Sins within the marital act

[clem456]

I don’t think you understand my point. There are many aspects of Catholic teaching with regards to marriage and human sexuality. The term “marriage debt” is used to express only one moral teaching of the Church with regards to sexuality, namely that one spouse cannot unreasonably refuse sex.
In the context of a discussion on this particular teaching’s terminology, you stated
“The word debt unfortunately can be misunderstood and distorted” and that “John Paul 2 is brilliant in his expression of the truth”. Due to the context of the discussion, I had interpreted this to say that JP II had a different expression of this particular teaching. So I am curious as to what that is.

I am by no means trying to say anything is wrong with JP II’s Theology of the Body. If you have read it, you know that at the end, he himself says that other theologians need to address other areas of Theology of the Body and even gives an example or two of areas where it needs to be expanded.

He does have a different expression. He just does. Don’t know what else to say.

The word “marital debt” has been frequently misunderstood and is distorted to make the spouse into the object of a transaction, satisfaction of which can be “called in”. A human being can never be the object of a transaction. If the language is inadequate, then something better can be used.

This is a good illustration of how JP2 speaks about the “exchange of the gift”, the “communion of persons” in marriage.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb16.htm

 

[clem456]

Yes I said that. And yes debitum is there applied to all kinds of justice…(which includes what is being discussed here) …and yes as you note justice can apply widely…

yes that is the point. Take some time to read and meditate on the entire quotes there from him. Such can be helpful in understanding the matter at hand.

I did read it the first time.
Thanks for the quote but it has limited application for the specific issue and my time is limited so I apologize.

 

[tafan]

He does have a different expression. He just does. Don’t know what else to say.

The word “marital debt” has been frequently misunderstood and is distorted to make the spouse into the object of a transaction, satisfaction of which can be “called in”. A human being can never be the object of a transaction. If the language is inadequate, then something better can be used.

This is a good illustration of how JP2 speaks about the “exchange of the gift”, the “communion of persons” in marriage.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb16.htm

In your reference, he touches on this subject briefly, but he intentionally does not go into detail.

The opposite of this “welcoming” or “acceptance” of the other human being as a gift would be a privation of the gift itself. Therefore, it would be a changing and even a reduction of the other to an “object for myself” (an object of lust, of misappropriation, etc.).

We will not deal in detail now with this multiform, presumable antithesis of the gift. However, in the context of Genesis 2:23-25, we can note that this extorting of the gift from the other human being (from the woman by the man and vice versa) and reducing him or her interiorly to a mere “object for me,” should mark the beginning of shame. The latter corresponds to a threat inflicted on the gift in its personal intimacy and bears witness to the interior collapse of innocence in the mutual experience.

But I do not see any alternative terminology proposed, certainly not as clear and consice as “the marriage debt”.

 

[fpt]

I am a new Catholic, confirmed last year, and am still trying to figure out what is acceptable during the marital act. I saw a thread about this recently, and am confused. I ran across this article catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm where the author claims that any act that is not natural intercourse is a mortal sin.
I talked to my priest about this and he said everything is acceptable (except anal), as long as it ends with the husband completing the act in the wife the natural way.(Sorry, trying not to be graphic). I also suffer from scrupulosity, and I recently read a wonderful book called Understanding Scrupulosity, in which the author states when in doubt, trust your confessor.
My problem is, the author of the article I just mentioned said that some priests fall into the idea that certain acts of foreplay are okay, and that it’s a heresy, etc.
So, I’m caught wondering who’s right. But, of course, I trust my priest and think I should listen to him.
Any advice?

DoxieMama

The great and unique question is the following : what is the natural moral order of the conjugal act? What is the moral regime of this natural moral order? This particular order is immaterial and material, is institutional, is contractual, is from the alliance / covenant and is from the consortium.

We have to use catholic philosophy and her logic who are objective, realistic, personalistic and phenomenological, and the catholic theology who is objective, realistic, personalistic and phenomenological. **The dialogue between Faith and Reason and the dialogue between Reason and Faith **are fundamental principles in the Catholicism.

