Sexual play within marriage

[Daniel_Kane]

Where does that leave a couple where either the husband has had to have his tesicles removed for some reason, or where the wife had to have her uterus or ovaries removed? Are they not allowed to have sex, because it’s not possible that it would be open to life?

The vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. This can be due to a number of causes including the medical treatments you describe. One is not reguired to be fertile, one is simply called to act as if you are, completing an act that is “apt for the generation of children”. This would include the ejacultion of the male into the genital tract of the woman.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

That was supposed to read, “…that we’ve worn each other out because I just could not ejaculate…”

No, this would not be a sin unless you deliberately intend and have a particular strategy to make yourself incapable of ejaculation. If you deliberately intend to frustrate the natural end of the act, then yes it would be a sin. If you and your spouse are particularly “rowdy” then this is unlikely. There is no comparison to what you describe as an unintended event in the context of marriage and deliberate oral/manual stimulation to the point of orgasm; the latter deliberately frustrates and intentionally alters the nature of the martial act.

In the case of deliberate manual or oral stimulation to the point of orgasm in the male as a means to an end, such an act cannot be described as unitative or procreative. It is up to the proponents of such activity as a means and an end to demonstrate how this is both unitative and procreative in both the physical and metaphysical sense. Such a defense cannot be base on “feelings” or sentiments, but on the theology and philosophy of marriage.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

I think the passage is not at all clear about this and I always thought the “marital act” meant intercourse. If it doesn’t, this passage could very well mean that any type of arousing touching between spouses could be considered the marital act.

Kendy

Martial acts are all acts that you do not want your husband doing on a business trip without you. Because the privilege of those acts always includes you as his wife.

Martial acts are acts that are properly reserved to the married. Intercourse is included in the list of martial acts but it is not the only martial act, it is the ultimate one flesh expression act of marriage. Martial acts are intended in their means and end to promote unity and procreation. Touches, glances and expressions that are designed to arouse are all parts of the martial act and are good. They themselves are means and not the ends.

Therefore, any type of stimulation towards sexual intercourse is good and is properly reserved to the married, I am sure you would agree. Stimulation that does not lead to intercourse, which is the final intention of the martial act, can be uncharitable, lead to disunity, objectification and frustration. Even if one party actively consents to, initiates and intends such objectification, discharity and frustration for whatever motivation. It is a false charity to attend to the “needs” of one apart from intercourse because it is not a one flesh union but an act of masturbation.

Particular to your point of oral stimulation to the point of orgasm in the male in a manner that is not apt for the generation of children is using a martial act (foreplay a means) as an end (ejaculation) apart from intercourse. It is a good means but intentionally taken to such a disordered end is considered a sin. It is disordered because in the design of the marital act, the action of ejaculation is in wrong location deliberately. The proper end of oral stimulation is an act that is both unitative and procreative (even if the physical conditions for conception are absent).

My hat is off to you for your aggressive search for truth. I would suggest that you and your husband take this up in spiritual direction with a priest known for his piety and holiness for the good of your souls and marriage. A reading of “Theology of the Body for Beginners” as opposed to a 100+ post thread will go a long way to understanding the responsibilities of those called to the vocation of marriage.

 

[leonie]

John Martignoni has a talk for download on marriage and the Eucharist. www.biblechristiansociety.com

Kendy, maybe John can do a better job explaining the analogy I did way back in the thread.

 

[countertenor]

No, this would not be a sin unless you deliberately intend and have a particular strategy to make yourself incapable of ejaculation. If you deliberately intend to frustrate the natural end of the act, then yes it would be a sin. If you and your spouse are particularly “rowdy” then this is unlikely. There is no comparison to what you describe as an unintended event in the context of marriage and deliberate oral/manual stimulation to the point of orgasm; the latter deliberately frustrates and intentionally alters the nature of the martial act.

In the case of deliberate manual or oral stimulation to the point of orgasm in the male as a means to an end, such an act cannot be described as unitative or procreative. It is up to the proponents of such activity as a means and an end to demonstrate how this is both unitative and procreative in both the physical and metaphysical sense. Such a defense cannot be base on “feelings” or sentiments, but on the theology and philosophy of marriage.

“rowdy” that’s funny.

People keep saying to the point of orgasm, but like I said I can orgasm multiple times before I ejaculate, but I’m not trying to make it so I can’t ejaculate in the end, sometimes I just don’t orgasm or ejaculate, simple as that. And we’re trying to get pregnant so I want to ejaculate each time.

 

[countertenor]

The vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. This can be due to a number of causes including the medical treatments you describe. One is not reguired to be fertile, one is simply called to act as if you are, completing an act that is “apt for the generation of children”. This would include the ejacultion of the male into the genital tract of the woman.

