The Licit Form of Sexual Intercourse [legalistic and explicit]

[DL82]

If you are looking for syllogisms, I would quote Bl John Henry Newman, ‘heart speaks unto heart’ - the Gospel is not something you can argue someone into. There is also a syllogism to the effect that what is not challenged need not be defended.

I simply cannot see the logic in what you propose - a couple are going to say ‘let’sthe miss out on the best part of the marital embrace, not for contraceptive reasons, because we’ll still have genital contact, but just because’. I don’t understand that, and I don’t believe it happens. Because I don’t believe it happens, I don’t think you need get too anxious about it.

Now, if you had a concrete circumstance, like a couple who wanted to have regular intercourse, but the wife found this painful, so they agreed to end their intercourse in the way you describe so that it would still be open to life, then the circumstances of the act would shed light on its moral licitness.

As it is, all I see is a question about a nonexistent hypothetical couple who do a thing that no couple actually does, on which the Church has not set down clear rules (although it has set down clear guiding principles for married relationships, which guide hearts much more than they guide ‘emissions’).

I think you need to ask the question which precedes the question: if I knew the answer to this, would it make me a better Catholic, a better witness, a better husband? The fact that you feel the need to flag the thread as ‘legalistic and explicit’ suggests to me that you already know the answer to that. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

Pax et bonum.

 

[Wowbagger]

if I knew the answer to this, would it make me a better Catholic, a better witness, a better husband?

If I knew the answer to this, it would make me a better apologist. I have said as much now four times, and begin to wonder whether you are familiar with the very concept of the thought experiment. They are terribly useful tools for ferreting out distinctions and discovering the truth of things.

But my justification for pursuing the question is not merely the utility of better defending my Church. By uncovering the truth, we come closer to the one Who is Truth. Although not all are well-disposed towards it, the science of sacred doctrine is a most noble pursuit – even when marred by amateurs such as myself.

If you are looking for syllogisms, I would quote Bl John Henry Newman, ‘heart speaks unto heart’ - the Gospel is not something you can argue someone into. There is also a syllogism to the effect that what is not challenged need not be defended

These are axioms, not syllogisms. Very different.

 

[MarksWife]

I have yet to read anything authoritative from the Church that would indicate that relations other than the kind that leads to conception are acceptable, “foreplay” or not. In fact, the dictionary describes sodomy as including both of these acts, most understood to be the behavior of homosexuals.

For me, it wasn’t difficult to understand that using some part of the body in replacement for the correct areas of contact in the conjugal union, is always wrong, offensive, against life giving intent, DIRTY, and not in keeping with a Catholic marriage.

Why anyone would think it was acceptable to degrade one’s spouse by putting the organ with which one urinates, into their spouses’ mouth … is beyond me. And then what? After a shower, said spouse kisses her sweet little babies’ face?

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that is what God intended for decent married people to do. The fact that most men’s carnal urges lead them to want that notwithstanding.

 

[dskysmine]

I have yet to read anything authoritative from the Church that would indicate that relations other than the kind that leads to conception are acceptable, “foreplay” or not. In fact, the dictionary describes sodomy as including both of these acts, most understood to be the behavior of homosexuals.

For me, it wasn’t difficult to understand that using some part of the body in replacement for the correct areas of contact in the conjugal union, is always wrong, offensive, against life giving intent, DIRTY, and not in keeping with a Catholic marriage.

Why anyone would think it was acceptable to degrade one’s spouse by putting the organ with which one urinates, into their spouses’ mouth … is beyond me. And then what? After a shower, said spouse kisses her sweet little babies’ face?

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that is what God intended for decent married people to do. The fact that most men’s carnal urges lead them to want that notwithstanding.

Well, I know for a fact that our mouth is one of the most unclean places in our bodies. Bacterias abound, enzimes from our saliva as well. That doesn’t mean that a kiss is unclean. Not to mention that a lot of women cannot get an orgasm through normal coitus.It would really be sad if your wife (not necessarily the poster’s) would be unable to enjoy love making because you consider “using some part of the body in replacement for the correct areas of contact in the conjugal union, is always wrong”.
Again, I am not trying to tell you how to enjoy sex… just making sure you have the correct mind frame around it.

