Sexual question

[thistle]

I came here first because I have gone to our priest about a lot of sexual things, and was embarrassed to bring another thing to him that didn’t need to be. I’m glad I did, I don’t think we did anything wrong. We didn’t use any kind of birth control so we fulfilled being open to life. I never “pulled out” I just never finished. There is pre ejaculate which I in no way could ever control, so if it was really to be so my wife could get pregnant!

If you were inside your wife and deliberately did not complete the act by climaxing then that is a sin.

 

[thistle]

The “needs of the husband?” Isn’t the sexual act supposed to be a unitive act, not one simply to fulfill one’s “needs?”

It was another poster who raised the question of needs. I was responding to what she brought up.
However, talking generally, a spouse may not unreasonably refuse the other spouse sexual intercourse so there are also needs wrapped up in the whole picture.

 

[thistle]

If that is, indeed, what “open to fertility” means, then how is it that NFP can be considered licit (i.e. open to fertility) when a couple purposely abstains from sex during those times when conception is most possible? I cannot find any Catholic source that defines “open to fertility” as being that a husband must climax in his wife all the time, every time. Your use of canon 1643 does not support your interpretation of said phrase.

If the Church allows it, then I take it that it is permissible.

That’s an odd thing to say, coming from someone with over 18,000 posts.

I’ll take your points in order.

1. You are wrong. Sexual activity within a marriage must always end with the act being completed by the husband climaxing inside his wife.
2. It is NOT allowed. I asked you that because you were saying that they may perform sexual acts without the act being completed inside the wife. That would mean masturbation under your mistaken view would be allowed.
3. Continue the sarcasm and I will report you to the moderators. Sarcasm is not permitted under forum rules.

 

[Timothysis]

If you were inside your wife and deliberately did not complete the act by climaxing then that is a sin.

brendenseth,

I would take this with a very large grain of salt.

 

[Timothysis]

I’ll take your points in order.

1. You are wrong. Sexual activity within a marriage must always end with the act being completed by the husband climaxing inside his wife.
2. It is NOT allowed. I asked you that because you were saying that they may perform sexual acts without the act being completed inside the wife. That would mean masturbation under your mistaken view would be allowed.
3. Continue the sarcasm and I will report you to the moderators. Sarcasm is not permitted under forum rules.

1. YOU think I am wrong. You STILL have not provided a credible source that says “a husband MUST climax in his wife every time to avoid sin.”
2. YOU think it is not allowed for the still same reason as above.
3. Who said I was being sarcastic?

 

[thistle]

1. YOU think I am wrong. You STILL have not provided a credible source that says “a husband MUST climax in his wife every time to avoid sin.”
2. YOU think it is not allowed for the still same reason as above.
3. Who said I was being sarcastic?

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. **The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **

There you have it and only by the husband climaxing inside his wife can the Church teaching be fulfilled!

"every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life".

 

[brendenseth]

Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
PAUL VI

1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

There you have it and only by the husband climaxing inside his wife can the Church teaching be fulfilled!

"every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life".

You need to give up already, there is nothing in that statement that says the husband has to climax inside his wife. It says it has to retain it’s intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. I retained that relationship by not using any kind of birth control, therefore human life could result!

 

[chahn48926]

Sexual acts/activity are only allowed within marriage. When a husband and wife start a sexual act, whatever it is, it must end up with the husband climaxing inside his wife otherwise it is a sin, with a few exceptions.
If the husband intends to finish the act inside his wife but is prevented from doing so by his wife the sin is not the husband’s, but the wife’s.
If the husband intends to finish inside his wife but prematurely ejaculates before that can happen then that would not be a sin.
Of course it would not be sinful if they stopped due to some emergency suddenly happening.

What if for some reason or another the husband is unable to complete the act?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What if for some reason or another the husband is unable to complete the act?

Common sense should be employed.

These are basic Church teachings and logic is a basis for them.

Just like if you get in a car wreck on the way to Mass you did not sin by missing Mass. If the husband cannot climax or accidentally does so early. Then sin does not exist.

You really knew the answer to that didn’t you?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If that is, indeed, what “open to fertility” means, then how is it that NFP can be considered licit (i.e. open to fertility) when a couple purposely abstains from sex during those times when conception is most possible? I cannot find any Catholic source that defines “open to fertility” as being that a husband must climax in his wife all the time, every time. Your use of canon 1643 does not support your interpretation of said phrase.

If the Church allows it, then I take it that it is permissible.

That’s an odd thing to say, coming from someone with over 18,000 posts.

I think you are not struggling so much with the CCC or church teaching but rather basic biology. For an act to be “open to life” or perhaps ordered to the procreation of life, something has to happen. Finishing in the appropriate place is the only way I know of. If you have found some other way then I can only say “congrats?”

 

[chahn48926]

Common sense should be employed.

These are basic Church teachings and logic is a basis for them.

Just like if you get in a car wreck on the way to Mass you did not sin by missing Mass. If the husband cannot climax or accidentally does so early. Then sin does not exist.

You really knew the answer to that didn’t you?

