Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[TLM08]

Well, to my thinking, any DEVOUT Catholic wouldnt do that, but there aren`t many devout catholics

In order to remain in “devout” standing, all fun must be removed from a night of sex… right? Suppose a catholic couple is most effective displaying their love for each other by doing dishes, cleaning the house, earning a paycheck, caring for children, watching a movie together, opening a door, being kind and bringing home a single rose once a week for fifty years? Don’t these acts of love and sacrifice between a man and wife speak *volumes more *than what goes on in the bedroom? Sex is supposed to be alive, vibrant, exciting, hot, adventurous, fun and yes… even a little naughty.


Yet at the same time, sex is a very serious matter. God has got to be shaking his head at what modern culture on one side and theologians on the other, have done to one of his most incredible ideas which is SEX! I think there are a LOT of people in these forums that are consumed with guilt with even the thought of experiencing sexual excitement. The pleasure in your loins was a gift from God. In return he would like a few more children for his kingdom, and little show of gratitude from us. After a night of great (or even not so great) sex, I like to sit at my kitchen table in the morning sipping my coffee and thank him in my mind for all the gifts he has given us.

The sexual revolution of the sixties was born out of religious sexual repression, ignorance and fear of bygone eras. Ancient theologians had virtually no understanding of human sexuality. However, they correctly knew that it had to be controlled. This religious repression of human sexuality is alive and well today. The exception is that now, many are trying to turn sex into a religious experience of worship by inviting God to sit in the bedroom to supervise the act, even becoming one with him! I’m sorry, but the whole idea of that is very creepy. The morning meditation over coffee is a much more appropriate time for worship and one-ness with God.

Unfortunately the sexual revolution was an overreaction and went way too far and gave birth to another explosion of promiscuity, abortion and a whole host of other social ills. History has experienced these ills before. Sexual immorality was not invented in the 1960s!

Sex belongs behind the closed bedroom doors of a man and wife with the theologians staying out of it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

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.

See this article for a detailed look at the teaching of Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium on this topic:
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-bed.htm

But the numerous persons who argue against what I am saying do not present any kind of theological argument, nor can they cite any source in Tradition, Scripture, or the Magisterium that states that the end of natural marital relations justifies all acts used as foreplay.

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.

First, West admits that such acts are intrinsically evil, for we all know that masturbation is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. Then he goes on to claim that an intrinsically evil act is justified in some circumstances, such as when the wife does not reach climax during natural marital relations.

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.”

He makes the baseless claim that the act is not inherently masturbatory (i.e. not intrinsically evil), but in effect he is claiming that a circumstance can make an intrinsically evil act become moral. This is contrary to the clear and definitive teaching of Veritatis Splendor.

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.”

The context of an intrinsically evil act cannot justify that act.

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1753-1756).

The moral object of an act whereby the husband stimulates his wife to climax (other than by natural marital relations) remains unchanged by whether or not the spouses engaged in natural marital relations before or after the act.

But if you think that a husband can commit such acts on his wife after natural marital relations, what length of time must separate the two acts? A minute, an hour, a day, a month? How is it that you admit such acts are intrinsically evil by themselves (as West also admits), yet they are justified within a certain time frame before or after natural marital relations? It is absurd to claim that an act is evil except when done within a certain number of minutes or hours before or after another moral act.

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

Many books have the imprimatur, but contain various doctrinal errors on faith or morals.
Again, all of the arguments people present to me are not theological arguments, but rather are arguments based on who said something. Such arguments ignore the truth or falsehood of what is being said.

 

[baylee]

After a night of great (or even not so great) sex, I like to sit at my kitchen table in the morning sipping my coffee and thank him in my mind for all the gifts he has given us.

LOL!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Sex is supposed to be alive, vibrant, exciting, hot, adventurous, fun and yes… even a little naughty.

The pleasure in your loins was a gift from God.

Ancient theologians had virtually no understanding of human sexuality.

The exception is that now, many are trying to turn sex into a religious experience of worship by inviting God to sit in the bedroom to supervise the act, even becoming one with him!

