Permissable sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter tenabrae
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marc64 said:
Regarding no ejaculate!
Your discussions above are very well explained and I agree and have lived that life for 41 years of marriage. Now the times have changed with the experience of prostate cancer. I can no longer ejaculate but I do have some degree of reaching a climax. I no longer have natural erections. Erections are chemically induced on a periodic basis on a closely monitored basis (equally spaced). Timing is usually bad as libido is always low and erratic. My erections are not normal and vaginal penetration with my member rarely allows proper engagement for any climax completion. I have been getting treatment for penial rehabilitation and continue on that path. I still have a need for intimacy and so does my wife. Since there is no ejaculate, I fail to see the urgent need for vaginal IC for moral committment. Seems like loving mutual (manual, oral or other means) )stimulation for the sake of unitive love is in order. We don’t know which way to turn and tend to just shy away from being together. Other “Christian” religions don’t seem to have issues with. Has any one thought of this type of situation that affects thousands of troubled couples?
Thank you.
marc64
Click to expand...
I’m sorry for your troubles. And I understand the needs for intimacy that you describe. I also understand the sadness associated with shying away from each other. Take heart. There is good news!

Manual, oral stimulation is fine. If you COULD attempt vaginal intercourse and it would be an intent durring the act, but then can’t. It’s OK. My understanding is all you have to do is intend to attempt vaginal intercourse durring the session, but it doesn’t have to work out. If you don’t climax, you don’t.

If you read The Good News About Sex and Marriage, I think you’ll agree.

Again, I say, the act is meant to be a focus of love, not the focus of sin some make it out to be.
 
newbetx said:
I think that he hasn’t found anything concretely wrong. And he studies this far more than I. I think that he’s saying a couple may go there if they please, but why? Same for ears and noses, I suppose. 🤷 I guess just because someone doesn’t say it’s wrong, does not make it right. SOME people may require that type of stimulation, but most likely, it’s not required for anyone in general. All of the body is good. All of it. God made it. Any good thing can be made “bad” by acts of sin. So it would seem “leaving the door open” is all that he can do. I think from what we know, it has no advantage to a couple’s sexual relationship over vaginal sex. So we are where we are.
Click to expand...
I see Wests point (and love the book), but in fairness:
  1. I don’t want his ponderings, I want Catholic doctrine. Since he has obviously changed his tone a bit over time anyway on the issue. What if he was wrong, then, or is wrong now? It
    s a little late to tell your readers that…
  2. Who is to ask the question, “why do that?” I am sure couples have fantasies and role playing ideas that would gross me out, but that isn’t the point. The issue is, does it violate the procreative and unitivie aspect of sexual intimacy?
And the answer seems to be, “well, it may or may not, depending on the couple…”
 
Sorry. I’m a bit confused between the two replys to my issue.
  1. How can I be pro-creative if I have no ejaculate and my wife is well beyoud her child bearing years? 2) If I am limp because of my E.D /impotence, how can I attempy vaginal IC? 3) Does Mr.West address the issues of sexual correctness for men with no ejaculate/impotence? 4) In our intimacy session do we both continue to reach the climax stage knowing we cannot have vaginal IC? Please clearify. Thank you.
    marc64
 
Another issue that I did not issue in my previous reply is that in #4 would not one consider this unitive love within our marriage (in consideration to our cparticular ircumstances)?
Our thoughts are for me (male) to always ejaculate in the vagina as I have done for all our 41 years. Now I cannot ejaculate, have no natural erections but wish to be in a unitive love relationship with my wife - so in the eyes of the church what should one do to keep our marriage committment and yet no sin?
I personally feel that stimulation in a loving giving way to climax for me and my wife is not sinful considering the circumstances including our age of 64. This is a form of intimacy that is mutually satisfying, not as complete as vaginal IC by any means but better then nothing.
Pro’s and Con’s?
marc 64
 
