Pleasure in marital sex

[alphonsus1]

But why are you claiming that it’s Catholic if it contradicts the Magisterium? If you disagree with the Magisterium, please be honest about it.

Pope Pius XII says in Address to Midwives [speaking about whether anything other than complete abstinence is permissible when a couple will not perform intercourse]:

“However, in such cases, the married couple does not desire a medical answer, of necessity a negative one, but seeks an approval of a “technique” of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity. And so you are again called to exercise your apostolate inasmuch as you leave no doubt whatsoever that even in these extreme cases every preventive practice and every direct attack upon the life and the development of the seed is, in conscience, forbidden and excluded, and that there is only one way open, namely, to abstain from every complete performance of the natural faculty.”

You disagree that’s it not Onanism or not immoral. However, the Magisterium disagrees with you.

 

[Dovekin]

Your first response is about “an approval of a “technique” of conjugal activity which will not give rise to maternity…” That is to say, it is about a contraceptive technigue, in a case where the woman will likely be harmed by becoming pregnant.

That has nothing to do with this discussion.You could look elsewhere in that allocution for some insight:

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.

You seem to be claiming that this marital right should not be exercised if they cannot possibly fulfill the obligation. You might find some support there for your position. I see a right that you are trying to deny, but I do not know what you will see there.

Your second note may or may not be helpful. I do not understand much of it, so it is hard for me to say. What is the “one rule”? How is a husband assaulting his wife related to the question? I am just baffled by the whole note.

 

[TheLittleLady]

No, please, don’t go there.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Oh, don’t worry, I was just addressing that poster because the “theology” sounds familiar.
I am so sorry for the OP who must be thoroughly confused and have a horrid view of the Church and sex right about now. I Would encourage the OP to reference the catechism on this and not really engage other issues at this time. As for the Poster in question, He PM’d me and we discussed some things, I gave him advice for better communicating his positions on the forums and he completely dismissed it and came back with more of the same.

 

[Anicette]

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.

No. Motivation cannot make an immoral act moral.
In Catholic perspective, an action for being being moral should met three criterias:

The act itself should be moral,
the intention should be moral
and the way of doing it should be moral.

Can apply for many situations, not only sexual issues.

 

[alphonsus1]

(1) The Crime of Onan does indeed apply to the situation of completed acts without sexual intercourse.

You say: “no one is choosing to avoid procreation.”

This is in grave error. If an act can be procreative, even though neither sexual intercourse nor insemination is possible, then you are claiming that impotent individuals can perform conjugal acts ordered towards procreation! This contradicts the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s (NCBC) “Problematic Marital Issues” and Cannon Law’s definition of what makes an act suitable for procreation.

Cannon Law:
“The conjugal act that consummates a marriage requires that the man’s penis penetrate the woman’s vagina at least partially and deposit semen in the vagina”

Cannon 1084:
“ §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

Saying an act can be ordered towards procreation with no intercourse or insemination contradicts the Holy See’s decree in 1977: “Decree regarding Cases in which Impotence Renders Marriage Null.” How could the marriage be null if those acts were indeed procreative? Simply, the acts are not suitable for procreation. They are not ordered towards procreation, which is why the marriage is invalid! This is also why complete abstinence is necessary.

You state above that:
“Sexual relations have more purposes than procreation.”

That is in grave error. Every sexual act, at any time, must be ordered towards procreation.

Humanae Vitae 11.
“[The Church Teaches] … that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

You must show that sex acts can be suitable for procreation with no insemination and no intercourse. This throws away every degree from the CDF (Denzinger 3634, 2795, 2715) that deliberately thwarting insemination is a crime of Onan.

If you reply that the disabled spouse’s intention being procreative makes the moral object procreative, then this contradicts Veritatis Splendor, that the object is deduced independent of the intentions of the actor. This is why Denz 3684 even condemns masturbation for the intention of collecting a sperm sample.

If you reply: what about uncompleted acts, where the seed is not spilled? Then, that still contradicts Denzinger 3907, which says that reserved embrace is immoral. So one cannot stop sex acts before completion, and use them as an end in themselves.

Therefore, the Magisterium shows there is no other option but complete abstinence. Period!

 

[alphonsus1]

First, when I say “Denzinger” I am referring to a compendium of infallible and non-infallible decrees Issued by the Sacred Penitentiary, which is now the Holy See. For example, Denz 3638 was approved by Pope Benedict XV in 1916 and is part of the Official Acts of the Sacred Penitentiary, that is, they are part of the Magisterium.

In any case, I have already showed in my last post that yes, permenant impotence does imply that sex acts are deprived of procreation in the object.