Sex belongs behind the closed bedroom doors of a man and wife with the theologians staying out of it.

The moral law is universal. There are no exceptions to the moral law. And the moral law is based on the goodness of God. So the marital bedroom should not be a place where God and moral theology are not welcome. God is not everywhere except the bedroom.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I dont think oral sex or anal intercourse is natural, married or not

And you are entitled to your personal opinions.

However, as the snippets from Christopher West indicate, oral sex is permissable in the proper context. Anal sex, however, is always wrong.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I think God will judge your motives not the act itself.

This claim contradicts the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on morality in CCC and in Veritatis Splendor.

well for example vaginal sex between husband and wife is good and holy, but the same act outside marriage is a sin.

Natural marital relations is moral, but the same natural sexual act outside of marriage is intrinsically evil because the act itself with its moral object is defined by the marriage relationship. In other words extra-marital sex is immoral precisely because it is extra-marital. So when the same sexual act is done within marriage, it is moral because it is no longer extra-marital

But unnatural sexual acts, whether consummated or non-consummated, are intrinsically evil because the moral object of the act is defined by the fact that the act is unnatural. Therefore, the same unnatural act remains unnatural and so remains immoral within marriage. The moral object of the act is also not changed when the unnatural act is done before, during, or after natural marital relations.

 

[baylee]

Many books have the imprimatur, but contain various doctrinal errors on faith or morals.

I agree with you here…see my above post about the added comments after the Imprimatur.

 

[Ron_Conte]

And you are entitled to your personal opinions.

However, as the snippets from Christopher West indicate, oral sex is permissable in the proper context. Anal sex, however, is always wrong.

West’s statements are also opinion.

These two acts, oral sex and anal sex, are both unnatural sexual acts, are both intrinsically evil, and so are both always wrong. These two acts have the same moral object (inherent moral meaning) which is the use of the sexual faculty outside of normal conjugal relations.

 

[TLM08]

The moral law is universal. There are no exceptions to the moral law. And the moral law is based on the goodness of God. So the marital bedroom should not be a place where God and moral theology are not welcome. God is not everywhere except the bedroom.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

Nobody is kicking God out of the bedroom Ron. Please don’t quote me out of context!

 

[Randy_Carson]

First, West admits that such acts are intrinsically evil, for we all know that masturbation is intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. Then he goes on to claim that an intrinsically evil act is justified in some circumstances, such as when the wife does not reach climax during natural marital relations.

Actually, West is stating that as part of an of love-making, some acts are permissable. He distinguishes this from oral or manual stimulation that does not take place within the context of sex which includes vaginal intercourse. This is an important distinction and one which you do not seem to be capable of making.

The moral object of an act whereby the husband stimulates his wife to climax (other than by natural marital relations) remains unchanged by whether or not the spouses engaged in natural marital relations before or after the act.

Learned theologians seem to disagree with you on this.

But if you think that a husband can commit such acts on his wife after natural marital relations, what length of time must separate the two acts? A minute, an hour, a day, a month? How is it that you admit such acts are intrinsically evil by themselves (as West also admits), yet they are justified within a certain time frame before or after natural marital relations? It is absurd to claim that an act is evil except when done within a certain number of minutes or hours before or after another moral act.

I begin to feel some pity here…let’s continue your argument, shall we?

Suppose you are making love to your wife, but before you climax inside of her vagina, the phone rings, or a child knocks on your bedroom door with a nose bleed, or one of any number of interuptions occurs. Will you tell the bleeding child that she has to wait because you’re not “done” yet? So, your wife gets up to care for the child (it’s a mom thing), and when she comes back to bed, you are asleep. Did you sin by having intercourse that did not include climaxing?

Yes, I think that a romantic evening might begin in the kitchen, move to the family room for a movie and wrap up in the bedroom. A LOT of foreplay might have occurred over the course of several hours. This is healthy and normal for a marriage.

