M
MilesXpisti
Guest
If both ejaculations are not inside the woman, no it is not permissible. If you mean stimulation that leads to intercourse and both ejaculations are within the woman, then yes certainly.
- Status
S
st_ignatius110
Guest
Why?
L
Lisa_Lavadores
Guest
Some posts are suggesting that you don’t have the proper attitude toward sex. That, I certainly couldn’t say. But this post makes me think that the problem could be that you don’t have the proper attitude toward the Church. I am not saying that in an antagonist way – forgive me if it seems I am.Thanks. If I could be convinced of this, I would be a 100% assenting catholic, but alas, I am just not buying it.
Anyone knows what the orthodox church teaches about this?
I, too, find some of the fine points of the theology of the body difficult to understand. But for me, that’s true of the fine points of the theology of other things as well. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, not my brain, in these matters and that’s that. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to understand – doing so can be quite satisfying (sometimes better than sex!). But when we just don’t get it, I think it is our call to cry “Uncle! I don’t get it, but I choose to believe it.”
Also, I can’t think of a greater gift to offer God than obedience on a matter in which you disagree with the arguments. But, of course, one can only rationally do that if he believes that the Church teaches without error. That is why I think that the root of your problem lies in not fully accepting the authority of the Church.
Best of luck in your quest on this issue.
In Christ,
Lisa
K
Kendy
Guest
Because I was not suggesting that an infertile couple should forgo intercourse. I was only saying that in a particular instance a hypothetical is engaging in oral sex, but the intent, is not to avoid pregnancy. This same couple, could hypothetical have intercourse, the next day.
S
setter
Guest
Maturity and prudence are called for. Foreplay proper is to get the ball rolling. So why would a NFP practicing couple routinely does this for the sake of “intimacy” and mutual affection if they must go against the current and purpose of where foreplay is meant to lead?
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Again, this is a matter of intent. If circumstances beyond their control cause this, there is obviously no culpability. If there is an issue of pain or health, there would be limited or no culpability. If it’s just because they decide they want to stop, I would affirm at least a limited culpability.
Start what? If you mean the actions mentioned by Kendy earlier, I don’t think there is anything morally illicit about that, it’s just that I wouldn’t because I just find it in poor taste. If you mean actual genital stimulation to orgasm outdoors, not only does it violate the sanctity of the marital act, but may be an offense of scandal, because someone (especially kids in the neighborhood) could see.
K
Kendy
Guest
No, I mean one ejaculation inside and one outside. Otherwise, there would be nothing to argue about.
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
PARTS of the sexual organ are intended for pleasure - it is useful to note that the sexual organs, as a “system” in each body, has pleasure centers that are designed in such a manner that the pleasure experienced is condusive to MUTUAL climax. To bring each other to climax outside of the marital embrace requires an “artificial” stimulation of the pleasure giving parts of the sexual organs.
Don’t get me wrong, John Paul II, of all people, was no prude about this observation in his book Love and Responsibility. He said, "There is a need for harmonization, which is impossible
without good will, especially on the part of the man, who
must carefully observe the reactions of the woman. If a
woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual
act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person.
You can find a nice summary of Love and Responsibility here.
Why can’t God be bothered about the proper expression of sexual intimacy?Insidious seems like a strong (word), but certainly, I realize that nothing is outside the purview of God. But I simply don’t understand why God would be bothered by this anymore than I would understand why God would be bothered if I had a piece of chocolate when I was not hungry just because I enjoy a piece of chocolate. And BTW, please don’t suggest that I am implying that spouses are like chocolate
Don’t you think that you would disappear without even a puff of smoke if God didn’t hold you with His Merciful Gaze for even a nanosecond?
O Lord thou has searched me and known me Psalm 139
One “little” use at a time…
hmm… this a particularly harsh response. Perhap you have an “already decided position” and our baiting us here on the board to “prove” this teaching. It cannot be “proven” to an unwilling heart. St. Agustine noted that we must have Faith seeking understanding, not understanding to create Faith.
