Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[mrpathetic]

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???

I resemble that remark.

I do count myself as a “Trad”, to use your terminology. I count myself among the ranks of the traditionalists, which is what I presume your abbreviation stands for. (Actually, when people ask me to label myself, I generally use the phrase “orthodox catholic reactionary”.)

And yes, my marriage, and sex life, are deplorable, by any standard. But yes, I was able to procreate, and raise two children.

Yes, it is possible to be true to the Catholic faith, and successfully reproduce. I and my children are living proof.

Do I wish I had a sex life? Do I wish I had sex sometime since 1994? Of course I do. Sexual temptation is around me everywhere. I have to fight a constant battle, to remain in continence. This is one struggle that does not get easier with age.

Am I willing to violate the implicit or explicit rules of my faith, in order to have a sex life? No , I am not. And I suspect that most “Trads”, if faced with this dilemma, would make the same choice.

 

[Agripa]

I resemble that remark.

I do count myself as a “Trad”, to use your terminology. I count myself among the ranks of the traditionalists, which is what I presume your abbreviation stands for. (Actually, when people ask me to label myself, I generally use the phrase “orthodox catholic reactionary”.)

And yes, my marriage, and sex life, are deplorable, by any standard. But yes, I was able to procreate, and raise two children.

Yes, it is possible to be true to the Catholic faith, and successfully reproduce. I and my children are living proof.

Do I wish I had a sex life? Do I wish I had sex sometime since 1994? Of course I do. Sexual temptation is around me everywhere. I have to fight a constant battle, to remain in continence. This is one struggle that does not get easier with age.

Am I willing to violate the implicit or explicit rules of my faith, in order to have a sex life? No , I am not. And I suspect that most “Trads”, if faced with this dilemma, would make the same choice.

mrpathetic - I was not necessarily referring to you or your terrible marrital situation - rather I was referring to other thread portions where some posters were claiming all sorts of restrictions on marrital conubial activities, restrictions which I and others simply would not abide by! Honestly, my heart breaks for you, that you should somehow feel the tortured need to deny yourself the natural inclinations God gave you!

You as a self proclaimed Trad may wince at this, but denying the very human need to feel and express normal, healthy physical love and eroticism is not right nor is it good for you. In the long run, such denials generally lead to bigger problems. Sadly, the Church is littered with the tragic consequences of this strange and historic facination with sexless lives. (Not originally a part of the early Church, by the way, as bishops were then free to marry and indeed the Bible explains that - I think in Acts.)

 

[Dchsknight]

mrpathetic - I was not necessarily referring to you or your terrible marrital situation - rather I was referring to other thread portions where some posters were claiming all sorts of restrictions on marrital conubial activities, restrictions which I and others simply would not abide by! Honestly, my heart breaks for you, that you should somehow feel the tortured need to deny yourself the natural inclinations God gave you!

You as a self proclaimed Trad may wince at this, but denying the very human need to feel and express normal, healthy physical love and eroticism is not right nor is it good for you. In the long run, such denials generally lead to bigger problems. Sadly, the Church is littered with the tragic consequences of this strange and historic facination with sexless lives. (Not originally a part of the early Church, by the way, as bishops were then free to marry and indeed the Bible explains that - I think in Acts.)

ahhhhh peter was the only one, and it was because peter was married before Jesus showed up…

 

[theistgal]

ahhhhh peter was the only one, and it was because peter was married before Jesus showed up…

Your source for that information (that Peter was the only married apostle)? St. Paul seems to have said otherwise.

 

[Dchsknight]

Your source for that information (that Peter was the only married apostle)? St. Paul seems to have said otherwise.

Peter had a Mother in law…There is only one way to have a Mother in Law.

 

[BiologyBrain]

I’m forced to ask - what exactly does the Church indicate foreplay comprises? Does it explicitly say anywhere? The husband stimulating the wife in preparation for the marital act (another question - does the Church explicitly define what happens in the marital act) is actually his duty to make sure he does not harm his wife by their marital embrace.

Its easy to define the marital embrace solely on the necessity of male climax & forget about the female. However, if the female is not considered, the act is not truly unitative. It is true that the woman can make the sacrifice and accept her husband into her body w/o proper preparation, but where is the man’s sacrifice and unity w/ his wife if he does this? Both parties should be fully prepared for the marital embrace. For some there is very little preparation necessary, for others more is required. Limits should not be placed on the comfort spouses can derrive from one another in the context of the marital act.

