Sex within marriage

[SeanF1989]

Forgive the explicit terms I am about to use.

Are anal sex, oral sex, mutual maturbation, SnM etc within marriage sinful?

 

[Trishie]

All sinful. All against the dignity of marriage, The first three are not open to life.
The last has not place in Christian marriage either.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Regarding unnatural sexual acts in marriage, quoting papal encyclicals:

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

including,

“The expression ‘that use which is against nature’ refers to unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex. Saint Augustine condemns such acts unequivocally. He even states that such unnatural sexual acts are even more damnable (i.e. even more serious mortal sins) when these take place within marriage. For God is even more offended by a sexual mortal sin that takes place within the Sacrament of Marriage, since this offense is not only against nature, but also against a Holy Sacrament. “So then, of all to whom much has been given, much will be required. And of those to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be asked.” (Lk 12:48).”

" Unnatural sexual acts are inherently unfruitful. Since each and every sexual (marital) act must be moral on its own merits, an unnatural sexual act cannot be said to be fruitful by combination with an act of natural marital relations which is open to life.

“…the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty…. All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” (Persona Humana, IX)

Unnatural sexual acts are outside of normal conjugal relations. Such acts are non-procreative and so they contradict the finality of the marital act. Unnatural sexual acts are a deliberate exercise of sexuality, even if the sexual climax itself occurs within natural marital relations. Such acts outside of normal conjugal relations are intrinsically evil and therefore cannot be justified in any way, under any circumstances."
“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the 'creativity' of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67)

 

[marine13]

All sinful. All against the dignity of marriage, The first three are not open to life.
The last has not place in Christian marriage either.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Regarding unnatural sexual acts in marriage, quoting papal encyclicals:

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

including,

“The expression ‘that use which is against nature’ refers to unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex. Saint Augustine condemns such acts unequivocally. He even states that such unnatural sexual acts are even more damnable (i.e. even more serious mortal sins) when these take place within marriage. For God is even more offended by a sexual mortal sin that takes place within the Sacrament of Marriage, since this offense is not only against nature, but also against a Holy Sacrament. “So then, of all to whom much has been given, much will be required. And of those to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be asked.” (Lk 12:48).”

" Unnatural sexual acts are inherently unfruitful. Since each and every sexual (marital) act must be moral on its own merits, an unnatural sexual act cannot be said to be fruitful by combination with an act of natural marital relations which is open to life.

“…the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty…. All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” (Persona Humana, IX)

Unnatural sexual acts are outside of normal conjugal relations. Such acts are non-procreative and so they contradict the finality of the marital act. Unnatural sexual acts are a deliberate exercise of sexuality, even if the sexual climax itself occurs within natural marital relations. Such acts outside of normal conjugal relations are intrinsically evil and therefore cannot be justified in any way, under any circumstances."

“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the 'creativity' of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67)

Okay, as a husband who is trying to live all aspects of my life according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, I am now confused.

According to the above quotes all sexual acts between a married couple must only be genital to genital. However, the book “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West claims that the afore mentioned sexual acts are permissible inside a marriage if they completed with “regular” intercourse open to life.

Both of these sources back up their claims with scripture and the catechism, both are on Catholic websites… who’s right?

 

[marine13]

So, I have gone back and read through the CCC sections on sexuality, reviewed sections of Christopher West’s book, and other related documents and so far I have to disagree that oral sex, etc. are sinful within a marriage if completed with “regular” sexual intercourse that is open to life. I have found no evidence to suggest that each sexual act must be considered independently outside the author of that partiular article. I have not found anything that says that those acts are intriniscally evil within a marriage. Furthermore the CCC lists masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices as sins gravely contrary to chastity. It does not address oral sex etc. within a marriage. Additionally, Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote the forward to Christopher West’s book and said “In effect, this little volume is a kind of “catechism of Catholic teaching on sex and marriage” - and therefore perfect for marriage prep courses, RCIA, and adult education and marriage enrichment.”

Now, I am a student of the Church, and my understanding may very well be flawed, but until I am presented with compelling evidence to the contrary I will stick with the CCC, AB Chaput and Christopher West.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

GAUDIUM ET SPES

1. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.

To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)

All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men.

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

Humanae Vitae

1. In conformity with these landmarks in the human and Christian vision of marriage, we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth.14

Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman.15 Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.16

To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or to promote a greater good,17 it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom;18 that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life.

 

[fbl9]

Forgive the explicit terms I am about to use.

Are anal sex, oral sex, mutual maturbation, SnM etc within marriage sinful?

From what i have read by other posters is one can beat the other but don’t touch her back there or straight to hell you go.
Personally you should let your conciscience decide. it is easy to let these acts become the focus of the marital act. ie one’s desires these acts but finishes in the proper way out of duty.

 

[Nelka]

Oral sex is sodomy and sodomy is abhorrent to God.

 

[marine13]

Can you show me where your claim comes from? CCC? Scripture? Because I can’t find it. Please if I am wrong show me where. From what I have read Sexual intercourse involving oral sex, anal sex etc without climax that ends in the husband ejaculating inside the wife’s vagina does not violate any moral rule.