If you want to confine the whole thing to 10 minutes in bed, that’s your choice, but I do not find that the Church’s teaching is that sex is as utilitarian as you seem to require.

Again, all of the arguments people present to me are not theological arguments, but rather are arguments based on who said something. Such arguments ignore the truth or falsehood of what is being said.

And I do not find your arguments to be based on anything more than your own narrow interpretations.

In the absence of a document from the Vatican’s website proving your position, I think you need to ease up on your definitive pronouncements on these matters.

 

[Ella]

West’s statements are also opinion.

These two acts, oral sex and anal sex, are both unnatural sexual acts, are both intrinsically evil, and so are both always wrong. These two acts have the same moral object (inherent moral meaning) which is the use of the sexual faculty outside of normal conjugal relations.

Is JPII’s TOB also opinion?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

This is where I think your work could benefit from a clearer explanation, if you’ll permit me.

It is true that it is immoral for a husband to beat his wife, and following it with a good act or doing it as a means to a good end wouldn’t change the moral evil of beating one’s wife one wit.

But here you take an example of a moral object that is intrinsically evil – the beating of another person, i.e. unlawful battery.

But what if the physical act is, let us say, passionate kissing. That, in itself, is not the moral object of an act. . . it is an act. To describe the moral object one must include whether or not one is passionately kissing one’s wife, or one’s horse. The former is a good act, the latter an evil act. It is not a matter of a “change of circumstances” it is a matter of getting the moral object right.

Another example: imprisoning another person. That is a physical act, but not yet enough is known to ascertain the moral object. If a man is imprisoned because he is a competitor for your job, this is a morally bad act, the moral object is kidnapping. If a man is imprisoned because he has committed a crime, it is morally good act.

Now it seems to me in your above examples you have chosen acts whose moral object it sufficiently described: assault in you first example and marital infidelity in your second.

Of course I understand your abhorrence for the misguided notion that anything that is done between a husband and wife and leads up to the marital act is somehow magically made permissible. Quite wrong, quite wrong, and for the reason you give: something whose moral object is bad cannot be made good by joining it to a good act.

Thank you,
VC

 

[mrpathetic]

Suppose a catholic couple is most effective displaying their love for each other by doing dishes, cleaning the house, earning a paycheck, caring for children, watching a movie together, opening a door, being kind and bringing home a single rose once a week for fifty years? Don’t these acts of love and sacrifice between a man and wife speak *volumes more *than what goes on in the bedroom?

Actually, for some of us, this is the only way we can show love to our spoues - because our spouses deny us sex. I have lived with this for 16 years. I now show love to my wife in completely non-sexual ways. I was cleaning dishes at 11:30 PM last night - not having sex. This is what my wife wants, not lovemaking.

Honestly, I think most middle-aged women would rather have it this way - a husband that expects this type of platonic love, rather than sexual love. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

This is what my wife wants, so this is what I give her. And my marriage is no longer about fulfilling my needs - it is about fulfilling her needs. I really have given up on my needs - that is what is referred to as “dying to the self”, in the various literature on Catholic marriage.

I realize I will probably never have sex again. I have given up sex, for the kingdon of heaven. I believe Matthew 19:12 has this statement:

12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs(A) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

I guess I have become a eunuch.

 

[TLM08]

Actually, for some of us, this is the only way we can show love to our spoues - because our spouses deny us sex. I have lived with this for 16 years. I now show love to my wife in completely non-sexual ways. I was cleaning dishes at 11:30 PM last night - not having sex. This is what my wife wants, not lovemaking.

Honestly, I think most middle-aged women would rather have it this way - a husband that expects this type of platonic love, rather than sexual love. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

This is what my wife wants, so this is what I give her. And my marriage is no longer about fulfilling my needs - it is about fulfilling her needs. I really have given up on my needs - that is what is referred to as “dying to the self”, in the various literature on Catholic marriage.

I realize I will probably never have sex again. I have given up sex, for the kingdon of heaven. I believe Matthew 19:12 has this statement:

12For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs(A) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

I guess I have become a eunuch.