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

 

[countertenor]

i
The proper end of oral stimulation is an act that is both unitative and procreative (even if the physical conditions for conception are absent).

My hat is off to you for your aggressive search for truth. I would suggest that you and your husband take this up in spiritual direction with a priest known for his piety and holiness for the good of your souls and marriage. A reading of “Theology of the Body for Beginners” as opposed to a 100+ post thread will go a long way to understanding the responsibilities of those called to the vocation of marriage.

Agreed, Theology of the Body for Beginners is a great book to read.

In regards to your preceding paragraph, I would have to say this is where the logic/philosophy/theology always falls short for me-- If the “physical conditions for conception are absent,” then the act can’t be unitive and procreative, because you can’t procreate.

 

[countertenor]

I feel I should state I’m fine with accepting the teachings of the Church in regard to all this, I’m just questioning because, while I can accept it, it seems like too many times things are stated by theologians before they actually think about everything and then people start, stating the same things. I get the intention, but I don’t think the words used to express some of the ideas hold up too well.

 

[Kendy]

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

Amen.

 

[Listener]

I just can’t believe some of the stuff I’m reading in these threads. I have been married for over 40 years (to the same man). I have no idea where these people are coming from when they worry about being guilty of some kind of sin with their own spouses! It makes me wonder if maybe they sleep in separate beds half the time just so they won’t accidentally touch their spouses in the wrong place! Here is what St. Paul has to say about all of this in 1 Corinthians, Chaper 7.

2] But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3] The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
6] I say this by way of concession, not of command.
7] I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

 

[Mintaka]

It’s not that folks are so worried about technicalities and potential sin. It’s that they don’t want to find themselves looking at their spouses and not really seeing them.

Theology of the Body is saying, “Treat your spouse with respect, and make sure sex is always as great and holy as it should be – a supreme expression of love and a mutual blessing. Don’t hide from life; live and grow together, and help God bring more love and life into the world.”

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

I believe there are some flaws in your argument. If the Church’s directive that we must be open to life meant that the woman must be fertile, then we would all be mandated to chart the wife’s fertility and *none *of us would be allowed to have sex unless she was ovulating. (And, of course, wives who were infertile for any reason could never have sex). Perhaps you think that a couple who has sex during fertile periods should be given a bonus of getting to have sex during infertile periods, but I would like to see the theology behind that thought. Either it’s okay to have sex during infertile times or it’s not. The Church says it’s okay. I’ll stick with that.

That is why there’s nothing wrong with NFP. The couples are not trying to cheat and block conception while they enjoy sex during the fertile periods – they sacrifice and abstain. It’s not a sin to abstain.

Again, and again, and again, being open to life does not depend on what nature is doing with the couple’s bodies. It is entirely about the truth or lies that the couple tells with the actions of their bodies. To be truthful with your body is to keep the unitive and procreative aspects of sex in place. To lie with your body is to separate them. NFP couples do not separate them.

BTW – I am not an NFP user, so I am not trying to justify my own personal behavior. In fact, the only time I did use NFP was to try and get pregnant (didn’t work)!

 

[Kendy]

I believe there are some flaws in your argument. If the Church’s directive that we must be open to life meant that the woman must be fertile, then we would all be mandated to chart the wife’s fertility and *none *of us would be allowed to have sex unless she was ovulating. (And, of course, wives who were infertile for any reason could never have sex). Perhaps you think that a couple who has sex during fertile periods should be given a bonus of getting to have sex during infertile periods, but I would like to see the theology behind that thought. Either it’s okay to have sex during infertile times or it’s not. The Church says it’s okay. I’ll stick with that.

That is why there’s nothing wrong with NFP. The couples are not trying to cheat and block conception while they enjoy sex during the fertile periods – they sacrifice and abstain. It’s not a sin to abstain.

Again, and again, and again, being open to life does not depend on what nature is doing with the couple’s bodies. It is entirely about the truth or lies that the couple tells with the actions of their bodies. To be truthful with your body is to keep the unitive and procreative aspects of sex in place. To lie with your body is to separate them. NFP couples do not separate them.

BTW – I am not an NFP user, so I am not trying to justify my own personal behavior. In fact, the only time I did use NFP was to try and get pregnant (didn’t work)!

While it is not a sin to abstain, it is silly to claim that the couple is open to life while they are doing their best to avoid it. Open to life means to me, I am just going to do it when the mood strikes and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

While it is not a sin to abstain, it is silly to claim that the couple is open to life while they are doing their best to avoid it. Open to life means to me, I am just going to do it when the mood strikes and let the chips fall where they may.

But to the Church, “open to life” means not using artificial means to block conception while you enjoy sex. It is what the Church means by “open to life” that is important.

