K
Kendy
Guest
Oh, I have lost my partner in crime. :crying:The one outside is always wrong under any context. This part even I understand.
Lucky for me, I am a woman.
- Status
K
Kendy
Guest
You are right.
K
Kendy
Guest
Thatās pushing it. Afterall, what if they just didnāt have sex that night? I think God would figured out how to get Isaac born.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Then we are in accord. Deo gratias, my brother.
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
I really donāt think this area is āsillyā, because our bodies tell a story - they speak a language - and part of the joy of marriage is to speak that language with authenticity. It isnāt as if God and His Church wants to deprive a couple of āfeeling goodā, but rather God and His Church wants the experience to be as FULL as it can be.
ā¦and that kind of use is connected to sexual use as well. If a man cannot show his appreciation for his wife in little daily tasks of marriage, why should he think she will know he values her for who she is - and not for what she āoffersā - in the bedroom. The best foreplay for a wife is to clean the dishes and take out the trashā¦without being asked! That always helps to set the moodā¦
That is why I linked certain words in my post. The Sin of Onan can be found fully explained here.
I apologize if you believe I think you arrogant. Your questions are honestly asked, and I donāt presume any arrogance on your part. I do sense there is a little resistance to the idea that there can be ālimitsā to sexual play between a married couple.I promise you I am not as arrogant as you believe me to be.
L
Lisa_Lavadores
Guest
Oops! :bigyikes:
Mea culpa ā I really fell down in my previous, somewhat glib, response to this statement.
Please allow me respond in a more worthy way: it would not be mindless obedience if your mind has studied and agreed with the case for the Churchās authority in these matters. She either has the authority to command in all things or not at all. This is the big question which I think is still unsettled in your mind.
In Christ,
Lisa
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
This is the fine lineā¦ is it the same night? Then of course it fits just fine. If it is Day 13, the heart of the fertile time, and the āproximate act of intercourseā is on Day 18, then I think it is a āuseā of the womanās climax. Is it a fine line? Sure it is. But all these things come down to some stopping point, and this is the point.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So am I.Oh, I have lost my partner in crime. :crying:
Lucky for me, I am a woman.
Kiddingā¦juuuuust kidding.
L
Lisa_Lavadores
Guest
:yup: Yup. I really think it would serve you well to study the reasons for accepting the teaching authority of the Church.
Okay ā Iām done beating the point into the ground.
In Christ,
Lisa
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
Below is a response I received from an NFP professional when the subject of sexual stimulation came up outside of the ācompletionā of the marital act:
*In the second volume of āContemporary Moral Theology: Marriage Questionsā (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1963), Jesuit Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly discuss both of the situations you mention. (See pp. 213-220.) This text is still considered by orthodox moral theologians to be the definitive analysis of the subject. The case wherein the man does not climax but his wife does is treated on page 215. The act is traditionally known as āKareezaā and described thusly:
āIt is to be distinguished: from coitus interruptus, in which the man withdraws before the completion of the act and finishes it outside; from so-called āKareeza,ā in which the woman experiences orgasm but the man has no orgasm either before, during or after the act; and from those exceptional cases in which the man experiences orgasm without any ejaculation or at least without any external ejaculation [physiologically it is possible for the semen to be redirected into the bladderāK.B.]. In all of these latter three cases orgasm takes place without any true marriage act, and accordingly these practices are objectively grave sins.ā
The case in which both husband and wife do not climax is called āamplexus reservatus,ā and treated at length. Their opinion, which Fr. Hogan shares, is that āThe incomplete conjugal act [amplexus reservatus] does not involve in itself grave malice (the common and morally certain opinion), and it does not even involve [in itself] any venial malice (the common and solidly probably opinion today)ā (citing Fr. Jules Paquin, S.J.). Ford and Kelly add to this opinion the following admonition:
āThe confessor, then, should ordinarily deter penitents from this practice because of the moral dangers it involves and because his aim is to lead all his penitents, according to their capacity, not only to avoid sin, but to live lives of Christian self-restraint, self-discipline and mortification. Excessive sensual gratification brings on spiritual deterioration. But he should not accuse of mortal sin except where there is clear mortal sin. In a particular concrete case, probably a rare occurrence, it is possible that the practice could be legitimate in its object, end and circumstances. When this occurs the confessor cannot object to it even as venially sinfulā (page 220).
Note, the consideration of the husband engaging in this act āwith the full intention not to reach climax at all,ā is not something that can be morally qualified, since it is neither here nor there. It is also an pretty elusive ambition, a case of, āGood luck, fella. Confessionās at 5 oāclock at Sacred Heart on Saturdays.ā But, really, who knows what the intentions of the spouses truly are in the internal forum? Perhaps they just want to see if the thing can be done, after having read some screwy theologian in propose it in āU.S. Catholic.ā
The Vatican admonition of June 30, 1952, by Pope Pius XII, of which you may be familiar, advised bishops to quell the increasing chorus of publicists, particularly in Belgium, who were urging couples to practice āamplexus reservatusā in order to skirt the Churchās teaching on birth control. The reason for the admonition was not, however, because of the grave immorality of a successful act being performed, but because so few (approximately one-third) of couples could actually manage its performance without failure, in which case they would have engaged in an objectively grave sin. He was not ruling that the act was an objective sin, but that spiritual directors who recommended it were not dissimilar to someone who knowingly gave street directions to an alcoholic that insensitively passed through the red-light district of town.
