Sex within marriage...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theresalux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is spelled out. The problem is that men in seminaries in the 1970s were taught Humanae Vitae but they were also told a lie: That the Church would change her teaching about artificial birth control. So what happens? When they became priests and parishioners asked them about artificial birth control, they told them it was a personal conscience matter. Pope Paul VI did not write that
 
The “flagging” goes too far. I’m not sure what one expects to read in a “Sex within marriage” thread if not possible situations and acts that a Catholic couple may consider permissible in marriage?

My example was a valid one, and a challenge to folks to consider the issue from that perspective.
 
I think it’s reasonable to expect that one wouldn’t bring the Eucharist into the discussion to try to make a point.
 
You need to make up your mind as to what you are actually arguing. You have just spent thousands of character saying that manual stimulation can be licit under certain circumstances.

As for me, I am not arguing anything other than the OP should consult her priest and the church has not said that all manual stimulation is off limits.
 
I apologize. I thought that you were disagreeing with me. I thought that you were trying to say that unnatural acts were moral: types of intercourse other than sexual intercourse (regardless of where in the body that intercourse occurs, or how long that intercourse occurs for). But now I see that we are on the same page after all!

So this is a misunderstanding! You can read through my arguments again. But I guess we are on the same page then. Manual stimulation is okay, only to attain arousal (and only when immediately followed by sexual intercourse). Also, St. Alphonsus’s position on what is outside the bounds of just moderation is entirely possible: genital touches may be venial sins if they are done only for pleasure, and you could have used other actions (like passionate kisses) instead to attain arousal.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
But I guess we are on the same page then. Manual stimulation is okay, only to attain arousal, and immediately followed by sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...
That is basically what I have been told and thus what I adhere to. Having said that, our opinions are not sufficient grounds for the OP to clear her conscience. She needs to consult her priest.
 
Yes, I agree. There are a lot of different opinions which makes it tough to weed through the confusion. Therefore, asking a priest can just make someone even more confused (because 10 different priests can say 10 different things).

At the end of the day, here is what we can say: the position of Fr. Chad is definitely safe. Also, St. Alphonsus is a little more conservative than Fr. Chad on things like touches not needed for procreation and sex positions, but it is an open question whether these more conservative positions held by St. Alphonsus will be confirmed by the Magisterium as “unjust moderation” or not. It seems equally likely, or more likely (since the Magisterium tends in the liberal direction when there are no ‘conservative’ decrees to hold back development), that modern theologians will be correct that these touches/ positions are not hedonistic.

However, this “one rule” does contradict the non-infallible Magisterium in multiple places. Therefore, it is not safe to use. Also, even if NNL were true, from the arguments I have made above, we can definitely all agree: (1) no stimulation is permitted on the husband after his arousal, (2) no unnatural sex acts are permitted even as foreplay because they are at least proximate danger of pollution (no oral/ anal sex). And these acts are most probably unnatural as well (3) the wife should not pursue climax before the act, but should pursue it during sexual intercourse (this is St. JPII’s position as well).

Besides this, as I listed above, it is not obvious what “just moderation” means, so we need to wait for more Magisterial clarification. Finally, I agree about consulting a priest. Here is good advice too:

(1) Get a good traditionalist priest if you want to know the fullness of the Magisterium on sexuality (listen to Fr. Chad for example)
(2) Buy a copy of Denzinger and make inferences/ deductions to infer which theory is correct. It is very easy to deduce that it is St. Alphonsus’s position.
(3) Talk with experts in Moral Theology, or read books from experts. I enjoy to read Professor Stephen Long, or Fr. Kevin Flannery (from the Gregorian). But also read other highly qualified experts.

This should hopefully get you to the Truth:)
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
like listen to Fr. Chad linked above
Click to expand...
The questioner ought listen to the priest that his/her Bishop has placed in authority. The next would be to speak to his/her Bishop.

Fr Chad is over the care of his parishioners.
 
That is a good observation. I totally agree with speaking with priests and Bishops. Obviously, we will have to live with the fact that even if you spoke with a Cardinal, then still, whether you spoke to Cardinal Burke (very conservative) or Cardinal Tobin (more liberal), you could still get vastly different responses. But it is what it is. I currently am looking for a traditionalist priest, so I should find one soon (hopefully). And like I have been saying, there are hundreds of hours of professors and books online to look at as well. The privilege of being in the internet age is that we can listen and read interviews with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within hours of his interview. People 500 years ago would have had to wait months, and most people were illiterate so then couldn’t read the decrees. But definitely good advice:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top