Sexual Activity - Mortal Sin?

[micahmike]

Women may climax before, durring, and after intercourse. The may climax 100 times after intercourse if they want to and Hubs is up to the task. It is to be part of a licit sexual act, meaning man completing in the woman, but stimulation to the woman may continue after the fact for as long as the coule chooses.

 

[JBCatholicRN]

Women may climax before, durring, and after intercourse. The may climax 100 times after intercourse if they want to and Hubs is up to the task. It is to be part of a licit sexual act, meaning man completing in the woman, but stimulation to the woman may continue after the fact for as long as the coule chooses.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Women may climax before, durring, and after intercourse. The may climax 100 times after intercourse if they want to and Hubs is up to the task. It is to be part of a licit sexual act, meaning man completing in the woman, but stimulation to the woman may continue after the fact for as long as the coule chooses.

But they can’t get up, shower, get dressed, go shopping, have dinner, then come back home and continue giving the wife orgasms (unless they’re starting a new round of intercourse) (as if anyone’s life is like that! ).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[micahmike]

But they can’t get up, shower, get dressed, go shopping, have dinner, then come back home and continue giving the wife orgasms (unless they’re starting a new round of intercourse) (as if anyone’s life is like that! ).

In Christ,

Ellen

Correct. The poor guy would have to have genital sex again if the wife wanted more.

This thread is starting to sound an awful lot like my marriage. Generally we only break from sex to take our unicorn for a ride or swim in our pool of hundred dollar bills

 

[joandarc2008]

Correct. The poor guy would have to have genital sex again if the wife wanted more.

This thread is starting to sound an awful lot like my marriage. Generally we only break from sex to take our unicorn for a ride or swim in our pool of hundred dollar bills

Man - I am jealous- my unicorn has had no place to swim as my pool has had to get cleaned an closed in advance for Hurricane season.

 

[JBCatholicRN]

Correct. The poor guy would have to have genital sex again if the wife wanted more.

This thread is starting to sound an awful lot like my marriage. Generally we only break from sex to take our unicorn for a ride or swim in our pool of hundred dollar bills

My pool has $500 dollar bills in it.

 

[joandarc2008]

The important thing to remember all joking aside is that a sexual act must be unitive and porcreative in nature. Not to be crass - but what that means in English as another poster put it in another thread once is that Tab P must be in slot V when the little swimmers want to swim.Thats it folks. Have fun.

 

[joandarc2008]

The important thing to remember all joking aside is that a sexual act must be unitive and porcreative in nature. Not to be crass - but what that means in English as another poster put it in another thread once is that Tab P must be in slot V when the little swimmers want to swim.Thats it folks. Have fun.

Oh and it has to be your spouse - figured I would add the obvious in case we have lawyers or unicorns.

 

[JBCatholicRN]

Oh and it has to be your spouse - figured I would add the obvious in case we have lawyers or unicorns.

It has to be your spouse? Who created that rule? hehe, joking of course.

 

[joandarc2008]

It has to be your spouse? Who created that rule? hehe, joking of course.

oh and your spouse has to be a member of the opposite sex unless your California or Vermont - just kidding - morality is not relative- now back to feed my Unicorn

 

[JBCatholicRN]

oh and your spouse has to be a member of the opposite sex unless your California or Vermont - just kidding - morality is not relative- now back to feed my Unicorn

lol and swim in your pool of money.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Correct. The poor guy would have to have genital sex again if the wife wanted more.

This thread is starting to sound an awful lot like my marriage. Generally we only break from sex to take our unicorn for a ride or swim in our pool of hundred dollar bills

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Polycarp1]

My understanding is that sex is for procreation and unitive. Foreplay should end up in sexual intercourse. Oral sex seems to be a selfish act and falls short of procreation.

\

Quite right,
A number Catholic priests and theologians have been teaching certain ideas on sexual ethics within marriage which are irreconcilable with Catholic moral doctrine. This set of errors can be divided into four erroneous concepts:

A. They teach that unnatural sexual acts are moral when used as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation’ prior to a completed act of natural marital relations. The very same sexual acts which they admit are intrinsically evil are then said to be moral, if done partially, and if followed by natural marital relations.

B. They define the sexual act in terms of its completion, so that any means to that end becomes justified. As long as the completion of the act occurs in natural marital relations, they claim that even an unnatural sexual act is justified by that end. The unnatural means is then renamed as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation,’ so that the end not only justifies the means, but also seemingly redefines it.

C. They teach that a set of sexual acts, partial or completed, natural or unnatural, can be considered together, as if these constituted one act, thus nullifying the doctrine that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

D. They claim that the woman’s experience of sexual climax is not related to procreation, and so it can be sought and achieved by means other than natural marital relations, as long as it is ‘within the context of a completed act of intercourse.’

