OK for married couple to use vibrators?

[LittleFlower378]

Ronald Conte teaches heresy. He claims to know when the second coming of Christ will be. He published a catechism without an imprimatur (in direct violation of canon law). He quotes a lot of sources to make it seem legit but the ideas he espouses are definitely his own. Re: his sexual ethics, he uses the legitimate teaching that “every sexual act must be unitive and procreative” to justify a bizarre interpretation of the requirements of marital love, including his own opinion that all foreplay is immoral. I highly recommend finding a more authoritative source of sexual moral ethics.

Sources for all of this? I havent read his other work, but his material on sexual ethics is sound and complies with reason.

the part where you say “his sexual ethics, he uses the legitimate teaching that “every sexual act must be unitive and procreative” to justify a bizarre interpretation of the requirements of marital love, including his own opinion that all foreplay is immoral. I highly recommend finding a more authoritative source of sexual moral ethics”

This is not what he is saying. Once again, foreplay is not the same as sexual acts. An he never said all foreplay is immoral such as hugging kissing and touching parts of the body besides stimulating genital organs. Using devises, oral, anal sex are sex acts, not foreplay, but unnatural sinful sex acts.

 

[nodito]

Sources for all of this? I havent read his other work, but his material on sexual ethics is sound and complies with reason.

the part where you say “his sexual ethics, he uses the legitimate teaching that “every sexual act must be unitive and procreative” to justify a bizarre interpretation of the requirements of marital love, including his own opinion that all foreplay is immoral. I highly recommend finding a more authoritative source of sexual moral ethics”

This is not what he is saying. Once again, foreplay is not the same as sexual acts. An he never said all foreplay is immoral such as hugging kissing and touching parts of the body besides stimulating genital organs. Using devises, oral, anal sex are sex acts, not foreplay, but unnatural sinful sex acts.

Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 775, §2.

Ronald Conte published a Catechism of Catholic Ethics available on Amazon w/o an imprimatur. He’s also working on his own translation of the bible and I can find no evidence that he received permission to do so from his diocese. I find this deeply troubling.

He’s posted here on CAF before and we’ve parried. My main objection to his stance on sexual ethics is that he separates each motion during sex as its own act.

He says “Moral acts of foreplay are not sexual acts per se because they are not genital sexual acts.” In other words, like you say, he would argue that an act becomes sexual once it involves the genital organs.

Okay, so husband and wife want to make love. According to Ron Conte, the wife cannot touch or caress her husband’s penis before he is physically inside her because to do so would be a sexual act (by nature of it’s involving a sexual organ) that is non procreative. He sees the act of reaching out and touching the husband’s genitals a second before intercourse in order to give pleasure as a distinct and separate act that must meet the three fonts of morality in order for it to be moral, whereas most married couples would agree that it is really one and the same as the act of intercourse.

He also writes:
Conte:

Since sexual climax is a use of the genital sexual faculty, any deliberate stimulation to sexual climax, other than by natural marital relations, is intrinsically evil and always immoral, even if the means does not involve the genitals. If a person is able to be stimulated to sexual climax by physical stimulation of a non-genital body part****, or by a non-physical stimulation (such as by word or thought), such a deliberate act constitutes a
morally direct and voluntary use of the sexual faculty which is not procreative, not truly unitive, not truly marital, and therefore intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

In other words, Conte would argue that even during the act of intercourse when the husband is inside his wife, it would be intrinsically evil for the husband to touch his wife’s genitals to help her climax simultaneously or to say something sexual with the intended purpose of bringing her to orgasm!

Saint Pope John Paul II published a book called Love and Responsibility that discusses marital love, sexual ethics, and orgasms. I don’t have my copy handy at the moment but suffice it to say that Conte’s interpretation of marital love diverges significantly from the writings of our late great pope’s. I’ll try to see if I can find the quotes tonight.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think vibrators are fair game. As long as the conditions for marital intimacy are met.
However I think the temptation to misuse them could be problematic. Be it after the embrace or without it altogether.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Ronald Conte published a Catechism of Catholic Ethics available on Amazon w/o an imprimatur. He’s also working on his own translation of the bible and I can find no evidence that he received permission to do so from his diocese. I find this deeply troubling.

