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

[mommamaree]

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.

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.

Regarding the first paragraph:
Okay, I understand what you are saying, although I will admit I hesitate at your analogy, mainly because surgery must be sterile, and holy marital sexual relations is neither sterile nor sterilized. But I think you are trying to get at the reverence and awe with which we should approach the marital act. However, this brings me right back to my point. If we must approach relations with reverence and awe, that is bound to elicit an emotional response in a person. I gave two examples from opposite ends of the spectrum, but there are other possible responses. So, it doesn’t really answer my question so much as support the necessity of asking the question.

Regarding the second paragraph:
Again, I think this is missing the point of my question. I am not agonizing over why I cannot do certain things. I converted principally because when I started researching what the Catholic Church taught about human sexuality and its proper use, I fell in love with the beauty of the faith. It led me to explore all the teachings and pore through the catechism. I wanted to be obedient, and wanted to know the truth so that I might act in accordance.
The reason I started this thread is because I am hoping to think Catholic in all areas of my life. Protestantism has some very serious heresies regarding sexuality, which were taught to me in my youth, which repulsed me then but conditioned me nonetheless. The secular culture is even worse. I have only had access to Catholic teaching for a few years, and so understanding some topics, especially those with as great depth and mystery and intimacy as marital relations, is going to take some time.
Many of the threads I have read here over the past few years was full of cradle Catholics who seemed to have an idea of relations that is so ethereal and angelic as to be unbelievable. I do not believe that seeking to give and receive pleasure in the marital act is hedonistic or sinful, but many posts here have made me doubt my certainty. And when spiritual classic advise to shun all earthly pleasures, well, they kind of lose me there. If a spouse were to shun the pleasure of the marital act, they would be rejecting the gift their spouse is freely offering them, and that amounts to a rejection of the person themself. How cruel it would be to refuse such a gift in the process of striving for holiness! So that is why I assert that married holiness is different in form than celibate holiness, and I, for one, would love to see more written, not from the perspective of what is permissible or not, but from the perspective of the holiness of married love and what does that look like and how does it shape a Christian marriage. But without words like “parvity”.

 

[LongingSoul]

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

mommamaree, was expressing some reservations that celebate Priests and nuns could speak on sexual ethics in a credible way but we entrust our choices and decisions on that side of life to the guidance of these holy people.

The ability to appreciate the beauty or experience the meaning of something… is not limited to experiencing it first hand. Sex is not just a physical expression of physical feelings. It is also a natural expression of our purpose as human beings within society and a spiritual expression of mans relationship with God.

A person who chooses the spiritual expression of his natural purpose, experiences a natural void that is drawn on in being a spouse to the Church or a Father to his flock or a *brother or sister *in Christ. That is why a person with deep seated homosexual tendencies of asexuality cannot be a Priest. The capacity to draw on the natural purpose is necessary for the spiritual expression of that purpose.

Fasting, abstinence and almsgiving testify to meaningful purpose of self denial also. In a simple analogy, if you live in the desert, water has a more esteemed place in you life. Appreciation for its nature and purpose to our existence is heightened. If our access to water is uninhibited we can take if for granted and feel entitled to freedom to do whatever we want with it. Using it carefully and with purpose is the right and proper reflection of its preciousness and our humble appreciation.

 

[mommamaree]

mommamaree, was expressing some reservations that celebate Priests and nuns could speak on sexual ethics in a credible way but we entrust our choices and decisions on that side of life to the guidance of these holy people.

.

No, I was most certainly not. That is a misrepresentation of my words. I said that the spiritual classics I was reading were written by religious sisters and brothers FOR religious sisters and brothers. As in, the writings were specifically written to edify fellow religious sisters and brothers, but that later, lay people came to appreciate many parts of the texts, contributing to their widespread acceptance and appreciation. That has nothing at all to do with reservations about priests and nuns being inexperienced in sexual matters. Please do not mischaracterize my points. It is very frustrating and upsetting.

I am not lamenting a lack of freedom.
I am not complaining about celibate persons, or implying they lack understanding.

