such as kissing, hugging, carressing. But they cannot engage in oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation, even if these acts are non-consumated, even if consumation occurs subsequently in natural marital relations.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have been reading through this thread since the beginning, and have found some very interesting points and reading. PLEASE do not take this the wrong way, but if you truly believe what you have said above, the only thing I can say is that I hope others pray for you. You have some seriously deep seated issues with sexual relations, and should most likely seek some professional help.

This is an ad hominem argument. My theological position on the subject of marital sexual ethics is based on Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-bed.htm

Again, this is the type of thinking that scares me, as well as others I’m sure when it comes to religious fanaticism. Our Lord does not expect a man and a woman, married of course, to simply be robotic baby producing machines with absolutely no intimacy or to not have fun while trying.

A married couple can have natural marital relations open to life in any of the natural positions; they can engage in licit foreplay; they can talk to one another, laugh, show affection, express their deepest feelings.

Unnatural sexual acts are not intimacy; such acts are objective mortal sin (not ‘fun’). The idea that sex cannot be satisfying or intimate or fun or fully human without such acts is absurd.

 

[Ella]

I’m using the term ‘stimulation’ as an euphemism to refer to non-consummated unnatural sexual acts, i.e. these acts used as a type of illicit foreplay.

The husband and wife can engage in licit foreplay, such as kissing, hugging, carressing. But they cannot engage in oral sex, anal sex, or masturbation, even if these acts are non-consumated, even if consumation occurs subsequently in natural marital relations.

Is that so? Where do you get this teaching? Source?

 

[Ron_Conte]

what about the “unity” based sex…by your words it is forbidden…

Each and every sexual act within marriage must have both the unitive and procreative meaning. Unnatural sexual acts do not have the procreative meaning; they also do not have the true unitive meaning.

Where I have read in the bible and the CCC, that it is very important in a marriage.
I think the most important thing is that God is in the center of a marriage…the marriage is open to life…the married couple practice NFP if need be…and take care of eachother so Satan doesn’t temp them…after all we are all human beings…and God is the one that knows our hearts…
You sound like Humans are robots that can just turn on and off when needed…maybe that isn’t what you intended but that is what I took from this…

The idea that only the marriage as a whole must be open to life was rejected by Humanae Vitae. Each and every sexual act within marriage must have both the unitive and procreative meaning. So the husband and wife cannot ‘take care of each other’ by means of unnatural sexual acts since these acts are not open to life (and not truly unitive either).

 

[Ron_Conte]

[Romans 12]
{12:1} And so, I beg you, brothers, by the mercy of God, that you offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, with the subservience of your mind.
{12:2} And do not choose to be conformed to this age, but instead choose to be reformed in the newness of your mind, so that you may demonstrate what is the will of God: what is good, and what is well-pleasing, and what is perfect.
{12:3} For I say, through the grace that has been given to me, to all who are among you: Taste no more than it is necessary to taste, but taste unto sobriety and just as God has distributed a share of the faith to each one.

[1 Thessalonians 4]
{4:1} Therefore, concerning other things, brothers, we ask and beg you, in the Lord Jesus, that, just as you have received from us the way in which you ought to walk and to please God, so also may you walk, in order that you may abound all the more.
{4:2} For you know what precepts I have given to you through the Lord Jesus.
{4:3} For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from fornication,
{4:4} that each one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor,
{4:5} not in passions of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God,
{4:6} and that no one should overwhelm or circumvent his brother in business. For the Lord is the vindicator of all these things, just as we have preached and testified to you.
{4:7} For God has not called us to impurity, but to sanctification.
{4:8} And so, whoever despises these teachings, does not despise man, but God, who has even provided his Holy Spirit within us.