Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLM08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ron, you are the only person I have ever encountered on CA, or anywhere else, that believes foreplay is sinful even if it leads to normal intercourse.

The only person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
 
Ron, you are the only person I have ever encountered on CA, or anywhere else, that believes foreplay is sinful even if it leads to normal intercourse.

The only person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
There are a lot of people who are steeped in guilt that results from sexual pleasure. This stems from many of the early church fathers who didn’t really have an understanding of the biology and physiology behind it. Back them, sexual pleasure was viewed as an unfortunate by-product of the procreative act that was necessary for the human race to continue. Sexual pleasure was even seen as an evil thing. Sadly this attitude still exists today.
 
CCC 1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values”

To me, this includes those intimate acts of affection, closeness and comfort in one another that form part of a normal, healthy marital relationship, whether leading to the act of marital love or not, if the intention is that the couple are open to fertility, and not avoiding it un-naturally, then is there a sin?

What about when one of the spouses is not catholic, and finds it therefore more difficult to accept periods of abstinence? This could lead to frustration within the relationship, and therefore does not contribute to the mutual “oneness” that the CCC advocates. I am not suggesting that the woman should give in to her non-catholic spouse’s demands for gratification just for the sake of keeping the peace! But surely giving to each other bodily, helps to strengthen the bond between the couple whether or not intercourse is achieved - it is not surely selfish if both spouses are mutually respectful and generous to each other?

As a relatively recent convert, I still struggle with certain aspects of what is/is not allowed, and frankly some of these posts scare me!!! :eek:
 
CCC 1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values”

To me, this includes those intimate acts of affection, closeness and comfort in one another that form part of a normal, healthy marital relationship, whether leading to the act of marital love or not, if the intention is that the couple are open to fertility, and not avoiding it un-naturally, then is there a sin?
I’m sure not.
What about when one of the spouses is not catholic, and finds it therefore more difficult to accept periods of abstinence? This could lead to frustration within the relationship, and therefore does not contribute to the mutual “oneness” that the CCC advocates. I am not suggesting that the woman should give in to her non-catholic spouse’s demands for gratification just for the sake of keeping the peace! But surely giving to each other bodily, helps to strengthen the bond between the couple whether or not intercourse is achieved - it is not surely selfish if both spouses are mutually respectful and generous to each other?
As a relatively recent convert, I still struggle with certain aspects of what is/is not allowed, and frankly some of these posts scare me!!! :eek:
Abstinence is not required, but contraception is forbidden. This is a discussion to be had before marriage. Anything that contributes to a “oneness” that doesn’t include God is a very bad idea.
 

Hello Forum \o
Which topics speak about sexual relation between married people ? (permitted acts)​

What books do you think that are the good ones about moral theology since century XVI in english and french languages ?
Saint Lent for all 😉
Eduardo Ramirez Rio de Janeiro Brasil :cool:
 
Ron, you are the only person I have ever encountered on CA, or anywhere else, that believes foreplay is sinful even if it leads to normal intercourse.

The only person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
I am NOT saying that foreplay is sinful.
But some persons have tried to categorize unnatural sexual acts as foreplay.

Very simply, if a sexual act is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral when done by itself (e.g. masturbation, oral sex, anal sex), then it remains intrinsically evil and immoral when done before, during, or after natural marital relations. Veritatis Splendor plainly repeatedly emphatically teaches that intrinsically evil acts are not justifed by intention, nor by circumstance, and that such acts are always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts remain immoral regardless of whether or not they are consummated (brought to completion) because the moral object of the act (which is what makes any act intrinsically evil) remains the same. So both consummated and non-consummated unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil.
 
There are a lot of people who are steeped in guilt that results from sexual pleasure. This stems from many of the early church fathers who didn’t really have an understanding of the biology and physiology behind it. Back them, sexual pleasure was viewed as an unfortunate by-product of the procreative act that was necessary for the human race to continue. Sexual pleasure was even seen as an evil thing. Sadly this attitude still exists today.
This is an ad hominem argument.

Also the Church Fathers did not need to understand every biological fact in order to know which acts are immoral and which are moral.
 
CCC 1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values”

To me, this includes those intimate acts of affection, closeness and comfort in one another that form part of a normal, healthy marital relationship, whether leading to the act of marital love or not, if the intention is that the couple are open to fertility, and not avoiding it un-naturally, then is there a sin?
Unnatural sexual acts are by definition not open to life (these acts are inherently non-procreative).

