NFP and Abstinence - How far is too far?

[Mathew_George]

For a couple practicing abstinence under NFP, is it licit to enjoy some sexual intimacy if they are determined not to take it to the level of actual consummation of sexual act? In other words, does an embrace or a caress engaged in for the sake of sexual closeness tantamount to contraception, if not allowed to progress to its consummation open to life?

Does the Church teach specifically on this issue?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Matthew,

The Church does teach specifically on this topic and it is Human Vitae. It is also explained in a great way by Christopher West’s “The Good News about Sex and Marriage.”

It seems that many of the questions that are asked like this are looking to see how close they can get to that “line” without going against the Church’s teachings. To put it in its most simplest terms any sexual act between a husband and a wife must end with the husband’s climax in the wife’s vagina (sorry to be so blunt). There can be foreplay that leads up to this end, even oral sex on the wife after the husband’s orgasm (as long as it is in the same ‘marital act’), but outside of that goes against the Church’s teachings.

Oral sex to climax, against the teachings.
Mutual masturbation to climax, against the teachings.

Now if you are talking about foreplay that does not end in the marital embrace such as kissing and caressing that can be sinful as well. What is the intention of that act? When I kiss my wife it is not always to start the act of sexual union between the two of us, it is to show love, affection. But you have to be careful to not cross a line and use your wife/husband for you own satisfaction, that is sinful.

Sorry for not citing specific Church teachings, I am not a very good theologian, I just know generally what the church teaches. I am new to all the teachings on sex, but have found that the Church is not trying to limit what you can do, if you follow what the Church teaches, the joy of sex is limitless.

 

[Mathew_George]

Mirror Mirror:

Oral sex to climax, against the teachings.
Mutual masturbation to climax, against the teachings.

Now if you are talking about foreplay that does not end in the marital embrace such as kissing and caressing that can be sinful as well. What is the intention of that act? When I kiss my wife it is not always to start the act of sexual union between the two of us, it is to show love, affection. But you have to be careful to not cross a line and use your wife/husband for you own satisfaction, that is sinful.

About the first part, I have no questions. Humanae Vitae is quite clear there. They both reach in climax, and therefore amount to contraception.

My question is about the second part. But, I do not mean those instances where one spouse is used for the satisfaction of the other. This is lust and, therefore, illicit too. My question is about those mutually enjoyable kisses or caresses that are sexual in nature, but engaged in without the intension of taking to climax for either spouse.

I am seeking to know if the Church prohibits, apart from contraception itself, any form of sexual play or banter that does not also end in the consummation of sexual union open to life.

By the way, your answer was quite sincere and devoid of any lofty air. It was refreshing. Thanks.

 

[vluvski]

I think this really boils down to a matter of conscience.

If a married couple engages in a passionate kiss or sexual caressing while intending not to have intercourse, it is sinful if there is a possibility that one or both could ‘accidentally’ climax (an indication that they are arousing one another illicitly) or if one party intentionally pushes the other’s buttons to the point they’ll need a cold shower afterwards.

It constitutes a near occasion of sin, which we are admonished to avoid, if the kissing and caressing tempt either to lustful thoughts in anticipation of the next sex act, to considering masturbation, or if one or both reach a level of arousal/frustration that inhibits normal function (in other words, something you can’t just ‘sleep off.’)

Certainly there may be other instances where one or both parties are committing a sin, but these are two obvious ways (IMO, anyway) that a couple could sin by being too ‘friendly’ while avoiding pregnancy.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Mathew George:

About the first part, I have no questions. Humanae Vitae is quite clear there. They both reach in climax, and therefore amount to contraception.

My question is about the second part. But, I do not mean those instances where one spouse is used for the satisfaction of the other. This is lust and, therefore, illicit too. My question is about those mutually enjoyable kisses or caresses that are sexual in nature, but engaged in without the intension of taking to climax for either spouse.

I am seeking to know if the Church prohibits, apart from contraception itself, any form of sexual play or banter that does not also end in the consummation of sexual union open to life.

By the way, your answer was quite sincere and devoid of any lofty air. It was refreshing. Thanks.

Thank you for the compliment!