However, you also misunderstand this quote by Pope Pius XII, in his Address to Midwives. It is true that he is talking about a risky pregnancy and cases where “agenesic periods” do not give sufficient security. Therefore, he is likely not referring to contraception, which has some chance of failure so is too risky, but rather sex acts replacing the “conjugal act.” What else is a “conjugal technique?” Contraception interrupts/ impedes the conjugal act, it is not a “technique” of doing/ performing a “conjugal-like” act.

Then yes, the same principle applies: intercourse cannot be replaced. If it is replaced, the acts are not suitable for procreation (my previous post shows this explicitly). Given that complete abstinence is necessary when a mothers live would be in danger, because no sexual intercourse occurs (because the chance of pregnancy is too high even with NFP/ contraception). Then so too, the sexual acts of impotent individuals with no chance of successful intercourse, are also non-procreative and immoral.

The quote you provide does not show what you proport.
“confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, …”

The quote is True, and it is also True that no married sex act can be non-procreative (the quote cannot be interpreted in contradiction to HV 11).

Finally, the “one rule” says that any marital stimulation that “ends in the right place” (that is, where a man does not spill the seed), is procreative in the object of the act. This principle is also what is used to justify sodomy as “foreplay.” The “one rule” leads to the conclusion that sex toys (onanism via artificial instrument in Denz 3638), is moral, because you can use a toy and not spill the seed. However, Denz 3638 compares a husband using sex toys to an aggressor, like a rapist. For this reason, the “one rule” is not a safe principle to use! If you use this “one rule,” you will conclude that certain acts are moral (sex toys), for which the Holy See says are so bad they would make the husband into an aggressor like a rapist.

So please do not use this theory! It contradicts the Magisterium. I hope this helps

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Do I understand correctly that the Catholic church views marital sex as ONLY for the purpose of procreation?

No

And that having monogamous sex with your spouse for the sole purpose of intimate pleasure is a mortal sin?

Only if by “for the sole purpose of intimate pleasure” means you used artificial birth control or didn’t complete the act of intercourse in the normal way.

 

[Dovekin]

I hesitate to post this from the NCBC’s Problematic Marital Issues because I cannot follow their logic at certain points. But you have cited it as a source you follow.and it appears to be about the subject we are discussing.

Question 2. Are genital acts between a married couple that do not achieve erection, penetration, and vaginal deposit of sperm because of impotency resulting from advancing age or surgical intervention, such as a radical prostatectomy, considered masturbatory, and are they thus morally illicit?
Reply: They may not be masturbatory and could be licit under certain circumstances…

How do you get from this passage to “The Crime of Onan does indeed apply to the situation of completed acts without sexual intercourse.”?

 

[alphonsus1]

This depends on what the “minimum conditions for a procreative type act” are.

First, I citied this to show the Cannon Law definition for consummation of a marriage. Since sexual intercourse and insemination are two essential conditions, I was merely showing that any definition of sex acts being “ordered towards procreation” that requires neither sexual intercourse nor insemination, is totally and completely inconsistent with the Magisterium.

More to the point, Cannon 1084 and the CDF’s “Decree regarding Cases in which Impotence Renders Marriage Null,” allow us to explicitly infer that the perpetual impossibility of sexual intercourse throughout the entirety of a marriage, invalides that marriage, because the acts will not be suitable for/ ordered towards procreation.

Second, the passage you cited from the NCBC in Q2, is about someone who can perform intercourse, but just requires many attempts, and medical assistance. An act is still ordered towards some end (in this case procreation), even if the spouses try and fail (multiple times), to attain erection, intercourse, and insemination. To repeat, an act is still ordered towards some end, even if it fails to achieve that end.

The case of perpetual impotence, say from a paralyzed spouse, involves intending neither intercourse nor insemination (not trying and failing). And more to the point, if the condition of the spouses makes intercourse impossible, then this is the very definition of “perpetual impotence,” which implies the sex acts are not ordered towards procreation (and marriage, which requires acts suitable/ ordered towards procreation is invalid).

If the impotence is not antecedent to the marriage, but came about later in the marriage, then the marriage is valid (Matthew 19:6: “what God has joined together, let no one separate”), but since HV 11 shows that each and every marriage act must be ordered towards procreation, this implies complete abstinence is the only option for spouses that cannot perform sexual intercourse (but their marriage is valid).

Third, I disagree slightly with the NCBC. It appears their entire logic is that there needs to be a chance of insemination for sex acts to be ordered towards procreation. The NCBC is using NNL, but that is not the theory used by the Holy See in Denz 3634 and 3638.