 

[joseie]

Life is the most important gift of God and the most important aspect of life is procreation which sustains life.God do this through men and women giving them a natural urge to copulate.Lest they do not much bother about this act which will ultimately end the life in the world ,the sexual pleasure was given .This natural urge and the feeling of the associated sexual pleasure are the gift and reward of god. God purposely did not restrict the sexual pleasure only if the organ is fully entered and only if the egg is fertilised.As married people know,most of the female body parts are points of sexual arousal for men .Even a gesture,seducive talk,touch,smell etc can arouse sexul urge. Though it is true that these are meant to finally make the couple to copulate for procreation ,there is nothing to indicate that if in each case of sexual arousal,the fertilisation does not take place the pleasure enjoyed is a sin.Why force such view and make the couple to feel a guilt conscience ?How can one say that the breast and nipple are meant only for feeding the baby and any other enjoyment using them is sin?Sex during non productive days,sex after ceasing of mensuration are clearly meant for sexul enjoyment and not for procreation.They are not sin.In short it appears to be proper to have all possible type of sexual enjoyment between man and wife considering it as a gift of god.Analysing each possible action that may be tempted to be done during sexual act and telling that this is o.k. but not that much etc.is interference in god’s plan of reward to human for involment in procreation.

 

[truetofaith]

Life is the most important gift of God and the most important aspect of life is procreation which sustains life.God do this through men and women giving them a natural urge to copulate.Lest they do not much bother about this act which will ultimately end the life in the world ,the sexual pleasure was given .This natural urge and the feeling of the associated sexual pleasure are the gift and reward of god. God purposely did not restrict the sexual pleasure only if the organ is fully entered and only if the egg is fertilised.As married people know,most of the female body parts are points of sexual arousal for men .Even a gesture,seducive talk,touch,smell etc can arouse sexul urge. Though it is true that these are meant to finally make the couple to copulate for procreation ,there is nothing to indicate that if in each case of sexual arousal,the fertilisation does not take place the pleasure enjoyed is a sin.Why force such view and make the couple to feel a guilt conscience ?How can one say that the breast and nipple are meant only for feeding the baby and any other enjoyment using them is sin?Sex during non productive days,sex after ceasing of mensuration are clearly meant for sexul enjoyment and not for procreation.They are not sin.In short it appears to be proper to have all possible type of sexual enjoyment between man and wife considering it as a gift of god.Analysing each possible action that may be tempted to be done during sexual act and telling that this is o.k. but not that much etc.is interference in god’s plan of reward to human for involment in procreation.

What you say makes sense…all the things that cause problems seem to be a Catholic thing, which by the way, isn’t talked about much, lately!

Happy Easter!

 

[joseie]

Dear truetofaith,Happy Easter!Also happy that at least one regular member shares my view.Whatever the clergy say it is a fact that in actual practice,which the clergy has no direct experience,all happy married couples (who are happy and content in sexual matters also ) indulge in such ‘sins’ and enjoy the feeling god give them with out any feeling that it is a sin .Nobody else is hurt or offended by such enjoyment except the clergy which is understandable!Except to make a guilty feeling and spoil the show for some poor belivers , the church’s incorrect stand on such matters serve no purpose and requires review.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Dear truetofaith,Happy Easter!Also happy that at least one regular member shares my view.Whatever the clergy say it is a fact that in actual practice,which the clergy has no direct experience,all happy married couples (who are happy and content in sexual matters also ) indulge in such ‘sins’ and enjoy the feeling god give them with out any feeling that it is a sin .Nobody else is hurt or offended by such enjoyment except the clergy which is understandable!Except to make a guilty feeling and spoil the show for some poor belivers , the church’s incorrect stand on such matters serve no purpose and requires review.

In what way do you think Church teaching is wrong and needs review? Since the church cannot err in matters of faith and morals I’m not sure what you mean.

