Oral as foreplay against natural law?

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Ron is a well-known poster here, and this is his favorite topic. There’s no debating with him, and he is famous for advocating this absolutist and personal-to-him interpretation of marital morality, which basically holds that foreplay of virtually all kinds is immoral, even within the context of a single licitly completed marital act. He fancies himself a theologian and I suspect that he feels little need to consult with his bishop on these matters. I do recall an earlier post from him some time ago, stating that kissing was OK, but that was basically it as far as foreplay. I have seen Catholic “marriage manuals” from decades ago, long before the Council, that had a more expansive view of what was allowed in marriage than what Ron holds.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Yes. What the Magesterium also teaches is that conjugal love involves a totality, in which all aspects of the couple enter. CCC 1643

The CCC text refers to a totality “of the person”, not to a totality of a set of acts. Humanae Vitae rejects the misapplication of the principle of totality, whereby a set of acts, some procreative and others non-procreative, would be grouped together, so as to justify all acts. Instead, the teaching is that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” Oral and manual sexual acts are not procreative.

You fail to recognize the difference between a completed act of oral sex and an act that is part of the conjugal union.

In Roman Catholic moral teaching, each knowing choice is a “human act”. Each act has three fonts of morality. Each act stands on its own as to its morality, based on those three fonts. It is never the case, in any area of life, that an act would take its morality from a prior or subsequent good act.

Acts involving the deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty are subject to the moral law, even if those acts are chosen for the purpose of foreplay. The lack of “completion” of a sexual act in climax does not exempt the act from the moral law. If a man commits adultery, but he is interrupted so that his sexual act does not reach “completion”, he has nevertheless committed a gravely immoral act.

Incorrect, and you will find no Doctrinal support for your assertion.

The Magisterium has never approved of oral sex, with or without climax, even in marriage, even for the purpose of preparing for a subsequent act of natural marital relations. There are no magisterial documents stating or supporting the very frequent claims made by many online commentators that unnatural sexual acts are moral as foreplay, or are moral even to completion for the wife.

Correct, except that you have failed to show that foreplay is “an intrinsically evil means to that good end”. You assert that it is, yet can show no evidence to support your assertion. It is rejected as easily as you made it. Again, you fail to recognize the difference between a completed act of oral sex and an act that is part of the conjugal union. Please provide the Church teaching that being contradicted.

The Magisterium teaches that every act must have three good fonts of morality in order to be moral. That is the teaching being contradicted.

Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The morality of human acts depends on: – the object chosen; – the end in view or the intention; – the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the ‘sources,’ or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.”

Compendium of the Catechism: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen, either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.”

USCCB Catechism: “Every moral act consists of three elements: the objective act (what we do), the subjective goal or intention (why we do the act), and the concrete situation or circumstances in which we perform the act… All three aspects must be good – the objective act, the subjective intention, and the circumstances – in order to have a morally good act.”

An act is called “foreplay” when it has the purpose of preparing for natural marital relations. The act is called foreplay based on the font of intention. But to be moral, an act must have three good fonts, and not merely a good intention. Therefore, some acts of foreplay can be immoral, if they have a bad moral object (intrinsically evil) or according to the circumstances.

The Magisterium teaches that every moral sexual act must be marital, and unitive, and procreative (HV 11-12). Non-marital sexual acts are intrinsically evil, because they lack the marital meaning. Non-unitive or non-procreative sexual acts are intrinsically evil because they lack the unitive and/or procreative meanings.

What this got to do with foreplay? How is foreplay unnatural?

You are labeling sexual acts as “foreplay” in order to justify them. In the teaching of HV, each and every sexual act in a marriage must be unitive and procreative. It is absurd to claim that the deliberate manual or oral stimulation of the genital organs is not a sexual act. In fact, the CCC defines masturbation in much the same way: “the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs”. Such acts are not properly called foreplay. They are sexual acts.

Yes, or you could go straight to the source (the Catechism references I provided). One could also read Christopher West or Pope John Paul II.

Neither the CCC, nor any magisterial documents, nor the private theology of Pope John Paul II justifies these types of unnatural sexual acts as foreplay. Christopher West is not a magisterial source.

These types of acts are acts, subject to the moral law, because they are knowing choices. These acts are sexual because they involve the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs. And these sexual acts are unnatural because they are contrary to the natural law, which requires every sexual act in a marriage to be unitive and procreative.

“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” HV 11

 

[Bookcat]

Without discussing directly the question of any particular “foreplay”.

I will note that their is present above a misunderstanding of what HV et al teaches,

Here is the document HV 11-12:

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Every marital act --every act of sexual intercourse --yes must be open to life --such does not mean that every “act” that is sexual must be in itself – directed immediately to such. One does not parse out legit foreplay as some acts that need to be themselves “procreative”. Such form a unity with the martial act “proper” which is what is being discussed in HV. Of course there are things that are contrary to chastity in marriage but legit foreplay (again I abstract from particulars) can be chaste and modest.