There is no contraceptive action in preparing the woman for intercourse b/c intercourse is the object of the preparation. Female climax is not required for procreation, but since God designed the female body to climax, its probably within His terms for it to occur.

I was under the impression that part of the definition of masturbation was self-manipulation. If the husband stimilates the wife to prepare her for the marital embrace, there is no self-manipulation occuring. Therefore, the inherently evil act of masturbation is not part of the equation. Therefore, there is no moral reason to NOT prepare one’s spouse for the marital act.

 

[LovesTheFather]

I’m forced to ask - what exactly does the Church indicate foreplay comprises? Does it explicitly say anywhere? The husband stimulating the wife in preparation for the marital act (another question - does the Church explicitly define what happens in the marital act) is actually his duty to make sure he does not harm his wife by their marital embrace.

Its easy to define the marital embrace solely on the necessity of male climax & forget about the female. However, if the female is not considered, the act is not truly unitative. It is true that the woman can make the sacrifice and accept her husband into her body w/o proper preparation, but where is the man’s sacrifice and unity w/ his wife if he does this? Both parties should be fully prepared for the marital embrace. For some there is very little preparation necessary, for others more is required. Limits should not be placed on the comfort spouses can derrive from one another in the context of the marital act.

There is no contraceptive action in preparing the woman for intercourse b/c intercourse is the object of the preparation. Female climax is not required for procreation, but since God designed the female body to climax, its probably within His terms for it to occur.

I was under the impression that part of the definition of masturbation was self-manipulation. If the husband stimilates the wife to prepare her for the marital embrace, there is no self-manipulation occuring. Therefore, the inherently evil act of masturbation is not part of the equation. Therefore, there is no moral reason to NOT prepare one’s spouse for the marital act.

I 100% agree…
I think people analize too much in parts of what has been said…because it is vague and there is no specific list anywhere of what to do and what not to do…so people will make their own assumptions of what the writings mean in the Bible and CCC…God knows everyones heart…I think we should let Him be the judge…

There is a big difference between marital relations that use pornography,artificial contraception,others…and so on and so forth…that cause mortal sin in the marriage bed…
A husband and wife who are uniting and just wanting to please eachother, who go with the flow of the language in lovemaking, is so far from mortal sin and so pure in love…

And no one is going to judge me and say I am not a “good” Catholic because I believe this…

 

[Agripa]

ahhhhh peter was the only one, and it was because peter was married before Jesus showed up…

I think there are specific references in the bible are as to the type of wife a bishop should have.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Perhaps you should take this up with West. You can find his website easily enough. I have studied this to my own satisfaction, but I am open to correction. I wasn’t a big fan of NFP, but I switched based upon my study. If the evidence is compelling, I will listen. I’m not compelled, so far.

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.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. In post 221 you wrote:

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.

This is the crux of your disagreement with West. Then you wrote:

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.

So, in post 221 you seem to tee off on the separation of time arguing that they cannot be justified no matter how much time separates the act of intercourse with the act of “stimulation”. But most recently, you argue that the couple has not sinned if they are interupted and do not complete the act of intercourse. Hmmm…seems like a whole lot of genital stimulation could have been occurring before the interuption…don’t they have an obligation to finish what they started? Otherwise, what is the difference between this and other foreplay? Again, I apologize if I have failed to follow the argument…I’m heavily engaged in other threads, I’ve been interupted from finishing what I started here.

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.

Same here.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Just to make sure we’re on the same page, what are licit types of foreplay?

 

[TLM08]

Why are we still carrying Augustine’s guilt from his days of complete debauchery? With all of the church imposed restrictions on human sexuality, even within marriage, the true miracle is that it can be enjoyed it at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why are we still carrying Augustine’s guilt from his days of complete debauchery? With all of the church imposed restrictions on human sexuality, even within marriage, the true miracle is that it can be enjoyed it at all.

I have often speculated that much of the Church’s approach to sexuality resulted from Augustine’s over-reaction to his own experience prior to conversion.

Glad to see I’m not alone.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.