Provided she is reasonably young and healthy, for a wife to deny her husband relations is just as evil when a husband beats his wife because he had a bad day at work. You are a victim of marital abuse and you have allowed it!. “Dying to self” has nothing to do with being a doormat for an abusive spouse. You really need to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and be a man. Women are sexually and intellectually turned off by male weakness. You need affirm your love for her and demand her cooperation in finding out what’s wrong. If she doesn’t want to fix this problem, then I would probably be out of there. Would you allow your best friend to be treated the way you are allowing yourself to be treated? Why are you putting up with it?

 

[Agripa]

Wow!! Having gone through these many pages of posts about this topic, I am reminded painfully of my queeziness of letting religious institutions and moralistic persons comment upon what should absolutely private between intimate couples.

That the RC Church (or any church, temple or mosque for that matter) lays claim on what is or is not evil or moral in the context of a married couples’ sexual practices is horrendously offensive. That sexual expresssion should be laced up tightly to only certain acts of physicality between men and women otherwise legitimatly married certainly exposes clear reasons why many older Catholics are so repressed and emotionally scared.

If folks are married, bedroom relations are for the couple to explore within the limits of their individual consents. And if a couple does not want any relations at all, thats their business!

 

[mrpathetic]

Provided she is reasonably young and healthy, for a wife to deny her husband relations is just as evil when a husband beats his wife because he had a bad day at work. You are a victim of marital abuse and you have allowed it!. “Dying to self” has nothing to do with being a doormat for an abusive spouse. You really need to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and be a man. Women are sexually and intellectually turned off by male weakness. You need affirm your love for her and demand her cooperation in finding out what’s wrong. If she doesn’t want to fix this problem, then I would probably be out of there. Would you allow your best friend to be treated the way you are allowing yourself to be treated? Why are you putting up with it?

Am I a victim of marital abuse? In the broadest sense, I would say yes.

What’s wrong with the situation? My wife hates sex, and has stated she will never have sex with anyone, ever again. (This includes me.)

I face two choices: 1) Remain faithful to my wife, and continue to serve the Lord, via service to my spouse; or 2) divorce. Which choice do you think the Lord wants me to make?

My wife will not tolerate sexual advances. She does not want to discuss the issue, go to counseling, or take any steps to fix the problem.

So I have foregone a sex life, in order to save my marriage. This is one of a long list of hard, bitter choices I have had to make, in order to salvage my marriage and family.

Marriage is sacrifice. Husbands must love their wives, the way that Christ loves his Church; the letter to the Ephesians makes this clear. Christ was willing to be nailed to a tree, for His bride. Husbands must be willing to make similar sacrifices as well.

===========================================================

Again, this gets back to my original point, for joining this discussion: **Pre-Canaa counseling in this faith is terrible. Awful. Abyssmal. **

No one, in my pre-Canaa sessions, told me that this could happen. No one explained to me that I could be facing decades without sex. Maybe I was naive, but I really thought that, once I get married, my sexual problems would be over, and I could enjoy a healthy sex life with my spouse, forever. Wrong!

I knew counsciously that marriage requires sacrifice, when I first was married. I never knew it would require this type of sacrifice - or how much there would be.

 

[Agripa]

Am I a victim of marital abuse? In the broadest sense, I would say yes.

What’s wrong with the situation? My wife hates sex, and has stated she will never have sex with anyone, ever again. (This includes me.)

I face two choices: 1) Remain faithful to my wife, and continue to serve the Lord, via service to my spouse; or 2) divorce. Which choice do you think the Lord wants me to make?

My wife will not tolerate sexual advances. She does not want to discuss the issue, go to counseling, or take any steps to fix the problem.

So I have foregone a sex life, in order to save my marriage. This is one of a long list of hard, bitter choices I have had to make, in order to salvage my marriage and family.

Marriage is sacrifice. Husbands must love their wives, the way that Christ loves his Church; the letter to the Ephesians makes this clear. Christ was willing to be nailed to a tree, for His bride. Husbands must be willing to make similar sacrifices as well.

