Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m going to ask my question in broad terms, and then fill in some of the details. The question is this: Does the fact that Catholic married couples are now permitted to engage in various activities – including activities that were once considered sodomy, like oral stimulation – make it more difficult for us to provide a consistent witness to the sinfulness of homosexual acts?

I bring this up because of a comment by a poster in another thread, who said something that (frankly) shocked me: he said that certain theologians were considering whether anal sex “without consummation” could be licit among married couples, if it had a canonical conclusion. Now throughout history this act of anal sex has been resoundingly and repeatedly condemned by the Church – and now we are supposed to believe that the Church’s objection applies only to the depositing of seed in the anus, and not to the action of anal penetration?

Now I don’t think those theologians are mainstream, but it got me thinking. When we tell homosexuals that “homosexual activity” is wrong, I always thought we were saying that a particular activity was wrong – an activity that would be wrong for straight people too. I have heard a distinction made between fornicating couples and sexually active homosexual couples, and this distinction too made sense to me, so long as the fornicating couple was only engaging in intercourse, since intercourse is naturally fecund.

But once we say that married couples may have oral sex as foreplay, and so on, it becomes very hard to understand how there could be something intrinsically wrong with certain acts, as opposed to the gender of the people who commit those acts – and it was always Church teaching that sodomy was a specific sexual act that was not concerned with the gender of its participants.

But now I feel like Church teaching has become fuzzy, since oral sex is permitted within certain limits. And the caveat that it not be done to the point of orgasm is not a real distinction, because (among homosexuals) both oral and anal sex are often done without any orgasm being involved. It’s obvious, historically, that one commit sodomy without ejaculating.

How can we explain why gay sex is wrong in this landscape? Have theologians been wrong to tolerate such changes in Catholic moral teaching? What should we do now?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

It is not the physical form of the sodomy act that makes it wrong, it is the fact that it’s closed to life that makes it wrong.

Oral sex is still considered a form of sodomy if it is the end-goal of the sexual act. Nothing about the Church’s teachings on this subject has changed substantially, the man still has to finish in the woman, and it still has to be unitive and geared towards procreation.

I was one of the people making the argument that it could be considered ok if it’s not the end goal of the act, and rather is used as a form of foreplay. In my opinion, this does not reject natural law because it would still be followed by a proper marital act. This opinion is certainly liable to change based on the teachings of the Church.

What makes homosexual acts wrong is the same thing that would make anal sex wrong for a married couple if that’s all they were doing, the act is closed to life, and rejects the inherent nature of sexuality. That hasn’t changed, and my argument doesn’t seek to circumvent that Truth.

Sodomy is a sexual act which violates the natural order of sexuality, irrespective of gender. What’s important to remember is that, in order for it to violate the natural order of sexuality, it has to be closed to life. Foreplay is not closed to life, it’s foreplay, used to heighten the enjoyment of both participants during the actual (properly ordered) sexual act. That is why it is okay for a married man and woman to engage in such acts, while still remaining immoral for homosexuals to engage in such acts, there is absolutely no way that homosexual acts can be properly ordered towards procreation, either before, during or after the foreplay.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’m going to ask my question in broad terms, and then fill in some of the details. The question is this: Does the fact that Catholic married couples are now permitted to engage in various activities – including activities that were once considered sodomy, like oral stimulation – make it more difficult for us to provide a consistent witness to the sinfulness of homosexual acts?

I’d say no, for the following reason:

The sinfulness of homosexual acts is not only due to their unnatural nature.

Sodomy - that is, consummated anal or oral intercourse - is still an unnatural offence, even for a validly married couple. This is because it is non-procreative and therefore against the order of nature.

However, no sexual act between homosexuals can be procreative. Procreation is the primary end of the sexual act. The Church teaches this, and evolutionary biology teaches this as well. Moreover, the sexual act is morally ordered to take place between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, and certainly no other permutation or combination thereof.

I bring this up because of a comment by a poster in another thread, who said something that (frankly) shocked me: he said that certain theologians were considering whether anal sex “without consummation” could be licit among married couples, if it had a canonical conclusion.