He’s posted here on CAF before and we’ve parried. My main objection to his stance on sexual ethics is that he separates each motion during sex as its own act.

He says “Moral acts of foreplay are not sexual acts per se because they are not genital sexual acts.” In other words, like you say, he would argue that an act becomes sexual once it involves the genital organs.

Okay, so husband and wife want to make love. According to Ron Conte, the wife cannot touch or caress her husband’s penis before he is physically inside her because to do so would be a sexual act (by nature of it’s involving a sexual organ) that is non procreative. He sees the act of reaching out and touching the husband’s genitals a second before intercourse in order to give pleasure as a distinct and separate act that must meet the three fonts of morality in order for it to be moral, whereas most married couples would agree that it is really one and the same as the act of intercourse.

He also writes:

In other words, Conte would argue that even during the act of intercourse when the husband is inside his wife, it would be intrinsically evil for the husband to touch his wife’s genitals to help her climax simultaneously or to say something sexual with the intended purpose of bringing her to orgasm!

Saint Pope John Paul II published a book called Love and Responsibility that discusses marital love, sexual ethics, and orgasms. I don’t have my copy handy at the moment but suffice it to say that Conte’s interpretation of marital love diverges significantly from the writings of our late great pope’s. I’ll try to see if I can find the quotes tonight.

He uses the words “stroke” not caress. So I’m guessing Ron Conte means manual stimulation not just a touching of the penis.

Not sure if I have read into his works where saying something sexual during the act as being evil? I think he means saying sexual things apart from the act to bring another or oneself to climax.

I have never read into Love and Responsibility to mean manual stimulation, oral, or anal sex to be ok. St.John Paul II may talk about affection and foreplay as being a good, but not unnatural sex acts.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sources for all of this? I havent read his other work, but his material on sexual ethics is sound and complies with reason.

the part where you say “his sexual ethics, he uses the legitimate teaching that “every sexual act must be unitive and procreative” to justify a bizarre interpretation of the requirements of marital love, including his own opinion that all foreplay is immoral. I highly recommend finding a more authoritative source of sexual moral ethics”

This is not what he is saying. Once again, foreplay is not the same as sexual acts. An he never said all foreplay is immoral such as hugging kissing and touching parts of the body besides stimulating genital organs. Using devises, oral, anal sex are sex acts, not foreplay, but unnatural sinful sex acts.

Ron is a regular poster on CAF and while I don’t feel comfortable accusing him of things, his stuff can be outside the mainline. Sometimes way outside.
Ron operates like this.
A is first and B follows, the next logical step is C and after that D. Then the Greek letter Pi follows naturally…:

You find yourself agreeing and then BAM out of nowhere you accept the earth is flat…

I’d use extreme caution.

 

[nodito]

He uses the words “stroke” not caress. So I’m guessing Ron Conte means manual stimulation not just a touching of the penis.

"Conte:

Caressing, stroking, or otherwise directly stimulating the genitals of one’s spouse is a non-unitive and nonprocreative use of the genital sexual faculty. This type of stimulation remains non-unitive and nonprocreative even if climax does not occur (as a consequence in the third font) or is not intended (as the purpose in the first font).

The catechism according to Conte says no to the wife caressing her spouse’s penis, even if she isn’t trying to bring him to climax. Touching of one’s spouse’s genital organs is not allowed, except via the other person’s genital organs during intercourse, because, according to Conte, it’s a separate sexual act.

I have never read into Love and Responsibility to mean manual stimulation, oral, or anal sex to be ok. St.John Paul II may talk about affection and foreplay as being a good, but not unnatural sex acts.

As far as I’m aware, the phrase “unnatural sex act” does not appear at all in the Catholic Catechism. It appears frequently in Ron Conte’s catechism. The real catechism discusses masturbation as being an offense against chastity because it is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty outside of marriage. Conte goes to great pains to define legitimate foreplay as not involving the sexual organs; this is a distinction I have not seen anywhere but in his writings.

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

It is a personal matter to be decided between the couples, to my knowledge their is no concrete teaching on the matter that the Catholic Church has commented on. Talk to your priest during confession to see if its appropiate.

