E
East_and_West
Guest
Does anyone really think that God wanted to make it this complicated? Read Theology of the Body.
- Status
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Hee, pure and simple summary there.
J
jfhh
Guest
Question phrased carefully.
Is it allowed in marriage for the wife and husband to unite in a non-traditional way using a “toy” with the end result being the husband climaxes without his member even necessarily having been touched by the wife?
That may be a little opaque. There’s two ways for a man to climax. Almost all the time it happens the one way. I’m talking about the other way with the wife using a “toy” to make it happen for him.
Is it allowed in marriage for the wife and husband to unite in a non-traditional way using a “toy” with the end result being the husband climaxes without his member even necessarily having been touched by the wife?
That may be a little opaque. There’s two ways for a man to climax. Almost all the time it happens the one way. I’m talking about the other way with the wife using a “toy” to make it happen for him.
A
adelore
Guest
If the man climaxes “Outside” of his wife, that would be considered “Spilling His Seed”. Thus making it a type of Birth Control and going against what God said.
S
Seatuck
Guest
The intent should always be for the couple to unite in the way that they form the one flesh union . If the husband climaxes accidentally prior to that happening then there is no sin and the couple should be more careful next time. It would be sinful to practice activities with the intent for climax outside the prescribed unitive way.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
Why?
I’ve done some research on this, and unless you define the marital act as complete once a man climaxes (a definition I’ve been unable to find), I don’t see why each climax has to complete inside the woman.
The Church only says that the act has to be unitive and procreative. Is one male climax completed inside the woman less procreative than multiple climaxes?
B
bilop
Guest
Because otherwise they are deliberately frustrating the procreative nature of the act.
God Bless
D
Dredgemate
Guest
How? If, during “an encounter” a husband climaxes in his wife and during that same encounter also climaxes outside his wife, is that less procreative?
B
bilop
Guest
Biologically, I don’t know, but objectively, yes.
The husband is not to climax outside of his wife.
Why is this necessary? Are you just inquiring from intellectual curiosity?
God Bless
B
Brendan
Guest
It is a loss of the Unitive aspects of the marital act.
Each and every marital act is a gift and reception of one spouse to the other.
The gift includes the gift on one’s fertility as God created it. The engagement in an Onanistic act is a rejection of the God’s gift of fertility in the manner and means God imparted it.
B
bilop
Guest
Good answer!
J
Jon_in_Charlott
Guest
We humans are made in God’s image. That image is of a triune God. It is the love generated between the Father and the Son that establishes the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Humans come closest to resembling the likeness of God through sexual intercourse. When man and woman come together as one (one flesh) they can create a third person.
When we engage in sex and subscribe to certain uses and activities that deny the opportunity for procreation we choose not to be in the image of God. The act becomes un-Godly.
So, contraception and homosexuality, are obviously not providing an image of God.
There can be an attempt to justify masturbation, oral, and anal sex as long as the man ejaculates into his wife (or at least intented to), however, during the engagement of these superfluous acts of sex it is understood that they cannot procreate thus they are not in the image of God. The truth is that they are being done for self satisfaction and thus infringes on the unselfish characteristic of love.
Understandably one can attempt to argue that certain activities, oral or anal sex, is suitable as foreplay leading to copulation, but, this argument could open a pandora box of deviant acts as allowable as long as the stipulation of engaging in the procreative act occurs.
I believe if we examine our modern sexuality we will recognize that certain sexual behaviors, oral and anal sex in particular, have become more widely acceptable and practiced. The problem that modern Catholics have is in attempting to place the round peg of modern sexual practices into the square hole of Catholicism.
And, in a great many instances, it is the issue of sexuality that prevents Catholics from embracing their faith life more completely. In most cases it is due to the self serving nature of sexual practices that can act as an obstruction to being in communion with God.
I believe an obvious correaltion exists between a decline of sacramental practices and the increase of “un-Godly” sexually practices that has occurred over the last 50 years.
Humans come closest to resembling the likeness of God through sexual intercourse. When man and woman come together as one (one flesh) they can create a third person.
When we engage in sex and subscribe to certain uses and activities that deny the opportunity for procreation we choose not to be in the image of God. The act becomes un-Godly.
So, contraception and homosexuality, are obviously not providing an image of God.
There can be an attempt to justify masturbation, oral, and anal sex as long as the man ejaculates into his wife (or at least intented to), however, during the engagement of these superfluous acts of sex it is understood that they cannot procreate thus they are not in the image of God. The truth is that they are being done for self satisfaction and thus infringes on the unselfish characteristic of love.