I do not have specific Church teachings to quote to you, but I can say what my view is of what the Church teaches. A lot of this is based on my reading of the Christopher West book that I mentioned to you and a little bit (notice I said a little bit) of common sense .

Again, I think that this comes back to the intention of the act. If there is a passionate kiss shared, what is the intention of that? Some may be so aroused that this brings about impure thoughts, while others take it at face value as a passionate kiss. Kissing, to me, is a way to express your love to your spouse on a much smaller scale. Now when you get into the world of caressing, again we have to take a step back and find out what is the intention. If you are caressing your wife’s breasts (again forgive the frankness), why are you doing this? Is it for your pleasure? For hers? What does this act lead to? Are you simply “teasing” each other?

I think that a lot of times people (not saying this is you Matthew, but in general) try to stick their toes in the water, just to test it. They do not want to jump in because it is below freezing outside and the water is ice cold, but they are just curious. It is like a child that pushes their parents to the limit (either knowing or not) just to see how far they can get without getting in trouble.

Sorry for the side note there. My view is that a lot of this lies in what the intention of the act is. If you are to caress your wife in a loving way (not on a sexual part of her body if you know what I mean) and sit there in awe of her beauty, thanking God for this precious gift, I feel that nothing is wrong with that. It also depends what you are caressing.

I am not sure that this makes complete sense, but you have to take a look inside yourself, you know when something does not feel right, or you feel as if you are going against God.
On last example, you would never take your wife (or girlfriend) in front of a tablernacle (where we KNOW Jesus is present) and do impure things with her, would you? (Please say no). Well Jesus lives inside of you every time you receive Him in Holy Communion, therefore, you are a walking tabernacle, you have Jesus inside of you. And if your spouse/significant other has received Him as well, she has Jesus inside of her. He does not leave you, He is always there. So why would you do impure things infront of Jesus? Maybe that is a stretch, but you can understand what I am saying.

My :twocents: maybe more

 

[mosher]

A good touchstone is the old point that we are to avoid the near occasion of sin.

 

[Mathew_George]

vluvski:

I think this really boils down to a matter of conscience.

If a married couple engages in a passionate kiss or sexual caressing while intending not to have intercourse, it is sinful if there is a possibility that one or both could ‘accidentally’ climax (an indication that they are arousing one another illicitly) or if one party intentionally pushes the other’s buttons to the point they’ll need a cold shower afterwards.

It constitutes a near occasion of sin, which we are admonished to avoid, if the kissing and caressing tempt either to lustful thoughts in anticipation of the next sex act, to considering masturbation, or if one or both reach a level of arousal/frustration that inhibits normal function (in other words, something you can’t just ‘sleep off.’)

Certainly there may be other instances where one or both parties are committing a sin, but these are two obvious ways (IMO, anyway) that a couple could sin by being too ‘friendly’ while avoiding pregnancy.

My assumption was also the same as what you have opined. And, I do agree that it is a near occassion for sin. So, shall we say that it might be imprudent to engage in it too often, but it need not be a sin per se?

 

[Mathew_George]

Dear Mirror Mirror

The ‘intention of the act’ is pleasure. But, my very question is, does it need to be condemned as ‘impure thought’?

Apart from being a near occassion to sin, my question is, are such sexual pleasures prohibited per se?

 

[Brendan]

vluvski:

I think this really boils down to a matter of conscience.

If a married couple engages in a passionate kiss or sexual caressing while intending not to have intercourse, it is sinful if there is a possibility that one or both could ‘accidentally’ climax (an indication that they are arousing one another illicitly) or if one party intentionally pushes the other’s buttons to the point they’ll need a cold shower afterwards.

It constitutes a near occasion of sin, which we are admonished to avoid, if the kissing and caressing tempt either to lustful thoughts in anticipation of the next sex act, to considering masturbation, or if one or both reach a level of arousal/frustration that inhibits normal function (in other words, something you can’t just ‘sleep off.’)

Certainly there may be other instances where one or both parties are committing a sin, but these are two obvious ways (IMO, anyway) that a couple could sin by being too ‘friendly’ while avoiding pregnancy.

Not quite true.