God Bless,
D

 

[Jack_murph]

A lot of people are doubting your motivation for this discovery and maybe they are right to or wrong to do so; personally I think you should have the benefit of the doubt. I agree with them insofar as such information simply broadcasted may have a bestial effect on the lowest natures of the least examining persons. However, I am entirely convinced that you are right. Whether or not some of the responders of this thread find the practice you discribe as vulgar I am inclined to believe there are at least a few who would find it genuinely and innocently celebratory. Even the normalcy of inter genital coitus seems to emphasise rather than detract from this effect. Your entire argument and all the moral tools involved hinge entirely on intention. Let us note that, although fitting for frmale ejaculation to be united with the male it is widely permissable for her to expirience it at any time within the sexual context so actual climax is definitely distinguished from seminarion and falls outside the strict guidelines of semination.If the intention, demean the other or reduce life possibility is really the exclusive intent than, as always, wishing bad makes no question about it. But if the couple took the trouble to make sure that a fully enjoyed act of oral stimulation was still reproductive I think they deserve applause from the peanut gallery for taking the trouble to be pro life. It may be a more pro life action than to lazily “beget tween sleep and waking” as Shakespeare quipped, which would lack the enthusiasm for both life and unity. If there were an over abundance of semenal material, I think it’s effect would be oversaturating and it’s overflow could possibly be seen as a celebration, not a negation, of it’s purpose. The act described to me could be an act against dignity and life or, even more than usual, unitive and pro creative, depending on the disposition of practitioners.

 

[ahs]

Both recognize that the husband is approaching the point of emission. Rather than stopping and moving to penetrative intercourse, they deliberately continue all the way until semen is emitted. It is deposited not in the proper place, but some in the air and and some on the surfaces of both their bodies.

They sought sexual pleasure outside the conjugal union. His ejaculation completes this act, and their act was not ordered toward procreation…it is masturbation…a serious sin.

However, the husband’s member retains semen ([removed[/COLOR]], and there is still some “in the tube”, as it were), which is normal male sexual function. The husband now finally inserts his member fully into his wife’s vagina, depositing the retained semen there, even though his ejaculation has ended…

Irrelevant to the preceeding act of masturbation. He can’t undo the masturbation by trying to deposit some left over semen into the right place.

 

[ahs]

I have yet to read anything authoritative from the Church that would indicate that relations other than the kind that leads to conception are acceptable,

Does the Church teach that each kind of “relation” must lead to conception? Quote from the appropriate authentic Catholic source please.

…“foreplay” or not.

How is foreplay contrary to conjugal love, as taught by the Church?

In fact, the dictionary describes sodomy as including both of these acts, most understood to be the behavior of homosexuals.

Does the Church depend on the dictionary for its teaching? Can you please provide the Catholic definition of a homosexual behavior?

For me, it wasn’t difficult to understand that using some part of the body in replacement for the correct areas of contact in the conjugal union, is always wrong, offensive, against life giving intent, DIRTY, and not in keeping with a Catholic marriage.

Can you provide the Catholic teaching that led you to this conclusion? And does the Church teach that if something is “dirty” that it is therefore sinful?

Why anyone would think it was acceptable to degrade one’s spouse by putting the organ with which one urinates, into their spouses’ mouth … is beyond me.

That’s rather subjective is it not? Is it a matter of objective reasoning that oral foreplay is always degrading? What Catholic teaching leads you to this?

And then what? After a shower, said spouse kisses her sweet little babies’ face?

What’s wrong with kissing a baby after a shower?

I’m sorry, I don’t believe that is what God intended for decent married people to do. The fact that most men’s carnal urges lead them to want that notwithstanding.

What part of “total and mutual self-giving” and “involves a totality in which all the elements of a person enter” should we understand to be excluded in conjugal love?