Marc64 said:
Sorry. I’m a bit confused between the two replys to my issue.
  1. How can I be pro-creative if I have no ejaculate and my wife is well beyoud her child bearing years?
Click to expand...
God reserved a single conception to an act outside of the normal human reproductive process. All others require us to attempt. So eventhough it appears to us that it is impossible, with God, it may not be. (See Elizabeth). I’m sorry, but I don’t have a better definition of “pro-creative” at my fingertips but I saw one once that summed it up better. “pro-creative” was not limited to the ability to become pregnant. The Church teaches that sex is still pro-creative even if one technically knows they are infertile.
Marc64 said:
  1. If I am limp because of my E.D /impotence, how can I attempy vaginal IC?
Click to expand...
You can’t. But if you aren’t limp, then you can attempt. If you can, you do, if you can’t, you don’t. No sin here. The issue is attempting pleasure and AVOIDING vaginal intercourse when possible as an act to avoid the procreative nature. Does that make more sense?
Marc64 said:
  1. Does Mr.West address the issues of sexual correctness for men with no ejaculate/impotence?
Click to expand...
Not much that I recall. But he does address impotence, even if temporary. What CW does do is back up and take one to the bigger picture of the importance of intimacy, love and the good news about sex. Once you understand the intent of the act, being able to see the “exceptions” in new light makes it understandable why something may or may not be appropriate for a couple.
Marc64 said:
  1. In our intimacy session do we both continue to reach the climax stage knowing we cannot have vaginal IC? Please clearify. Thank you.
    marc64
Click to expand...
Interesting. Simultaneous climax is preferred. It is directed that male climax be vaginal in nature. If you are saying that you can climax without hardness (leading to one to be unable to do so vaginally) and without ejaculate, then I don’t know specifically. Climax and ejaculate have been tied in all definitions I know of so far. If in your case, they are not, then I don’t think this is addressed. My suggestion is to read CW’s books. Reflect on your situation. Pray and ask direction. God may say “yes” to something the church has not specifically covered.
 
Q.
Where might I purchase “The Good News about Sex & Marriage” by Christopher West Revised Edition 2006?

All I seem to find is revised edition 2004.

Thank you,
 
OK, I read HV 14, I’ve read the CCC, I’ve read the Bible. Can anyone point me in the general direction of where EXACTLY it says I can’t give my hubby a BJ just for fun, as long as we have intercourse regularly and it doesn’t substitute for it? It’s not birth control if you aren’t contracepting. It’s not masturbation if you saved it for each other. He can do me, right? Why can’t I return the favor? Did not St. Paul say husbands and wives should not hold out on each other, lest they be tempted to cheat?

And for NFP, if you are INTENTIONALLY avoiding sex when you know you are fertile and only having sex when it’s not likely, that is also a waste of sperm, if you are looking at it from a sperm wasting perspective. And, well, I’m not pregnant this month, so I’m having a period. I guess that means I wasted my equivalent of a sperm cell (EGG), so now I have to go to confession for marital celibacy, huh?

I’m a convert, and I have to say, all this is news to me. What kind of pervy church did I join? They are like the anorexics who cook feasts for their friends. It’s unhealthy, all this sexual obsession, and what you can and cannot do in such great detail. For God’s sake, just go love your spouse! Make out with them, don’t be shy! If intercourse cums, great! If not, don’t force it. Just snuggle naked like Adam and Eve.

Do I sound frustrated? I am! I can’t get a straight answer from ANYBODY on the church’s actual teaching, because it’s not actually written anywhere that anyone can point to, except in some book by Christopher West, and hinted at but not stated outright in HV that I found, and every priest and monk swears it’s true, but they aren’t married, so what do they know? It’s not in the CCC or Bible, either.

I think y’all are making it up. I love y’all dearly, my brothers and sisters in Christ, but right now, with this, I don’t believe you. Sorry! Please, go ahead and prove me wrong. I want to understand this.
 
dianeeh said:
Can anyone point me in the general direction of where EXACTLY it says I can’t give my hubby a BJ just for fun, as long as we have intercourse regularly and it doesn’t substitute for it?
Click to expand...
I can’t point you in the “general direction” of where it says this but in the Catholic Church, they have always taught that sex is for procreation.

After the sexual revolution & Vatican II, I believe they added the marital unity part. But it is an AND not an OR. Sex is for procreation & marital unity. All acts of sex must be open to live unless circumstances dictate otherwise (pregnancy, menopause, etc.) Giving your husband a BJ just for fun is not being open to creating life.
 
dianeeh said:
OK, I read HV 14, I’ve read the CCC, I’ve read the Bible. Can anyone point me in the general direction of where EXACTLY it says I can’t give my hubby a BJ just for fun, as long as we have intercourse regularly and it doesn’t substitute for it? It’s not birth control if you aren’t contracepting. It’s not masturbation if you saved it for each other. He can do me, right? Why can’t I return the favor? Did not St. Paul say husbands and wives should not hold out on each other, lest they be tempted to cheat?

And for NFP, if you are INTENTIONALLY avoiding sex when you know you are fertile and only having sex when it’s not likely, that is also a waste of sperm, if you are looking at it from a sperm wasting perspective. And, well, I’m not pregnant this month, so I’m having a period. I guess that means I wasted my equivalent of a sperm cell (EGG), so now I have to go to confession for marital celibacy, huh?

I’m a convert, and I have to say, all this is news to me. What kind of pervy church did I join? They are like the anorexics who cook feasts for their friends. It’s unhealthy, all this sexual obsession, and what you can and cannot do in such great detail. For God’s sake, just go love your spouse! Make out with them, don’t be shy! If intercourse cums, great! If not, don’t force it. Just snuggle naked like Adam and Eve.