 

[LittleFlower378]

The catechism according to Conte says no to the wife caressing her spouse’s penis, even if she isn’t trying to bring him to climax. Touching of one’s spouse’s genital organs is not allowed, except via the other person’s genital organs during intercourse, because, according to Conte, it’s a separate sexual act.

As far as I’m aware, the phrase “unnatural sex act” does not appear at all in the Catholic Catechism. It appears frequently in Ron Conte’s catechism. The real catechism discusses masturbation as being an offense against chastity because it is the deliberate misuse of the sexual faculty outside of marriage. Conte goes to great pains to define legitimate foreplay as not involving the sexual organs; this is a distinction I have not seen anywhere but in his writings.

Nowhere in any writings in the history of the Church or in Love and Responsibility is there approval of these acts, call them what you will (St.Augustine calls them unnatural sex acts):manual stimulation, masterbation, anal sex, oral sex, the use of devices. We live in such an over sexed world these things have become the norm to many people. The idea of Christopher West that anything is permissible in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in the wife is absolute ludacris. Call Ron Conte a fool, but in the area of sexual ethics his writing seems very reasonable. Every act does count, even in the marital bedroom, especially in the marital bedroom.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Nowhere in any writings in the history of the Church or in Love and Responsibility is there approval of these acts, call them what you will (St.Augustine calls them unnatural sex acts):manual stimulation, masterbation, anal sex, oral sex, the use of devices. We live in such an over sexed world these things have become the norm to many people. The idea of Christopher West that anything is permissible in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in the wife is absolute ludacris. Call Ron Conte a fool, but in the area of sexual ethics his writing seems very reasonable. Every act does count, even in the marital bedroom, especially in the marital bedroom.

Oh geesh.

How far are you willing to go with your logic?

 

[TheTrinitySaves]

Oh geesh.

How far are you willing to go with your logic?

Haha.

 

[RPRPsych]

Nowhere in any writings in the history of the Church or in Love and Responsibility is there approval of these acts, call them what you will (St.Augustine calls them unnatural sex acts):manual stimulation, masterbation, anal sex, oral sex, the use of devices. We live in such an over sexed world these things have become the norm to many people. The idea of Christopher West that anything is permissible in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in the wife is absolute ludacris. Call Ron Conte a fool, but in the area of sexual ethics his writing seems very reasonable. Every act does count, even in the marital bedroom, especially in the marital bedroom.

There is a logical fallacy in this statement.

The erroneous nature of some of Mr. West’s opinions and positions does not automatically make Mr. Ron Conte right or worthy of emulation.

Remember that Mr. Conte is the one who prophesied that Hillary Clinton would be the U.S. President in 2008, and that she would become Pro-Life.

He also teaches numerous bizarre concepts of his own making on salvation and EENS.

He also keeps making hysterical accusations that “traditionalists” are going to create a new Great Schism (and follow whom? Pope Michael?)

For the OP and others, I would recommend Germain Grisez’s excellent “The Way of the Lord Jesus” (available free online) for a better treatment of these issues. Grisez is a veteran Catholic theologian whose orthodoxy is beyond doubt.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

That’s right, Mr Conte explains that all of our actions are, every single one, even in the marriage bed, have to be moral. Every act has to have the 3 fonts of morality as he explains.

The device would not have the pro-creative purpose of marital sexual intercourse , as all sexual acts as defined by the Popes have all three
1)marital
2)unitive
3)Pro-Creative

Foreplay and showing affection (which is allowed) such as hugging,kissing, or touching areas of the body other than stimulating the genitals are not sexual acts per se. Using a device with your genitals does involve a sexual act.

Hmm… that doesn’t really make sense. If I can achieve orgasm by having my husband touch my feet, that would be wrong if it was isolated from the marital act. The genitals are just another part of the body. Why is it OK to touch feet and not genitals? Some people can achieve climax from kissing… I would say that is a sexual act in that’s case.

Sex can be painful for women without proper arousal. Who is Robert Conte to dictate restrictions on a couple’s methods, which take catholic teaching and extrapolate it based on his own opinions?

I’m gonna listen to JPII on this one.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Ronald Conte teaches heresy. He claims to know when the second coming of Christ will be. He published a catechism without an imprimatur (in direct violation of canon law). He quotes a lot of sources to make it seem legit but the ideas he espouses are definitely his own. Re: his sexual ethics, he uses the legitimate teaching that “every sexual act must be unitive and procreative” to justify a bizarre interpretation of the requirements of marital love, including his own opinion that all foreplay is immoral. I highly recommend finding a more authoritative source of sexual moral ethics.