 

[joseie]

The principle that church cannot err appears to apply to crucial matters concerning faith and bible interpretation and not to such trival matters such as what all things a husband and wife should or should not do during sexual intercourse,whether kissing ,fondling,licking,sucking etc, are sin if not followed by proper insertion and ejaculation into the body and fertilisation of egg etc.Leave the matter of sexual conduct and enjoyment to the couples as long as there is no clearcut bar in the in the bible.

 

[Vico]

The principle that church cannot err appears to apply to crucial matters concerning faith and bible interpretation and not to such trival matters such as what all things a husband and wife should or should not do during sexual intercourse,whether kissing ,fondling,licking,sucking etc, are sin if not followed by proper insertion and ejaculation into the body and fertilisation of egg etc.Leave the matter of sexual conduct and enjoyment to the couples as long as there is no clearcut bar in the in the bible.

It is not trivial matter. Sin comes through excess as we easily see in the seven deadly sins. There must be just moderation in all things in what is good: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride. So even in marriage conjugal act there must not be lust.

In the Bible, the Book of Tobit, Chapter 8, Tobias and Sarah pray together:4 When Sarah’s parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah rose from bed and said to his wife, “My sister, come, let us pray and beg our Lord to grant us mercy and protection.” 5 She got up, and they started to pray and beg that they might be protected. He began with these words:

“Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors;
blessed be your name forever and ever!
Let the heavens and all your creation bless you forever.
6 You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve
to be his helper and support;
and from these two the human race has come.
You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone;
let us make him a helper like himself.’
7 Now, not with lust,
but with fidelity I take this kinswoman as my wife.
Send down your mercy on me and on her,
and grant that we may grow old together.
Bless us with children.”
8 They said together, “Amen, amen!” 9 Then they went to bed for the night.

​

 

[Jaaanosik]

It is not trivial matter. Sin comes through excess as we easily see in the seven deadly sins. There must be just moderation in all things in what is good: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride. So even in marriage conjugal act there must not be lust.

In the Bible, the Book of Tobit, Chapter 8, Tobias and Sarah pray together:4 When Sarah’s parents left the bedroom and closed the door behind them, Tobiah rose from bed and said to his wife, “My sister, come, let us pray and beg our Lord to grant us mercy and protection.” 5 She got up, and they started to pray and beg that they might be protected. He began with these words:

“Blessed are you, O God of our ancestors;
blessed be your name forever and ever!
Let the heavens and all your creation bless you forever.
6 You made Adam, and you made his wife Eve
to be his helper and support;
and from these two the human race has come.
You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone;
let us make him a helper like himself.’
7 Now, not with lust,
but with fidelity I take this kinswoman as my wife.
Send down your mercy on me and on her,
and grant that we may grow old together.
Bless us with children.”
8 They said together, “Amen, amen!” 9 Then they went to bed for the night.

​

Lovemaking, giving love to a partner because of love is not lust.
… and correct - lust should not be part of the marital act.

 

[Xantippe]

The principle that church cannot err appears to apply to crucial matters concerning faith and bible interpretation and not to such trival matters such as what all things a husband and wife should or should not do during sexual intercourse,whether kissing ,fondling,licking,sucking etc, are sin if not followed by proper insertion and ejaculation into the body and fertilisation of egg etc.Leave the matter of sexual conduct and enjoyment to the couples as long as there is no clearcut bar in the in the bible.

If sex is about love and Christianity is about love, too, then Christianity is unavoidably going to have a lot to say about sex.

And what the Church actually says is that as long as natural completed intercourse is involved, other amorous activities on the same occasion are just fine. It’s really not that complicated. (I’d add that it shouldn’t injure the dignity of either party and it shouldn’t cause an unreasonable amount of discomfort or physical harm–but that’s just simple charity.)

 

[truetofaith]

If sex is about love and Christianity is about love, too, then Christianity is unavoidably going to have a lot to say about sex.

And what the Church actually says is that as long as natural completed intercourse is involved, other amorous activities on the same occasion are just fine. It’s really not that complicated. (I’d add that it shouldn’t injure the dignity of either party and it shouldn’t cause an unreasonable amount of discomfort or physical harm–but that’s just simple charity.)