Do I sound frustrated? I am! I can’t get a straight answer from ANYBODY on the church’s actual teaching, because it’s not actually written anywhere that anyone can point to, except in some book by Christopher West, and hinted at but not stated outright in HV that I found, and every priest and monk swears it’s true, but they aren’t married, so what do they know? It’s not in the CCC or Bible, either.

I think y’all are making it up. I love y’all dearly, my brothers and sisters in Christ, but right now, with this, I don’t believe you. Sorry! Please, go ahead and prove me wrong. I want to understand this.
Click to expand...
From CCC:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, 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.”

Oral sex “just for fun” is not ordered to the procreation of human life.
 
kage_ar said:
You might get more responses if you do not speak in such a way about Holy Mother Church.

This may be a jumping point for your further studies

nds.edu/old/well-Palermo.htm

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442&Pg=Forum5&Pgnu=1&recnu=2
Click to expand...
Don’t be too hard on Dianeeh - I actually admire her ability to lovingly embrace physical expressions of affection in her
marriage, even if she needs to better understand some doctrine. And, I think hanging around these boards exposes one to some very confusing opinions on sex in marriage. I struggle with the fact that for me, marital sex after 25 years has become a focus of fear - fear of sin, fear of an improper touch, of experiencing too much pleasure, fear that my motivation in seeking intimacy with my wife isn’t pure enough (she being post-menopausal), fear that I’m risking sin in some way for all the reasons I’ve read about on various threads. I find myself wondering if I was meant for a Josephite marriage. So - Dianeeh, I envy your natural comfort with the role of physical intimacy in marriage. I wish I felt that comfortable with it. Knowing correct doctrine isn’t always a satisfactory substitute for a spousal embrace.
 
What you must realize is that sexual intimacy between a husband and wife it not about “destinations” it is about the husband and wife uniting with each other, renewing their marital vows by giving themselves to each other fully, totally, faithfully and fruitfully. Each act must be unitive (uniting the husband and wife) and procreative (open to new life). If the husband’s climax does not take place inside of the vagina, then it is not procreative.
Click to expand...
Okay, my statement will offend some, but those are not my intentions at all just to state my thoughts. It seems this is a touchy topic.

If each act must be unitive and procreative, how is it that it is permissible to even engage in sex during anytime during the women’s cycle accept during ovulation? It is only during this time that the husband’s climax inside the vagina of the women has the procreative power.

NFP & abstinence is a form of birth control as is the condom, pill, iud, the depo shot. If fact, they are listed as a birth control method. They are just not artificial. Couples who use any means of birth control, are making the choice of when they create children, or even if they will create children. They are not leaving that choice to God. They are technically closing the door to life by choosing to engage in sex during the infertile time. It’s all birth control. Couples who use artificial means are making that choice too by making themselves infertile all of the time. I think this is what people mean when they ask “what is the difference”. Either way, the procreative power of sex is gone.

I don’t want anymore children, I am happy in that choice. I choose abstinence, as this is the only 100% method of birth control. Yes I am married. Is it difficult to have a celibate marriage, sometimes.

I am guilty in telling God, “Sorry God, but I am not open to any more kids in my marriage, so we will be celibate”

No matter how we as humans choose when or how many children we have, we are still putting ourself in control of the creative power of sex.
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
Don’t be too hard on Dianeeh - I actually admire her ability to lovingly embrace physical expressions of affection in her
marriage, even if she needs to better understand some doctrine.
Click to expand...
Call the Church “pervey” and I am going to be offended. There are many ways to express thought without using such childish and coarse language.
ThuribleGuy45 said:
And, I think hanging around these boards exposes one to some very confusing opinions on sex in marriage. I struggle with the fact that for me, marital sex after 25 years has become a focus of fear - fear of sin, fear of an improper touch, of experiencing too much pleasure, fear that my motivation in seeking intimacy with my wife isn’t pure enough (she being post-menopausal), fear that I’m risking sin in some way for all the reasons I’ve read about on various threads. I find myself wondering if I was meant for a Josephite marriage. So - Dianeeh, I envy your natural comfort with the role of physical intimacy in marriage. I wish I felt that comfortable with it. Knowing correct doctrine isn’t always a satisfactory substitute for a spousal embrace.
Click to expand...
Christ gives us three rules:

Sex only within a valid marriage.

Artificial birth control is not to be used.

The intent for each act is for the man to ejaculate within his wife.

Three simple rules. Aside from that, the usual loving things about both being comfortable and willing. No fear (Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out fear).
 
Dianeeh, Enjoy your sex life with your husband…Do what ever pleases the both of you and be not shameful of it.

Remember…whats done in a couple’s bedroom stays in the bedroom. It is no one else’s business what the two of you are doing or where your husband’s sperm ends up.