That would be me. Hi there!

Now throughout history this act of anal sex has been resoundingly and repeatedly condemned by the Church – and now we are supposed to believe that the Church’s objection applies only to the depositing of seed in the anus, and not to the action of anal penetration?

Here’s the passage.

Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: ―I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…‖ (―3. The Sins of Married People,‖ Section 757.)

Note that Jone had been writing this in his book since 1929 (from the source I have), so this isn’t a “Spirit of Vatican II” innovation. This book was printed, with an Imprimatur, under the papacies of Pius XI and XII - as “conservative” as you can get.

Now I don’t think those theologians are mainstream,

Jone certainly seems to be mainstream.

but it got me thinking. When we tell homosexuals that “homosexual activity” is wrong, I always thought we were saying that a particular activity was wrong – an activity that would be wrong for straight people too. I have heard a distinction made between fornicating couples and sexually active homosexual couples, and this distinction too made sense to me, so long as the fornicating couple was only engaging in intercourse, since intercourse is naturally fecund.

No, the issue is sexual relations between those of the same gender, which is sinful because it is neither unitive nor procreative.

But once we say that married couples may have oral sex as foreplay, and so on, it becomes very hard to understand how there could be something intrinsically wrong with certain acts, as opposed to the gender of the people who commit those acts – and it was always Church teaching that sodomy was a specific sexual act that was not concerned with the gender of its participants.

True. But as Jone points out above, “sodomy” is a completed act

But now I feel like Church teaching has become fuzzy, since oral sex is permitted within certain limits. And the caveat that it not be done to the point of orgasm is not a real distinction, because (among homosexuals) both oral and anal sex are often done without any orgasm being involved. It’s obvious, historically, that one commit sodomy without ejaculating.

How can we explain why gay sex is wrong in this landscape? Have theologians been wrong to tolerate such changes in Catholic moral teaching? What should we do now?

The “change” happened before Vatican II, so I now hand over to a priest or expert in moral theology to set us straight (pun not intended.)

 

[cjforJesus]

The 4 Sins that Cry Out to Heaven
Willful murder
The sin of Sodom
Oppression of the poor
Defrauding laborers of their wages

People are constantly pushing the limits of acceptable behavior.I cannot for the life of me see how any loving husband would seek to introduce fecal bacteria into his wife.Sodomy is sodomy period,and the bible condemns it for a reason.

If you wish to understand truly what a gift sexuality is read Theology of the Body by Bl JP2.I cannot believe you are drawing info from a book written 60 years ago! That was around the same time Kinsey came out with his ridiculous "surveys"which almost single handedly destroyed the sacred judeo christian concept of marital love.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sodomy - that is, consummated anal or oral intercourse - is still an unnatural offence, even for a validly married couple. This is because it is non-procreative and therefore against the order of nature.

The second point here is better taken than the first. It makes sense to me that non-procreative uses of our creative capacities come in for censure.

But the idea that sodomy is *consummated *anal or oral intercourse is neither historically nor intellectually plausible. There are some sexually active homosexuals who *never *ejaculate in the context of oral or anal sex, despite the fact that they do engage in oral and anal sex. Are they not guilty of sodomy?

(Also, I think that “consummation” doesn’t make sense here, linguistically. The act of consummation is the marital act. Other forms of sex can include ejaculation, but not consummation.)

However, no sexual act between homosexuals can be procreative. Procreation is the primary end of the sexual act. The Church teaches this, and evolutionary biology teaches this as well. Moreover, the sexual act is morally ordered to take place between a man and a woman. Not two men, not two women, and certainly no other permutation or combination thereof.

Agreed. But the Church also has always taught that the act of sodomy is intrinsically wrong, irrespective of the marital status of its participants. Saying that oral sex is wrong only if it is not part of the complete marital act makes the morality of oral sex extrinsic, since it depends on something other than the very nature of the act.

That would be me. Hi there!

Glad you made it over here! :tiphat:

Here’s the passage.

Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 1951: ―I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…‖ (―3. The Sins of Married People,‖ Section 757.)