Acts of affection such as kissing, caressing, hugging, etc. are moral between a husband and wife. Unnatural sexual acts are not moral at any time by anyone.
 
I am NOT saying that foreplay is sinful.
But some persons have tried to categorize unnatural sexual acts as foreplay.

Very simply, if a sexual act is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral when done by itself (e.g. masturbation, oral sex, anal sex), then it remains intrinsically evil and immoral when done before, during, or after natural marital relations. Veritatis Splendor plainly repeatedly emphatically teaches that intrinsically evil acts are not justifed by intention, nor by circumstance, and that such acts are always immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts remain immoral regardless of whether or not they are consummated (brought to completion) because the moral object of the act (which is what makes any act intrinsically evil) remains the same. So both consummated and non-consummated unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil.
You’re saying that oral and/or manual stimulation of each other’s genitals prior to normal intercourse is sinful, which again makes you the only person I have ever seen on CA or anywhere else who says this. The* only* person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
 
CCC 1643 “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values”

To me, this includes those intimate acts of affection, closeness and comfort in one another that form part of a normal, healthy marital relationship, whether leading to the act of marital love or not, if the intention is that the couple are open to fertility, and not avoiding it un-naturally, then is there a sin?

What about when one of the spouses is not catholic, and finds it therefore more difficult to accept periods of abstinence? This could lead to frustration within the relationship, and therefore does not contribute to the mutual “oneness” that the CCC advocates. I am not suggesting that the woman should give in to her non-catholic spouse’s demands for gratification just for the sake of keeping the peace! But surely giving to each other bodily, helps to strengthen the bond between the couple whether or not intercourse is achieved - it is not surely selfish if both spouses are mutually respectful and generous to each other?

As a relatively recent convert, I still struggle with certain aspects of what is/is not allowed, and frankly some of these posts scare me!!! :eek:
I recommend Theology of the Body for Beginners for an intro to drop dead gorgeous theology. Or you can try Holy Sex!: A Catholic Guide to Toe-Curling, Mind-Blowing, Infallible Loving (Paperback).Ya gotta giggle at the title!
 
Unnatural sexual acts are by definition not open to life (these acts are inherently non-procreative).

Acts of affection such as kissing, caressing, hugging, etc. are moral between a husband and wife. Unnatural sexual acts are not moral at any time by anyone.
Ron-

I cannot disagree that “unnatural sexual acts” are immoral and sinful. The question is: what is “unnatural”, “immoral” and “sinful”? I get the feeling that you are attempting to pass off your own narrow and prudish interpretations of Church teaching as the official word when they are not.

The following is from Christopher West, and note the Imprimatur from the Archbishop below:

Manual Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“The acts by which spouses prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay)—so long as they are performed lovingly and not lustfully—are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation. There’s no gift of self, no marital communion taking place at all. Nor are such acts open to conception.

“An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina (unintended ejaculation involves no moral fault). Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, in any absolute sense, be during actual penetration.

“Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s. In fact, John Paul II, in his pre-papal reflections on the matter, exhorted husbands to learn how to control their own orgasms in order to bring their wives to climax with them. Doing so with altruistic motives, he said, was a husbandly virtue at the service of marital harmony. That being said, if the wife, despite their sincere efforts, was unable to climax during penetration, it may well be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate her to climax thereafter (if she so desired). In this case, such stimulation is not inherently masturbatory since it is within the context of a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 90-91]

Oral Stimulation Permitted; Wife May Climax, Husband May Not

“There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse. The term “oral sex,” however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples—though the clarification made above regarding female orgasm is applicable here as well: Mutual climax (or at least climax during penetration) remains the ideal to strive for, but it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context fo a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, Good News About Sex and Marriage, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 92-93]

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Mr. Timothy J. McCarthy, J.C.L.
Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of Denver

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
April 27, 2004

About the Author

Christopher West is a research fellow and faculty member of the Theology of the Body Institute. He is also one of the most sought after speakers in the Church today, having delivered more than 1000 public lectures on 4 continents, in 9 countries, and in over 150 American cities. His books – Good News About Sex & Marriage, Theology of the Body Explained, and Theology of the Body for Beginners – have become Catholic best sellers.

Christopher has also lectured on a number of prestigious faculties, offering graduate and undergraduate courses at St John Vianney Seminary in Denver, the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and Creighton University’s Institute for Priestly Formation in Omaha. Hundreds of thousands have heard him on national radio programs and even more have seen him defending the faith on programs such as Scarborough Country, Fox and Friends, and At Large with Geraldo Rivera. Of all his titles, Christopher is most proud to call himself a devoted husband and father. He and his wife Wendy have four children and live in Lancaster County, PA.
 