In my opinion, anytime someone is contemplating a morally neutral act that has a 2:1 chance of failing and resulting in a grave offense to God, he should think twice or risk ātempting Godā to save him. This would amount to at least a venial sin against the theological virtue of Hope.*
*In the second volume of āContemporary Moral Theology: Marriage Questionsā (Westminster, MD: Newman, 1963), Jesuit Fathers John C. Ford and Gerald Kelly discuss both of the situations you mention. (See pp. 213-220.) This text is still considered by orthodox moral theologians to be the definitive analysis of the subject. The case wherein the man does not climax but his wife does is treated on page 215. The act is traditionally known as āKareezaā and described thusly:
āIt is to be distinguished: from coitus interruptus, in which the man withdraws before the completion of the act and finishes it outside; from so-called āKareeza,ā in which the woman experiences orgasm but the man has no orgasm either before, during or after the act; and from those exceptional cases in which the man experiences orgasm without any ejaculation or at least without any external ejaculation [physiologically it is possible for the semen to be redirected into the bladderāK.B.]. In all of these latter three cases orgasm takes place without any true marriage act, and accordingly these practices are objectively grave sins.ā
The case in which both husband and wife do not climax is called āamplexus reservatus,ā and treated at length. Their opinion, which Fr. Hogan shares, is that āThe incomplete conjugal act [amplexus reservatus] does not involve in itself grave malice (the common and morally certain opinion), and it does not even involve [in itself] any venial malice (the common and solidly probably opinion today)ā (citing Fr. Jules Paquin, S.J.). Ford and Kelly add to this opinion the following admonition:
āThe confessor, then, should ordinarily deter penitents from this practice because of the moral dangers it involves and because his aim is to lead all his penitents, according to their capacity, not only to avoid sin, but to live lives of Christian self-restraint, self-discipline and mortification. Excessive sensual gratification brings on spiritual deterioration. But he should not accuse of mortal sin except where there is clear mortal sin. In a particular concrete case, probably a rare occurrence, it is possible that the practice could be legitimate in its object, end and circumstances. When this occurs the confessor cannot object to it even as venially sinfulā (page 220).
Note, the consideration of the husband engaging in this act āwith the full intention not to reach climax at all,ā is not something that can be morally qualified, since it is neither here nor there. It is also an pretty elusive ambition, a case of, āGood luck, fella. Confessionās at 5 oāclock at Sacred Heart on Saturdays.ā But, really, who knows what the intentions of the spouses truly are in the internal forum? Perhaps they just want to see if the thing can be done, after having read some screwy theologian in propose it in āU.S. Catholic.ā
The Vatican admonition of June 30, 1952, by Pope Pius XII, of which you may be familiar, advised bishops to quell the increasing chorus of publicists, particularly in Belgium, who were urging couples to practice āamplexus reservatusā in order to skirt the Churchās teaching on birth control. The reason for the admonition was not, however, because of the grave immorality of a successful act being performed, but because so few (approximately one-third) of couples could actually manage its performance without failure, in which case they would have engaged in an objectively grave sin. He was not ruling that the act was an objective sin, but that spiritual directors who recommended it were not dissimilar to someone who knowingly gave street directions to an alcoholic that insensitively passed through the red-light district of town.
In my opinion, anytime someone is contemplating a morally neutral act that has a 2:1 chance of failing and resulting in a grave offense to God, he should think twice or risk ātempting Godā to save him. This would amount to at least a venial sin against the theological virtue of Hope.*
J
johnnyjoe
Guest
The rest of the response:
*The definition of the conjugal act by the Church is quite delicate. When you see the adjective ācompletedā attached to the conjugal act, they are talking about orgasm having occurred on the part of the husband. This is in keeping with the definition in Humanae Vitae: āā[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossibleā is intrinsically evilā (CCC:2370).
Since orgasm on the part of the husband is essential to procreation, it is not allowed for the man to intentionally withhold his seed while the woman climaxes. He must attempt to do so in turn. Otherwise, procreation would be rendered impossible. If a man withstands orgasm in order to prearrange the climax of his wife, that is allowable in the nature of foreplay. Pope John Paul II encouraged husbands to develop such self-discipline in the best interests of their marriages:
"The female organism, as was mentioned above, reacts more easily to excitation in various parts of the body, which to some extent compensates for the fact that the womanās excitement grows more slowly between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climaxs may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously. The subjective happiness which they then share has the clear characteristic of the enjoyment which we have called āfuri,ā of the joy which flows from harmony between oneās own actions and the objective order of nature" (Love and Responsibility, p. 272-273).