I’m not sure you could find a socialogist who would be able to survey for “use” in this contraceptive culture, for contraception is the load-bearing wall that this culture’s sexual ethic is built upon.
What evidence do you need that there is “use” in marriage?
Is the 50%+ divorce rate ample evidence that there is some “use” going on in American marriages?
Do you have a source of revelation different than us?
He didn’t really give Onan much warning, since he opted for the greater sin of using Tamar for his pleasure than to suffer the conseqence of the Leverite Law if you don’t want to make your brother’s wife pregnant. That severe punishment was to lose your shoe and get spit in your eye. Perhaps God does disapprove of “use” of the sexual capacities outside of fully completed intercourse…
It seems you have a different understanding of how God has revealed this matter to humans. Are you the lone arbiter of what will make God upset in this area?
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Then, absolutely not.No, I mean one ejaculation inside and one outside. Otherwise, there would be nothing to argue about.
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, when I was a child, I understood that my parents had the authority to make rules that I was supposed to obey, and I usually did, but that does not mean, I never thought some of the rules were dumb.
Well, I could do that, but that’s not really assenting now is it.
Well, maybe, although I generally do, but usually the church’s teaching makes sense when I think about for a while so I don’t have to resort to mindless obedience.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Kendy,
There is a vast difference between assent and understanding. It may be necessary for you to accept the doctrine of the Church, not because it makes sense, but because it is right. The theology surrounding the Trinity cannot be fully explained or visualized beyond the affirmation that it is true. Essentially, this boils down to a question of accepting the authority of Holy Mother Church or not. We may not understand the things she teaches; I myself have difficultly with invincible ignorance and relations with Protestants. But the Church teaches and I obey. That is the only proper relationship to have with her.
There is a vast difference between assent and understanding. It may be necessary for you to accept the doctrine of the Church, not because it makes sense, but because it is right. The theology surrounding the Trinity cannot be fully explained or visualized beyond the affirmation that it is true. Essentially, this boils down to a question of accepting the authority of Holy Mother Church or not. We may not understand the things she teaches; I myself have difficultly with invincible ignorance and relations with Protestants. But the Church teaches and I obey. That is the only proper relationship to have with her.
L
Lisa_Lavadores
Guest
johnneyjoe –
I just love your signature! :bounce:
Lisa
I just love your signature! :bounce:
Lisa
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The one outside is always wrong under any context. This part even I understand.No, I mean one ejaculation inside and one outside. Otherwise, there would be nothing to argue about.
My issue has been with the prohibition against HER orgasm during “off” nights.
It is my understanding that a woman may climax just about any way possible and as often as possible specifically because her climax is not directly related to procreation AS LONG AS it takes place within the overall context of a single love making session that does include vaginal intercourse.
Consequently, bringing her to orgasm on nights when she is fertile and the loving NFP couple decides to forego the opportunity to bring another life into the world is right out.
DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong. Research this for yourself.
K
Kendy
Guest
Again, this assumes the very point that I am asking you to defend.
Yes
L
Lisa_Lavadores
Guest
I believe it is. In fact, it is a pure form: based on faith, not feeling or intellect.
Not mindless – continue to search to your heart’s content. And embrace God’s lesson in humility (“I, Kendy/Lisa, can never fully understand God”) while you faithfully obey. :bowdown:
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
The Church disagrees, methinks.
There is such a thing as “objective use” in the sphere of mutual sexual stimulation between husband and wife, and many a couple dances on the edge of this matter.
As an NFP instructor, I have had to deal with the very finest of splittings on this hair, and your observation about “intention” is partially true.
Good intentions cannot overcome a “use” act, which is generally defined as an act of sexual stimulation, particularly ending in climax, that NEVER has as it’s final intention the act of sexual intercourse.
Now if a couple decides to engage in the marital act during the fertile time with the intention of NEVER reaching climax, then like I said before, if you don’t want to go to Toledo, you better stay off the bus, but at least the full engagement of the act is properly ordered to their functions.
Manual stimulation is permissable as a prelude or postlude to a full marital act because it is “proximate” to the final fullfillment of the full act.
