S
Spirithound
Guest
But any other area of morality falls under the Church’s purview?
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I have no knowledge about this…just a question:
Would this situation be grounds for an annulment? Anyone?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Given that you are an agnostic, I’ll pose a couple of hypothetical questions this way:
IF God exists, would it make sense for Him to establish moral guidelines for the people that He created, or having created us, should God simply allow us to do whatever we want whenever we want?
IF God exists and it makes sense for Him to have established some moral guidelines, is there any real difference between His rules about your interaction with me and your interaction with your spouse?
F
fix
Guest
Apparently it is based on comfort, not truth.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Context does not change the moral object, as the Catechism clearly states:
1756 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.
West claims that a husband can stimulate his wife, manually or orally, to climax, (if done after natural intercourse). This is a description of an intrinsicaly evil act (masturbation or oral sex). The moral object of this act is not changed by performing the act after an act of natural marital relations. Yet he justifies it.
No, the couple did not sin by having natural intercourse that did not include climax, because the moral object remains unchanged by the lack of climax. Which is exactly why non-consummated (without climax) acts of masturbation, oral or anal sex are nevertheless intrinsically evil.
Concerning the phrase ‘manual stimulation’, this refers to a non-consummated act of masturbation. It is a somewhat euphamistic phrase used by proponents of this type of immorality. Any condemnation of that type of act does not condemn any type of licit foreplay, nor does it condemn any touching whatsoever.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Actually, yes, JP2’s theology of the body lecture series is his private theological opinion, not an act of the Magisterium. But I’ve actually read through that lecture series, and there is nothing in it which is remotely similar to these assertions that unnatural sexual acts are justifiable within the context of natural marital relations.
JP2’s TOB series is used as an excuse to promote various errors, just as Vatican II is used as an excuse to promote various errors. The errors promoted are not found in the texts that are used as the excuse.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
If a married man has natural intercourse with an unmarried woman, the moral object depends upon the fact that he had sex with someone other than his wife. So when a married man has natural marital relations with his wife, the moral object (the moral nature of the act) is different. So morally these are two different types of acts. This occurs because the moral object depends upon marriage.
If anyone makes use of the sexual faculty outside of natural marital relations open to life, then he or she sins because the moral object depends upon the use of the sexual faculty in a way that does not include both the procreative and unitive meanings. Now the procreative and unitive meanings, properly understood, include the will of God that intercourse take place within marriage, but also include that both meanings be present in each and every sexual act. So, even within marriage, all sexual acts must be both procreative and truly unitive.
Unnaural sexual acts, such as masturbation, oral or anal sex, lack the procreative meaning and are not truly unitive. When these same acts are committed without consummation (i.e. without climax), then the moral object is the same. These acts without climax are still not procreative and not truly unitive. Taking away climax from the acts does not add the procreative or unitive meanings.
A prior or subsequent act of natural marital relations does not justify a non-consummated unnatural sexual act, because each act must be judged as to its morality by the three fonts that apply to each particular act. If one act could borrow its fonts of morality from another act, then any mortal sin at all could be justified.
Suppose that a man rapes a woman, but neither one reaches climax. Is the moral object of the act not the same? Suppose that a married couple have natural intercourse, but are interrupted, so that neither climaxes. Is the moral object not the same? Suppose that a man or woman, by himself or herself, begins to masturbate, but then is interrupted. Is not the moral object the same? Climax does not determine the moral object.
The Magisterium teaches that each and every sexual act must be both procreative and unitive. The Magisterium does not teach that climax determines the moral object.
Therefore, if any sexual act, completed in climax, is intrinsically evil, because it is not procreative or not truly unitive, then the same act not completed in climax is also intrinsically evil.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, other than in natural marital relations open to life, is intrinsically evil because each and every sexual act must retain both the unitive and procreative meanings in order to be moral.
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)
“ ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.’ ” (Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, n. 55, quoting St. Augustine).
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Casti Connubii, n. 56)
“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Casti Connubii, n. 61)
“…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).
“ ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil” (Catechism, n. 2370; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).
“Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951; citing Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI; cited by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).
“Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” (Persona Humana, IX; inner quote from Gaudium et Spes, n. 51).
“But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (Casti Connubii, n. 54)
“ ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented.’ ” (Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, n. 55, quoting St. Augustine).
“…any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” (Casti Connubii, n. 56)
“No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.” (Casti Connubii, n. 61)
“…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).
“ ‘every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible’ is intrinsically evil” (Catechism, n. 2370; inner quote from Humanae Vitae, n. 14).
