Temperance and the Marital Act

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommamaree
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mommamaree

Guest
In my reading recently, I have stumbled upon some writings regarding the relationship between gluttony and hedonism, and the need for temperance with respect to eating/drinking and sexual relations. The need for temperance even applies to the marital act. So my question is, how is a faithful Catholic going to be able to know if they are practicing temperance in their “use of marriage”? I know that enjoyment of the physical pleasures of the marital act is a healthy and good thing. And I know that one of the purposes of marriage is as a remedy for concupiscence and the “moral satisfaction of the sexual urge”. And I know that a rejection of sexual pleasure is an unhealthy attitude, because that would be a rejection of one of God’s gifts to married couples, and could likely contribute to serious sexual dysfunction and marital discord.

So, how can we comprehend temperance as it relates to married love, and work on cultivating that virtue even as we enjoy the benefits of marriage? Any thoughts?
 
I’m not really sure how to know whether we are temperate in Marriage except by our own judgments. In my case, I have a higher drive than my wife during some parts of the month. When it gets to a point where I am putting my desires for sex ahead of her desires to love in a different way (for that particular day), then I figure I am seeing it in a gluttonous manner. But, that’s really subjective and would be different for different couples and have no end of variables to consider.
 
Respecting your partner and state of life are key elements. Is your partner sick? Tired? Not ready emotionally? How many kids can you realistically maintain? When should you engage? When should you not engage?

If I am looking after my wife and family needs first, I am pretty much on tract.

We are at a place where it is prudent for us to not have anymore kids, so engaging during fertile periods is not a wise thing to do for us.
 
I think asking a few questions would help:

Do you spend time together when you aren’t having sex?
Can you spend time together without sex being the focus?
Are your desires for sex just your wish for sexual pleasure, or do you wish to express your love to your spouse plus have concern for their enjoyment/care?
Does it intefere with other responsibilities that you have?
 
ahs said:
I’m not really sure how to know whether we are temperate in Marriage except by our own judgments. In my case, I have a higher drive than my wife during some parts of the month. When it gets to a point where I am putting my desires for sex ahead of her desires to love in a different way (for that particular day), then I figure I am seeing it in a gluttonous manner. But, that’s really subjective and would be different for different couples and have no end of variables to consider.
Click to expand...
That is why I am asking this actually. Not with respect to the matched or unmatched libidos of a couple, but with respect to each marital act. Is it possible for a married couple, when both are eager to take advantage of an opportunity for physical intimacy that has presented itself, to be intemperate in their relations, and devolve into hedonism? Or is the need for temperance merely related to patience, waiting for proper time and privacy and responsiveness from spouse?
 
Reason and grace and virtue.

The virtue of temperance yes is to guide one.

But just as with temperance in eating and drinking there is much that is a judgement of the person involved - so too here.
 
mommamaree said:
Is it possible for a married couple, when both are eager to take advantage of an opportunity for physical intimacy that has presented itself, to be intemperate in their relations, and devolve into hedonism?
Click to expand...
Yes such is possible.

Just as it is possible for someone who is looking forward to driving the new car – to speed off a cliff.

Just because a person might though not drive that new car completely as they ought -does not mean they have gone off the cliff.

And just because it is possible for him to go off the cliff - undue concern something to avoid too.

(and some intemperance does not mean they have devolved into hedonism)
 
mommamaree said:
In my reading recently, I have stumbled upon some writings regarding the relationship between gluttony and hedonism, and the need for temperance with respect to eating/drinking and sexual relations. The need for temperance even applies to the marital act. So my question is, how is a faithful Catholic going to be able to know if they are practicing temperance in their “use of marriage”? I know that enjoyment of the physical pleasures of the marital act is a healthy and good thing. And I know that one of the purposes of marriage is as a remedy for concupiscence and the “moral satisfaction of the sexual urge”. And I know that a rejection of sexual pleasure is an unhealthy attitude, because that would be a rejection of one of God’s gifts to married couples, and could likely contribute to serious sexual dysfunction and marital discord.

