Sexual Sin within Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stella_Matutina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stella_Matutina

Guest
I am not married but soon to be engaged. There are some things I need to know before walking down the aisle. I got the no sex before marriage part down. I even have the no contraception within marriage part all straight. But there is still a few things regarding NFP and sexual acts within marriage that I haven’t figured out the morality of quite yet.

There is an article that someone sent me about how there are certain sexual acts within marriage that many good married Catholis do without realizing they are disorderd.

For example, any genital stimulation (oral or manual) is disorded, even when coupled with the natural marital act of intercourse open to life.

If interested in this topic, please read the following article: Sexual Sins within Marriage

I just want to do the right thing and live a pure life, but this article is the only instance where I have heard of such a thing. Is this common knowledge?

:tsktsk: And remember, there are children as young as 13 able to access this forum so please be prudent (Moderators: please remove thread if conversation is deemed inapporpriate.)
 
This article is posted on a website with no attribution other than the name of the author. Who is Ronald L. Conte, Jr., and what authority does he have to teach on faith and morals? It espouses an extreme position which most priests and bishops would disagree with. As Craig Ferguson, nighttime talk show host and comic would say, “It’s on the Internet - it must be true!”

Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to be his wife.

Try reading everybody’s favorite sex in marriage book, “Good News About Sex and Marriage.” Or the Theology of the Body.

Betsy
 
No oral or manual stimulation? Even with PIV intercourse to follow?
Huh, don’t want to see how that works out.
Just what does intercourse involve then, and how on earth can it be unitive, if touching isn’t allowed?
Sometimes the simplest things are made so hard…
 
It seems that his credentials to authoritatively teach on the matter are no better than mine. catholicplanet.com/bio.htm
Therefore I offer my scholarly response: “Nuts.”

The opinions expressed in the article are very dangerous in that they are partially true. Partial truths are the most pernicious of errors. Marital sex must always CULMINATE in the traditional procreative manner, but the church does not write regulations on the manner of foreplay! The prime principles to guide discernment in such matters are:
  1. Does it retain the procreative openess God intended for marital love?
  2. Does it seek to give to the partner rather than to debase or demain him/her?
Some, but not all of what he describes as “inherently disordered” is. Other parts are only disordered when severed from an otherwise procreative opportunity! Frankly, he sounds like a mysoginst to me - his rules pretty much prohibit women from enjoying it!

Whatever the issues behind his error, his reasoning error is a failure to understand the difference between rules and principles. He consistently cites prohibitions against “non-procreative sex acts” but fails to understand what it means. WHY is contraception wrong? Because it seeks to sever the pleasure/unitive aspect of sex from the procreative one. When you understand that, you understand that “act” in all his quotes refers to the entire encouter, not each specifc act within the encouter. When a married couple makes love with plenty of foreplay that is enjoyable and upbuilding to both of them and ends properly, the entire thing is both unitive and procreative. This is inherently different from the couple that grasps the pleasure and takes a direct action to prevent any resulting conception.

Furthermore, he seem to be ignorant of the science of fertility. Conception is MUCH more likely in an aroused woman with plenty of, um, moisture in the system… Another way in which foreplay is consistent with the entire ‘act’ being open to life.

The more I read it, the harder it is to believe he is for real!
 
Stella_Matutina said:
I am not married but soon to be engaged. There are some things I need to know before walking down the aisle. I got the no sex before marriage part down. I even have the no contraception within marriage part all straight. But there is still a few things regarding NFP and sexual acts within marriage that I haven’t figured out the morality of quite yet.

There is an article that someone sent me about how there are certain sexual acts within marriage that many good married Catholis do without realizing they are disorderd.

For example, any genital stimulation (oral or manual) is disorded, even when coupled with the natural marital act of intercourse open to life.

If interested in this topic, please read the following article: Sexual Sins within Marriage

I just want to do the right thing and live a pure life, but this article is the only instance where I have heard of such a thing. Is this common knowledge?

:tsktsk: And remember, there are children as young as 13 able to access this forum so please be prudent (Moderators: please remove thread if conversation is deemed inapporpriate.)
Click to expand...
That website does not reflect the commun understanding of the teachings of the Catholic Church on married sexuality.
 
manualman said:
It seems that his credentials to authoritatively teach on the matter are no better than mine. catholicplanet.com/bio.htm
Therefore I offer my scholarly response: “Nuts.”

