Pleasure in marital sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter smileypants707
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to add to the context of the quote, which has already been given. The second paragraph of n. 2362 is written in the Catechism with a smaller print/font. As such, it receives the following treatment according to the Catechism:
20 The use of small print in certain passages indicates observations of an historical or apologetic nature, or supplementary doctrinal explanations.

21 The quotations, also in small print, from patristic, liturgical, magisterial or hagiographical sources, are intended to enrich the doctrinal presentations. These texts have often been chosen with a view to direct catechetical use.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  1. Even if there was no Magisterial guidance on this issue, a multitude of Saints and Doctors of the Church outright reject uncompleted sodomy. The old theory was used for 85 percent of Church’s history (1700/2000), and the new theory has only been used for the last 15 percent. The “one rule” theory does not have a single Saint or Doctor of the Church on its side. It cannot be deduced whether Pope Saint JPII agrees with this in Theology of the Body either. Should this not make you at least uncertain about which of the two theories is correct?
Most Important. If you do not know whether an act is a Crime that Cries out to Heaven for Vengeance (sodomy), would you do it?

Let our theologians stop messing around with the worst of the worst, 8-10 out of 10 bad, sins, and follow the logical conclusions of considering the crimes as how bad they actually are (and not do them if one is uncertain). Flee from sin!
 
Last edited:
Sodomistic intercourse or other unnatural acts, married or unmarried, as foreplay or to completion, in any case, we are dealing with monstrous despicable acts (although not all equally bad).
 
Last edited:
Sodomy can refer to other acts than the common one assumed by the word. Oral stimulation has been termed sodomy. Though not usually.
 
I did not know whether I would get banned if I used that word, so I used “unnatural act.”

St. Alphonsus considers sodomy to be any sex act whatsoever between members of the same sex. He considers “imperfect sodomy” to be anal sex between heterosexuals. Mutual masturbation and oral stimulation, completed or uncompleted, are “unnatural acts” (but they are not sodomy).
 
Last edited:
IMO the other thread got bogged down in a misunderstanding of “masturbation”, which is always self-stimulation. “Mutual masturbation” is an oxymoron that can mean either selfishness in a marital relation or a physical act analogous to masturbation. “Masturbation” should not be used to describe a loving marital relationship. That was why I tried to shift the discussion to the poster and his wife.

The femcatholic article is an excellent example of understanding the relationship as the basis for morality, rather than the physical act.
 
Yes, that is an example of focussing on the physical act wthout considering if the object of the act is selfish or giving. I am not really sure how you could expect to find an answer that way.

How does marriage fit into your analysis? What is forbidden to the unmarried is allowed to the married couple. Isn’t this because the selfishness gives way to mutual self-giving, transforming the act? A clinical approach, that observes the acts without context, just seems like a denial of the sacrament.

I am not claiming any strong understanding on this. It just seems odd to me to discuss it in such an abstract way. Anything could seem wrong in that light.
 
Dovekin said:
that is an example of focussing on the physical act wthout considering if the object of the act is selfish or giving
Click to expand...
So, the motivation of the act can define weather the act is acceptable or not? Please forgive me if I seem ignorant, I am not use to this legal jargon.
 
Last edited:
This is incorrect. The object of an act is evil if it is deprived of a human good. My analysis was about the object’s ordering towards procreation, based on the Magisterium. It must also be inherently marital and inherently unitive (I never suggested otherwise).

These other two meanings (union and marriage) go into the analysis as follows. If the sex act is non-marital (either fornication or adultery), then it is deprived of its marital meaning, and the act is intrinsically evil. The unitive dimension refers to the “one flesh union” as well as the “total giving of self.” Since the intellect cognizes the object, it is not just the concrete act, the behavioral pattern, but also knowingly performing (the formal dimension of the object) a sex act deprived of this unitive, procreative, or marital meaning. This would make the act intrinsically evil (and the act can be non-marital or non-unitive, but procreative).

However, the object must be ALL three: unitive, procreative, and marital. Even if the act is not done for selfish motives (in the intention of the actor), the act still must be procreative in its moral object.

Saying the act can ever be non-procreative, directly contradicts Humanae Vitae:

“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.”

Finally, the procreative component is not determined by marital status. An act can be procreative, but non-marital, for example. Also, procreation is the primary purpose of sex and marriage, so it would be bizarre to have it only apply depending on a subordinate meaning.

Pope Pius XII: “The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it.“

Also from Pope Pius XII: “What has been said up to this point concerning the intrinsic evil of any full use of the generative power outside the natural conjugal act applies in the same way when the acts are of married persons or of unmarried persons, … whether it is done by manual touches or by the interruption of the conjugal act; for this is always an act contrary to nature and intrinsically evil.”

Finally, the decrees in Denzinger are specifically written regarding married couples in 2715, 2795, 3634, and 3638! Simply, the same Moral Law applies whether married or unmarried.
 
Last edited:
No, the motIvation of the actor, insofar as the actor is intending a more remote end, is not pertinent to the object. Veritatis Splendor is the key encyclical on the moral object, and clearly states:

“One must therefore reject the thesis, characteristic of teleological and proportionalist theories, which holds that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species — its ‘object’ — the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, apart from a consideration of the intention for which the choice is made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned.”