 

[Bookcat]

When the Church teaches that “every marital act” must be open to life --such is referring to sexual intercourse.

Each act of marital intercourse --must be open to life --one may never use contraception or do anything contraceptive.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.”–Vademecum for Confessors

Now must other acts within marriage be chaste and modest (that which could be called “foreplay” etc)? Yes most certainly. There are various works of orthodox Catholic Moral Theology which go into such --I will leave the particulars to them.

 

[Mulligan2]

Ron is a well-known poster here, and this is his favorite topic. There’s no debating with him, and he is famous for advocating this absolutist and personal-to-him interpretation of marital morality, which basically holds that foreplay of virtually all kinds is immoral, even within the context of a single licitly completed marital act. He fancies himself a theologian and I suspect that he feels little need to consult with his bishop on these matters. I do recall an earlier post from him some time ago, stating that kissing was OK, but that was basically it as far as foreplay. I have seen Catholic “marriage manuals” from decades ago, long before the Council, that had a more expansive view of what was allowed in marriage than what Ron holds.

Thanks for the information and clarification about Mr. Conte. It is disappointing that he shares his “opinions” as if they were “official church teaching.”

 

[fpt]

For summing up my understanding of the moral theology of Ronald Conte Jr.** during the session of the sexual complete union of bodies (the marital act) between wife and husband** , it seem easy to note that for him:

The sexual touchings, the sexual massages, the sexual caresses done by the wife with her hands and her fingers on the sexual external organs of her husband for provoking the erection of male organ, and thus for leading the vaginal penetration, are the constitutive elements of sin of masturbation: the manual mastubation and the digital masturbation.

The sexual touchings, the sexual massages, the sexual caresses done by the husband with his hands and his fingers on the sexual external organs of his wife for provoking the lubrification and the opening of female organ, and thus for permitting the vaginal penetration, are the constitutive elements of the sin of masturbation: the manual masturbation and the digital masturbation.

The same reasoning for the sexual kisses, for the sexual suctions, for the sexual oral stimulations with lips of the mouth: an oral masturbation, or an oral sodomy, or both of them.

For him, these acts are immoral by nature, by essence, of themselves, for themselves, from themselves, by themselves, are deeply sinful and are mortal sins. Per se, the sexual touchings and the sexual kisses are morally wrong, against the natural law of the marital act.

**Do you agree with my interpretation on his writings? Do you have the same understanding than me about his moral texts?

Am I too much graphic? Am i too much direct? Am i too much explicit in my messages? Am i wrong in my manner of doing?**

 

[fpt]

The sexual manual stimulations

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who): The husband and the wife, it is moral.

2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed: his or her body, his or her hands and his or her fingers (sexual cooperation in the human fashion), it is moral.

1. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what); sexual touchings, sexual caresses, sexual massages, it is moral
2. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where): in the conjugal bedroom, it is moral
3. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when): in the context of session of the marital act, it is moral
4. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how): the tenderness, the love, no violence, no pressure, reciprocal and mutual liberty (no rape), it is moral.
5. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for): the preparation for stimulating, for arousing, for lubrificating and for opening, for the erection and for leading the vaginal penetration, it is moral.
6. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted: the sexual matter, the sexed and sexual body and the sexual organs of the other, it is moral (the donation of bodies for the marital act, a sexed and sexual contract, the right of the body, the right to the body, the right on the body)

 

[fpt]

The sexual manual stimulations

1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who): The husband and the wife, it is moral.

2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed: his or her body, his or her hands and his or her fingers (sexual cooperation in the human fashion), it is moral.

1. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what); sexual touchings, sexual caresses, sexual massages, it is moral
2. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where): in the conjugal bedroom, it is moral
3. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when): in the context of session of the marital act, it is moral
4. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how): the tenderness, the love, no violence, no pressure, reciprocal and mutual liberty (no rape), it is moral.
5. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for): the preparation for stimulating, for arousing, for lubrificating and for opening, for the erection and for leading the vaginal penetration, it is moral.
6. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted: the sexual matter, the sexed and sexual body and the sexual organs of the other, it is moral (the donation of bodies for the marital act, a sexed and sexual contract, the right of the body, the right to the body, the right on the body)

The same reasoning for the oral sexual stimulations.

 

[ahs]

The CCC text refers to a totality “of the person”, not to a totality of a set of acts.

