Sex within marriage...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theresalux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with the claim that the Church does not ‘mirco-manage’ sex.

The Holy See has issued decrees ranging from condemning partial penetration (Denzinger 3660), to condemning the practice of avoiding orgasm (Denzinger 3907), to condemning kissing for the sake of the carnal and sensible delights that arise from the kiss for unmarried couples (Denzinger 2060). Yes, the Church has issued a variety of decrees relating to sexuality that are way more than just ‘surface level’ detail condemnations. That is why I am able to make these inferences that the “one rule” is wrong.
 
Last edited:
The Church does not now micro-manage the sex lives of married adults.

Sex is a wonderful gift from God for unitive, procreative, and pleasurable times between a man and woman who are married. Please stop making out to be something we should be ashamed of.
 
  1. Sex acts which by their nature are “proximate danger of pollution” are always immoral, regardless of your intention of doing that act/ your intention to not spill the seed. No more does the intention to not commit adultery permit you to put yourself into proximate danger of adultery, than does the intention to not spill the seed justify putting yourself into proximate danger of spilling the seed.
  2. Proximate danger of pollution is not based on “intentions” it is based on “will this act have a chance of spilling the seed at any point in my marriage (if practiced with any regularity)?” Just like you do not want to commit adultery at any time in your marriage, so too, you do not want to spill the seed at any time in your marriage. Doing an act which, time to time, or even only rarely, could result in spilling the seed, is too many failures. It is “proximate danger of pollution.” Period. Therefore, from this condition alone, intercourse other than sexual intercourse is always a mortal sin.
  3. These acts are proximate danger by their very nature, regardless of whether pollution actually occurs. According to St. Alphonsus, it is the nature of these acts that make them proximate danger of pollution, regardless of whether the chances of pollution are small or large for any particular individual, it is still proximate danger for everyone. So even if we determined there was no chance of pollution for a particular individual (how could we know this with any certainty?), every time the couple engaged in these immoral acts as “foreplay”, it would be a material mortal sin each time.
  4. How on earth could you determine that the chance of pollution over the entirety of your marriage was small? If you made it 10 years without pollution, it could just very well be that you got lucky in the first 10 years of your marriage. But will you mess up in the next 10 years? Like I keep saying, if we do not want a single adultery, then we also do not want a single Crime of Onan. Also, even if you made it all 50 years of your marriage without messing up, how do you know that the chance of pollution could not still have been high? Perhaps if you were able to repeat your fifty year marriage many times, say 100 times, then still, in 30 out of 100 of those life-long-repeat marriages you would spill the seed at some time in the marriage (and 70 times you’d never spill the seed). So it is invalid to say: I took a gamble, made it through fifty years of my marriage never spilling the seed, therefore I did not repeatedly commit proximate occasion of mortal sin every time I performed intercourse in a manner other than sexual intercourse. Simply, morality is not based on an after the fact evaluation, but rather is based on the nature of the act you chose. Did you will an act that was proximate danger of mortal sin by its very nature? If you did, then each time you did so, you committed a mortal sin, even if you never ended up spilling the seed throughout your marriage. Since it is possible you just got lucky for the duration of your marriage, but would not get so lucky if you repeated your marriage again, these acts were still indeed proximate danger of mortal sin.
 
Last edited:
  1. According to St. Alphonsus, even mere wife on husband oral genital contact in passing (while kissing many areas of the body), is “danger of pollution” (but not proximate danger). According to St. Alphonsus, it would only be justified to make this type of oral genital contact in passing for grave reasons. Therefore, if a husband was going to harm his wife or commit adultery, the acts would only then be excused from sin. However, since healthy marriages should never involve danger of adultery, the reason for making this contact will almost never be grave. Therefore, in reality, it is almost always guaranteed to be a sin to even make oral genital contact in the first place (even in passing/ wife on husband).
  2. Even if St. Alphonsus was wrong about intercourse other than sexual intercourse being proximate danger of pollution, would St. Alphonsus really be so wrong that it was no danger at all (while he thought it was proximate danger)? If so, why would Denzinger 2758 from the Holy See call him a “most learned expert” on Onanism, when he was really no expert at all, but had no clue about pollution/ danger thereof? And from the argument above, even if the act was merely “danger of pollution” (not proximate danger), then from this consideration alone, it would still essentially never be justified except in grave circumstances like adultery.
  3. Up to this point I have only considered spilling the seed. I have not even considered undue modes of copulation. Intercourse other than sexual intercourse is also unnatural (read the above post). Therefore, you commit a most grievous sin by uniting in this way, by performing an unnatural act. Heterosexuals can perform sodomy too. If you do not know, or are greatly uncertain, whether an act is a Crime that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance (Catechism 1867), for which an entire city (Sodom), was destroyed for this crime, would you do it? NO!
 