The opinions expressed in the article are very dangerous in that they are partially true. Partial truths are the most pernicious of errors. Marital sex must always CULMINATE in the traditional procreative manner, but the church does not write regulations on the manner of foreplay! The prime principles to guide discernment in such matters are:
  1. Does it retain the procreative openess God intended for marital love?
  2. Does it seek to give to the partner rather than to debase or demain him/her?
Some, but not all of what he describes as “inherently disordered” is. Other parts are only disordered when severed from an otherwise procreative opportunity! Frankly, he sounds like a mysoginst to me - his rules pretty much prohibit women from enjoying it!

Whatever the issues behind his error, his reasoning error is a failure to understand the difference between rules and principles. He consistently cites prohibitions against “non-procreative sex acts” but fails to understand what it means. WHY is contraception wrong? Because it seeks to sever the pleasure/unitive aspect of sex from the procreative one. When you understand that, you understand that “act” in all his quotes refers to the entire encouter, not each specifc act within the encouter. When a married couple makes love with plenty of foreplay that is enjoyable and upbuilding to both of them and ends properly, the entire thing is both unitive and procreative. This is inherently different from the couple that grasps the pleasure and takes a direct action to prevent any resulting conception.

Furthermore, he seem to be ignorant of the science of fertility. Conception is MUCH more likely in an aroused woman with plenty of, um, moisture in the system… Another way in which foreplay is consistent with the entire ‘act’ being open to life.

The more I read it, the harder it is to believe he is for real!
Click to expand...
I believe that he also posts on this site sometimes. I regard his views as extreme in the extreme.
 
He seems, to me at least, to draw distinctions which don’t actually exist. What is the difference between ‘caressing,’ which her finds permissible, and ‘manual stimulation’? How can you say that the marital embrace is composed of a number of individual sexual acts? There’s just a lot of disconnects in there.

If I had time, I would look in Love and Responsibility to find what JPII said explicitly about what a husband may do to help his wife to achieve climax, but alas it is finals week. Although the author goes to great lengths to show that JPII’s theology of the body is on the same page as he is, that’s certainly not the case. John Paul regards the entire marital embrace as one act, culminating, as another poster said, in intercourse. Foreplay is certainly not considered separate from the embrace itself–especially when it is ordered to the end of fully unitive and procreative intercourse.

Also, he quotes Augustine at length in his justification of his statements. Sorry, but I just don’t trust Augustine as my only authority when it comes to marriage. His teachings must be contextualized, and were better understood later. I believe he pretty much said that sex for any reason other than expressly procreative purposes is sinful. IMO, he still retained tinges of Manichaeism that made him dislike the body and think that, generally, bodily pleasures were sinful. That’s not the case when it comes to the ‘primordial sacrament’ of marriage! It is good for the two to become one flesh!

I would say to skip over sketchy articles like this one and go straight to the source–John Paul’s theology of the body, in his Wednesday audiences and Love & Responsibility–to prepare for your marriage. That’s what we’ve done! 😃
 
Thank you everyone so much for your replies and suggestions. You have really helped.

That timeline thing sealed the deal for me regarding his credibility.

I’ll stick to the reputables like JPII and Christopher West.

Thank you!
 
The position taken by the said author stems from the extremist argument posted previously by several posters using the formula:
“inherently immoral acts”.
They have fallen on the fallacy that goes:
Oral sex is immoral (which is true)
Oral stimulation is part of Oral Sex (still true)
Therefore oral stimulation is inherently immoral (a false deduction)

A simple mathematical tool called Theory of Sets (even a 2nd grader knows this) can sufficiently prove the above fallacy.

Now what is logic and reasoning doing in Moral Theology?, one might ask. The answer is simple, as presented by Pope Benedict:

Faith without reason leads to terrorism (extremism)
Reason without faith leads to relativism

It is unfortunate that many people of faith and reason have fallen on the wayside and onto the ditches of extremism and relativism. The Path is dangerously narrow indeed.
 