Like, oh I dunno, JPII?

 

[AdamP88]

To answer the original question, I would imagine that the only issue is whether or not to support a business that undoubtedly relies a lot on the acceptance of sinful behaviour to make a profit.

As I’ve said before, the Church places few restrictions on the acts that a married couple can engage in, as long as the marital act is completed in the correct way. The only other concern is that the partners attitude should be such that they are placing the other’s, and not their own pleasure, first.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Like, oh I dunno, JPII?

Exactly!!

One of the beautiful things about the Catholic Church is that their positions are so well thought out. However, being so well thought out, these positions can rarely (except in the case of abortion) be applied in a black-and-white manner (yes/no) because of the myriad situations people find themselves in.

For example: Can a Catholic commit homicide? It’s easy to say “no”, but that is NOT Catholic teaching, as the defense of yourself or others is clearly permitted, even up to homicide if absolutely necessary. Furthermore, performance of defense of one’s nation is also clearly permitted, which clearly implies the openness of the Church for one person to lawfully take another’s life. Delving into the Church’s position on the waging of warfare, it is even permissible to (inadvertently) kill civilians if their (inadvertent) death is the result of an action that may lead to the quickest resolution of the war, and therefore the quickest resolution of killing and harm to others. (I’m going from memory here, please forgive me if I have some small details wrong).

The same can be said to immigration (we must maximize charity to all, yet nations do have a right and responsibility to maintain borders…see the walls around the Vatican), climate change (we must take care of the planet, yet we must provide for the people on the planet), etc, etc, etc.

Regarding sexual acts, it is easy to say that masturbation, oral/digital stimulation, post-coital stimulation, sex toys, sexy talk, lingerie, etc is ALWAYS sinful…but that is NOT Catholic teaching.

Anyone who wants to get educated on TRUE Catholic sex should read JPII’s Theology of the Body. It’s not an easy read, but it’s worth it if you want to free yourself to have terrific CATHOLIC SEX with your spouse.

Everything you do with your spouse must be UNITIVE. Not what Conte or someone on CAF thinks is UNITIVE, but what is UNITIVE between you and your spouse. Whether that is a footrub that results in orgasm (yay!!!) to oral stimulation to…whatever (feel free to use your own imagination here as long as it involves the other requirements).

Your Catholic sex must be PROCREATIVE, which means open to new life. This doesn’t mean that if your’e 65 and she’s past menopause you can’t have great CATHOLIC SEX simply because you know you won’t have children. It also doesn’t mean you must ONLY have sex when she is within her fertile period. While I understand the argument, I also don’t believe it means that the man has to finish inside his wife every…single…time…as long as the general intent of marital sex is to be open to life.

Again, in comparing acts…which couple is more “procreative”, the couple who purposefully abstains from sex during her fertile period, or the couple who targets her fertile period for the purpose of creating more children but occasionally has the man finish outside of his wife??

And your great CATHOLIC SEX must be in CONTINENCE (ensuring your sexual desires are focused on your spouse) which sanctifies the marital couple’s concupiscence. This means that even typical missionary sex (with both couples in burlap bags with appropriate holes cut in them) can be sinful if either couple is not focused ON THEIR SPOUSE! Thinking about other people…that’s not allowed.

And, of course, acting in continence requires you to be charitable to your spouse. Someone posted above inferring that post-coital stimulation is illicit…again, this is not the Churches position. Can you think of anything LESS charitable than leaving a wife unfulfilled while the husband rolls over and goes to sleep after finishing.

Great CATHOLIC SEX must be unitive, procreative, and done with continence. These three issues are complicated issues, which is why the Church has NOT come out and banned oral/digital stimulation, marital aids, lapdancing, footrubs, or declared an edict that a man must finish inside of his wife every single time there is a sexual act.

Read JPII’s Theology of the Body…it’s worth it!