Last edited:
Why? What happens in a couple’s bedroom is between them and God.
If they have questions, they need to talk with their priest and or a marriage counselor.
We should not need this spelled out for us, a little common sense should go a long way.
 
WOW!
Some very unhealthy attitudes in what you have written.
If people ever wonder why Catholics are so hung up on sex, the answers are right here.
So, so sad.
 
There should not be confusion. We must make the deductions from the Magisterium.
  1. The Holy See in Denzinger 2715 cited St. Alphonsus’s Moral Theology. So even before you’ve gone through the inference process that I went through above to deduce which theory was correct, it should not be at all surprising that I am coming to precisely St. Alphonsus’ conclusions: the Holy See was almost certainly using his theory, they referenced his theology manuals!
  2. Saying I have an “unhealthy” attitude is a poor argument. Is it not also unhealthy to risk (God is the judge) burning in the fires of hell for all eternity? Why not include “spiritual health” or “eternal health” in your analysis?
 
Last edited:
lampshade_on_my_soul said:
My question is, I am committing mortal sin because she uses the Pill?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so. As her spouse, your primary Calling of Marriage is to get her to heaven & visa versa. It would be wise to have in-depth conversations with her about why she shouldn’t use artificial birth control. There are many healthy ways to deal with PMS symptoms without all the negative physical & spiritual side effects of the Pill. Perhaps you could research it with her. Ultimately we all have free will to obey or disobey and regardless of what our spouse chooses to do, we are called to love them unconditionally as Christ loves us.
 
Yes, there is no mortal sin if a spouse is using contraception that is treating a serious pathology when both spouses are abstinent. If you are not abstinent, then there are a variety of sins to consider such as abortion and contraception effects in the circumstances of the act (even rare abortion effects should be considered), sins of omission because you could have chosen to be abstinent (that is a potential sin), whether the act is inherently ordered towards the death of an innocent human being in the moral object of the act, sins of scandal, and so on. Make sure these considerations go into your analysis.
 
Last edited:
Then answer this question:

Why have a different standard for adultery than onanism? This makes even less sense given that the Holy See in Denzinger 3638 compares deliberate, knowing, consensual Onanism with an artificial instrument to attacking your wife. It is rather astounding how much the Holy See disliked Onanism. This strongly insinuates that Onanism is very likely worse than adultery. Therefore, one should take even more precautions to never commit Onan than the precautions he takes to avoid adultery! If you never want a single adultery over the entirety of your marriage, then why would you not also never want a single sin of Onan? Any other position is utterly incoherent.
 
Last edited:
Denzinger was also a theologian, but when I say Denzinger, I am referring to the text called Denzinger. It is the most well known text for anyone wanting to study the Magisterium. It is a compilation of infallible and non- infallible Magisterial decrees from the Holy See since the apostolic age. If you have the resources, I would definitely recommend buying this book. It is very necessary for studying and understanding the Magisterium.

https://www.amazon.com/Enchiridion-...argid=aud-802037562948:pla-448972610333&psc=1

Here is the wikipedia article on Denzinger:

Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
@alphonsus1

So…based off of the things you mentioned, it is a mortal sin for a wife to orally or manually stimulate her husband? Even if the full and pure intention is for the husband to finish naturally in the wife?
 
Yes, that is what many here are saying.
And it is not Catholic teaching.

Please, talk to a priest and/or read “Holy Sex” to get the real truth on what the Church teaches.
 
Last edited:
No matter how many blocks of text this person posts and how many saints he or she tries to bring into the equation, the church has professed no such thing. The poster is giving an opinion just like the rest of us.

You should ask this question of the person directly responsible for sheparding you ie your parish priest.
 
There is more misinformation being spread in this thread, especially by one poster who seems to be monopolizing the thread with his own ill-founded theological opinions, than there was in Mcnamara’s Vietnam statistics.

I recommend that anyone wanting actual information about what the Church teaches read Holy Sex and/or find a trustworthy priest to talk to. It’s hopeless to even try to discuss it here because of the deluge of opinions being presented as facts.
 