I fear that this thread is going nowhere fast. Instead of giving me a better understanding, this has only served to frustrate me more.

 

[LASAD602]

This may not answer your question. But, to me what has made sense with this type of statement “the marital act is holy” is that the act, open to life, brings with the possibility of cooperating with the miracle of God creating human life through the act. If the act is frustrated through contraception, it is no longer holy.

Also, I had that question about the marital bed myself and my understanding is that being married doesn’t make certain acts holy just because of the Sacrament. The marriage bed is to be undefiled. That is we are not to participate in unseemly, immoral activities in the bedroom. This is where the whole TOB and especially that one conjugal apologist, I can’t remember his name right now … gave such a scandal stating that immoral acts, previously associated with homosexuals and pagans, were perfectly okay in the marriage bed, as long as things were completed appropriately.

When you receive the Lord of the Universe in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist into your mouth … doesn’t it occur to anyone that this Holy Food should not be tainted not only be unconsecrated hands, but undefiled tongue as well ?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Also, I had that question about the marital bed myself and my understanding is that being married doesn’t make certain acts holy just because of the Sacrament. The marriage bed is to be undefiled. That is we are not to participate in **unseemly, immoral activities **in the bedroom. This is where the whole TOB and especially that one conjugal apologist, I can’t remember his name right now … gave such a scandal stating that immoral acts, previously associated with homosexuals and pagans, were perfectly okay in the marriage bed, as long as things were completed appropriately.

When you receive the Lord of the Universe in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist into your mouth … doesn’t it occur to anyone that this Holy Food should not be tainted not only be unconsecrated hands, but undefiled tongue as well ?

I hope I am not distracting from mommamaree’s point here, but I still struggle with the Catholic view on sex, despite being catechized extensively. I think part of that is because all of the Catholic documents I have read on the subject are vague, flowery and poetic rather than direct… I guess for fear of causing arousal. But still, it has the side effect of leaving questions unanswered.

The other part of the problem for me is that I have created this dichotomy between holy and unholy, clean and dirty. I know exactly what unholy and dirty are—rejoicing in the pleasures of sex, having no limitations, selfishness, exploring new ideas, not welcoming guilt and so on. So I just figure that the opposite must be holy and clean. But the opposite of what I have described as unholy is not tasking pleasure in sex, selflessness, having as many limitations as possible, never trying anything new and always feeling guilty about everything.

This would seem to require a kind of non-physical sex. No arousal, no enjoyment, no exchange of bodily fluids, as that would be dirty. But I don’t understand how that could be possible: sex cannot be a non-physical act, it is a physical one. It cannot be a completely clean event, as there are bodily fluids involved. It cannot be one that fully rejects pleasure, as consensual sex is virtually impossible if both partners are not enjoying it somewhat. It cannot be a completely selfless act, either, as it must involve the self. In other words, as a man, if I never think of myself or embrace my desires during the act, then physically the act simply won’t work and likewise for a woman. And then I’m told that I’m supposed to do this act and embrace it as it is a part of marriage, but also I’m supposed to feel guilty enjoying the sight or touch or taste of my wife, for giving in to these base, unholy/unclean desires. And foreplay is wrong, and so on.

And you can’t get much illumination because it cannot be discussed in a “dirty” (that is, direct) way.

It is all very, very confusing.

 

[mommamaree]

Good post, Veritas.

You express some of my thoughts well.

The marital act is holy and beautiful, but never sterile or “clean”. I think it is too easy to connect cleanliness to godliness in our finite human intellect. We are earthy, sensual beings. Sexual intercourse is a sensuous experience, as in, engaging our senses in a dramatic way.

My husband, who converted to the faith with me, and I were discussing this aspect, as well as the reality that sexual relations is very different from all other earthly pleasures. A husband gives the gift of himself to his wife, bringing her joy and pleasure. A wife gives herself to her husband, bringing him joy and pleasure. I think that is why rejecting the pleasure of the marital act would be so hurtful. In striving for an illusory holiness, one would reject the gift of another human being, and not merely practicing self-mortification, as in restraining oneself with food or other earthly pleasures.