Understandably one can attempt to argue that certain activities, oral or anal sex, is suitable as foreplay leading to copulation, but, this argument could open a pandora box of deviant acts as allowable as long as the stipulation of engaging in the procreative act occurs.
I believe if we examine our modern sexuality we will recognize that certain sexual behaviors, oral and anal sex in particular, have become more widely acceptable and practiced. The problem that modern Catholics have is in attempting to place the round peg of modern sexual practices into the square hole of Catholicism.
And, in a great many instances, it is the issue of sexuality that prevents Catholics from embracing their faith life more completely. In most cases it is due to the self serving nature of sexual practices that can act as an obstruction to being in communion with God.
I believe an obvious correaltion exists between a decline of sacramental practices and the increase of “un-Godly” sexually practices that has occurred over the last 50 years.
B
bilop
Guest
Are you speaking of masturbation and oral sex, or manual or oral stimulation leading up to intercourse?
They are very different. Masturbation and oral sex are never permitted, oral and manual stimulation are.
If you are criticizing the latter, you should make it clear that these are you own opinions and not those of the Church.
The Church recognizes that foreplay is a very necessary precursor to the marital act, pacticularly for many women, and older men. People don’t go from zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds like a sports car.
In addition, Catholic moral theologians (including JPII before he was Pope) have stated that a man has the obligation to bring his wife to completion by manual or oral stimulation if she does not climax during intercourse.
God Bless
J
jfhh
Guest
IMO, it makes no sense for multiple climaxes to be allowed for a wife in the same encounter but multiple climaxes not allowed for the man in the same encounter. IMO, there is also no clear official papal prohibition on it. IMO, also there is also no clear official papal teaching that a man must bring a wife to climax after he has climaxed if he has failed to bring his wife to climax already. I don’t know if JPII before becoming pope as a theologian as someone claimed said this was a moral obligation, but even if that’s so, that would not be authentic papal teaching. When someone becomes pope, his prior doctrine as bishop, Vatican official, priest, or theologian don’t suddenly retroactively become authentic, let alone, definitive, papal teaching. Besides, this doctrine of man being obliged to bring the woman to climax if he fails before he climaxes would imply that a woman has an obligation to tell the man that she has failed to climax and would also mean any “faking” at all would be morally questionable. And some women have difficulty climaxing at all – even afterwards. I don’t think that means they are obliged under pain of sin to spend great effort to achieve that. The may be motivated to do that anyway, but it’s not a sin not to IMO.
It all feels like you need to consult a rule book. IMO sex between a husband and wife should be about the moment.
It all feels like you need to consult a rule book. IMO sex between a husband and wife should be about the moment.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Read …Can someone please give me an overview of the “rules” on sex within marriage. I’m in the process of becoming Catholic and while I knew that premarital sex and birth control was wrong- I had no idea there were stipulations on the sex you had with your spouse until I started reading a few of the other threads on here.
Thanks
Good News About Sex and Marriage - Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching
by Christopher West
http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/1812sm.jpg
L
LittleOne1
Guest
Actually sex should be about reflecting the most sacred beauty, that of the mutual love of the Father and Son and the eternal pouring forth of the Holy Spirit from that love. Sex is a participation in the triune love of God and therefore in order to participate must reflect an openess to life (hence why each climax of the man should be during intercourse and not sought outside of this, accidents aside, but its not as if a couple is prohibited from enjoying multiple times of intercourse in one session). This obligation of the husband to bring his wife to climax comes from JPII’s book, Love and Responsibility originally written when he was a bishop, but it is not as if the Pope recanted those thoughts (more he reaffirmed those in his TOTB work). The obligation was stressed because the wife epspecially since it is difficult for women to obtain climax, should be equally assisted in obtaining pleasure from the act just as the man has (since notoriously men have easily achieved climax and then the act is over before a woman has) because both should take joy in this union and communication of their entire being to the other. Since the woman’s climax is not directly related to the openess of life like the man’s, she may if she so desires obtain this climax before, during, or after intercourse. The other key that I think you failed to see is that this climax is sought only if the woman desires it; not that a couple is somehow forced to achieve this everytime (so the wife may feel satisfied even if this has not happened). Again, JPII stressed this because of the differences in sexual response that men were not taking into account, which can lead to selfishness, and hilighting the fact that the wife should have equal opportunity to climax as her husband if she so desires. The husband responding to this desire reveals a generosity on his part to focus on his wife and sacrifice some of his pleasure or even tak things slowly at her pace which shows he loves her more than himself. So ultimately JPII wants the act to reflect the trinity because he knows God designed it to be this way and therefore help us fallen humans obtain the joy that God intended for us from the beginning… and yes read West and others on Theology of the Body.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
The end does not justify the means. Therefore, it cannot be true that a husband and wife can do any sexual acts whatsoever, as long as they end with an act of natural marital relations. All knowingly chosen acts must be moral. A human act never takes its morality from another act, as if any act could be outside of the reach of the moral law.