I think God will judge your motives not the act itself. but first let me clarify, besides being gorse anal sex even between husband and wife is a grave sin…okay!

now, why do I think the motive is more to worry about than the act? well for example vaginal sex between husband and wife is good and holy, but the same act outside marriage is a sin. killing for revenge is a sin, but the same act for defending one’s self or loved ones is not a sin. steeling for selfish reasons is a sin, but steeling to feed your dying children from hunger is not a sin…do you see where I am going with this? its not the act but rather the motive. Any sex between husband and wife for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is a sin, but to pleasure one another without the intentions of preventing pregnancy is not a sin in my opinion.

I don’t want to use me as an example to make a point because I don’t want to reveal my identity, but because I am not the only one who has ten children, then I can safely say, I have ten children, and when my wife and I make love we only think of the beauty and the holiness of sex, and never worry about if we get pregnant or not.

BTW, some of you should read Solomon, talk about lust. Holy cow, even I blushed when I read his writings…:o
 
From Wikipedia:

Following this (the Imprimatur), some works may also include the following statement:

“The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”

While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, it indicates the purpose of the imprimatur: theologians and other writers are free to discuss various theories, ideas, approaches, or positions on theological topics - even if the bishop does not agree with the author’s positions - provided they do not actually harm Catholic faith or morals. Within Catholic doctrine, therefore, a breadth of possible opinions may be freely discussed.


The above is the case with West’s book.
 
You’re saying that oral and/or manual stimulation of each other’s genitals prior to normal intercourse is sinful, which again makes you the only person I have ever seen on CA or anywhere else who says this. The* only* person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
I dont think oral sex or anal intercourse is natural, married or not
 
You’re saying that oral and/or manual stimulation of each other’s genitals prior to normal intercourse is sinful, which again makes you the only person I have ever seen on CA or anywhere else who says this. The* only* person.

So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
Argumentum ad populum.

Truth is not determined by a majority vote.
–Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
 
Very simply, if a sexual act is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral
Mr. Conte,

Perhaps it might help if you explain your argument why, say, manual stimulation is intrinsically evil.

It seems to me that the proponents (or perhaps “defenders”?) of it aren’t necessarily misunderstanding principles of moral theology regarding intrinsically evil acts, but rather, would hold that the physical act of manual stimulation either a)is not intrinsically evil and/or b) does not sufficiently describe the moral object of the act (i.e. there are other elements involved, over and above the physical descriptor “manual stimulation”.)

Thanks in advance,
VC
 
You’re saying that oral and/or manual stimulation of each other’s genitals prior to normal intercourse is sinful, which again makes you the only person I have ever seen on CA or anywhere else who says this. The only person.
These so-called acts of foreplay or stimulation are merely non-consumated acts of masturbation or sodomy. The end of natural marital relations does not justify any means at all.

The Church definitively teaches as a required belief on morality that the end does not justify the means (this is in CCC and Veritatis Splendor). Now foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. Therefore, it is obvious from Church teaching that an act does not become moral merely by being used as a means to the end of natural marital relations. All persons who claim that a particular sexual act is immoral when done by itself, but moral when used as a type of foreplay to prepare for the marital act are inherently claiming that the end justifies the means.

Suppose that a husband beats his wife as a type of foreplay. It is immoral for a husband to beat his wife, and it remains immoral when that act is followed by another moral act, such as natural marital relations.

Supppose that a husband and wife decide to makeout with another couple as a way for them to prepare for natural marital relations. Again, the end does not justify the means.

Suppose that a husband and wife decide to do any immoral act as a type of foreplay. The same act is just as immoral by itself as when it is followed by natural marital relations.
So either you are wrong, or all of the other faithful apologists here on CA have been giving out wrong information.
This is a type of ad hominem argument.

Also, other members at CA have voiced their agreement that unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always immoral.

Other persons who agree outside of CA, such as John Salza:
In fact, there are some proponents of TB who actually profess that non-consummated sodomy – an unnatural act and one of the four mortal sins which cry to heaven for God’s vengeance - is a permissible prelude to “lovemaking.”
scripturecatholic.com/sexuality_qa.html#tob

Also, in my own discussion group, all the members agree that unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always immoral, even within marriage.
catholicplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=21578&postcount=2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top