Just some quick thoughts. I gotta run. I will check in tomorrow to see if the thread has any more activity. God bless.

 

[LongingSoul]

I hope I am not distracting from mommamaree’s point here, but I still struggle with the Catholic view on sex, despite being catechized extensively. I think part of that is because all of the Catholic documents I have read on the subject are vague, flowery and poetic rather than direct… I guess for fear of causing arousal. But still, it has the side effect of leaving questions unanswered.

The other part of the problem for me is that I have created this dichotomy between holy and unholy, clean and dirty. I know exactly what unholy and dirty are—rejoicing in the pleasures of sex, having no limitations, selfishness, exploring new ideas, not welcoming guilt and so on. So I just figure that the opposite must be holy and clean. But the opposite of what I have described as unholy is not tasking pleasure in sex, selflessness, having as many limitations as possible, never trying anything new and always feeling guilty about everything.

This would seem to require a kind of non-physical sex. No arousal, no enjoyment, no exchange of bodily fluids, as that would be dirty. But I don’t understand how that could be possible: sex cannot be a non-physical act, it is a physical one. It cannot be a completely clean event, as there are bodily fluids involved. It cannot be one that fully rejects pleasure, as consensual sex is virtually impossible if both partners are not enjoying it somewhat. It cannot be a completely selfless act, either, as it must involve the self. In other words, as a man, if I never think of myself or embrace my desires during the act, then physically the act simply won’t work and likewise for a woman. And then I’m told that I’m supposed to do this act and embrace it as it is a part of marriage, but also I’m supposed to feel guilty enjoying the sight or touch or taste of my wife, for giving in to these base, unholy/unclean desires. And foreplay is wrong, and so on.

And you can’t get much illumination because it cannot be discussed in a “dirty” (that is, direct) way.

It is all very, very confusing.

You’ll have to be more specific and actually quote the statements that inferred that pleasure is evil and foreplay is wrong.

Normally the discussion arises *from particular acts such as oral and anul sex as foreplay *and the nature of lust as the “disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.” You are mistaken if this implies that all foreplay is wrong in itself and all pleasure is wrong.

 

[Xantippe]

I hope I am not distracting from mommamaree’s point here, but I still struggle with the Catholic view on sex, despite being catechized extensively. I think part of that is because all of the Catholic documents I have read on the subject are vague, flowery and poetic rather than direct… I guess for fear of causing arousal. But still, it has the side effect of leaving questions unanswered.

**I don’t think it’s that hard. I don’t have the documents at hand, but marital sex should involve procreative activities and not be degrading. I think with not “not degrading” you do enter into an area where there is a lot of room for subjective judgment. At a minimum, if the activity disgusts one of the spouses, it’s a problem. **

The other part of the problem for me is that I have created this dichotomy between holy and unholy, clean and dirty.

**There’s clean dirt and dirty dirt, if you know what I mean.

There’s lots of dirt outside that is clean and wholesome and life-giving in its place, but if you bring it indoors and sprinkle it over your dinner casserole or birthday cake, it isn’t so nice. (This is an analogy from C.S. Lewis’s The Four Loves, freely adapted by me.)

Everything has a place. **

I know exactly what unholy and dirty are—rejoicing in the pleasures of sex, having no limitations, selfishness, exploring new ideas, not welcoming guilt and so on.

Only two of those seem clearly wrong (no limitations and selfishness).

So I just figure that the opposite must be holy and clean. But the opposite of what I have described as unholy is not tasking pleasure in sex, selflessness, having as many limitations as possible, never trying anything new and always feeling guilty about everything.

???

This would seem to require a kind of non-physical sex. No arousal, no enjoyment, no exchange of bodily fluids, as that would be dirty. But I don’t understand how that could be possible: sex cannot be a non-physical act, it is a physical one. It cannot be a completely clean event, as there are bodily fluids involved. It cannot be one that fully rejects pleasure, as consensual sex is virtually impossible if both partners are not enjoying it somewhat. It cannot be a completely selfless act, either, as it must involve the self. In other words, as a man, if I never think of myself or embrace my desires during the act, then physically the act simply won’t work and likewise for a woman.