Finally, how do I deduce that completed acts that spill the seed (without sexual intercourse) are a type of onanism?

By the Holy See in Denz 3634, the husband knowingly and deliberately spilling the seed after the commission of copulation, is Natural Onanism.

Denzinger 3634:
“… the crime of Onan in the marital act, that is, by expelling his seed outside of the vagina after the initiation of copulation;”

Similarily, deliberately spilling the seed from acts that are not intercourse is “procuring a pollution,” and likely a species of Onan as well.

But the precise species is less important! Knowingly and deliberately procuring a pollution is always an additional sin (on top of whatever other sins may also be happening)!

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Do I understand correctly that the Catholic church views marital sex as ONLY for the purpose of procreation? And that having monogamous sex with your spouse for the sole purpose of intimate pleasure is a mortal sin?

No. It is perfectly fine for a married couple to have sex simply because they’re in the mood, not because they’re trying to conceive (although they can’t do anything artificial to prevent conception). They need to at least be open to the possibility of life, even if it’s not the primary thing on their minds.

Some people will lawyer it to death, but that’s the basic answer to your question.

 

[Dovekin]

genital acts between a married couple that do not achieve erection, penetration, and vaginal deposit of sperm because of impotency resulting from advancing age or surgical intervention

the passage you cited from the NCBC in Q2, is about someone who can perform intercourse, but just requires many attempts, and medical assistance.

The response to the question makes little sense if that were the case. What they propose is
a. that it is impossible to know if impotence is perpetual;
b. “When the intention is toward [to perform “in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring”], and medical assistance is being sought to achieve this end, acts that result in one or both spouses achieving orgasm without a deposit of semen into the vagina are not, in and of themselves, masturbatory.”

Point a is only relevant if impotence is impeding the performance of intercourse.
Point b argues that an intent to perform intercourse, if intercourse is ever eventually possible, enables a couple to “spill seed” without it being masturbatory.

I am not defending this position, just trying to clarify what their position is. I have lots of problems with the logic used. But what they say is different from what you claim they are saying. With proper intent, “spilling seed” is not, in and of itself, sinful. (Masturbatory is standing in for sinful, I assume.)

 

[Maelstrom1]

I’m certain that if this topic was brought up to Jesus by his disciples, He would have paused, looked up to the Father in Heaven for patience, noted the foolishness of meaningless rules, exhorted everyone to truly understand the Kingdom, and moved on to the next question.

 

[alphonsus1]

This misunderstands the NCBC.

You say:
a. that it is impossible to know if impotence is perpetual;

The NCBC says:
In terms of impotency: With the advent of pharmaceuticals and mechanical devices to treat impotency, the answer to the question of whether “perpetual incapacity” exists is much less certain.

Read that again, not impossible, much less certain. This means that medications to treat erectile dysfunction exist now that did not exist in the past, and so on.

There are still multiple conditions that could make a marriage null: if you were in an accident and lost your generative faculty, if you are paralyzed, other severe cases of disability (I can think of others), etc.

If it is known to be impossible to perform intercourse, the NCBC supports complete abstinence (that’s the conclusion that Cannon Law and HV 11 lead to as well).

Finally, I totally disagree that the Holy See was using the theory that “intentions” allow us to deduce the object, that is not St. Thomas’s theory.

No, in Catholic Morality, the act is a proposal made by the intellect to move the will, in the perspective of the acting person (in common language it is the reasonably anticipated answer to the question “what are you doing?”)

What is the point? While you may know you could very well fail, the acts indeed have to be attempts and failures at performing sexual intercourse. The intellect must propose to move the will to attempt to perform sexual intercourse. That is the distinction. That is absolutely key.

If that proposal is not there, then regardless of intent, it is immoral. This is because the object has to be moral. This is the theory the NCBC is using.

Finally, the intention of the actor also has to be moral. The intention can never be to spill the seed! So in the case of a couple that knows full well intercourse cannot happen, the proposal to the will is not a conjugal act. And if the intention is ever to spill the seed in any way, it is immoral. Furthermore, all near occasions of sin should be fled from. Therefore, do not put yourself in dangerous situations where you risk pollution.

Do whatever is in your power to not spill the seed, because deliberately spilling the seed is monsterous depravity. Take whatever safeguards are necessary. That is authentic Catholic Morality!

 

[Dovekin]

acts that result in one or both spouses achieving orgasm without a deposit of semen into the vagina are not, in and of themselves, masturbatory. ”

In what circumstance is this statement true?

 

[smileypants707]

That’s what I keep thinking too

 

[poche]

You are mistaken. As long as the act is open to human life then the act is good and you should enjoy it as much as you like.