This is exactly my point. It is also what JPII teaches in his Theology of the Body…that conjugal love involves a totality. Every aspect of the person enters into the act. One does not withhold a part of his body, nor the wife part of hers, just because it is not directly a “procreative” part, per se. You seem to believe that if anything other than the * *“reproductive organs” are involved, and even then, only involved exclusively with the respective *per se *reproductive part, then there is sin. And you are wrong.

Humanae Vitae rejects the misapplication of the principle of totality, whereby a set of acts, some procreative and others non-procreative, would be grouped together, so as to justify all acts…

(snip)

You do not seem to understand what the Church means by sex act or marital act. I encourage you to read the sections of the Catechism that I referenced above, fully, so you can better understand this.

Without discussing directly the question of any particular “foreplay”.

I will note that their is present above a misunderstanding of what HV et al teaches,

Here is the document HV 11-12:

Observing the Natural Law

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Every marital act --every act of sexual intercourse --yes must be open to life --such does not mean that every “act” that is sexual must be in itself – directed immediately to such. One does not parse out legit foreplay as some acts that need to be themselves “procreative”. Such form a unity with the martial act “proper” which is what is being discussed in HV. Of course there are things that are contrary to chastity in marriage but legit foreplay (again I abstract from particulars) can be chaste and modest.

When the Church teaches that “every marital act” must be open to life --such is referring to sexual intercourse.

Each act of marital intercourse --must be open to life --one may never use contraception or do anything contraceptive.

“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.”–Vademecum for Confessors

Now must other acts within marriage be chaste and modest (that which could be called “foreplay” etc)? Yes most certainly. There are various works of orthodox Catholic Moral Theology which go into such --I will leave the particulars to them.

 

[fpt]

Dear Ronald Conte Jr,

Behind your interpretation of catholic texts on the marital act, in my humble opinion, there are strange methods. The negation of the essence and of the existence of what is the marital act, between a male human and a female human via:

the refusal of the phenomenology of the sexual intercourses with the corollaries: the sexed and sexual alterity, the sexed and sexual complementarity (the male physiology of sex, the female physiology of sex, the sexual mechanisms of each one), the different moments during the session of the marital act (negation of three moments);

The refusal of the notion of sexed and sexual contract (the mutual donation and reciprocal of bodies): right of body, right to body, right on the body, the sexual materiality of marriage, all the body.

The refusal of roles and of functions of the erogenous parts of body, even the sexual external organs, no metaphysics of sexual external organs, no epistemology of sexual external organs; actually, the refusal of the realistic and objective philosophy;

The refusal of sexual personalism and the sexual charity in the marital act;

The wrong acception of the definition of sin of masturbation, thus the wrong interpretation of the texts from the vatican about the marital act with all corollaries.

…etc.

In conclusion, ** it seems ** that you propose, in all good faith, or in all wrong faith (I do not know, I am not God or your priest, it is not my business) to be in favor of the negationism of the marital act and of the human reality of this sexed and sexual act.

Your view on the sexual corporeity (sexual materiality) or on the sexual corporality, on the sexual union, on the sexed and sexual body is very…!!!

In all honesty, I want to understand your deep intellectual approach via my questions, but with me, you are silencious, no reaction, nothing.

I know, I am quite direct, and for you I am too graphic, too explicit, and in my messages my texts are almost immoral, are vulgar, are slang, are imprudent, are dangerous, are immodest, are indecent…etc.

The debate risks to be probably impossible in these conditions. It is not what i want.

 

[down_under]

Actually studies have been shown that approx. 70% of women cannot come to orgasm through vaginal penetration alone. Many condemn any sort of foreplay, but that would mean that most women would never have an orgasm. That doesn’t make any sense and the Church realizes this. Part of the marital embrace is caring about your spouses satisfaction. As long as it is in the right context of the completed act that is open to life it is a-ok.

okay i’m not taking anyone’s side but I just have to see the study on that one. Pull it out for us.

 

[down_under]

Ron is a well-known poster here, and this is his favorite topic. There’s no debating with him, and he is famous for advocating this absolutist and personal-to-him interpretation of marital morality, which basically holds that foreplay of virtually all kinds is immoral, even within the context of a single licitly completed marital act. He fancies himself a theologian and I suspect that he feels little need to consult with his bishop on these matters. I do recall an earlier post from him some time ago, stating that kissing was OK, but that was basically it as far as foreplay. I have seen Catholic “marriage manuals” from decades ago, long before the Council, that had a more expansive view of what was allowed in marriage than what Ron holds.

while it makes for stimulating (hehe that’s funny there) conversation I am glad to know this is a tread to nowhere I think this is my stop unless someone provides aforementioned study that should be an interesting read.

 

[clem456]

Am I too much graphic? Am i too much direct? Am i too much explicit in my messages? Am i wrong in my manner of doing?

Maybe a little graphic. Your posts are difficult to read because of the sentence structure , perhaps a language barrier?