**It’s at least a logistical possibility for the woman. **

**Your catechesis, while extensive, sounds like it must have been a train wreck. **

And then I’m told that I’m supposed to do this act and embrace it as it is a part of marriage, but also I’m supposed to feel guilty enjoying the sight or touch or taste of my wife, for giving in to these base, unholy/unclean desires. And foreplay is wrong, and so on.

???

And you can’t get much illumination because it cannot be discussed in a “dirty” (that is, direct) way.

**Don’t do degrading stuff and don’t perform sexual acts to completion that could not, under any circumstances, produce a baby. **

It is all very, very confusing.

Nope.

 

[thewanderer]

I think the point VeritasLuxMea was making is that despite the fact that the understanding he portrayed in his post is clearly incorrect, often times that is the understanding people have of Church teaching, even after reading the official documents themselves.

This even happens to people who technically understand that the Church teaches that sex is good and holy, but practically, in their lives, they have to treat it as something bad to be avoided so that they do not sin through lust. And so, while they theoretically know that it is good and holy, the reality they experience teaches them to treat it as though it is a bad and dirty thing. And the more priests and religious focus on the “lust is sinful and will send you to hell” without good ways to help people incorporate and develop a healthy view of sexuality the more people end up viewing and treating sex as bad and “dirty” while trying to be a “good little Catholic”.

I guess I’m kind of rambling, but, mommamarie, would it be fair to say your question about what it means to say sex is holy kind of amounts to a question about how to develop a healthy understanding of sex rather than falling into the trap of viewing it as somehow dirty and bad even while knowing that it is theoretically good and holy?

 

[mommamaree]

I think the point VeritasLuxMea was making is that despite the fact that the understanding he portrayed in his post is clearly incorrect, often times that is the understanding people have of Church teaching, even after reading the official documents themselves.

This even happens to people who technically understand that the Church teaches that sex is good and holy, but practically, in their lives, they have to treat it as something bad to be avoided so that they do not sin through lust. And so, while they theoretically know that it is good and holy, the reality they experience teaches them to treat it as though it is a bad and dirty thing. And the more priests and religious focus on the “lust is sinful and will send you to hell” without good ways to help people incorporate and develop a healthy view of sexuality the more people end up viewing and treating sex as bad and “dirty” while trying to be a “good little Catholic”.

I guess I’m kind of rambling, but, mommamarie, would it be fair to say your question about what it means to say sex is holy kind of amounts to a question about how to develop a healthy understanding of sex rather than falling into the trap of viewing it as somehow dirty and bad even while knowing that it is theoretically good and holy?

Yes, this is what I am asking. It is precisely why I am insisting that I will not engage in discussions of acts themselves. I don’t think it is relevant to this thread. I am asking how to develop a Catholic worldview, not discuss the topography of an area.
I think perhaps people who were raised with a healthy understanding of human sexuality cannot really understand what it must be like for people who are conditioned by depraved teachings and perverted attitudes by their parents, teachers, and other elders, as they attempt to cast off the attitudes they hate and embrace the beauty of the Church. It is hard work and it takes time. And there aren’t really that many resources for them to turn to, unfortunately. I have read and listened to every resource I could find so far, and I am still working on removing old conditioning and training myself to think Catholic, especially in this aspect of life. And with the gravity that is attached to human sexuality, the urgent need to get it right and avoid sin, while already being in a Catholic marriage, makes it very challenging.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think the point VeritasLuxMea was making is that despite the fact that the understanding he portrayed in his post is clearly incorrect, often times that is the understanding people have of Church teaching, even after reading the official documents themselves.

That (and the rest of your post) is exactly what I meant. Thank you for being so gracious and saying it better than I could.

It’s sort of about developing a false (?) dichotomy between the holy and the base. Sex cannot help but involve the base, but it’s also supposed to be holy. And reconciling the two is something that I have been unable to do and it’s something that no one else has been able to do for me.

I hope this point is close to the issues that mommamaree is inquiring about.