So, how can we comprehend temperance as it relates to married love, and work on cultivating that virtue even as we enjoy the benefits of marriage? Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
**Per se, it is a very good question, but the answer is not very easy in reason of many christian heresies and of many ideologies that are very powerful. **

How define, in the good way, the concept of the temperance, in general, and the temperance in link with the marital act and Co??? Because of many ideologies and of many heresies, the true doxa and the true praxis, for solving the question, have to be intelligent, natural, fair, balance and moderated. * A work of purification has to be done, before trying to answer. No bad “ism words”, otherwise that is too morally wrong.*
**
The prism has to be catholic, not more and not less.** The dialogue between Faith and Reason and the dialogue between Reason and Faith has to be the rules of principle. **The concept of conjugal charity **has to be the first rule.The concept of conjugal sexual temperance has to be another rule, but she has to be seen like the consequence of the concept of conjugal sexual charity (from love, of love, for love, by love and in love). The concept of conjugal sexual temperance is not linked to the discipline of monks, of friars, of priests and of nuns: see the concept of analogy in philosophy. *In the past, some theologians and some philosophers had wrong views because they used prisms that were not adapted.
*
The nature, the degree, the level, the rights, the obligations and the duties are totally different of ** views coming from the un-conjugal state. **The critic mind has to be existed and has to stay. **The seeker of conjugal pleasure in the respect of the natural order of the marital act is the primary rule: the fundamental paradigm.
**

Good debate!!!
 
Catechism:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Code: 
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV
 
Okay, I can see that I have not been clear enough, so let me clarify.

In an individual act of lovemaking, is there any need for reserve, such as that practiced in eating and drinking? For example, when imbibing wine, we may enjoy a glass of wine, and really savor the flavor, but we may not drink to excess or become drunk. When eating a delicious restaurant meal, we again may savor the flavor, but we may not overeat or indulge in so much rich food that we make ourselves sick.

Is there any comparable reserve required with regard to an individual act of lovemaking, as there is in an individual meal or occasion for having some wine?

I am talking about mutually agreeable forms of physical intimacy, that would accurately be described as a marital act, and am not referring to any sinful practices (contraceptive or degrading or things like that).

I hope my question is more clear now. Thanks to all contributors and my apologies for my lack of clarity before!
 
mommamaree said:
That is why I am asking this actually. Not with respect to the matched or unmatched libidos of a couple, but with respect to each marital act. Is it possible for a married couple, when both are eager to take advantage of an opportunity for physical intimacy that has presented itself, to be intemperate in their relations, and devolve into hedonism? Or is the need for temperance merely related to patience, waiting for proper time and privacy and responsiveness from spouse?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go looking for problems that may never exist. If you are both willing and able, if there are no responsibilities you are ignoring, if you are able to spend other time together without sex, I wouldn’t fret or worry about it. There are plenty of problems, temptations, sins, and other issues that we have to deal with in life. We don’t need to over-worry about things that aren’t an issue. The crosses that we have to bear make themselves apparent pretty quickly.
 
mommamaree said:
Okay, I can see that I have not been clear enough, so let me clarify.

In an individual act of lovemaking, is there any need for reserve, such as that practiced in eating and drinking? For example, when imbibing wine, we may enjoy a glass of wine, and really savor the flavor, but we may not drink to excess or become drunk. When eating a delicious restaurant meal, we again may savor the flavor, but we may not overeat or indulge in so much rich food that we make ourselves sick.

Is there any comparable reserve required with regard to an individual act of lovemaking, as there is in an individual meal or occasion for having some wine?

I am talking about mutually agreeable forms of physical intimacy, that would accurately be described as a marital act, and am not referring to any sinful practices (contraceptive or degrading or things like that).

I hope my question is more clear now. Thanks to all contributors and my apologies for my lack of clarity before!
Click to expand...
Yes - temperance is to be lived in such.

But the nature of the act is different than say eating or drinking…not sure the word “reserve” is the apt word -but yes the virtue of temperance is involved - but - it is not that one is to be stoic about it…(the nature of the self giving can be apt to be ‘not stoic’…and that is not contrary to the virtue)

Catechism:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Code: 
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV
 
fpt said:
**Per se, it is a very good question, but the answer is not very easy in reason of many christian heresies and of many ideologies that are very powerful. **