And if the husband believed beforehand that he would be unable to complete?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And if the husband believed beforehand that he would be unable to complete?

Like from a medical problem?

I think you know the answer.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I never climaxed outside of my wife, I NEVER CLIMAXED! She asked me to stop before finishing and I did. The only reason we had sex in the first place was because I had stimulated her before, so I knew we were required to have sex. My wife had apprehensions before we began, but I didn’t want to commit a sin so we started it. She was still worried while it began so I stopped.

If you were inside your wife and deliberately did not complete the act by climaxing then that is a sin.

Just to be clear here, while they were having intercourse, the wife withdrew consent to continue, and the husband stopped.

If he had continued without consent, it would have been rape. (i.e. sexual intercourse without the consent of the other party)

To clarify:

a) are you suggesting that if one chooses not to rape one’s spouse, because that person has withdrawn consent during intercourse, that one is sinning?

b) are you suggesting that rape would somehow be preferable to the non-completion of intercourse because of a withdrawal of consent by one of the parties?

(I hope not, I hope that you missed the bolded section of the reply above when formulating your answer)

While the wife may have sinned according to catholic teaching for requesting her husband stop, I can’t see how non-consensual sex on the part of the husband could be an avoidance of sin.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Just to be clear here, while they were having intercourse, the wife withdrew consent to continue, and the husband stopped.

If he had continued without consent, it would have been rape. (i.e. sexual intercourse without the consent of the other party)

To clarify:

a) are you suggesting that if one chooses not to rape one’s spouse, because that person has withdrawn consent during intercourse, that one is sinning?

b) are you suggesting that rape would somehow be preferable to the non-completion of intercourse because of a withdrawal of consent by one of the parties?

(I hope not, I hope that you missed the bolded section of the reply above when formulating your answer)

While the wife may have sinned according to catholic teaching for requesting her husband stop, I can’t see how non-consensual sex on the part of the husband could be an avoidance of sin.

There is a lot of confusion on this thread. But there need not be. Again, common sense and logic apply. If the wife refuses consent after starting the act and you believe rape is accuring. Then no, a husband should not rape his wife. But is this really your exception? Is this really the issue you are questioning? Marital rape being not a sin?

Or are you trying to get at something else?

 

[chahn48926]

Like from a medical problem?

I think you know the answer.

Not necessarily a physical problem but more of a mental issue …

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not necessarily a physical problem but more of a mental issue …

This would be a lot easier if people would just come out and say what you mean. you can be less vague and still tasteful.

A mental issue could be a physical problem as well.

 

[Non_Serviam]

There is a lot of confusion on this thread. But there need not be. Again, common sense and logic apply. If the wife refuses consent after starting the act and you believe rape is accuring. Then no, a husband should not rape his wife. But is this really your exception? Is this really the issue you are questioning? Marital rape being not a sin?

Or are you trying to get at something else?

I simply was pointing out that the advice given by the other poster, after the OP had explicitly noted he was asked to stop by his wife, suggested that the OP sinned because he did not finish what he started. I wanted to clearly draw attention to the withdrawal of consent and provide an opportunity for the poster to modify the advice. Like you, I don’t believe that it was a sin on the part of the husband when he stopped because he no longer had his wife’s consent to continue. I think this is an important factor in determining who, if anyone, sinned during this event.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I simply was pointing out that the advice given by the other poster, after the OP had explicitly noted he was asked to stop by his wife, suggested that the OP sinned because he did not finish what he started. I wanted to clearly draw attention to the withdrawal of consent and provide an opportunity for the poster to modify the advice. Like you, I don’t believe that it was a sin on the part of the husband when he stopped because he no longer had his wife’s consent to continue. I think this is an important factor in determining who, if anyone, sinned during this event.

If she is on her third day post peak, and the couple is abstaining, then they should ABSTAIN. It is pretty strait forward. But somehow marital rape was brought up.

The OP and wife should not be engaging in oral or manual stimulation if they know they cannot finish the act. Not only does this lead to NFP failure. It leads to moral failure as well, which is the more important of the two failures.

Cut and dry. When abstaining, abstain.

 

[Non_Serviam]

If she is on her third day post peak, and the couple is abstaining, then they should ABSTAIN. It is pretty strait forward. But somehow marital rape was brought up.

The OP and wife should not be engaging in oral or manual stimulation if they know they cannot finish the act. Not only does this lead to NFP failure. It leads to moral failure as well, which is the more important of the two failures.

Cut and dry. When abstaining, abstain.

I agree totally that the best course of action would have been for them to abstain. As noted by the OP, there were extenuating circumstances (the consumption of alcohol) that may have compromised their ability to make the best choice. This is another factor that should be taken into account when considering culpability for the actions that took place.

One hopes that they will learn from the experience and take steps in the future to avoid a second occurrence.

 

[chahn48926]

This would be a lot easier if people would just come out and say what you mean. you can be less vague and still tasteful.

A mental issue could be a physical problem as well.

The husband is able to achieve an erection, but often unable to maintain it. That is why I think the issue is more mental than physical. How is that for not beating around the bush.

BTW I am the husband.