===========================================================

Again, this gets back to my original point, for joining this discussion: **Pre-Canaa counseling in this faith is terrible. Awful. Abyssmal. **

No one, in my pre-Canaa sessions, told me that this could happen. No one explained to me that I could be facing decades without sex. Maybe I was naive, but I really thought that, once I get married, my sexual problems would be over, and I could enjoy a healthy sex life with my spouse, forever. Wrong!

I knew counsciously that marriage requires sacrifice, when I first was married. I never knew it would require this type of sacrifice - or how much there would be.

I dont think its an unconditional love - at least as I understand basic christian theology - Christ loves his Church , but has expectations - that is, His Church must chose to be obedient and must chose to believe in Him to gain fully the redeeming aspect of His love. So I wonder if you would be morally correct in having expectations of your spouse in exchange for your love and committment to her? At least in the Old Testement, if a woman could not offer children to a man, he got to sleep with her handmaidens or an appropriate female relative!

 

[Methodi]

In order to remain in “devout” standing, all fun must be removed from a night of sex… right? Suppose a catholic couple is most effective displaying their love for each other by doing dishes, cleaning the house, earning a paycheck, caring for children, watching a movie together, opening a door, being kind and bringing home a single rose once a week for fifty years? Don’t these acts of love and sacrifice between a man and wife speak *volumes more *than what goes on in the bedroom? Sex is supposed to be alive, vibrant, exciting, hot, adventurous, fun and yes… even a little naughty.


Yet at the same time, sex is a very serious matter. God has got to be shaking his head at what modern culture on one side and theologians on the other, have done to one of his most incredible ideas which is SEX! I think there are a LOT of people in these forums that are consumed with guilt with even the thought of experiencing sexual excitement. The pleasure in your loins was a gift from God. In return he would like a few more children for his kingdom, and little show of gratitude from us. After a night of great (or even not so great) sex, I like to sit at my kitchen table in the morning sipping my coffee and thank him in my mind for all the gifts he has given us.

The sexual revolution of the sixties was born out of religious sexual repression, ignorance and fear of bygone eras. Ancient theologians had virtually no understanding of human sexuality. However, they correctly knew that it had to be controlled. This religious repression of human sexuality is alive and well today. The exception is that now, many are trying to turn sex into a religious experience of worship by inviting God to sit in the bedroom to supervise the act, even becoming one with him! I’m sorry, but the whole idea of that is very creepy. The morning meditation over coffee is a much more appropriate time for worship and one-ness with God.

Unfortunately the sexual revolution was an overreaction and went way too far and gave birth to another explosion of promiscuity, abortion and a whole host of other social ills. History has experienced these ills before. Sexual immorality was not invented in the 1960s!

Sex belongs behind the closed bedroom doors of a man and wife with the theologians staying out of it.

The mouth & the anus are not sex organs, & I dont care what the church says, No DEvout catholic would do them. Married people can do this filth & the poor people of the world who cant find a life long partner because of one reason or another cant even masturbate. If its all about sex pleasure Then let the fun begin for all

 

[Agripa]

All this reminds me of an ancient joke (which I can tell since its of my own tribe):

What are the sounds of Irish Catholic foreplay? “Brace yourself, Bridget, I’m comin in!” :extrahappy:

 

[Methodi]

Provided she is reasonably young and healthy, for a wife to deny her husband relations is just as evil when a husband beats his wife because he had a bad day at work. You are a victim of marital abuse and you have allowed it!. “Dying to self” has nothing to do with being a doormat for an abusive spouse. You really need to pick yourself up, dust yourself off and be a man. Women are sexually and intellectually turned off by male weakness. You need affirm your love for her and demand her cooperation in finding out what’s wrong. If she doesn’t want to fix this problem, then I would probably be out of there. Would you allow your best friend to be treated the way you are allowing yourself to be treated? Why are you putting up with it?

What ever happened to for better or for worse