 

[rayne89]

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

First off the vast majority of the time the woman is infertile the man is always fertile.
Being open to life means not doing anything unnatural to prevent conception. Having sex without artificial birthcontrol is natural. It is not a sin to have sex with your spouse when you choose to. It is a sin to avoid sex inorder to prevent a child if you have no serious reason for doing so.

I will die if I get pregnant again. I am in heart failure and my heart could not sustain another pregnancy. I know even with our careful charting that there is a small possiblity I could get pregnant but I put my trust in God and his church and if it should happen then God’s will be done.

You can feel whatever you want but feelings aren’t facts and the Church approves the use of NFP for serious reasons and that is a fact. I am open to God’s will in my life and I certainly don’t think his will is to be reckless and risk my life for sexual gratification. I do have a daughter who needs her mom.

I am open to life as the church says a person in my position is called to. I did not get my tubes tied depite everybody and their brother thinking I was crazy for not doing so. I do not use any artificial means to prevent pregnancy.

I wanted a large family but that was not God’s will for me and he has given me the grace to accept that. It’s so easy for some one without grave reason to avoid to pass judgement -how nice for you. Consider yourself blessed because some of us are not so lucky.

 

[Kendy]

But to the Church, “open to life” means not using artificial means to block conception while you enjoy sex. It is what the Church means by “open to life” that is important.

I am not advocating contraceptive means, nor am I trying to deny people their right to use NFP.

 

[Kendy]

First off the vast majority of the time the woman is infertile the man is always fertile.
Being open to life means not doing anything unnatural to prevent conception. Having sex without artificial birthcontrol is natural. It is not a sin to have sex with your spouse when you choose to. It is a sin to avoid sex inorder to prevent a child if you have no serious reason for doing so.

I will die if I get pregnant again. I am in heart failure and my heart could not sustain another pregnancy. I know even with our careful charting that there is a small possiblity I could get pregnant but I put my trust in God and his church and if it should happen then God’s will be done.

You can feel whatever you want but feelings aren’t facts and the Church approves the use of NFP for serious reasons and that is a fact. I am open to God’s will in my life and I certainly don’t think his will is to be reckless and risk my life for sexual gratification. I do have a daughter who needs her mom.

I am open to life as the church says a person in my position is called to. I did not get my tubes tied depite everybody and their brother thinking I was crazy for not doing so. I do not use any artificial means to prevent pregnancy.

I wanted a large family but that was not God’s will for me and he has given me the grace to accept that. It’s so easy for some one without grave reason to avoid to pass judgement -how nice for you. Consider yourself blessed because some of us are not so lucky.

First of all, I am sorry about your condition. Second, I am not trying to imply that you are sinning by using NFP. But I think the church, perhaps, needs another here because you cannot be said to be open to life when you are trying to avoid pregnancy. You may closed to unnatural means of contraception, as you should be, but you are not really open to open to life, i.e., having more children.

I think the reason why people struggle with this is that it crosses them as double-speak.

 

[johnnyjoe]

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

Your observations are insightful, but the problem is not the method of gathering the information - observation of the natural signs of fertility usually know as “Natural Family Planning”. The heart of the concern you are expressing is addressed by the Church’s insistance that a couple has recourse to “natural periods of infecundity” when they have “serious” reasons to postpone pregnancy.

The practice of NFP may result in a sin against Hope - a distrust in God - as you observed, but it cannot result in the mortal sin of contraception. NFP is and ONLY the tracking of information - it is a NON-ACT, at least in reference to sexual intercourse. If a couple does not have a “serious” reason to postpone, then THAT is the sin, for they still are obeying the natural laws of our bodies - the are just not being “open to life”. I will add that this is a VERY hard thing for us to determine from the outside.

Only GOD can read the heart, and the Church is adament in telling couples that they can, and should, balance generosity with Christian Prudence. If a couple discerns what they consider a “serious” reason to postpone pregnancy, then it is between them and their spiritual advisor.

As an NFP instructor, I have found myself in a situation where another couple came to us and asked us why another couple wasn’t having more kids. These friends knew the couple was using NFP, and thought they were not being “generous”. I responded by telling them it WASN’T ANY OF THEIR BUSINESS! No one can know or judge from the outside what is going on inside a marriage.

Contraception is the ACT of making the marital act sterile by use of a THIRD agent - a chemical, barrier, or surgery - while still engaging in the sexual act. NFP is NEVER equal to contraception.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I am not advocating contraceptive means, nor am I trying to deny people their right to use NFP.

I don’t understand what your reply has to do with the statement of mine that you quoted. I’m not being combatitive. I sincerely don’t see the connection.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

You may closed to unnatural means of contraception, as you should be, but you are not really open to open to life, i.e., having more children.

I think the reason why people struggle with this is that it crosses them as double-speak.

It is only double-speak if a person insists on using his own private definition of “open to life” rather than using the Church’s definition.