The marital act cannot, as dictated by the cycle of the women’s body (which God designed), be procreative all the time. The church’s stance that the marital act must be “procreative and unitive” all at the same time goes against what God designed.

If that statement is true and one cannot separate the two, than it goes without saying that couples can ONLY have sex during the fertile months of the woman, thereby fulfilling the necessary ingredients to be procreative and unitive.

Just my peace, once again
 
SirOscar said:
Okay, my statement will offend some, but those are not my intentions at all just to state my thoughts. It seems this is a touchy topic.

If each act must be unitive and procreative, how is it that it is permissible to even engage in sex during anytime during the women’s cycle accept during ovulation? It is only during this time that the husband’s climax inside the vagina of the women has the procreative power.

NFP & abstinence is a form of birth control as is the condom, pill, iud, the depo shot. If fact, they are listed as a birth control method. They are just not artificial. Couples who use any means of birth control, are making the choice of when they create children, or even if they will create children. They are not leaving that choice to God. They are technically closing the door to life by choosing to engage in sex during the infertile time. It’s all birth control. Couples who use artificial means are making that choice too by making themselves infertile all of the time. I think this is what people mean when they ask “what is the difference”. Either way, the procreative power of sex is gone.

I don’t want anymore children, I am happy in that choice. I choose abstinence, as this is the only 100% method of birth control. Yes I am married. Is it difficult to have a celibate marriage, sometimes.

I am guilty in telling God, “Sorry God, but I am not open to any more kids in my marriage, so we will be celibate”

No matter how we as humans choose when or how many children we have, we are still putting ourself in control of the creative power of sex.
Click to expand...
Please go read Good News About Sex and Marriage, your doing your self and your wife a huge miss servers by not educating yourself.
 
kage_ar said:
Call the Church “pervey” and I am going to be offended. There are many ways to express thought without using such childish and coarse language.

Christ gives us three rules:

Sex only within a valid marriage.

Artificial birth control is not to be used.

The intent for each act is for the man to ejaculate within his wife.

Three simple rules. Aside from that, the usual loving things about both being comfortable and willing. No fear (Scripture tells us that perfect love casts out fear).
Click to expand...
Perhaps you overlooked where the CCC restricts pleasure within a marriage to “just limits” - but frustratingly, does not define where those limits are. Then, there are the sins that occur when one partner objectifies - perhaps unintentionally, because of passion - the other. No, there are many rules and pitfalls surrounding marital sex. And finally, only God’s love is perfect , so my poor attempts at loving can’t drive out fear, as much as I wish they would.
 
OK What about the folks along in age where they can no longer procreate and as in my case cannot have normal erections nor do I any longer have ejaculate because of the removal of my prostate. And yes, for the unknowledged, folks like myself can still have some form of climax. Where do my wife and I stand on Catholic Church intimacy? What is right in the eyes of God and His church? Is mutual pleasure wrong to the point of reaching climax? This has nothing to do with self gratification but rather marital unitive love and expressing one’s fondness of the other. Do we enjoy this? Not totally, but we do not see other avenues except avoidance ( can’t say celebate because of the circumstances). We did our time and we did it correctly for the most part for the last 41 years. Now what? Any logical guidance or do we wing it behind closed doors? Thank you,
marc64
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
Perhaps you overlooked where the CCC restricts pleasure within a marriage to “just limits” - but frustratingly, does not define where those limits are. Then, there are the sins that occur when one partner objectifies - perhaps unintentionally, because of passion - the other. No, there are many rules and pitfalls surrounding marital sex. And finally, only God’s love is perfect , so my poor attempts at loving can’t drive out fear, as much as I wish they would.
Click to expand...
Could you provide the citation? I cannot locate the phrase “just limits” in the CCC. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I can find

**2362 **“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
 
kage_ar said:
Could you provide the citation? I cannot locate the phrase “just limits” in the CCC. scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I can find

**2362 **“The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.” Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
Click to expand...
OK, I misremembered the citation. That said, I’m not sure there’s a dime’s worth of difference between “just limits” and “the limits of just moderation.” The CCC clearly states there are “limits” in the context of marital pleasure, but for some reason won’t specify where that line is drawn. Absent that definition, it seems only spiritually prudent to curtail marital relations lest one violate the principle of “just moderation.”

I guess it’s a topic for another thread, but I have never understood where Pius XII’s position on the legitimacy of seeking physical pleasure in marriage came frm. His predicessor, in “Castii Connubi” as I recall referenced it in the context of “relief of concupisence” only, which to me seems a long way from Pius’ position that couples do nothing wrong in seeking pleasure.
 
From what I understand “just limits of moderation” mean to keep with decency and decorum - in other words, just because it is pleasurable does not mean you should be having relations in public or having sex instead of taking care of your children or going to work, etc. Moderation in all things, food, drink, and sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top