 

[Xantippe]

That (and the rest of your post) is exactly what I meant. Thank you for being so gracious and saying it better than I could.

It’s sort of about developing a false (?) dichotomy between the holy and the base. Sex cannot help but involve the base, but it’s also supposed to be holy. And reconciling the two is something that I have been unable to do and it’s something that no one else has been able to do for me.

I hope this point is close to the issues that mommamaree is inquiring about.

I wouldn’t say “the base.” Maybe just “nature”? So it’s a point of intersection between the natural and the supernatural.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I wouldn’t say “the base.” Maybe just “nature”? So it’s a point of intersection between the natural and the supernatural.

I hesitate to use the word natural because of all of the various meanings that can have, so if we’re throwing away the natural law meaning for the moment, then…

I suppose that you will consider pro-creative ability and giving of self to be the supernatural aspects of sex.

In that case, we praise those things - the supernatural things - as that which is good within sex.

And then all of the bad things about sex seem to be natural things - for the sake of an example, let’s say… all of the aspects of a pornstar’s sex life. Which is not to say that all natural things really are bad, but all of the bad things just happen to be natural ones too.

So at that point, I was conditioned to think that in an ideal world, sex would be done without bodies and without physical contact.

 

[Xantippe]

I hesitate to use the word natural because of all of the various meanings that can have, so if we’re throwing away the natural law meaning for the moment, then…

I suppose that you will consider pro-creative ability and giving of self to be the supernatural aspects of sex.

I actually would think of that more as the natural. The procreation and the self-giving are pretty much biologically built-in. I think the natural is a jumping off place for the supernatural.

In that case, we praise those things - the supernatural things - as that which is good within sex.

And then all of the bad things about sex seem to be natural things - for the sake of an example, let’s say… all of the aspects of a pornstar’s sex life.

"Natural" is not really the first word that comes to mind to describe that. It’s pretty much freakishly artificial from beginning to end. That’s pretty much the least natural sex on the planet.

Which is not to say that all natural things really are bad, but all of the bad things just happen to be natural ones too.

So at that point, I was conditioned to think that in an ideal world, sex would be done without bodies and without physical contact.

By whom?

Again, everybody read C.S. Lewis’s “The Four Loves.” It’s short! You’ll like it!

 

[LongingSoul]

I hesitate to use the word natural because of all of the various meanings that can have, so if we’re throwing away the natural law meaning for the moment, then…

I suppose that you will consider pro-creative ability and giving of self to be the supernatural aspects of sex.

In that case, we praise those things - the supernatural things - as that which is good within sex.

And then all of the bad things about sex seem to be natural things - for the sake of an example, let’s say… all of the aspects of a pornstar’s sex life. Which is not to say that all natural things really are bad, but all of the bad things just happen to be natural ones too.

So at that point, I was conditioned to think that in an ideal world, sex would be done without bodies and without physical contact.

There is a problem with focusing on a particular being to determine the rights and wrongs of sex. ie. “a pornstar’s sex life”. We don’t have any idea about another persons moral conditioning and their culpability in Gods eyes. It’s better to stick with what is clear and addressed by Church teaching. It’s clear that to be married and open to life are essential… and to be chaste is understood more widely within the context of the whole of your Catholic practice. One of the most wonderful things about the Catholic faith is the healing effects of sacramental grace. Through confirmation we are capable of our own holy wisdom and through regular reception of penance and holy Communion we cultivate that wisdom.

I know with my adult kids we get into these convoluted discussions and I remind them that your intellect is only so helpful on its own.

 

[mommamaree]

By whom?

Again, everybody read C.S. Lewis’s “The Four Loves.” It’s short! You’ll like it!

I plan to! It is now on my list of books to finally read, thanks to this conversation. I have been put through the wringer today, with my 3hr glucose test, but I intend to pick it up this weekend.

 

[Xantippe]

I plan to! It is now on my list of books to finally read, thanks to this conversation. I have been put through the wringer today, with my 3hr glucose test, but I intend to pick it up this weekend.

Excellent!