“Our Predecessor, Pius XI, of happy memory, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, of December 31, 1930, once again solemnly proclaimed the fundamental law of the conjugal act and conjugal relations: that every attempt of either husband or wife in the performance of the conjugal act or in the development of its natural consequences which aims at depriving it of its inherent force and hinders the procreation of new life is immoral; and that no ‘indication’ or need can convert an act which is intrinsically immoral into a moral and lawful one. This precept is in full force today, as it was in the past, and so it will be in the future also, and always, because it is not a simple human whim, but the expression of a natural and divine law.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives, 1951; citing Casti Connubii by Pope Pius XI; cited by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae).
“Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” (Persona Humana, IX; inner quote from Gaudium et Spes, n. 51).
L
lovemysix
Guest
Ron,
I am not going to get into any theological arguments here, because I feel that plenty of other posters are doing a fine job.
But I want to say that there are some (perhaps many?) women who do not find the penetration/thrusting aspect of intercourse (sorry to be so graphic, but I want to be clear about what I am saying here) to be AT ALL orgasmic. So for these women, do you really think that God never intends for them to have an orgasm in their lives? Women’s bodies are very different from men’s, you know. We are not made the same way, and our sexual response is not at all the same.
I would find it very difficult and frustrating never to be able to experience the pleasure of orgasm in my sexual relations with my husband. Moreover, it would make HIM very sad never to be able to give me that pleasure. Is it our fault my body does not work the way that apparently many people must think it is “supposed” to work?
And don’t go assuming I think that the only thing special about intercourse is orgasm—I’m not saying that AT ALL. But I do think it would be very frustrating for both husband and wife if the wife is never, ever able to experience that kind of pleasure with her husband. I cannot see that this kind of frustration is helpful or beneficial to a couple in any way.
If God had intended for women to have an orgasm simply from thrusting/penetration, then he would have made our bodies to work exactly in that way. But for some women, it does NOT work that way. I don’t buy into the idea that therefore we are never meant to have an orgasm while participating in the marital embrace. Neither did JPII.
Just my .02
I am not going to get into any theological arguments here, because I feel that plenty of other posters are doing a fine job.
But I want to say that there are some (perhaps many?) women who do not find the penetration/thrusting aspect of intercourse (sorry to be so graphic, but I want to be clear about what I am saying here) to be AT ALL orgasmic. So for these women, do you really think that God never intends for them to have an orgasm in their lives? Women’s bodies are very different from men’s, you know. We are not made the same way, and our sexual response is not at all the same.
I would find it very difficult and frustrating never to be able to experience the pleasure of orgasm in my sexual relations with my husband. Moreover, it would make HIM very sad never to be able to give me that pleasure. Is it our fault my body does not work the way that apparently many people must think it is “supposed” to work?
And don’t go assuming I think that the only thing special about intercourse is orgasm—I’m not saying that AT ALL. But I do think it would be very frustrating for both husband and wife if the wife is never, ever able to experience that kind of pleasure with her husband. I cannot see that this kind of frustration is helpful or beneficial to a couple in any way.
If God had intended for women to have an orgasm simply from thrusting/penetration, then he would have made our bodies to work exactly in that way. But for some women, it does NOT work that way. I don’t buy into the idea that therefore we are never meant to have an orgasm while participating in the marital embrace. Neither did JPII.
Just my .02
M
Mattapoisett64
Guest
Are these opinions more - or less - authoritative than your published statement that Hillary Clinton will become president (somehow) in 2009 (not a typo), having backed off your prior statement that she would become president in 2008?
S
Spirithound
Guest
Uncharitable non-sequitur.
A
Agripa
Guest
The trouble with religious institutions that define for its members - and prior to that, for citizens when religions ran nations, is that religion tends to set God up as and is seen as “human” - doing and acting like a “human”, i.e. loving, vengeful, angry, ruler, king, etc. We want to see God as human - like, and then we make assumptions about what God “wants” or demands that we do. As an agnostic, we cant say that is so, we can only accept some force created all that there is and we leave it at that - we dont see God in terms of directing lives or demanding loyalty, etc. That is an ancient view, arising from a time when all men knew were fierce kings and rulers so naturally, they saw “God” in the same light.
So for the agnostic, religion is less about getting to “know” God and more about accepting a pre packaged God and through that construct, ordering human lives through the power of those running religions. When seen in that light, it gets real creepy when old celibate men dictate what boys and girls do or dont do in their marriage beds!!
In the same light, its very hard for those who love and accept the Church to see it this way, nor do I want to dis abuse them of their mythologies, for these beleifs will ease them into the grave with less angst!!
M
mrpathetic
Guest
Not necessarily. A church would declare a marriage null and void, if there was an impediment to a legitimate sacramental marriage, on the date of the wedding. My wife denies me sex today, so that was not an issue at the time of the wedding, which was 19 years ago. Timing really is everything.