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstance. Therefore, a husband and wife cannot perform an intrinsically evil sexual act and justify it by combining it in some way with an act of natural marital relations. Bringing one’s spouse to climax by means other than natural marital relations is never moral. Neither is it moral to use an intrinsically evil sexual act to prepare for, or facilitate, or ‘complete’ an act of natural marital relations. When an act done apart from natural marital relations is intrinsically evil, it remains intrinsically evil when done before, during, or after natural marital relations.
Actual sin is a knowingly chosen bad act. Every knowingly chosen act in human life must be moral. It is never the case that a good act justifies an evil act, nor does any act ever take its morality from a prior, concurrent, or subsequent act. Each act must stand on its own as to its morality. So foreplay must be moral in and of itself. If an act would be immoral to do on its own, it remains immoral even if it is followed, accompanied, or preceded by a good act of natural marital relations.
Various acts used for the purpose of foreplay can be moral, or immoral, depending on the acts themselves, but they cannot be said to be justified by the subsequent act of natural marital relations, such that the end would justify the means, or such that an evil act would become good by being followed by natural marital relations.
There are three fonts of morality. Each knowingly chosen act must be moral in all three fonts:
Intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstance. Therefore, a husband and wife cannot perform an intrinsically evil sexual act and justify it by combining it in some way with an act of natural marital relations. Bringing one’s spouse to climax by means other than natural marital relations is never moral. Neither is it moral to use an intrinsically evil sexual act to prepare for, or facilitate, or ‘complete’ an act of natural marital relations. When an act done apart from natural marital relations is intrinsically evil, it remains intrinsically evil when done before, during, or after natural marital relations.
Actual sin is a knowingly chosen bad act. Every knowingly chosen act in human life must be moral. It is never the case that a good act justifies an evil act, nor does any act ever take its morality from a prior, concurrent, or subsequent act. Each act must stand on its own as to its morality. So foreplay must be moral in and of itself. If an act would be immoral to do on its own, it remains immoral even if it is followed, accompanied, or preceded by a good act of natural marital relations.
Various acts used for the purpose of foreplay can be moral, or immoral, depending on the acts themselves, but they cannot be said to be justified by the subsequent act of natural marital relations, such that the end would justify the means, or such that an evil act would become good by being followed by natural marital relations.
There are three fonts of morality. Each knowingly chosen act must be moral in all three fonts:
- intention (the purpose for which the act is done)
- the chosen act (intrinsically evil acts are always immoral)
- the circumstances
When an act is intrinsically evil, it is not justified by any purpose or circumstance. So an intrinsically evil sexual act is not justified by being used for the purpose of foreplay, nor for the purpose of bringing the wife to climax after natural marital relations. Neither does the ‘context’ of natural marital relations justify a sexual act that is intrinsically evil when done on its own.
B
bilop
Guest
Personal opinion, not Church teaching.
The Church has never defined oral or manual stimulation as intrinsically evil acts.
Many moral theology texts with the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat (Christopher West’s being the best known) state that such stimulation is permitted.
God Bless
D
Dredgemate
Guest
I guess it boils down to defining the ‘marital act’. I have not found anything in Church teaching that defines the ‘marital act’ as concluded once the man climaxes.
My point is that church has given us broad guidelines- keep it unitive and keep it procreative. If a husband climaxes in his wife at least once during relations, and then subsequently (or previously) climaxes outside his wife during the same ‘session’, how is that not being open to the procreative nature sex?
J
jfhh
Guest
It doesn’t matter whether JPII still held to those opinions or not. They don’t become authentic papal teaching until he actually as pope shares those opinions. You can look at what he has said in the past to better UNDERSTAND his papal teachings or put then in context, but it’s not having an opinion that makes that opinion authentic or authoritative of the pope; it’s the actual sharing of it as pope that does.
- Status