This set of errors is being taught very widely, and seems to be the majority opinion among moral theologians. Even some priests are teaching that married persons can commit unnatural sexual acts without sin. Among those theologians, priests, and lay teachers who assert such errors, the many present these ideas as if they were patently true assertions, or as if they were the teaching of the Church, with no accompanying theological argument, and with no indication that any other conclusion is possible. These errors represent a danger to the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage because they encourage married persons to commit objective mortal sexual sins alongside the act of natural marital relations, which is an essential part of the Sacrament.

Read catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

 

[TheDoctor]

\

Quite right,
A number Catholic priests and theologians have been teaching certain ideas on sexual ethics within marriage which are irreconcilable with Catholic moral doctrine. This set of errors can be divided into four erroneous concepts:

A. They teach that unnatural sexual acts are moral when used as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation’ prior to a completed act of natural marital relations. The very same sexual acts which they admit are intrinsically evil are then said to be moral, if done partially, and if followed by natural marital relations.

B. They define the sexual act in terms of its completion, so that any means to that end becomes justified. As long as the completion of the act occurs in natural marital relations, they claim that even an unnatural sexual act is justified by that end. The unnatural means is then renamed as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation,’ so that the end not only justifies the means, but also seemingly redefines it.

C. They teach that a set of sexual acts, partial or completed, natural or unnatural, can be considered together, as if these constituted one act, thus nullifying the doctrine that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

D. They claim that the woman’s experience of sexual climax is not related to procreation, and so it can be sought and achieved by means other than natural marital relations, as long as it is ‘within the context of a completed act of intercourse.’

This set of errors is being taught very widely, and seems to be the majority opinion among moral theologians. Even some priests are teaching that married persons can commit unnatural sexual acts without sin. Among those theologians, priests, and lay teachers who assert such errors, the many present these ideas as if they were patently true assertions, or as if they were the teaching of the Church, with no accompanying theological argument, and with no indication that any other conclusion is possible. These errors represent a danger to the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage because they encourage married persons to commit objective mortal sexual sins alongside the act of natural marital relations, which is an essential part of the Sacrament.

Read catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

Careful here. This website is not a link to the Catechism or official Church teaching. It does not seem to accurately represent Church teaching. It is one man’s opinion, so read with open eyes.

 

[kelvinf]

\

Quite right,
A number Catholic priests and theologians have been teaching certain ideas on sexual ethics within marriage which are irreconcilable with Catholic moral doctrine. This set of errors can be divided into four erroneous concepts:

A. They teach that unnatural sexual acts are moral when used as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation’ prior to a completed act of natural marital relations. The very same sexual acts which they admit are intrinsically evil are then said to be moral, if done partially, and if followed by natural marital relations.

B. They define the sexual act in terms of its completion, so that any means to that end becomes justified. As long as the completion of the act occurs in natural marital relations, they claim that even an unnatural sexual act is justified by that end. The unnatural means is then renamed as ‘foreplay’ or ‘stimulation,’ so that the end not only justifies the means, but also seemingly redefines it.

C. They teach that a set of sexual acts, partial or completed, natural or unnatural, can be considered together, as if these constituted one act, thus nullifying the doctrine that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

D. They claim that the woman’s experience of sexual climax is not related to procreation, and so it can be sought and achieved by means other than natural marital relations, as long as it is ‘within the context of a completed act of intercourse.’

This set of errors is being taught very widely, and seems to be the majority opinion among moral theologians. Even some priests are teaching that married persons can commit unnatural sexual acts without sin. Among those theologians, priests, and lay teachers who assert such errors, the many present these ideas as if they were patently true assertions, or as if they were the teaching of the Church, with no accompanying theological argument, and with no indication that any other conclusion is possible. These errors represent a danger to the sanctity of the Sacrament of Marriage because they encourage married persons to commit objective mortal sexual sins alongside the act of natural marital relations, which is an essential part of the Sacrament.

Read catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#05

wow!

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium has never taught that all sexual acts become moral merely by being used as a type of marital foreplay.

The Magisterium has never taught that all marital sexual acts are moral as long as the husband climaxes within the natural act.

The Magisterium has never taught that the lack of sexual climax justifies non-procreative sexual acts.

The Magisterium has never taught that a set of knowing choices in the marital bedroom can be considered as one act, so that non-procreative sexual acts become moral as long as one act of natural intercourse is included.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church teaches that each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative.

Pope Paul VI: “The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between** the unitive significance and the procreative significance** which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11).

Only natural marital relations (natural intercourse) open to life has all three meanings: marital, unitive, and procreative.

The lack of the marital or unitive or procreative meaning in a sexual act makes that act intrinsically evil. Such acts are inherently disordered, and so are never moral.

Pope John Paul II: “Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81.)

Pope John Paul II: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.” (Evangelium Vitae, n. 62.)

The intention to commit a natural sexual act at a later time does not justify an intrinsically evil sexual act. The circumstance that an intrinsically evil sexual act occurs before or after a natural sexual act does not justify that intrinsically evil sexual act. The circumstance that sexual climax is lacking does not justify an intrinsically evil sexual act.