 

[marine13]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

GAUDIUM ET SPES

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

Humanae Vitae

I am sorry but your whole post has to do with keeping the marital embrace ordered to life which is only a part of the issue. If an act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife consentually includes oral sex etc but still ends with ejaculation inside the vagina and no ABC is used then the act’s order is still towards life. I think the problem is that some people are trying break up one whole act into “sub-acts” and that is not taught by the CC as far as I have seen.

 

[nonanon]

I am sorry but your whole post has to do with keeping the marital embrace ordered to life which is only a part of the issue. If an act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife consentually includes oral sex etc but still ends with ejaculation inside the vagina and no ABC is used then the act’s order is still towards life.
…

I think much of what’s posted in this thread is, at best, scrupulous. For example, the idea that manual genital stimulation as foreplay is not allowed in marriage (from the catholicplanet link) is incorrect and, frankly, ludicrous. Matt’s post above is closer to Church teaching.

There was another thread on this topic that may be helpful:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=427460

Also there’s another thread here strongly suggesting Ron Conte and catholicplanet.com shouldn’t be accepted as authorities on Church teaching:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=579256

 

[Bookcat]

catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

i

Such is NOT a recommended source.

I would not recommend that site for information…

The authors views on this site do not always reflect the views of the Church or of good Catholic Theology. And do not be confused by his “quoting” of documents…(I have known there to be a “misreading” of such at least in one case)

One will not find any Catholic Bishop or institution signing off on this website.

(as well meaning as such can be…)

Anyhow look to various moral theology works on what is reasonable “foreplay” and of course remember CCC 2362 which is about the martial act in general --but I which includes the need for “moderation”. We are not to be “hedonists”…but to live our Marriage in the Lord.

 

[marine13]

Such is NOT a recommended source.

I would not recommend that site for information…

The authors views on this site do not always reflect the views of the Church or of good Catholic Theology. And do not be confused by his “quoting” of documents…(I have known there to be a “misreading” of such at least in one case)

One will not find any Catholic Bishop or institution signing off on this website.

(as well meaning as such can be…)

Anyhow look to various moral theology works on what is reasonable “foreplay” and of course remember CCC 2362 which is about the martial act in general --but I which includes the need for “moderation”. We are not to be “hedonists”…but to live our Marriage in the Lord.

Bookcat,

You comment on moderation is absolutely correct and I see that I should have included that in my posts. If moderation is not a part of the marital embrace then lust threatens to overwhelm the mutual self-giving that is suppose to be the very root of the act.

Well said.

 

[Nelka]

People want to commit a grievious sin but need someone else to say that it is not a sin which is why we keep getting the same questions over and over until they get the answer they want otherwise they could just search for the answer.

sod·om·y
   [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA

noun
1.
anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
copulation with a member of the same sex.
bestiality ( def. 4 ) .

THE FOUR SINS CRYING TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE

1. Willful murder (including abortion)
2. The sin of Sodom.
3. Oppression of the poor.
4. Defrauding labourers of their wages.

 

[marine13]

People want to commit a grievious sin but need someone else to say that it is not a sin which is why we keep getting the same questions over and over until they get the answer they want otherwise they could just search for the answer.

sod·om·y
   [sod-uh-mee] Show IPA

noun
1.
anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
copulation with a member of the same sex.
bestiality ( def. 4 ) .

THE FOUR SINS CRYING TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE

1. Willful murder (including abortion)
2. The sin of Sodom.
3. Oppression of the poor.
4. Defrauding labourers of their wages.

You assertation is quite offensive. I, in no way, want to commit any sin, let alone a serious or grievious one. I seek understanding and I look for answers in the Catholic Church through Church suppported documents, books, etc. I have supplied you will sources that support my point of view and you have supplied me with a dictionary definition and a list of serious sins that do not have to do with oral, anal sex etc. acts as foreplay to “regualar” sex between a married couple that is ordered towards life.

Sodom was destroyed because of their general wickedness and homosexual acts.

From: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

"Sodomy

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21) **The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of homosexual activity. So far gone were they in this vice that the men of the town would not even accept heterosexual license with Lot’s daughters, both virgins, as a means of sating their lust (see 19:8-9). **Here we have another case in point for cultural conditioning. It is far more difficult for our contraceptive culture to see how contrary to nature homosexuality is. Those of us who instinctively feel its deep unnaturalness rightly react to homosexual activity with disgust, but logical arguments are unlikely to produce the same reaction in those whose instincts are damaged, blunted or rationalized away.

It is precisely in such situations that Divine Revelation is so very useful, for we cannot trust our feelings when they run counter to reality. We require a better guide. Sodomy strikes at the root of human nature because of its perversion of the procreative impulse, without which the race must die. But in case we don’t see it, God does." (emphasis added)

You are attempting to “add sins” where the Catholic Church does not find one. Now, if you have actual sources from the Catholic Church (i.e. Catechism, Papal declarations etc.) that support your side please present them. If they definitively show me to be in err then I will humbly stand corrected.

 

[bmullins]

I would think, and forgive the graphic nature of my response, that the key to the sin nature of any of those acts would be the expulsion of seed. I think that is what one above poster meant about being open to the conception of life. While they would be viable means of foreplay, pleasure in and of itself not being a bad thing, the final moment of copulation must indeed be genital to genital.