From this we can see the distortion of the objective order of nature involved in frustrating the harmony of this relationship through a deliberate withholding of orgasm, as in Kareeza. Strictly speaking, then, foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, which achieves its completion only when the man renders procreation possible by intravaginal penetration and orgasm.*
*The definition of the conjugal act by the Church is quite delicate. When you see the adjective ācompletedā attached to the conjugal act, they are talking about orgasm having occurred on the part of the husband. This is in keeping with the definition in Humanae Vitae: āā[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossibleā is intrinsically evilā (CCC:2370).
Since orgasm on the part of the husband is essential to procreation, it is not allowed for the man to intentionally withhold his seed while the woman climaxes. He must attempt to do so in turn. Otherwise, procreation would be rendered impossible. If a man withstands orgasm in order to prearrange the climax of his wife, that is allowable in the nature of foreplay. Pope John Paul II encouraged husbands to develop such self-discipline in the best interests of their marriages:
"The female organism, as was mentioned above, reacts more easily to excitation in various parts of the body, which to some extent compensates for the fact that the womanās excitement grows more slowly between male and female reactions into account, not for hedonistic, but for altruistic reasons. There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climaxs may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously. The subjective happiness which they then share has the clear characteristic of the enjoyment which we have called āfuri,ā of the joy which flows from harmony between oneās own actions and the objective order of nature" (Love and Responsibility, p. 272-273).
From this we can see the distortion of the objective order of nature involved in frustrating the harmony of this relationship through a deliberate withholding of orgasm, as in Kareeza. Strictly speaking, then, foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, which achieves its completion only when the man renders procreation possible by intravaginal penetration and orgasm.*
K
Kendy
Guest
Certainly, but does fullness always mean intercourse?
But the use of non-intercourse sexual acts seems to cause more upset to the church than the presumed use of performing oral sex despite the fact that the wife may be perfectly happy to do this.
That is why I linked certain words in my post. The Sin of Onan can be found fully explained here.
I read this now. Itās a good argument. You see, I am willing to acknowledge a good argument.
johnnyjoe;1783926:
Well, I am a little resistant. I happen to think a little non-intercourse affection can be a very good thing, and I will only give up a very good thing for a better.
oh, and donāt say heaven is a better thing.
K
Kendy
Guest
Anybody know the text from the catechism which addresses this issue.
I know setter will come through for me on this one.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Natural reasons for the following:
Sex = activity in an attempt to have a child
Eating = activity to maintain healthā¦to survive.
What troubles me about this is the food analogy. Petting might be a misuse of sex if sex is viewed as only a task one participates in to have or attempt to have children.
Eating chocolate on the other hand is a misuse eating if eating is only to maintain healthā¦to not die.
Yet eating foods that holds no nutritional value is permitted. Even though it is arguably a misuse of the gift God gave us of consuming food to maintain health.
Why does the Church allow enjoy foods that cannot contribute (and may even hinder) good health, yet not allow enjoying the natural desire to enjoy each other physically.
This is a tough teaching.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
:crying:
Unitive and procreative. Both or neither. I donāt know how many times and how many ways it can be put. God allows you to eat food that has no nutritional value because your stomach plays no part in the generation of life. The reproductive system is unique above all other parts of human physiology. The nervous system allows for thinking, feeling, and the use of the body. The digestive for nutrition, the circulatory to provide oxygen to tissue. But only the reproductive system allows humans to generate life beyond themselves. It is this atavistic dimension, via the sanctity of the marital act, that links us throughout history, to the one common source, Adam, fashioned by the hand of God that he might do Godās will.
K
Kendy
Guest
Donāt worry. Be happy.
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
Iāll be happy when the whole body of Christ subsists in the unity of the perennial Faith. But who knows when thatāll be? Maybe Iām some kind of masochist.Donāt worry. Be happy.
K
Kendy
Guest
This will probably never happen. Anyway, on a scale of 1-10, how important is this? 10 being abortion, and 1-being wearing a chapel veil.Iāll be happy when the whole body of Christ subsists in the unity of the perennial Faith. But who knows when thatāll be? Maybe Iām some kind of masochist.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Highlighted from JohnnyJoeās lenghty posts:
āStrictly speaking, then, foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, which achieves its completion only when the man renders procreation possible by intravaginal penetration and orgasm.ā
"Foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, etc."
But is is morally permissable, folks!
āLadies, you are go for lift off.ā āRoger that, Houston.ā
Everyone, have a great evening! :dancing:
āStrictly speaking, then, foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, which achieves its completion only when the man renders procreation possible by intravaginal penetration and orgasm.ā
"Foreplay producing orgasm in the wife is only morally acceptable as a prelude to a completed act of conjugal love, etc."
But is is morally permissable, folks!
āLadies, you are go for lift off.ā āRoger that, Houston.ā
Everyone, have a great evening! :dancing:
M
MilesXpisti
Guest
How important is the doctrine weāve been debating? As well to ask me to choose from among the stars. No single doctrine taught by the Church can be discarded, no matter what the situation. You either believe or you donāt. And to disbelieve one doctrine is to disbelieve all, because then infallibility means nothing.
- Status