 

[nodito]

Your Catholic sex must be PROCREATIVE, which means open to new life. This doesn’t mean that if your’e 65 and she’s past menopause you can’t have great CATHOLIC SEX simply because you know you won’t have children. It also doesn’t mean you must ONLY have sex when she is within her fertile period. While I understand the argument, I also don’t believe it means that the man has to finish inside his wife every…single…time…as long as the general intent of marital sex is to be open to life.

Again, in comparing acts…which couple is more “procreative”, the couple who purposefully abstains from sex during her fertile period, or the couple who targets her fertile period for the purpose of creating more children but occasionally has the man finish outside of his wife??

Much of what you wrote in your post (vis a vis immigration, environmentalism, etc) was correct. But I think you swung too far here.
Humanae Vitae:

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong…

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.

Paul VI teaches that each act must be ordered toward procreation and that it does not combine with the totality of marriage to make it so that acceptable if some marital acts are not ordered toward procreation (ie the man deliberately finishing outside his wife, which is contraceptive). Yet still he maintains this is very different than periodically abstaining, The requirement is not to reproduce - it is to use our sexual faculties the way God intended within marriage.

God bless.

 

[nodito]

Nowhere in any writings in the history of the Church or in Love and Responsibility is there approval of these acts, call them what you will (St.Augustine calls them unnatural sex acts):manual stimulation, masterbation, anal sex, oral sex, the use of devices. We live in such an over sexed world these things have become the norm to many people. The idea of Christopher West that anything is permissible in the marital bedroom as long as the husband climaxes in the wife is absolute ludacris. Call Ron Conte a fool, but in the area of sexual ethics his writing seems very reasonable. Every act does count, even in the marital bedroom, especially in the marital bedroom.

If you don’t like Christopher West, I would recommend Germain Grisez (as another poster mentioned) or William May. Actually, William May, Robert Lawlor and Joseph Boyle Jr published an excellent book called Catholic Sexual Ethics available on amazon, that has an imprimatur. I find it a lot of more consistent with orthodox Catholic thought than anything by Conte.

Matt, you and I are on the same team. I absolutely agree that God sees all our actions everywhere, even in the bedroom, and that acts of marital love can be holy or they be tainted by sin. Conte takes this idea and imposes on married couples restrictions that the Church does not herself impose on us, but in the end, I think your instinct to cherish and guard marital love against corruption is a good one.

 

[AdamP88]

Your Catholic sex must be PROCREATIVE, which means open to new life. This doesn’t mean that if your’e 65 and she’s past menopause you can’t have great CATHOLIC SEX simply because you know you won’t have children. It also doesn’t mean you must ONLY have sex when she is within her fertile period. While I understand the argument, I also don’t believe it means that the man has to finish inside his wife every…single…time…as long as the general intent of marital sex is to be open to life.

Read JPII’s Theology of the Body…it’s worth it!

This sentence is just wrong. There are few rules that the church imposes on the marital act. But this is actually one that is pretty clear. The man must finish in his wife.

That doesn’t rule out other forms of stimulation. But you are not speaking the truth here. I doubt very much that Theology of the body proposes this position.

 

[AClaire11]

Yikes, how are you supposed to have a pleasant encounter if you can’t touch the other person’s genitals? I assume you’re not allowed to touch your own, either. Obviously the solution is to pray yourself into readiness and then maneuver yourself without using hands at all. /S

OP, there is no teaching either way, as others have said. I agree with pensmama that you might not want to rely on it due to potential habituation/desensitisation/etc, but otherwise it is fine as foreplay and during the marital act.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Yikes, how are you supposed to have a pleasant encounter if you can’t touch the other person’s genitals? I assume you’re not allowed to touch your own, either. Obviously the solution is to pray yourself into readiness and then maneuver yourself without using hands at all. /S

OP, there is no teaching either way, as others have said. I agree with pensmama that you might not want to rely on it due to potential habituation/desensitisation/etc, but otherwise it is fine as foreplay and during the marital act.

My wife and I wear winter scarfs tied around our eyes so as to avoid seeing one another nekid and stumble around the room in the dark until a baby is one day born.

Not as enjoyable, and I loathe the bruised shins that result, but whatcha gonna do?

I’d probably avoid the use myself with my wife. Having had an impure past when I was younger and then coming to embrace chastity as I matured before I met my wife, I am wary of inviting those memories or images into a sacred space for us. But that is for me and my wife.