How define, in the good way, the concept of the temperance, in general, and the temperance in link with the marital act and Co??? Because of many ideologies and of many heresies, the true doxa and the true praxis, for solving the question, have to be intelligent, natural, fair, balance and moderated. * A work of purification has to be done, before trying to answer. No bad “ism words”, otherwise that is too morally wrong.*
**
The prism has to be catholic, not more and not less.** The dialogue between Faith and Reason and the dialogue between Reason and Faith have to be the rules of principle. **The concept of conjugal charity **has to be the first rule.The concept of conjugal sexual temperance has to be another rule, but she has to be seen like the consequence of the concept of conjugal sexual charity (from love, of love, for love, by love and in love). The concept of conjugal sexual temperance is not linked to the discipline of monks, of friars, of priests and of nuns: see the concept of analogy in philosophy. *In the past, some theologians and some philosophers had wrong views because they used prisms that were not adapted.
*
The nature, the degree, the level, the rights, the obligations and the duties are totally different of ** views coming from the un-conjugal state. **The critic mind has to be existed and has to stay. **The seeker of conjugal pleasure in the respect of the natural order of the marital act is the primary rule: the fundamental paradigm.
**

Good debate!!!
Click to expand...
The list of heresies, of ideologies, of stupid rules and of crazy mentalities has to be known. It is a great work. Good luck.
 
mommamaree said:
Okay, I can see that I have not been clear enough, so let me clarify.

In an individual act of lovemaking, is there any need for reserve, such as that practiced in eating and drinking? For example, when imbibing wine, we may enjoy a glass of wine, and really savor the flavor, but we may not drink to excess or become drunk. When eating a delicious restaurant meal, we again may savor the flavor, but we may not overeat or indulge in so much rich food that we make ourselves sick.

Is there any comparable reserve required with regard to an individual act of lovemaking, as there is in an individual meal or occasion for having some wine?

I am talking about mutually agreeable forms of physical intimacy, that would accurately be described as a marital act, and am not referring to any sinful practices (contraceptive or degrading or things like that).

I hope my question is more clear now. Thanks to all contributors and my apologies for my lack of clarity before!
Click to expand...
Yes - temperance is to be lived in such.

But the nature of the act is different than say eating or drinking…not sure the word “reserve” is the apt word -but yes the virtue of temperance is involved - but - it is not that one is to be *stoic *about it…(the nature of the self giving can be apt to be ‘not stoic’…and that is not contrary to the virtue…)

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Code: 
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#IV
 
fpt and Bookcat,
I am happy to see that both of you have understood my question very well. And it appears that this is something that you both have previously considered.🙂

The reason I am asking is that the heights of pleasure that spouses might bring each other to can sometimes be breathtaking and can make it difficult to hold a rational, logical thought in one’s mind. Is accepting and embracing that pleasure which is given in love, with total surrender and abandonment of one’s self to the other, when language becomes impossible and thoughts don’t make sense anymore, is that hedonism, or simply a holy communion between husband and wife? Must a person maintain a reserve that would include a dampening of arousal, in order to retain the ability to hold a rational thought? Sexual function is still possible with such reserve, but it does become more difficult.
And if a person is swept away to the point that they forget about the holiness of the marital act, but only know that in that moment that it is wonderful and exciting, is that a sin which injures their relationship with God?

Disclaimer: I am a convert of several years now, and I came from a Protestant background that taught very wrong, inappropriate things about sexual intercourse within marriage, so my questions arise as I continue to form my conscience with the teachings of the Catholic Church on these matters. I hope these don’t seem like stupid questions, because sometimes I really struggle to understand the truly Catholic perspective on matters.
 
zz912 said:
I wouldn’t go looking for problems that may never exist. If you are both willing and able, if there are no responsibilities you are ignoring, if you are able to spend other time together without sex, I wouldn’t fret or worry about it. There are plenty of problems, temptations, sins, and other issues that we have to deal with in life. We don’t need to over-worry about things that aren’t an issue. The crosses that we have to bear make themselves apparent pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
I really like this perspective! Thanks.
 
mommamaree said:
The reason I am asking is that the heights of pleasure that spouses might bring each other to can sometimes be breathtaking and can make it difficult to hold a rational, logical thought in one’s mind. Is accepting and embracing that pleasure which is given in love, with total surrender and abandonment of one’s self to the other, when language becomes impossible and thoughts don’t make sense anymore, is that hedonism
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
mommamaree said:
And if a person is swept away to the point that they forget about the holiness of the marital act, but only know that in that moment that it is wonderful and exciting, is that a sin which injures their relationship with God?
Click to expand...
One need not be explicitly conscious of the theological nature of the act - at that moment -for it to be good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top