Chancellare said:
The position taken by the said author stems from the extremist argument posted previously by several posters using the formula:
“inherently immoral acts”.
They have fallen on the fallacy that goes:
Oral sex is immoral (which is true)
Oral stimulation is part of Oral Sex (still true)
Therefore oral stimulation is inherently immoral (a false deduction)

A simple mathematical tool called Theory of Sets (even a 2nd grader knows this) can sufficiently prove the above fallacy.

Now what is logic and reasoning doing in Moral Theology?, one might ask. The answer is simple, as presented by Pope Benedict:

Faith without reason leads to terrorism (extremism)
Reason without faith leads to relativism

It is unfortunate that many people of faith and reason have fallen on the wayside and onto the ditches of extremism and relativism. The Path is dangerously narrow indeed.
Click to expand...
So…one can use oral stimulation, as long as it ends in the marital embrace, is that right?
 
whatevergirl said:
So…one can use oral stimulation, as long as it ends in the marital embrace, is that right?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for some, yes.

Let’s use another example.
Drinking alcohol regularly is inherently immoral. (true)
A daily glass of wine is also daily drinking of alcohol (true)
Therefore a daily glass of wine is immoral.(false)

Then the question will be:

So one can have a glass of wine daily as long as it ends in the dinner table?

Unfortunately for some, yes.

But…
 
How is drinking regularly, or as you put it at the end of your post, daily, immoral?
It is drinking, even daily that is immoral, but drunkeness.
One can drink daily, and not get/be drunk.
Bad analogy.
 
TC2 said:
How is drinking regularly, or as you put it at the end of your post, daily, immoral?
It is drinking, even daily that is immoral, but drunkeness.
One can drink daily, and not get/be drunk.
Bad analogy.
Click to expand...
You don’t get drunk with one glass of wine? Do you know how many thousands fall under this category?

Bad generalization.
 
Chancellare said:
Unfortunately for some, yes.

Let’s use another example.
Drinking alcohol regularly is inherently immoral. (true)
A daily glass of wine is also daily drinking of alcohol (true)
Therefore a daily glass of wine is immoral.(false)

Then the question will be:

So one can have a glass of wine daily as long as it ends in the dinner table?

Unfortunately for some, yes.

But…
Click to expand...
🤷 What are you talking about?

Drinking alcohol regularly is inherently immoral? Where’d ya come up with that one?

Can you just come out and say what you’re trying to say?
 
It seems that the article cited by the OP is essentially outlining a more traditional position which was quite common until recent times. Certainly, it can be argued that this perspective is out of touch (no pun intended) and perhaps influenced by philosophies which were inadequate or faulty. However, some would legitimatelysay the same for that which is often commonly claimed as solid thought today. I find it a bit ironic, for instance, that some on this thread speak of sticking to “reliable sources” such as John Paul II, even citing his work Love and Responsibility when that particular treatise was, in its contemporary release, promoting quite radical and controversial ideas for the period. Certainly, his concepts on the Theology of the Body and its consequent conclusions have their respectable place now. Though, had he never been made pope one might wonder just how controversial they would have remained. As such, the thesis at catholicplanet ought not be easily dismissed as so crazy out of hand.
 
chicago said:
It seems that the article cited by the OP is essentially outlining a more traditional position which was quite common until recent times. Certainly, it can be argued that this perspective is out of touch (no pun intended) and perhaps influenced by philosophies which were inadequate or faulty. However, some would legitimatelysay the same for that which is often commonly claimed as solid thought today. I find it a bit ironic, for instance, that some on this thread speak of sticking to “reliable sources” such as John Paul II, even citing his work Love and Responsibility when that particular treatise was, in its contemporary release, promoting quite radical and controversial ideas for the period. Certainly, his concepts on the Theology of the Body and its consequent conclusions have their respectable place now. Though, had he never been made pope one might wonder just how controversial they would have remained. As such, the thesis at catholicplanet ought not be easily dismissed as so crazy out of hand.
Click to expand...
You are correct, there was a school or schools of thought that once held such ideas. I think its a hangover from the Jansenist Heresy. I had advice from a priest once similar to the planet guy, it damn near ruined my marriage till I found other priests who helped me get things in the proper order. I was acquainted with one professor of philosophy who felt it was a good thing for married couples to never kiss. He and his wife had made such a vow to each other when they married. So you see nuts come in a variety of sizes and types in all ages. Morality when thought through should make common sense. If it doesn’t seek help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top