No, this is not St. Alphonsus’s position. I want to say that I have studied St. Alphonsus’s positions and they are not the positions given on Ron Conte’s website. Rather, acts are classified as pollution begun, proximate danger of pollution, danger of pollution, somewhat more remote danger of pollution, and no danger of pollution. Father Chad pretty much has the correct position regarding what St. Alphonsus believed:

Tradition has been against “undue modes of copulation”: that is, intercourse other than sexual intercourse, regardless of where in the body that intercourse takes place (excluding a mere application of a hand or foot). Because a hand or foot is not “intercourse,” this can even be done in a manner of stimulation (but only before arousal).

St. Alphonsus allowed manual stimulation on the husband for the purpose of attaining arousal to then immediately perform sexual intercourse (but no manual stimulation on the husband after he attains arousal since this would be at least danger of pollution, if not proximate danger of pollution). Manual stimulation is also permitted on the wife to be able to attain arousal, but not to attain climax before intercourse, since foreplay was only permitted as preparation for the act (to pursue arousal). Also, St. JPII also says you should aim to pursue climax during intercourse, not before intercourse (St. JPII says you should pursue it at the same time as well). The final consideration is that you must stay outside of the female vessel (“vas”) and never go into the “vas.”

As far as other details. St. Alphonsus considers it to be unjust moderation to use touches that are not needed for copulation, but only for pleasure (say if you could have attained arousal by passionate kissing but instead used genital touches). St. Alphonsus also considers it to be a slight venial sin to engage in sexual positions where the man is not on top. He does not consider these to be wrong because they are “unnatural,” but only because they are slightly hedonistic (since sexual intercourse is already extremely pleasurable). Also, this was the liberal position of 1500-1700. Conservatives at that time considered any unnatural position, without grave cause, to be a mortal sin. These theories are incorrect because they did not understand that sex positions are not related to procreation (except perhaps to sperm retention, a long discussion for another time). However, St. Alphonsus’s position that the wrong sex position is “unjust moderation” should not be immediately discarded. No Pope has defined what “just moderation” means, so his position should be considered along with modern theologians who generally do not consider any sex position to be hedonistic.

As far as what you are permitted to do after the sexual intercourse (on the wife), if the wife fails to reach climax during intercourse, St. Alphonsus does not consider it to be intrinsically evil to pursue female climax after sexual intercourse as long as the husband is still engaged in the act.
 
Last edited:
This is why Ron Conte’s blog post on question number 919 about St. Alphonsus’s Moral theology manual is misleading and erroneous. St. Alphonsus is considering whether stimulation is allowed if the husband disengages from the act (say if he leaves the room or rolls over and goes to sleep). St. Alphonsus would say that stimulation on the wife was not intrinsically evil, if the husband was still engaged in the marital act.

My position is that I believe manual stimulation to climax on the wife is not intrinsically evil, either before or after the act. However, St. Alphonsus’s theories assumed that female pollution exists and that it added perfection to the sexual intercourse. But this was a misunderstanding of female climax, it is not necessary for procreation. Therefore we have two options: (1) develop a new theory regarding female climax, (2) go with the conservatives of 1600-1700. Ironically, the 1600-1700 conservatives got the science right that female climax was not necessary for procreation. The conservatives of the 1600-1700s then said that it was not moral to even pursue female climax at all.

However, since there was a misunderstanding of science, a development can occur. I think that the most probable opinion is that it is impossible for women to “procure a pollution” and waste the seed like men can. I believe the most probable opinion is that “pollution” does not exist for women. However, the other position that female climax outside of sexual intercourse is intrinsically evil to even pursue is still possible (I just think it is much less likely). Since Pope Pius XII says any “full use” of the generative faculty outside of the conjugal act is intrinsically evil, this still leaves room to develop what can be done during/ connected to sexual intercourse (to women). This would lead to the same conclusions about what is moral and immoral as what St. Alphonsus thought, but would just apply New Natural Law reasoning to lead to those conclusions (I could go into this proposed development that I think could happen).

The two requirements regarding “after the act” (and on the woman), should be reiterated: (1) as long as you stay outside of the “vas” and do not go inside the vas, and (2) as long as female foreplay is only pursued for arousal and in order to perform intercourse. Also, saying that female climax should be pursued to occur at the same time that the male finishes, matches up with Pope JPII’s position.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top