We covered this in my Moral Theology class, and it’s also in Jone’s ‘Moral Theology’ ( the classic manual most pre-Vatican II priests had in the confessional - it was indexed by behavior and outlined the Church’s teaching on each issue)

A married couple have very great discression in behavior. Sensual kissing or touching is permitted between spouses. If one partner accidently climaxes, as long as it was an unitended side effect, it is not sinful. If one partner had as their intention to cause such an effect, it would be a case of sin.

Otherwise, married couples are allowed great leeway by God in expressions of love.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Brendan:

Not quite true.

We covered this in my Moral Theology class, and it’s also in Jone’s ‘Moral Theology’ ( the classic manual most pre-Vatican II priests had in the confessional - it was indexed by behavior and outlined the Church’s teaching on each issue)

A married couple have very great discression in behavior. Sensual kissing or touching is permitted between spouses. If one partner accidently climaxes, as long as it was an unitended side effect, it is not sinful. If one partner had as their intention to cause such an effect, it would be a case of sin.

Otherwise, married couples are allowed great leeway by God in expressions of love.

I agree up until this part. But it depends upon you definition of “leeway.” Married couples do have limits what they can do sexually. They cannot have oral sex to climax, no mutual masturbation to climax. I agree that there are many many many things that can be involved in foreplay and couples can do several things, but it must end in the climax of the husband inside his wife. Maybe I am just reiterating your intended statement.

 

[vluvski]

Brendan:

Not quite true.

We covered this in my Moral Theology class, and it’s also in Jone’s ‘Moral Theology’ ( the classic manual most pre-Vatican II priests had in the confessional - it was indexed by behavior and outlined the Church’s teaching on each issue)

A married couple have very great discression in behavior. Sensual kissing or touching is permitted between spouses. If one partner accidently climaxes, as long as it was an unitended side effect, it is not sinful. If one partner had as their intention to cause such an effect, it would be a case of sin.

Otherwise, married couples are allowed great leeway by God in expressions of love.

I’m not sure I agree with that conclusion, but only because the situation you describe seems inaccurate and improbably based on my limited and illicit experience. IMO the couple would have to be taken by surprise by this unintended response in order to make the situation innocent. It seems more probable that one or both people had an inkling that it was a possibility, yet persisted anyway. Even if the person was trying NOT to climax, they are still culpable of a lesser sin for persisting in a near occasion of sin that led up to the climax.

So yes, Matthew George, it is not a sin per se, but if you play with fire you’re going to get burned, and arousal is so unpredictable, especially for women. For myself, I prefer to avoid such situations in the first place. Otherwise the couple may find themself choosing between sin (illicit climax or impure thoughts) or completing the act against their better judgement (as discerned according to their serious reason for avoiding pregnancy, or whatever reason prevents them from completing the act without reservation, like not being married yet or health considerations.)

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

Mathew George:

Dear Mirror Mirror

The ‘intention of the act’ is pleasure. But, my very question is, does it need to be condemned as ‘impure thought’?

Apart from being a near occassion to sin, my question is, are such sexual pleasures prohibited per se?

Matthew,

Okay it seems as if there is something that you want to specifically ask, but are afraid to. If you do not want to ask out here in the public forum, feel free to send me a private message and I will answer you that way. To me, it seems as if there is some act that you are engaging in that you are unsure if it is right or wrong. Or you are hoping that someone will not be able to find a specific teaching so that you can continue in this act. Mind you, I am not attacking you here, I am guessing.

I think that you are able to distinguish what is an impure thought and what is not. Correct?

What sexual pleasures specifically are you refering to in your last statement. Again, send me a private message if you are not comfortable out here. Mind you there are youth that get on this site, but the Moral Theology forum is what this is for. If you are struggling let others help you. That is the reason (I feel) you posted here is because you are struggling. This is the place for it.

Peace brother!

 

[Brendan]

vluvski:

For myself, I prefer to avoid such situations in the first place. Otherwise the couple may find themself choosing between sin (illicit climax or impure thoughts) or completing the act against their better judgement (as discerned according to their serious reason for avoiding pregnancy, or whatever reason prevents them from completing the act without reservation, like not being married yet or health considerations.)

Exactly what ‘impure thoughts’ could a married couple have?

Having a passion towards their spouses body is certainly not impure, as long as it’s ordered towards an act consistent with Catholic morality.