 

[Rau]

The Church clearly explains that we cannot use NFP with a contraceptive mentality. It is not a contraception method… It is a natural way (meaning that we didn’t create the female cycle) to space births when there is just cause for not engaging in “unitive and procreative” acts, which is basically why marriage exists.

You write “…a natural way to space births”. Yes that’s true. But, you seem to suggest that couples should just keep on having children, subject only to some reasonable spacing. I don’t think that’s reality. Don’t we generally have a view about intended family size - and we space births till that’s achieved, then we seek to avoid further births, while continuing our sexual relationship. How many of us would keep having children till prevented absolutely (by menopause), or perhaps by reasoned consideration (eg. reached limit of financial capacity)?

 

[dskysmine]

You write “…a natural way to space births”. Yes that’s true. But, you seem to suggest that couples should just keep on having children, subject only to some reasonable spacing. I don’t think that’s reality. Don’t we generally have a view about intended family size - and we space births till that’s achieved, then we seek to avoid further births, while continuing our sexual relationship. How many of us would keep having children till prevented absolutely (by menopause), or perhaps by reasoned consideration (eg. reached limit of financial capacity)?

Hello,
I apologize if it took me so long to reply. I don’t follow any threads here in CAF, so sometimes I might not realize if somebody has directed a question at me.
I don’t entirely understand the purpose of the question…
Are you asking me if Bill Gates had 11 children, he should be able to prevent any further pregnancies just because his planned family size was a soccer team?
The Church says that parents are to be generous and open to life. I don’t think that means that a woman that gets married at 25 has to have 25 children until she reaches menopause… but it also means that if you have the 2 children you “wanted” but do not “want” more because it would disturb your plans for a 5 year world trip in a cruise (just an example), maybe you should rethink on the reasons you are using NFP. I cannot tell you how many children are enough in each case… and neither can the Church. The Church just asks you to be generous… children are a blessing from God, although they seem like a burden.
Some of the most famous people in the world (or the Church) were born in a very large family (over 6 children):
St Catherine of Sienna’s mom had actually 25 children (some twins), but most of them actually died very young.
Beethoven’s mom had 7 children (only 3 survived).
Mozart’s mom had also 7 children (I believe only 2 survived).
Benjamin Franklin lived in a family with 17 children (although 7 were from a previous wedding).
I could go on an on… as there are many cases like this (my mom is also the 7th of 8 children and they all were given the chance to go to college).
This isn’t to try to build an apology for large families, but just to show you that it is possible to do well in life even if you live in such a large family.
This is something one should discuss with ones wife/husband, and pray with fervor to discern about.
God bless,
D.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

OP,

I’m not sure you’re following how much intent matters here. Why would a couple ejaculate outside of the wife’s vagina if not to (a) increase individual pleasure, or (b) avoid conception? If (a), then the sexual act is not an act of complete mutual self-giving. If (b), then obviously the intention is not licit, in Catholic terms.

If you are posing a scenario which is humanly impossible, where the ejaculation is not accidental and yet is not intended for increased pleasure or avoidance of conception, then I don’t think such a scenario poses a counterexample to Catholic teaching. But perhaps you think the goal is for increased individual pleasure, but that this is not a bad thing? This seems off, to me. In this case, you would be using another person’s body for the purpose of ejaculating, without allowing any other meaningful purpose to be accomplished.

In other words, you would be masturbating, with the assistance of an animate object (your spouse).

 

[Rau]

This is sort of the heart of my whole question: if non-genital intercourse culminates in the deposition of sperm in the vagina, is it unnatural? Is it sodomy? Is it the sin of Gomorrah? Or is it just sexual intercourse where the male orgasm happens during foreplay instead of during penetration?

I think you have to view this as “unnatural”. As would be an alternative such as ejaculating on your wife’s stomach and then wiping your penis through the ejaculate, and transferring that to her vagina.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Question – why aren’t guys allowed to masturbate for infertility treatment purposes? Using contraceptives is just as much a sin as masturbation, but women are allowed to use the Pill for medical reasons. Wouldn’t masturbating for infertility treatment testing fall under the same medical exemption?

 

[Rau]

I think what the OP is describing is mutual masturbation or oral sex, but your answer is correct in principle, at least from the way I understand it.

Conjugal relations have both a unitive and a procreative dimension. While the method the OP describes is still “open to procreation” in the loosest possible sense, the probabilities of conception are lowered by the act itself. Moreover, I’m not sure how “unitive” an act of ejaculation over your spouse’s body really is - besides the obvious “squick” factor, it sounds more like something from a porn movie than a truly loving and unitive act.

Actually, I think it may be wholly unitive - that relies largely on the two acting with love and closeness, which is not in doubt. In my understanding, unitive does not mean “joined penis to vagina” throughout the act, or at any point.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

OP,

I’m not sure you’re following how much intent matters here. Why would a couple ejaculate outside of the wife’s vagina if not to (a) increase individual pleasure, or (b) avoid conception? (

What about, just for the sake of argument, a guy who had a really hard time reaching orgasm through normal means? If the couple wanted to have children, could they use that method to try instead of really long, frustrating sex sessions?

 

[Rau]

Is a couple who have sex with the wife on the Pill open to life? There’s always the chance of a breakthrough ovulation. Consensus is that they are not.

Intent is a key consideration. If the intent is to reduce the chance of pregnancy, and they act in a way to reduce the chance of pregancy, they sin…even if a chance of pregancy remains. People who have sex that is ordered to procreation don’t toy with techniques to minimise the risk of pregnancy while retaining some chance of it.

Accidents can happen in foreplay, and there is no sin in such. But deliberate attempts to minimise pregnancy…or pretent that something happens as an accident…are not licit.

I think the intent is clearly to maximise their pleasure.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What about, just for the sake of argument, a guy who had a really hard time reaching orgasm through normal means? If the couple wanted to have children, could they use that method to try instead of really long, frustrating sex sessions?

I just don’t think male anatomy works that way. And, if men do have such a condition, I *think *it is likely due to dysfunctional sexual habits, like excessive masturbation.

But either way, no one has a right to an orgasm, so I don’t think that your situation would maintain the OP’s argument.

 

[Rau]

What about, just for the sake of argument, a guy who had a really hard time reaching orgasm through normal means? If the couple wanted to have children, could they use that method to try instead of really long, frustrating sex sessions?

I suspect you are not entirely serious in that suggestion. I’m sure that proceeding to vaginal intercourse at some point prior to orgasm will vastly increase the chance of conception.

 

[Rau]

To the OP (Wowbagger):

AHS at post #26 seems to have provided a simple and direct defence of the church’s position. Do you find this persuasive?

I noted that you quoted from Aquinas, but I think you misuse the quote. He refers to “emitting” semen into the vagina (and from emission, automatically flows the notion of a “deposit”). I think you create confusion (in your own thinking) by introducing, separately, the notion of depositing semen into the vagina, as though that might be a separate act - perhaps 10 secs after orgasm, perhaps an hour, perhaps tomorrow.

The Emission and the Deposit can’t be separated in this way - and by doing so, you create the scenario as described by AHS - the woman masturbates the man to completion, and then, subsequently, man and woman engage in intercourse (of dubious quality given the circumstances). Nothing wrong with that latter act, but as AHS explained, the former act remains what it is.

 

[dskysmine]

Question – why aren’t guys allowed to masturbate for infertility treatment purposes? Using contraceptives is just as much a sin as masturbation, but women are allowed to use the Pill for medical reasons. Wouldn’t masturbating for infertility treatment testing fall under the same medical exemption?

Completely different things…
The use of “the pill” for medical reasons is because “the pill” doesn’t just have contraceptive/abortifacient properties.
For infertility treatments the Church allows for the use of specificly designed perforated condoms that some semen be available for study but that does not frustrate the marital act.

God bless,
D.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

My question is “Why would you do this in the first place?” This is clearly a question about how far you can go to get away with getting the most pleasure. But sex in itself feels better than oral sex, so this is confusing me quite a bit. Why take a counterfeit when you can have the real thing?