But…sometimes those “other amorous activities on the same occasion” will prevent “natural completed intercourse.” If you get my drift?

 

[Xantippe]

But…sometimes those “other amorous activities on the same occasion” will prevent “natural completed intercourse.” If you get my drift?

Then that’s how you know that that particular amorous activity is out of bounds, whatever it is.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Well…this I didn’t know. Um…so if I get married my wife can’t do something uh…common involving her mouth even if it doesn’t end there? I knew it had to end in a way open to life but this too, is sodomy?

“sod·om·y
ˈsädəmē
noun
sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.”

I really wish the Church would rule plainly on this. It’s such a touchy subject. No pun intended.

I mean while he is not the pope, we have this answer from a priest at EWTN:

oral sex
Question from michelle bowman on 6/27/2007:
is it a sin for a married couple to have oral sex with each other?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 6/28/2007:
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993).

Source ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442

So which is it?

 

[Xantippe]

Well…this I didn’t know. Um…so if I get married my wife can’t do something uh…common involving her mouth even if it doesn’t end there? I knew it had to end in a way open to life but this too, is sodomy?

“sod·om·y
ˈsädəmē
noun
sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.”

I really wish the Church would rule plainly on this. It’s such a touchy subject. No pun intended.

I mean while he is not the pope, we have this answer from a priest at EWTN:

oral sex
Question from michelle bowman on 6/27/2007:
is it a sin for a married couple to have oral sex with each other?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 6/28/2007:
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church’s teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993).

Source ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=507442

So which is it?

Pius XII says, “so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.”

Clear enough?

 

[Xantippe]

It’s my understanding that once the husband gets to be of a certain age, he’s going to need all the preliminary help he can get.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Pius XII says, “so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.”

Clear enough?

I suppose. I also assume he excluded what is classically called sodomy from this statement though. That’ss really unsanitary.

 

[joseie]

Statements like certain activities are out of bounds during intercourse,only moderate pleasure should be enjoyed etc.terrifies me! Do intercourse only in missionary position,avoid touching or playing with other organs as far possible (because it is not needed for procreation),complete it as quickly as possible(because trying to prolong is purely for enjoyment),restrict and if possible avoid sex during non productive days or if your wife ceased mensturation etc.are thing preferred for catholics?Other activities are lust? God has forbidden some sexual acts between husband wife directly or indirectly? Is not what needed only is that the sexual enjoyment should not affect your obligation to god ,church,society,family and individual dignity.As long as this is not violated no objection can be made.
I have now a serious doubt whether those who advocates or genuinely feel that the couples should not be allowed to enjoy sex between them without any restriction are married or not.

 

[Xantippe]

Statements like certain activities are out of bounds during intercourse,only moderate pleasure should be enjoyed etc.terrifies me! Do intercourse only in missionary position,avoid touching or playing with other organs as far possible (because it is not needed for procreation),complete it as quickly as possible(because trying to prolong is purely for enjoyment),restrict and if possible avoid sex during non productive days or if your wife ceased mensturation etc.are thing preferred for catholics?Other activities are lust? God has forbidden some sexual acts between husband wife directly or indirectly? Is not what needed only is that the sexual enjoyment should not affect your obligation to god ,church,society,family and individual dignity.As long as this is not violated no objection can be made.
I have now a serious doubt whether those who advocates or genuinely feel that the couples should not be allowed to enjoy sex between them without any restriction are married or not.

How about getting and reading an actual book or two? I didn’t find it that memorable (I don’t seem to have kept my copy), but I know a lot of people here like Gregory Popcak’s Holy Sex.

Karol Wojtyla (i.e. Pope John Paul before he was pope) also has a lot of writings that have been very influential in contemporary Catholic thought on sexuality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_and_Responsibility

I haven’t read Love and Responsibility myself, but it is very influential. Wojtyla’s ideas have been popularized by others under the term “theology of the body.”

(I also like the Eros chapter in C.S. Lewis’s The Four Loves, although C.S. Lewis is Anglican, but I think that book is very helpful in figuring out how erotic love fits into the Christian life and how it relates to divine charity.)