As for illicit climax, the Principle of Double Effect certainly applies

If the couple is not married, should not be contemplating the type of intimacy we are discussing.

I’ll post the citations from Jones, when I get a chance; probably tomorrow, as the kids have their school Christmas pagent tonite

 

[vluvski]

Certainly one illicit thought would be consideration of masturbation, either mutual or alone.

It is also certainly possible for a wife to lust after her husband, or vice versa, if she entertains fantasies about sex with him during fertile periods.

I’m not suggesting that it is immoral for a married couple to look forward to sex, but when fantasies *become a substitution * for the act or a source of mild arousal that excludes the other person, it becomes sinful, at least in my understanding.

In particular, impure thoughts would focus on having a climax rather than giving oneself to his or her spouse.

Here’s a situation I wouldn’t contest: a married couple desires a strong sexual relationship, and has decided to explore oral stimulation as part of foreplay. In learning how the other responds to such stimulation, the wife does not stop in time and the husband is unable to prevent ejaculation before he reaches his wife. This is an accident, and certainly they can wait a bit and try again later. There is no contraceptive intent, nor the desire to separate the pleasure from the marital act. Thus, neither is culpable of sin in this case.

As for the Principle of Double Effect, it only applies if the intended act is good or morally indifferent. One might argue that being physically intimate with their spouse outside sex is unitive and hence morally good, but an argument could also be made thet when this physical intimacy provides a substitute for the real thing or leaves one or both spouses frustrated and tempted, it is not morally good.

I suppose my general point is that every person and every couple is different. It seems plausible that some couples are able to caress eachother without being tempted to abuse the gift of sex. Being someone who is easily aroused, I can tolerate very little physical intimacy (mind you, I’m not yet married, so there is very little I can licitly do anyway, but even that is often too much) before it becomes sinful.

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

So yes, Matthew George, it is not a sin per se, but if you play with fire you’re going to get burned, and arousal is so unpredictable, especially for women. For myself, I prefer to avoid such situations in the first place. Otherwise the couple may find themself choosing between sin (illicit climax or impure thoughts) or completing the act against their better judgement (as discerned according to their serious reason for avoiding pregnancy, or whatever reason prevents them from completing the act without reservation, like not being married yet or health considerations.)

I am confused… I through this was about a married people practicing NFP?

If you are thinking about your spouse it is not impure thoughts.

Remember people… in marriage… between abstaining and having sex… sex is the norm. The Church never requires that a married couple practices abstinence. If a serious issues arises in a marriage that would make having children difficult… a couple can decided **together ** to abstain to prevent pregnancy. They also have the right to make the decision to stop abstaining.

So I have a question on the issue of prudence… I have been looking into it for the past few days, and need some help. We all know it is licit to prevent pregnancy by abstaining if serious reason exists. Could it be true that to allow for the possibility of pregnancy (during that same “serious” situation…) is not necessarily imprudent?

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

It is also certainly possible for a wife to lust after her husband, or vice versa, if she entertains fantasies about sex with him during fertile periods.

Who says this? You need to read up on the definition of lust. Why do fertile periods make a difference? Because they are abstaining?

vluvski:

I’m not suggesting that it is immoral for a married couple to look forward to sex, but when fantasies *become a substitution * for the act or a source of mild arousal that excludes the other person, it becomes sinful, at least in my understanding.

Someone has led you to a misunderstanding at some point.

Read here:
newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

Basically… if you are married, you can think about the acts that are morally permissible in marriage.

 

[vluvski]

Frogman, I read your link, and I didn’t see anything that indicates a marriage is a license to think about sex with your spouse all the time. Thanks for pointing out, though, that the thread is about going “too far” within marriage but without sex. I forgot what thread I was on I guess…

Even Christopher West acknowledges that it is possible to lust after your husband or wife.

Let’s suppose Harry and Sally have discerned a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Sally is fertile. Harry goes to work, and knowing that they won’t have intercourse that night, tries to avoid sexual thoughts in order not to get himself aroused. Meanwhile, Sally’s hormones are kicking in, and she is jonesing pretty bad… she starts thinking about how nice it would be to cuddle up to him, caress one another, and her thoughts turn to the act itself.