Note that Jone had been writing this in his book since 1929 (from the source I have), so this isn’t a “Spirit of Vatican II” innovation. This book was printed, with an Imprimatur, under the papacies of Pius XI and XII - as “conservative” as you can get.

To my ears, the revered Father has in the above passage done away with 1950 years of teaching on the meaning of sodomy, with one stroke of the pen.

Good thing imprimateurs are not infallible!

No, the issue is sexual relations between those of the same gender, which is sinful because it is neither unitive nor procreative.

But then the issue is not sodomy. Because sodomy is a word that has never been exclusively applied to same-sex relationships.

True. But as Jone points out above, “sodomy” is a completed act

And as I have said, homosexuals often do not “complete” the act. But surely they are still guilty of sodomy.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is not the physical form of the sodomy act that makes it wrong, it is the fact that it’s closed to life that makes it wrong.

Oral sex is still considered a form of sodomy if it is the end-goal of the sexual act. Nothing about the Church’s teachings on this subject has changed substantially, the man still has to finish in the woman, and it still has to be unitive and geared towards procreation.

I was one of the people making the argument that it could be considered ok if it’s not the end goal of the act, and rather is used as a form of foreplay. In my opinion, this does not reject natural law because it would still be followed by a proper marital act. This opinion is certainly liable to change based on the teachings of the Church.

But surely you see why this makes our opposition to homosexuality more difficult, at least as a practical matter. Throughout 1900 years of Church history, homosexual activity was seen as wrong because it necessarily entailed acts of sodomy, which were forbidden to everyone, married or single. But now certain actions once forbidden are now considered licit, and classified as not being “sodomy”. And these are the very actions that homosexuals desire to engage in.

Before, the message was: nobody can do this.

Now, the message is: married people can do this, but you can’t. And you shouldn’t get married, because you’re gay.

What makes homosexual acts wrong is the same thing that would make anal sex wrong for a married couple if that’s all they were doing, the act is closed to life, and rejects the inherent nature of sexuality. That hasn’t changed, and my argument doesn’t seek to circumvent that Truth.

Sodomy is a sexual act which violates the natural order of sexuality, irrespective of gender. What’s important to remember is that, in order for it to violate the natural order of sexuality, it has to be closed to life. Foreplay is not closed to life, it’s foreplay, used to heighten the enjoyment of both participants during the actual (properly ordered) sexual act. That is why it is okay for a married man and woman to engage in such acts, while still remaining immoral for homosexuals to engage in such acts, there is absolutely no way that homosexual acts can be properly ordered towards procreation, either before, during or after the foreplay.

I’m not sure. When I have experienced receiving oral sex as foreplay, I am essentially incapable of being selfless during that act. Unlike when I am having intercourse, oral sex makes me focus on my own pleasure, and – even if both parties are enjoying it – I suspect that receiving oral sex is *intrinsically *a selfish act. It does not seem to me to be ordered toward unity, only pleasure.

 

[cjforJesus]

But surely you see why this makes our opposition to homosexuality more difficult, at least as a practical matter. Throughout 1900 years of Church history, homosexual activity was seen as wrong because it necessarily entailed acts of sodomy, which were forbidden to everyone, married or single. But now certain actions once forbidden are now considered licit, and classified as not being “sodomy”. And these are the very actions that homosexuals desire to engage in.

Before, the message was: nobody can do this.

Now, the message is: married people can do this, but you can’t. And you shouldn’t get married, because you’re gay.

I’m not sure. When I have experienced receiving oral sex as foreplay, I am essentially incapable of being selfless during that act. Unlike when I am having intercourse, oral sex makes me focus on my own pleasure, and – even if both parties are enjoying it – I suspect that receiving oral sex is *intrinsically *a selfish act. It does not seem to me to be ordered toward unity, only pleasure.

2357 homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I cannot find ant explicit written canon law addressing sodomy between married people.I have never seen the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith address this nor have I seen an official statement from any pope. I have stated it before and no matter how I search there is no statement or teaching .