Does that mean that a couple can’t play a little slap and tickle at any other time? I don’t think so, but of course as you observed, it is the attitude of intention that cuts the fine line.
I don’t think you buy into the notion that there can be limits to the manual stimulation of the sexual organs between a married couple…am I right?
K
Kendy
Guest
I apologize if I was harsh, and you are right, I am baiting you to prove this teaching, and perhaps, that is not fair to you. However, my heart is not as closed as you imagine. One, I think one of my personal strengths, is that I can acknowledge a good argument when I hear one, and I am willing to be persuaded by it. I was, in fact, persuaded by argumen t this morning. And I was persuaded to return to the catholic church by a few good arguments on this forum.
Secondly, there is the practical side. I would be a much happier catholic if I didn’t think all this “blah, blah” about objectification is just plain silly. But I must confess that I do, and generally, I hate having to say that anything that comes from the church is silly, but I hate to be intellectually dishonest.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that there is use in marriage, but the question is what constitute use? And I know lots of women who have been divorced, and he never helped around the house is a much more common “use” problem for women than he wanted me to perform oral sex.
I read a book by lauren Winner in which she explained that Onan’s sin was his selfish refusal to carry his brother’s name not necessarily where he ejaculated. I don’t agree with everything Lauren Winner said, but I thought her argument here was good. Anyway, I would be interested in finding out how jewish and orthodox Christians interpret this passage.
I promise you I am not as arrogant as you believe me to be.
S
st_ignatius110
Guest
I understand that. I thought your point to using the example was that it was ok because the couple was infertile. My point was that no matter what it is not ok to go against God’s commands. If Abraham and Sara decided at that time to go against God’s command what would have happened? Isaac may not have been conceived.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
From Michelle Arnold, Staff Apologist:With the husband, because his climax is more specifically directed to the generation of life, he cannot deliberately choose to climax outside of intercourse. (In other words, he cannot deliberately choose to spill his semen outside of intercourse. If he accidentally climaxes outside of intercourse, he’s not morally culpable for an accident he did not intend.)
With the wife, since her climax is not specifically directed to the generation of life, she may climax before, during, or after intercourse so long as the climax can be considered to be part of an act of marital relations. (In other words, stimulation should not occur once a specific act of marital relations – which I am using here as a deliberately broader term than *intercourse *-- is complete.)
From this, I believe the couple has considerable freedom to enjoy stimulation that leads to her climax within the context of the marital act. I don’t think anyone is putting a stopwatch on the length of the marital act. IMO, if you’re have an extended romp, so be it.
This explanation does seem to preclude having a bit of romantic fun on the nights when for any reason (including her fertility), the couple knows in advance that intercourse will not occur. I would argue that this, too, would be unitive, but I defer to those who say otherwise and bend the knee on this point.
OTOH, he better be very careful about planting his seed in one place and one place only. Stimulation is fine as long as climax occurs where it is supposed to occur. Apart from honest accidents, anything else is sinful.
With the wife, since her climax is not specifically directed to the generation of life, she may climax before, during, or after intercourse so long as the climax can be considered to be part of an act of marital relations. (In other words, stimulation should not occur once a specific act of marital relations – which I am using here as a deliberately broader term than *intercourse *-- is complete.)
From this, I believe the couple has considerable freedom to enjoy stimulation that leads to her climax within the context of the marital act. I don’t think anyone is putting a stopwatch on the length of the marital act. IMO, if you’re have an extended romp, so be it.
This explanation does seem to preclude having a bit of romantic fun on the nights when for any reason (including her fertility), the couple knows in advance that intercourse will not occur. I would argue that this, too, would be unitive, but I defer to those who say otherwise and bend the knee on this point.
OTOH, he better be very careful about planting his seed in one place and one place only. Stimulation is fine as long as climax occurs where it is supposed to occur. Apart from honest accidents, anything else is sinful.
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
Thank you Lisa…that Fulton Sheen guy has a boatload of insighful observations like that… and they all seem to be aimed at me!
- Status