sexual ethics question

[PhiloMed]

It’s somewhat comforting to know there is no way you could be married with your position. None.

Not to mention general ignorance of “how stuff works”, or doesn’t work and needs a little help occasionally.

 

[Xantippe]

Not to mention general ignorance of “how stuff works”, or doesn’t work and needs a little help occasionally.

Yes.

 

[Kelfa28]

Without attempting to be too crude, how are a husband and wife supposed to get their genitals close enough together without any handling in an unnatural way? Seems like a difficult task when the only foreplay allowed is whispering “brace thyself, dear. I’m on my way.”

Awesome!

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Alice von Hildebrand: “It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior-- even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception-- should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The “pornification” of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture.”

Saint Alphonsus Liguori asks: “Whether it is a mortal sin for the husband to begin copulating in a disordered orifice, then afterward consummate the act in the proper orifice?”

His answer is, Yes, it is a mortal sin: “The reason is that this manner of his sexual act even without climax is truly sodomy, whether or not it is consummated, just as an act of copulation in the natural orifice of another woman is truly fornication, even if there is no climax.” [Moral Theology, Book 6, Q. 916]

Saints Aquinas and Augustine also condemn unnatural sexual acts in marriage.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

Sounds like Liquori didn’t like anal sex. I would venture to guess that most people don’t.

But nothing in your ramblings support your position that a diverse (and fun!!) array of foreplay is immoral. Lots of references to “unnatural sex acts”, but nothing that defines them.

Fortunately for us we have a POPE that laid it out for us. Sexual acts that are within the marriage, are unitive and open to procreation, and are done with continence and charity are GOOD!

 

[Bookcat]

I have not read the whole thread - so I do not know all that has been said thus far the “Catechism” that was quoted before is NOT an approved Catechism. Not a source to be recommended.

 

[Bookcat]

In a marriage, my understanding is that it is not wrong to manually stimulate one’s spouse on their genitals, even to the point of orgasm, as long as one fully intends to consummate the act genitally. Is that correct?

No that is exactly not correct as written.

The husband may* not* seek or consent to climax outside of “actual conjugal union”. Thus the wife should not seek to stimulate her husband to that point.

 

[jmjZelie]

The Church has NEVER taught the above-quoted claims about sex within marriage.

Instead, the Church teaches that each and every single sexual act in a marriage must be inherently procreative and unitive. Unnatural sexual acts committed to completion on the wife are always gravely immoral. Such acts have always been strongly condemned by the Church. The idea that unnatural sexual acts are moral on the husband, as long as climax is absent (or occurs later in natural relations) is also false.

Saint Alphonsus Liguori considered these questions (about the wife and the husband) and he absolutely rejected both types of unnatural sexual acts, whether climax is present or not. Saints Augustine and Aquinas also rejected unnatural sexual acts in marriage.

The only moral sexual act within marriage is natural intercourse – the type of act that is inherently ordered toward procreation. Unnatural sexual acts are inherently evil because they are neither procreative nor truly unitive.

One cannot group together a set of sexual acts, only some (or one) of which are truly unitive and procreative, in order to justify the whole set.

The use of hands to assist the process of intercourse to begin, proceed and complete is not an unnatural sex act. The burden of proof is on you, who claim that hands on genitals is not allowed. So you say. Prove it.

 

[jmjZelie]

Alice von Hildebrand: “It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior-- even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception-- should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The “pornification” of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture.”

Saint Alphonsus Liguori asks: “Whether it is a mortal sin for the husband to begin copulating in a disordered orifice, then afterward consummate the act in the proper orifice?”

His answer is, Yes, it is a mortal sin: “The reason is that this manner of his sexual act even without climax is truly sodomy, whether or not it is consummated, just as an act of copulation in the natural orifice of another woman is truly fornication, even if there is no climax.” [Moral Theology, Book 6, Q. 916]

Saints Aquinas and Augustine also condemn unnatural sexual acts in marriage.

[Hebrews]
{13:4} May marriage be honorable in every way, and may the marriage bed be immaculate. For God will judge fornicators and adulterers.

The use of a hand is not an orifice. This only opposes sodomy, not the use of hands.

 

[NM505StKate]

I have to laugh at how nickel and dime this all sounds. “Hands are okay but only in these circumstances” “Don’t use any other orifice”. Just sucks the fun and everything out of sex. It’s like if we aren’t supposed to use a certain orifice, say for sodomy, why are there a bunch of nerve endings there that feel good?

 

[pensmama87]

I have to laugh at how nickel and dime this all sounds. “Hands are okay but only in these circumstances” “Don’t use any other orifice”. Just sucks the fun and everything out of sex. It’s like if we aren’t supposed to use a certain orifice, say for sodomy, why are there a bunch of nerve endings there that feel good?

There aren’t.

Other nerve endings can in some circumstances be stimulated there, but it’s indirect.

Sodomy is very unsanitary and poses a lot of health risks that simply don’t exist with other sexual activity.

The Catholic “rules” on sex are actually very simple (culminate in natural intercourse and only to be engaged in when prepared to accept the natural end), but in today’s sex-crazed and pornified culture any restriction is seen as limiting and prudish.

 

[jmjZelie]

I have to laugh at how nickel and dime this all sounds. “Hands are okay but only in these circumstances” “Don’t use any other orifice”. Just sucks the fun and everything out of sex. It’s like if we aren’t supposed to use a certain orifice, say for sodomy, why are there a bunch of nerve endings there that feel good?

If you are speaking about the nerve endings of the ano-rectal area, those exist to trigger awareness of the urge to defecate and thereafter provide a sense of relief and wellbeing post-defecation. They do not exist to be stimulated in a sexual manner via penetration of the anus. The anal sphincter is an “exit-only” muscle. It is designed to withhold and release excrement. It is not designed to accommodate penetration. In fact, over time, such activity destroys the proper functioning of the sphincter muscle and the smooth muscle inside the rectum, leading to anal incontinence (leakage of fecal matter), anal and rectal fissures, and worse.

Just because something feels good by accident, does not mean that it exists for that purpose. Such abuse of an organ can lead to the damage or destruction of the organ.