 

[Prodigal_Son]

2357 homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

I wasn’t challenging that.

I simply have always assumed that the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts proceeded from their being necessarily acts of sodomy. The homosexual commits the sin of sodomy, not the sin of homosexuality; “homosexual” is not a verb.

But then, I think it is very important that we consider what the sin of sodomy is, as it applies to straight couples.

 

[cjforJesus]

I wasn’t challenging that.

I simply have always assumed that the intrinsically disordered nature of homosexual acts proceeded from their being necessarily acts of sodomy. The homosexual commits the sin of sodomy, not the sin of homosexuality; “homosexual” is not a verb.

But then, I think it is very important that we consider what the sin of sodomy is, as it applies to straight couples.

It is the ACT the Catechism calls depraved not the person.The acts are intrinsically disordered regardless of the marital status. The church is very careful to make the distinction between the person and the sin.The acts are still considered depraved,they are neither unitive nor procreative.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is the ACT the Catechism calls depraved not the person.The acts are intrinsically disordered regardless of the marital status. The church is very careful to make the distinction between the person and the sin.The acts are still considered depraved

Then why wouldn’t the act of oral sex be wrong regardless of the marital status of the actors?

 

[cjforJesus]

Then why wouldn’t the act of oral sex be wrong regardless of the marital status of the actors?

I am not sure but it may be considered sodomy.In the strict sense only anal sex ,but any unnatural sex act that is geared toward lust and self gratification. The Catholic Church has no written teaching concerning what is acceptable between married people concerning sexual activityPeople seem to assume that there is a teaching stating as long as ejaculation occurs in the vagina everything is OK.I have searched documents of the Vatican and there is nothing,I suggest you read Theology of the Body,to understand how your body is a gift and how it is the temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[RPRPsych]

The second point here is better taken than the first. It makes sense to me that non-procreative uses of our creative capacities come in for censure.

But the idea that sodomy is *consummated *anal or oral intercourse is neither historically nor intellectually plausible. There are some sexually active homosexuals who *never *ejaculate in the context of oral or anal sex, despite the fact that they do engage in oral and anal sex. Are they not guilty of sodomy?

No, they’re guilty of sex outside marriage and against the order of nature.

(Also, I think that “consummation” doesn’t make sense here, linguistically. The act of consummation is the marital act. Other forms of sex can include ejaculation, but not consummation.)

“Consummation” is simply a convenient euphemism; as you say, ejaculation (or “wasting of seed”) is perhaps more linguistically correct.

Agreed. But the Church also has always taught that the act of sodomy is intrinsically wrong, irrespective of the marital status of its participants. Saying that oral sex is wrong only if it is not part of the complete marital act makes the morality of oral sex extrinsic, since it depends on something other than the very nature of the act.

I’d like to see an authoritative reference for the bolded statement, including a definition of what the source document means by sodomy.

Moreover, “oral sex” is a confusing term. “Foreplay involving oral stimulation of the male / female genitals”, though clunky (at least verbally ) is perhaps more accurate. “Sodomy” in this context would be oral sex involving the male organ (“fellatio” if you will) to the point of ejaculation / climax. Note that oral sex involving the female genitalia has sort of slipped under the radar.

Glad you made it over here! :tiphat:

Likewise.

To my ears, the revered Father has in the above passage done away with 1950 years of teaching on the meaning of sodomy, with one stroke of the pen.

Good thing imprimateurs are not infallible!

It’s not dogmatic teaching, but many pre-Vatican II priests used Jone as a textbook, and (presumably) used the above statement when dealing with such issues in the confessional.

Also, the following suggests that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” principle was often in place:

“Concerning the sins of spouses in regard to the conjugal duty, ordinarily speaking, the confessor is not bound nor is it proper for him to interrogate, unless the wives bring it up, and then he may treat it in the most modest way possible…Regarding other matters, let him keep silent unless he has been asked.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, quoted in the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, June 8, 1842.) Source: Denzinger 2760.

But then the issue is not sodomy. Because sodomy is a word that has never been exclusively applied to same-sex relationships.

I believe that is quite correct. The issue is sex outside marriage and against the order of nature. Consider the following condemned proposition:

“Pederasty is not prohibited by natural law. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin”

• Innocent XI, Errors of a Doctrine of Moral Laxity, 1679 (!!!)

This quote shows that:

• this debate is far older than Stonewall and Vatican II
• it was an issue of natural law and Divine prohibition, not “sodomy” on its own.

And as I have said, homosexuals often do not “complete” the act. But surely they are still guilty of sodomy.

See above. Again, I’m not a moral theologian, and I don’t have all the answers (just a Denzinger ), so I’d welcome (name removed by moderator)uts from those who know better!

 

[Brendan]

I’m going to ask my question in broad terms, and then fill in some of the details. The question is this: Does the fact that Catholic married couples are now permitted to engage in various activities – including activities that were once considered sodomy, like oral stimulation – make it more difficult for us to provide a consistent witness to the sinfulness of homosexual acts??

When you say ‘now’ permitted, what are you comparing that to.

I have a few moral theology books and confession guides from pre-Vatican II that indicate exactly what the Church teaches currently?

Interestingly enough, one of them, Jone’s ‘Moral Theology’ indicates that actual sodomy is legit as long as the process is completed in the normal way. At that book was originally from the 18th Century and went through 18 different editions in various languages, up through 1962

As to your point, no it does not. For even the marital act itself is just that, marital. Conducted in any way outside a valid marriage is a sinful act.

 

[cjforJesus]

No, they’re guilty of sex outside marriage and against the order of nature.

“Consummation” is simply a convenient euphemism; as you say, ejaculation (or “wasting of seed”) is perhaps more linguistically correct.

I’d like to see an authoritative reference for the bolded statement, including a definition of what the source document means by sodomy.

Moreover, “oral sex” is a confusing term. “Foreplay involving oral stimulation of the male / female genitals”, though clunky (at least verbally ) is perhaps more accurate. “Sodomy” in this context would be oral sex involving the male organ (“fellatio” if you will) to the point of ejaculation / climax. Note that oral sex involving the female genitalia has sort of slipped under the radar.

Likewise.

It’s not dogmatic teaching, but many pre-Vatican II priests used Jone as a textbook, and (presumably) used the above statement when dealing with such issues in the confessional.

Also, the following suggests that a “don’t ask, don’t tell” principle was often in place:

“Concerning the sins of spouses in regard to the conjugal duty, ordinarily speaking, the confessor is not bound nor is it proper for him to interrogate, unless the wives bring it up, and then he may treat it in the most modest way possible…Regarding other matters, let him keep silent unless he has been asked.” (St. Alphonsus Liguori, quoted in the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary, June 8, 1842.) Source: Denzinger 2760.

I believe that is quite correct. The issue is sex outside marriage and against the order of nature. Consider the following condemned proposition:

“Pederasty is not prohibited by natural law. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would often be good and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin”

• Innocent XI, Errors of a Doctrine of Moral Laxity, 1679 (!!!)

This quote shows that:

• this debate is far older than Stonewall and Vatican II
• it was an issue of natural law and Divine prohibition, not “sodomy” on its own.

See above. Again, I’m not a moral theologian, and I don’t have all the answers (just a Denzinger ), so I’d welcome (name removed by moderator)uts from those who know better!

The catechism is a document of Catholic teaching.It states that homosexual ACTs are intrinsically disordered.It does not say the person but the depraved acts.It would not make it any less depraved between married couples. It is explicitly referring to the sexual acts which are neither unitive nor procreative.
As I have stated before there is NO official Church teaching on what is considered moral and acceptable sexual activity between married people.You can look but I guarantee you it is not there.

 

[Brendan]

The catechism is a document of Catholic teaching.It states that homosexual ACTs are intrinsically disordered…

Not quite true. Homosexuality itself is a moral disorder (CCC 2358). A disorder itself is not sinful, a person can have a moral disorder (of any type), but still live a holy life.

The acts themselves are sinful.

 

[cjforJesus]

Not quite true. Homosexuality itself is a moral disorder. A disorder itself is not sinful, a person can have a moral disorder (of any type), but still live a holy life.

The acts themselves are sinful.

EXACTLY.Thats the point I was making.It is NOT the person but the ACT.The Church is careful to make the distinction between disordered desire and acting on it.

 

[RPRPsych]

The catechism is a document of Catholic teaching.It states that homosexual ACTs are intrinsically disordered.It does not say the person but the depraved acts.It would not make it any less depraved between married couples. It is explicitly referring to the sexual acts which are neither unitive nor procreative.
As I have stated before there is NO official Church teaching on what is considered moral and acceptable sexual activity between married people.You can look but I guarantee you it is not there.

I have no quarrel with you on any of this. I’m just providing quotes from various theological sources, for the sake of discussion, and that does not imply my endorsement of any of them. Note that all those sources are pre-CCC and pre-Vatican II; the Church has given this matter serious thought even before the “sexual revolution”.

 

[cjforJesus]

There seems to be a growing body of theology that is implying the church has a teaching on sodomy between married couples. The book Jones wrote was 60 years ago,and I believe the current teaching of the catechism better reflects the moral implications of “anything goes”… A sex act is one regardless if ejaculation occurs.That is a technicality.

 

[cjforJesus]

I have no quarrel with you on any of this. I’m just providing quotes from various theological sources, for the sake of discussion, and that does not imply my endorsement of any of them. Note that all those sources are pre-CCC and pre-Vatican II; the Church has given this matter serious thought even before the “sexual revolution”.

The Church has made NO statement.Various authors and moral theologians have offered their analysis and opinion though but there are no canon laws or documents. I have looked and the most authoritive statement I can find is in the Catechism. It is a misrepresentation to claim the Church has studied this and made any judgement.

 

[fpt]

Could you define each sin that you explain? Their constitutive elements, in materiality and / or in intentionality!!! How to define a wrong act? The wrong act, per se, by itself, in itself, for itself, from itself, of itself, and the neutral act that can be morally wrong, only, in function of contexts!!! The distinction is very important!!! The unnatural acts and the natural acts within the marriage: could you give me a list???** What is morally okay and what is not morally okay??? Do you have the list?
**
In the context of the marital act, the will and the hope to get sexual pleasures for yourself, in the context of the marital act, is not morally wrong, per se. In the context of the marital act, the fact of desiring the sexual pleasure for yourself is not immoral. In the context of the marital act, each spouse is a conjugal lover what means that each member of couple is here for giving and receiving the body of the other with all corollaries: an active agent and an passive agent. He is active on her, and she is active on him in the respect of the sexual mechanisms of each one: the physical alterity and the carnal complementarity between wife and husband, in three moments (before during and after).

The “ars erotica” and the “scientia sexualis”, that respect the natural moral order of the marital act, are in favor of the conjugal physical love.The modus operandi of the marital act is very essential and very important for each member of couple: the rights, the obligations and the duties of each one.

The simple coïtus is not very human: the reduction of the marital act like within other animals is a shame, is an insult to the human dignity, it is very awful.

The natural moral order of the marital act, i mean about the material natural moral order of the marital act and about the immaterial natural moral order of the marital act: to do, not to do, to allow to do, not to allow to do, to allow not to do, to give, not to give, to allow to give, not to allow to give, to allow not to give, to receive, not to receive, to allow to receive, not to allow to receive, to allow not to receive, to take, not to take, to allow to take, not to allow to take, to allow not to take, to offer, not to offer, to allow to offer, not to allow to offer, to allow not to offer, to be active, to be passive, not to be active, not to be passive, to refuse, not to refuse, to sacrifice, not to sacrifice, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no, not to say no…, conjugally sexually speaking???

For instance, these are few questions in link with: 1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who): The husband and the wife 2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used or employed? 3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what)? 4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where)? 5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when)? 6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how)? 7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for)? 8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted? Who? What? Where? When? Why? What for? In which intention? How many times? How often ? How fast? How? Which manner?..etc???