By the time Harry gets home, Sally is pretty aroused. Harry was hoping to have a romantic dinner and some non-sexual physical intimacy that night, but Sally is unable to be affectionate because she is so aroused than any stimulation might cause her to orgasm. I’m arguing that because Sally’s fantasy has resulted in her inability to “perform” nonsexually, it was immoral.

As I also mentioned, sex is about giving yourself to your spouse. A self-centered fantasy, even one involving your spouse as the other party, is disordered because it removes the giving of self from the marital embrace.

Am I making any sense at all?

 

[Mathew_George]

Dear Mirror Mirror

I do not want to elaborate further on ‘pleasure’ or ‘impure thoughts’, because I feel that my question was understood reasonably well by members in general, and I do get a feed-back of what others think about the issue.

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

Frogman, I read your link, and I didn’t see anything that indicates a marriage is a license to think about sex with your spouse all the time. Thanks for pointing out, though, that the thread is about going “too far” within marriage but without sex. I forgot what thread I was on I guess…

You are right the article did not mention lustful thoughts directly… my mistake. It did talk about the definition of lust… I am sure Mr. West would agree with it … here is a quote:

Quote from article:

The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. Every such criminal indulgence is a mortal sin, provided of course, it be voluntary in itself and fully deliberate.

I never said “marriage is a license to think about sex with your spouse all the time” … I merely said that it is not lustful to think of your spouse inside of marriage. Every marriage prep book I have ever read says this. Moral theology classes teach this when you get to theology of the body… I am almost sure JPII has said this. Here is a quote from “Husband and Wife” by Fr Paul Wickens:

“Thoughts and desires about one’s spouse entertained to stimulate sexual pleasure are not sinful, so long as the are thoughts and desires of lawful acts with one’s spouse-- and so long as they do not present the near occasion of mortal sin… (Complete satisfaction apart from one’s spouse)”

vluvski:

Even Christopher West acknowledges that it is possible to lust after your husband or wife.

Again, I never implied that lust wasn’t possible in marriage… but I would like someone to quote me what Mr. West considers lust in marriage. I can grantee he would not deny that carnal desire in marriage is there for a purpose, and is good. Desire for spouse does need to be combined with self giving, but does not need to be perfect. Lust enters in when desires are disordered to an extent that spouse wants that which is licit in marriage.

vluvski:

Let’s suppose Harry and Sally have discerned a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. Sally is fertile… …I’m arguing that because Sally’s fantasy has resulted in her inability to “perform” non-sexually, it was immoral.

Dear… it is good that you are getting married soon! There is only so much that you can understand from a book. (This is a hypothetical situation.) In my experience just the very decisions to abstain from sex seems to multiply libido by 100 fold.

Anyway… who says she has to “perform non-sexually?” Where is this rule written, and why is it immoral? Who say she and her husband can’t change their minds about abstaining, and decide to make love anyway? What sin would it be for a husband and a wife to make love?

vluvski:

As I also mentioned, sex is about giving yourself to your spouse. A self-centered fantasy, even one involving your spouse as the other party, is disordered because it removes the giving of self from the marital embrace.

The fantasy is not self-centered unless you are only thinking about yourself… which is just gross. A fantasy is not disordered (unless it is about disordered things), and it has nothing to do with any removing from the marital embrace! I will try to find a JPII quote for you. Maybe you can see what Mr. West has to say about it.

vluvski:

Am I making any sense at all?

Yes, you always communicate well, and seem very charitable. But please try not to exaggerate on things people have “said”. Other posters may have a tendency to jump on something that was not there in the first place.

 

[jegow]

vluvski:

Here’s a situation I wouldn’t contest: a married couple desires a strong sexual relationship, and has decided to explore oral stimulation as part of foreplay. In learning how the other responds to such stimulation, the wife does not stop in time and the husband is unable to prevent ejaculation before he reaches his wife. This is an accident, and certainly they can wait a bit and try again later. There is no contraceptive intent, nor the desire to separate the pleasure from the marital act. Thus, neither is culpable of sin in this case.

Sure it wouldn’t have been a sin if oral sex wasn’t sinful. Oral sex is a sin though so in that case the sin has already been committed.