To repeat, it clearly states the object is deduced APART from a consideration of the intentions (the motives), of the actor.
 
Last edited:
This is a difficult subject since the morality of actions is determined by the object, the intentions, and the consequences, what JP2 calls “the sources of morality.” VS 74

Veritatis Splendor, John Paul 2’s encyclical on morality, goes on to describe the primary determinant of the morality of an act:
  1. The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behaviour. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person.
Click to expand...
Intention is different from the choice of object, but I would not want to parse this to explain motivation’s role. This may be where I am not understanding this particular topic, but I hope you can see why I distinguish the selfishness of masturbation from the mutuality in marriage.
 
Thank you for clarifying that for us. I tend to take most of that for granted when looking at a particular case.

The particular case that led to this discussion was discussed in a separate thread. It was about a couple who, because of disability, cannot no longer have intercourse. IOW, procreation was out of the picture as well as intercourse, no matter what HV says about procreation being inseparable from marital sexuality.

There was a range of answers in that thread, many of which made me uncomfortable. Some looked like they relied on evaluations of actions based on the assumption that procreative intercourse was a possibility. That does not seem quite right.
 
The answer is simple.

A marriage must be consummated. If intercourse was never performed (with insemination) in the marriage, then the marriage never started.

However, if a condition arises later in the marriage, that the person recognizes will make sexual intercourse impossible, then complete abstinence is required. This certainty is often hard to come by, with cures for erectile dysfunction and other causes of temporary impotence.

Therefore, as the NCBC says, it may take many attempts to perform a conjugal act. Therefore, trying and failing multiple times to perform intercourse (while your intellect recognizes that you do not have an impediment/ ailment, that makes intercourse impossible), is indeed ordered towards procreation.

This in no way justifies unnatural acts to facilitate the natural act, because something intrinsically evil can never be morally willed, even for the upright intention to prepare for marital relations. This applies to everything intrinsically evil: whether pornograhic, adulterous, or non-procreative. In any case, either as “foreplay,” or to completion, it is immoral.

That should hopefully answer the question?
 
Last edited:
Well, that is an answer. It is not an answer that makes sense to me.

As I quoted from the Catechism above:
“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:
Click to expand...
The classification of acts of marital love as intrinsically evil seems out of touch. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but the issue has been addressed only in terms of procreation and selfishness, neither of which applies here.
 
If you do not agree with HV 11 (which is obviously in harmony with the Catechism passage you cited), that every marital act must retain its inherent ordering towards procreation, then “convincing” will go nowhere.

If, however, you agree with HV 11 (and you should since the Church’s prohibition on contraception is infallible), then the question becomes:

“what are the minimum necessary conditions for a sex act to be suitable for procreation?”

I was merely responding to Greg Popcak, Christopher West, and others, who contradict the non-infallible Magisterium in Denz 2795, 3634, 3638, and 2715 (research these decrees). Denz 3638, as said above, is a direct and blatant contradiction to the “one rule.” And the decrees relate specifically to married couples! This rule cannot be what the intellect uses to deduce a sex act’s ordering towards procreation.

So what is the correct theory? St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and Fr. Chad, follow the theory I gave (with St. Thomas/ St. Augustine being even more conservative). I gave two possible correct theories loyal to the non-infallible Magisterium, you can form your conscience which one is right.

If someone was striving for Sainthood, then he would probably just go conservative to be safe (and stick to just sexual intercourse). In most cases, all that is sacrificed is mere carnal pleasure.

So what do you disagree with? That the crime of Onan is wrong? Do you disagree that a husband and wife must be completely abstinent if the husband becomes paralyzed (and the marriage was validly consummated)? Or do you disagree with the crime of Sodom/ unnatural acts for married heterosexuals? Or do you disagree with both the crimes of Onan and Sodom? (And direct contraception?)
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
That the crime of Onan is wrong?
Click to expand...
I disagree that the crime of Onan applies to the situation. No one is choosing to avoid procreation or even carnal pleasure. The couple is choosing to share their bodies with one another to the best of their capabilities.
alphonsus1 said:
Do you disagree that a husband and wife must be completely abstinent if the husband becomes paralyzed (and the marriage was validly consummated)?
Click to expand...
Yes I disagree. Why would the marital embrace be repudiated by a married couple because some aspects are incapacitated. Sexual relations have more purposes than procreation and I do not see any reason to ask a couple to avoid intimacy just because of other tragedies in their life. Complete abstinence is a denial of the indissolubility of marriage.
alphonsus1 said:
Or do you disagree with the crime of Sodom/ unnatural acts for married heterosexuals? Or do you disagree with both the crimes of Onan and Sodom?
Click to expand...
Again, I disagree that the acts of a married couple should be compared to the crime of Sodom or of Onan. The married couple is doing their best to nourish the intimacy that is proper to their marriage; they are not choosing what was chosen at Sodom or by Onan. It may be that some things are inappropriate, but I am not comfortable with establishing a sweeping rejection based on false comparisons.

And again, this has nothing to do with contraception. God has already decided that for this couple. These actions are not chosen to avoid conception, they are chosen to nourish the intimacy proper to marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top