 

[mommamaree]

Longing Soul,
I want to thank you for returning to this thread, despite our difficulties in understanding each other, and continuing to participate in order to get to the heart of this topic. I so often appreciate your perspective in threads on other topics, so it makes an impact upon me that you continue to post. Thank you.

Everyone else,
Thank you for participating and exploring this topic sincerely and tactfully.

Another thought I had today, as I was getting ready to meet my new godson

Motherhood is another example of something that is an opportunity for holiness, but can be debased, but not by way of its earthiness. Babies are born in the most gooey, indelicate way imaginable. If humans were designing childbirth, we would never humble ourselves to participate in such an act. But it is a moment that is mysterious and powerful and hard to understand until you have gone through it, yet every human has an awe and basic idea of the importance of it. A similar, related experience is nursing the baby. Again, it involves a gift of self, mother to child.
Many people are so appalled by childbirth and breastfeeding that they reject that experience and the women who go through it. They express their disgust for childbirth and they shame mothers for caring for their nurslings (I have experienced just such condemnation, so I am not making this up). Then there are people on the opposite ends of the spectrum who make a show about it and become rather exhibitionist with the physical aspects of motherhood. But a humble person would simply appreciate the power of the experiences and approach them with reverence, giving privacy to mother and child and displaying a healthy modesty (not body shame or seclusion, though) in such moments in one’s own experience.

Furthermore, motherhood can be lived out in a Christ-centered way, or a self-centered way. One would be sanctifying, and the other would lead to condemnation.

For myself, it is far easier to understand how to think Catholic about motherhood, despite the fact that motherhood and fatherhood have both been under attack in the world for a long time, than to think Catholic about the marital act, which brings about motherhood and fatherhood. I would really like to locate that disconnect within myself, and fix it. A short synopsis of the basic reality is that sexual relations is meant for the marriage relationship and its purpose is babies and bonding (procreative and unitive). So how can I take this truth, put the giant HOLY stamp on it and bind it in my heart, so that right action and joyful attitude finally prevail, without fear or anxiety?

Just a side note, autocorrect has been going crazy in my posts. I must be using rather uncommon language quite frequently!

 

[mommamaree]

There is a problem with focusing on a particular being to determine the rights and wrongs of sex. ie. “a pornstar’s sex life”. We don’t have any idea about another persons moral conditioning and their culpability in Gods eyes. It’s better to stick with what is clear and addressed by Church teaching. It’s clear that to be married and open to life are essential… and to be chaste is understood more widely within the context of the whole of your Catholic practice. One of the most wonderful things about the Catholic faith is the healing effects of sacramental grace. Through confirmation we are capable of our own holy wisdom and through regular reception of penance and holy Communion we cultivate that wisdom.

I know with my adult kids we get into these convoluted discussions and I remind them that your intellect is only so helpful on its own.

This, I think, is what I needed to hear. There is only so far that my intellect can take me in this area. I have already entrusted myself to the guidance of the Catholic Church, and willingly researched and submitted to the teachings regarding permissible and impermissible actions. So, I really shouldn’t fear mortal sin like I have been. However, continuing with regular reception of the sacraments, and continuing to pray for healing and understanding, is my path forward. I guess I have really been afraid of error, and unwilling to acknowledge that purging the conditioning of the world will take time. I have no patience for my own faults. I wanna be holy and I want it now. But coming face-to-face with my own inability to heal myself and consistently practice virtue has been wonderfully humiliating.
I had been afraid that this thread was going nowhere, but instead now I have much greater hope that the Holy Spirit will guide me and I will not be left in confusion and anxiety, or worse, sin.

 

[LongingSoul]

Longing Soul,
I want to thank you for returning to this thread, despite our difficulties in understanding each other, and continuing to participate in order to get to the heart of this topic. I so often appreciate your perspective in threads on other topics, so it makes an impact upon me that you continue to post. Thank you.

Not a problem. I often get a surprise that I’ve offended someone but put it down to what is probably some Aspergersness in me. (Autism has featured well in our family) I sometimes read something into someones statement thats come from my contemplation rather than from their words.:whacky: