"The Marital Act is Holy" - question about how to understand this statement?

[mommamaree]

Hi everyone! I have seen the phrase “the marital act is holy” many times here on the forums and elsewhere in Christian writings. I just realized yesterday that I might be misunderstanding the meaning of the statement. So, here is my question.

When we are told that the marital act is holy, does it mean:

(a) since it is holy, we better be very careful how we engage in relations in order to avoid committing any sins!

OR

(b) the loving actions of the marital act themselves are good because the marital act is holy, so be thankful and happy.

A priest recently counseled me on my concerns with a few comments that pointed to interpretation (b), which was the absolute first time I had ever heard such an interpretation. He was kind but it left me very confused. Especially since so much of Christian dialogue on the topic of the marital act is reactionary and negative, because of the culture of hedonism and death in which we find ourselves today. I wonder, then, if the proper understanding is closer to (b) but that Christians today drift closer to (a) as a way to distance themselves from the depravity of the culture?

So what do y’all think? Is it (a) or (b), or something else entirely? What does the statement actually mean?

 

[pensmama87]

I think it is both. It is hard for me to explain it well.

I know that once I understood (b), doing (a) was easy (well, easier. Temptation is a real thing.) Following the “rules” no longer seemed hard or unfair. It made sense.

 

[Xantippe]

Hi everyone! I have seen the phrase “the marital act is holy” many times here on the forums and elsewhere in Christian writings. I just realized yesterday that I might be misunderstanding the meaning of the statement. So, here is my question.

When we are told that the marital act is holy, does it mean:

(a) since it is holy, we better be very careful how we engage in relations in order to avoid committing any sins!

OR

(b) the loving actions of the marital act themselves are good because the marital act is holy, so be thankful and happy.

A priest recently counseled me on my concerns with a few comments that pointed to interpretation (b), which was the absolute first time I had ever heard such an interpretation. He was kind but it left me very confused. Especially since so much of Christian dialogue on the topic of the marital act is reactionary and negative, because of the culture of hedonism and death in which we find ourselves today. I wonder, then, if the proper understanding is closer to (b) but that Christians today drift closer to (a) as a way to distance themselves from the depravity of the culture?

So what do y’all think? Is it (a) or (b), or something else entirely? What does the statement actually mean?

Both.

I had an English teacher in high school who explained the concept of “holy” in the Old Testament like this–think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis open the Ark. The holy is at the same time beautiful, awe-inspiring and terrifying. Use it properly and respectfully (like the Old Testament Levites) and all will be well. Open it up disrespectfully and with a user mentality like the Nazis and it will melt your face off.

 

[bubba1358]

The reason it’s holy is that it is allows us to share uniquely in the creative power of God. Through the act, we can participate in God’s ongoing work by helping to create a new soul.

And yes, I too believe it is both.

 

[Elizium23]

Both.

I had an English teacher in high school who explained the concept of “holy” in the Old Testament like this–think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis open the Ark. The holy is at the same time beautiful, awe-inspiring and terrifying. Use it properly and respectfully (like the Old Testament Levites) and all will be well. Open it up disrespectfully and with a user mentality like the Nazis and it will melt your face off.

So the next time you watch this film with your teenage children, whisper to them “that’s what happens when you masturbate!”

 

[dmar198]

So the next time you watch this film with your teenage children, whisper to them “that’s what happens when you masturbate!”

I don’t know… I think that might be a terrible way to bring up that topic. And perhaps you should say “if” not “when.” Not every teenager masturbates.

 

[LongingSoul]

Hi everyone! I have seen the phrase “the marital act is holy” many times here on the forums and elsewhere in Christian writings. I just realized yesterday that I might be misunderstanding the meaning of the statement. So, here is my question.

When we are told that the marital act is holy, does it mean:

(a) since it is holy, we better be very careful how we engage in relations in order to avoid committing any sins!

OR

(b) the loving actions of the marital act themselves are good because the marital act is holy, so be thankful and happy.

A priest recently counseled me on my concerns with a few comments that pointed to interpretation (b), which was the absolute first time I had ever heard such an interpretation. He was kind but it left me very confused. Especially since so much of Christian dialogue on the topic of the marital act is reactionary and negative, because of the culture of hedonism and death in which we find ourselves today. I wonder, then, if the proper understanding is closer to (b) but that Christians today drift closer to (a) as a way to distance themselves from the depravity of the culture?

So what do y’all think? Is it (a) or (b), or something else entirely? What does the statement actually mean?

When your Priest says ‘the loving actions of the marital act themselves are good because the marital act is holy,’… he is not affirming carte blanche on every possible act within the marriage because lust can render the marital act ‘unholy’ or perhaps unchaste would be a better word.

Premarital chastity and continence is a good apprenticeship for marital chastity because it forms the recognition of and habit of quelling lust. Lust and holy enjoyment can be difficult to distinguish when people move from the premarital sexual relationship to the marital sexual relationship where the only thing that has changed is the piece of paper and the wedding band. When the Catechism states ‘Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.’… it implies that there is some restraint in holiness. That restraint is in deference to Gods will and the experience of beatitude in following Gods plan for married love.

 

[boldlygo]

Hi everyone! I have seen the phrase “the marital act is holy” many times here on the forums and elsewhere in Christian writings. I just realized yesterday that I might be misunderstanding the meaning of the statement. So, here is my question.

When we are told that the marital act is holy, does it mean:

(a) since it is holy, we better be very careful how we engage in relations in order to avoid committing any sins!

OR

(b) the loving actions of the marital act themselves are good because the marital act is holy, so be thankful and happy.

A priest recently counseled me on my concerns with a few comments that pointed to interpretation (b), which was the absolute first time I had ever heard such an interpretation. He was kind but it left me very confused. Especially since so much of Christian dialogue on the topic of the marital act is reactionary and negative, because of the culture of hedonism and death in which we find ourselves today. I wonder, then, if the proper understanding is closer to (b) but that Christians today drift closer to (a) as a way to distance themselves from the depravity of the culture?

So what do y’all think? Is it (a) or (b), or something else entirely? What does the statement actually mean?

“Marital” implies both respect for one’s spouse and putting one’s spouse ahead of oneself…therefore: (b) is the only possible answer….

 

[EasterJoy]

Is there any conflict between something being worthy of care and even reverence and yet being necessary and worth rejoicing in? Of course not. There are many things for which we are thankful and therefore which we treat with reverence and care: friendships, family ties–4th Commandment, anyone?–food, the natural world, the animals in our care. Do we even treat a dog as if it were a mere possession to use as we choose? One hopes not! What is true of the marital embrace is true of all the greatest gifts in our lives.

 

[EasterJoy]

Both.

I had an English teacher in high school who explained the concept of “holy” in the Old Testament like this–think of the scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where the Nazis open the Ark. The holy is at the same time beautiful, awe-inspiring and terrifying. Use it properly and respectfully (like the Old Testament Levites) and all will be well. Open it up disrespectfully and with a user mentality like the Nazis and it will melt your face off.

I don’t know that I’d put it *quite *that way. The irreverent rarely suffer such an immediate and obvious rebuke, and those who love what is holy typically have a much more intimate and familial love for the sacred than Indiana Jones was depicted as having in that movie! (After all, where does the gradual revelation of the Prodigal Son’s ingratitude fit in the English teacher’s analogy?)

 

[mommamaree]

Okay, we have gone off the rails a bit in this discussion. I specifically meant a marital act, as in, the mutually agreeable loving interaction between a faithful husband and wife, such as is described by the renowned theologian, Germaine Grisez, in his writings, which are called The Way of The Lord Jesus. That right there eliminates coercion and contraception immediately. I have read his work several times now, and have found I understand it more each time.

However, for the question at hand, it seems that the consensus so far is that both understandings, (a) and (b), are applicable. What I find strange about that being the consensus is that, until recently, I had never encountered any hint of (b), and plenty of emphasis upon (a). It seems like it is a situation of ignore all the positives because the negatives are so very scary. I think that is sad, and I don’t want to contribute to other people missing out on the very important (b) understanding, especially when the culture is pushing so hard with their sex-positive mentality that is really a celebration of depravity. The Catholic culture should be able to offer wounded people something more beautiful, rather than presenting a picture that the marriage bed is an occasion of sin, especially for those people who willingly embrace the teaching of the twofold purpose of the marital act.

I am just making some observations as a convert. It seems that the discussions of Church teachings with regards to marital intimacy splits people into two camps: those who speak of it as if it is or should be an angelic experience, and those who say to keep the Church and other people’s noses out of their bedrooms. Grisez’s work is great, but I would love to see the topic presented in plainer speech, too. I think Grisez does a fine job of showing that both (a) and (b) are important, but for people who would appreciate a more concise and frank discussion, there isn’t that much out there.
I have read both West and Popcak, and find both to have some shortcomings that make their work not so helpful, too. So I find the tone of Grisez to be the best, but it takes hours to read and digest.
Anyway, I digress. My apologies.

 

[Richard_White]

I believe that it is both, because the marital act, by which a man and woman cooperate with God’s gift of life to bring new life into the world. Therefore, one should be very careful NOT to mess around with the sanctity of marriage and the marital act and to avoid sexual sin.

I hope this helps! May God bless you forever!

 

[LongingSoul]

I am just making some observations as a convert. It seems that the discussions of Church teachings with regards to marital intimacy splits people into two camps: those who speak of it as if it is or should be an angelic experience, and those who say to keep the Church and other people’s noses out of their bedrooms.

It’s not so much having an expectation of an ‘angelic’ experience through marital sex as that implies something of a sensual nature. It’s more an experience of ‘blessings’ that are associated with the longing to please God more than ourselves in everything we do.

The Beatitudes are an insight into how blessings meet the deepest needs and desires of man and the appreciation of that permeates every part of marital life… not just the marital bed.

I think this issue only really arises these days during discussions about the nature of oral and anal sex as foreplay and the promotion as good and holy, of anything done within marriage so long as it ends in vaginal sex. Restraint of any sort in consensual acts is seen as a heresy.

That is a false understanding of marital chastity.

 

[mommamaree]

It’s not so much having an expectation of an ‘angelic’ experience through marital sex as that implies something of a sensual nature. It’s more an experience of ‘blessings’ that are associated with the longing to please God more than ourselves in everything we do.

The Beatitudes are an insight into how blessings meet the deepest needs and desires of man and the appreciation of that permeates every part of marital life… not just the marital bed.

Restraint of any sort in consensual acts is seen as a heresy.

That is a false understanding of marital chastity.

Edited to highlight and remove some extraneous content.

I like the explanation that I highlighted in blue. That is something I will ponder. Although I must confess my dumbness, because your first sentence confused me. Could you rephrase or explain it for me, please?
Regarding the Beatitudes, I have never looked at them that way, nor have I heard anyone else discuss them in that way. I look forward to being able to grow in understanding as I continue to study and go to Mass and listen to homilies and find good books to read.
Regarding the removed content: I hope you will excuse my removing it, but I do not want to discuss specific acts and their morality in the thread, because I really wanted to focus upon the overall understanding of “the marital act is holy”. I know that there are plenty of other places on the forum where that discussion is happening or has happened, in case people are interested in debating such things.
My real question all boils down to, when we hear that the marital act is holy, there are various emotional responses that might occur. Might a person feel happy, or will they feel panicked? Will they be thankful or fearful?
Furthermore, holiness takes different forms depending upon one’s vocation, I think. Isn’t that true? The marriage vocation requires people to engage in an act which unmarried people must totally avoid. So, what for one person is a serious sin, would be for another person a real good. It can be confusing; maybe more confusing to converts like me than for cradle Catholics. I love reading good spiritual classics, but most of them were written by religious brothers/sisters for religious brothers/sisters. The way they speak of bodily purity and chastity would not be applicable to a married person striving to be holy. And if the marital act is one of the goods of marriage (have I got that term correct?) then someone who is married, but decides to reject the marital act, would not be acknowledging the real good of the act.
Sigh
I probably seem like I am rambling in my responses, and I apologize. I am just doing my best to retrain my brain to “think Catholic”.

 

[thewanderer]

My real question all boils down to, when we hear that the marital act is holy, there are various emotional responses that might occur. Might a person feel happy, or will they feel panicked? Will they be thankful or fearful?
.

I know for me its always been thankful and happy rather than fearful and panicky. I guess I’ve always focused on b rather than a, in fact, it never really crossed my mind to use the fact that its holy to focus on the negatives of what you can’t do. So it’s really interesting that your understanding and investigation into Catholic sources all led you to assume a whereas for me they all led me to assume b. I wonder why that is? It would be interesting to figure out if it has something to do with our personalities, or our mindset when reading Church teachings, or whatever it is that caused us to read the same types of things and come to such different conclusions.

 

[ricmat]

St. Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei put it this way: “The marriage bed is an altar.”

That should clear things up

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am sure it has something to do with being the first thing God commanded people to do. This first loving and primary command comes at a time before the fall. A time when his greatest Creation, humans, were untouched by sin and there was a mechanism in place to procreate, to be fruitful and multiply. This command to “do” something is obviously a Holy thing. For God did not assign this to all the animals even though some of them procreate in the same physical manner. By speaking this command God elevated the charge to humans as something not just physical but also divine in nature. Different from our animal counterparts. Probably because we are in God’s image.

 

[LongingSoul]

My real question all boils down to, when we hear that the marital act is holy, there are various emotional responses that might occur. Might a person feel happy, or will they feel panicked? Will they be thankful or fearful?

I’m not sure that having that sort of emotional response is a reflection of what being holy or sacred means. Say in a hospital you might be told that the surgery room was a sort of sacred space and the activities within could only be performed by a qualified surgeon… it might convey some things about the nature of surgery to you that warrant such regard. Firstly, the true worth of human beings to be given such an amazing gift to heal each other. Perhaps you would realise by the sterility and protectedness of the space, the dangers that could undermine this healing process from germs or lack of care. The way we guard the place, is a reflection of its ‘holy’ purpose.

Furthermore, holiness takes different forms depending upon one’s vocation, I think. Isn’t that true? The marriage vocation requires people to engage in an act which unmarried people must totally avoid. So, what for one person is a serious sin, would be for another person a real good. It can be confusing; maybe more confusing to converts like me than for cradle Catholics. I love reading good spiritual classics, but most of them were written by religious brothers/sisters for religious brothers/sisters. The way they speak of bodily purity and chastity would not be applicable to a married person striving to be holy. And if the marital act is one of the goods of marriage (have I got that term correct?) then someone who is married, but decides to reject the marital act, would not be acknowledging the real good of the act.

The irony of celibacy is that it can result in a greater respect and appreciation of the marital act than for those marrieds participating regularly. Even for marrieds, it is those periods of necessary abstinence that highlight the true nature and purpose of the act. Many times you see people feeling resentful and martyred by the contraints that are required by obedience to Catholic teaching and take on extreme philosophies of sex or give into contraception. It’d be like a surgeon having this great gift to heal and then resenting having to scrub up or gown up for each surgery. That doesn’t reflect the big picture of what he is doing at all.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

The irony of celibacy is that it can result in a greater respect and appreciation of the marital act than for those marrieds participating regularly. Even for marrieds, it is those periods of necessary abstinence that highlight the true nature and purpose of the act.

Can you or anyone else explain what that is supposed to mean?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can you or anyone else explain what that is supposed to mean?

I can’t. But I think it is supposed be NFP oriented. But in my opinion saying those that practice periodic abstinence have a better understanding and more complete understanding of the marital act is overstating the case… A common NFP mistake.