Now, the sexlessness could be a sign of other possible impediments, to a valid sexual union, but it, in and of itself, is not a cause for annulment. It could be a sign of some mental or psychological problem that existed, at the time of the wedding. But a church tribunal would have to determine that, after an extensive investigation.
============================================================
Honestly, I am not going to file for divorce or annulment. It would be pointless, at this point. I have concluded that remaining in my marriage is the best thing for my family - no matter how many sacrifices or humiliations that may entail.
I have consigned myself to continence, for the rest of my life. I have, de facto, given up, on ever having a sex life. I was not called to continence, as part of my vocation, but that is what I am forced to live with.
I will accept my circumstance, with humility and obedience. I only hope that some good will emerge from my sacrifices, and they will not be for naught. As always, I will trust that the Lord is guiding me down the right path.
================================================================
If you are a married person reading this, then please, thank the Lord for the gift of your sex life. Do not take it for granted. It is a tremendous blessing - and one that the Lord can take away. Do whatever you need to, in order to continue to enjoy natural marital relations with your spouse.
There are those of us who can’t.
D
Dchsknight
Guest
There are things that the bible states is Wrong, Like what Sodom and Gomorrah is destroyed for, But quite frankly, What a husband and wife do in their Marriage bed, is between him, her and God and no one else. Who the Hell are any of you to tell what they can and can not do? It is none of your business. It is God’s and he has told us what we cant do. God also said DO not deny each other. Also have any of you actually read the Book “Song of Solomon” it aint an allegory of the Church and Christ. IT is a True Love story, of how a man and woman with the Approval of God are allowed to enjoy each other. If any marriage was to act the way the way the bible says, there would be a lot less divorce, because Husband and wife would be satisfied in each other. Now i am not saying that we can do what we want and not have to worry, but this whole Idea that Husband and wives are only allowed to have S.e.x to procreate is BS. God designed us to love and enjoy each other. Men need to love and enjoy their wives and die for their wives and fight for their wives and women are to love and support and kick us men in the pants when we need it. A true Marriage designed by God and Allowed by the church is a marriage that a husband longs for his wife and desires to please her and give her everything and stand by her and fulfill her. And a women is there to give men the one thing we were not made with, and that is Beauty.
And yes before anyone bites my head off, i have read what the Church says about Marriage and S.e.x, in fact me and my Fiance have both read it and we can not wait to live a marriage the way that God Designed it and no the Catechism does not say that S.e.x is only for Procreation. WE are to be open to life yes, no contraception and no abortion, but no were does it says i cant enjoy my wife.
And yes before anyone bites my head off, i have read what the Church says about Marriage and S.e.x, in fact me and my Fiance have both read it and we can not wait to live a marriage the way that God Designed it and no the Catechism does not say that S.e.x is only for Procreation. WE are to be open to life yes, no contraception and no abortion, but no were does it says i cant enjoy my wife.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
There seem to be two different conversations/topics in this thread,
the one on which sexual acts are moral between a husband and wife,
and the other on member ‘mr.pathetic’ and his difficulties with his wife.
So I’m going to start a new thread on the former topic, if anyone is
interested in continuing that conversation.
the one on which sexual acts are moral between a husband and wife,
and the other on member ‘mr.pathetic’ and his difficulties with his wife.
So I’m going to start a new thread on the former topic, if anyone is
interested in continuing that conversation.
A
Agripa
Guest
Exactly!! Seems the Trads must take their overanalysis of living the exact perfect moral life to such extremes and even into the bedroom with their spouses! Its a wonder they procreate at all with all that repression, rules, do’s and dont’s going on in their heads!
I wonder if they permit themselves to go crazy on Mardi Gras and enjoy some actual pleasure like simple foreplay???
L
LovesTheFather
Guest
Ya there are some of us married Catholics who do feel the way you do and have read the same you and your fiancee has…
But some Catholics interpret it differently…I think it is vague in some areas and Married couples just have to do what feels right for there marriage…keep God in center…All I know is that God is love…and the pope says that all of the time…some may think that he is a curmudgeon…but we should all realize that he is all about holiness and love…
L
LovesTheFather
Guest
Ya there are some of us married Catholics who do feel the way you do and have read the same you and your fiancee has…
But some Catholics interpret it differently…I think it is vague in some areas and Married couples just have to do what feels right for their marriage…keep God in center…All I know is that God is love…and the pope says that all of the time…some may think that he is a curmudgeon…but we should all realize that he is all about Love…
M
mrpathetic
Guest
Actually, we can probably keep this thread open, Ron, and end my portion of the conversation, regarding my futile marriage. I really only brought it up to illustrate some of the points I was trying to make. So there is no need to open another thread, if you have not already done that.
- Status