The Marital Act & Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter BIB_MT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BIB_MT

Guest
OK, so I posted quite awhile ago asking about what is considered sin between husband and wife, sexually. I thought I had a good understanding of what is and isn’t permissible. Then, last night I stumbled upon this article that contradicted what I know to be popular Catholic belief.

TMI Warning: My specific question was if it is okay to use oral or hand stimulation as foreplay, so long as the husband finishes the traditional way. I thought it was okay the last time I asked this question. The article I read said it is NOT. So now I’m confused.

I can link to the full article (catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm), but here are some excerpts from it:

"Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.

If you know that it is an unnatural sexual act, then you know that it is wrong. You do not need know the circumstances, or the intention, or the end result. You can be certain that it is wrong simply because it is an unnatural sexual act. Unnatural sexual acts are always wrong, even if done with a good intention or purpose. Each and every unnatural sexual act is always objectively gravely immoral, even if it is preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital sexual relations. These acts are immoral, even if such acts are between a man and a woman who are married to each another. Always means always. There are no exceptions.
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2352)
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is “intrinsically and gravely disordered.” The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs” is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism."

&

"Is oral, anal, or manual stimulation permissible as an act of foreplay, if it is completed with sexual climax during an act of natural marital relations open to life?

No. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to its morality. These sexual acts are unnatural, and not open to life, and intrinsically disordered, therefore they can never be justified, even if they are not completed with sexual climax, or even if they are completed with sexual climax during natural marital relations, regardless of whether they precede, coincide with, or follow an act of natural marital relations open to life.

If an act is intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral when completed by itself, then it must still be intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral even when it is only partial or is combined with an act which is moral. The morality of the latter act does not change the morality of the former act. This applies regardless of whether the acts concern sexuality or some other area of morality."
This is all concerning to me because, if true, we both need to head to the Confessional. Any help?
 
Ok where on earth did you get this? If there is no manual or oral stimulation (not to climax of the male) allowed how is sex going to occur? I mean a couple in their thirties, forties or older start needing a little, um 😊 assistance to get things moving in the right direction 😉

Oral and manual stimulation of the male is fine so long as his climax occurs vaginally. A woman can be orally or manually stimulated even to climax right before or after vaginal sex if it doesn’t work out for her during sex (which it doesn’t for a lot of women.). Anal stimulation is never allowed.

What you mentioned in your post is fine! 🙂
 
Oh and I checked out that web site you got your information from. Stay far far away from there. This website was made by a layperson who was a former CAF member. He was a troublemaker here and many of his threads got locked. He was one of those that was often “more catholic than the pope.” 😉 Stay here. Ewtn is also a good place to hang out 👍
 
Convert_in_99 said:
Oh and I checked out that web site you got your information from. Stay far far away from there. This website was made by a layperson who was a former CAF member. He was a troublemaker here and many of his threads got locked. He was one of those that was often “more catholic than the pope.” 😉 Stay here. Ewtn is also a good place to hang out 👍
Click to expand...
Good advice. Here’s a little bit more on “Catholic” planet: catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892
 
Please stay AWAY from that site.

It has no review or approval from a Catholic bishop, no imprimatur or nihil obstat.
 
Yeah, Mr. Conte was always pushing that particular idea here, too.

He makes a decent argument based on the three fonts of morality – but, like the OP, I have heard the opposite from trusted Catholic sources.

Based on that site, he seems to be further along the “anti-magisterium fringe Catholic” spectrum than I’d previously thought, though. Not good.

Usagi
 
Phew! Glad I asked about this. I was wondering if this guy was legit or not. Glad you all brought his credibility issues to my attention. Using the CCC quotes and the saints, etc, he really made enough of an argument that made me wonder if he was right and question it. But I’m glad to hear this is false. I hadn’t heard about this guy before; I just did a search for “catholic objectifying women in marriage” or something like that and stumbled upon it.
Convert_in_99 said:
Ok where on earth did you get this? If there is no manual or oral stimulation (not to climax of the male) allowed how is sex going to occur? I mean a couple in their thirties, forties or older start needing a little, um 😊 assistance to get things moving in the right direction 😉
Click to expand...
Exactly. This would have pretty much been a death sentence for sex life.
 
Check out Germaine Grisez’ The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 3, where he addresses a question dealing with permissible sexual activity for elderly married couples. The analysis of the moral dimensions is applicable to all ages of married couples, I would think.

TWOTLJ is completely available online. Here’s a link to the present topic: twotlj.org/G-3-29.html
 
1ke said:
Please stay AWAY from that site.

It has no review or approval from a Catholic bishop, no imprimatur or nihil obstat.
Click to expand...
Yes, as erudite as Ron can sound, he is “self-appointed”.

His idea that the definition of masturbation includes any and all pleasurable stimulation of one partners genitals, in the course of spousal relations, not caused by the effects of copulation, is a remarkable twisting of the Catechism.

His website is but one lay Catholic’s opinion.
 
I would like to respectfully address a few points raised by the posts above.
  • I am a current member of CAF, not a former member.
  • ad hominem arguments are not valid, and should not carry weight in a theological discussion among Christians. I reasonably expect a discussion with my fellow Catholics to be polite and free of personal attacks.
  • Other authors have proposed similar answers to questions on marital foreplay and sexual acts. For example:
  1. Catholic theologians Alice von Hildebrand and her husband Dietrich.
    catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999
  2. Father Gow gives his answer in a CAF thread here:
    forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=535187
  3. Fr. Morrow, who has a Ph.D. from the John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family, argues that “oral-genital and anal-genital acts should be considered illicit in (or out of) marriage” (p. 63) even if these foreplay activities would conclude with procreative vaginal intercourse. Fr. Thomas G. Morrow, “Rethinking marital foreplay.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review (May 2010) p. 58-63.
  4. Fr. Brian W. Harrison O.S. S.T.D., in his article “Probabilism, Probabiliorism, and Marital Chastity”, condemns unconsummated unnatural sexual acts as gravely immoral. Here is a quote from his article:
I am referring to the question of whether unconsummated acts of oral-genital stimulation and anal penetration are permissible for married couples as part of sexual foreplay. Of course, all orthodox Catholics know that consummated acts of this sort - those deliberately terminating in orgasm - are mortal sins of impurity. For, together with masturbation, homosexual acts, ‘withdrawal’, contraception and bestiality, those practices belong to that general category of perverse sexual acts which by their very nature exclude the possibility of procreation…
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas, in discussing “the sin against nature” (under which heading he understands the whole ensemble of deviant acts listed near the beginning of my previous paragraph), has a couple of terse remarks that could really only refer to impure and unnatural forms of foreplay. In ST IIa IIae, Q. 154, art. 11, at the end of the corpus, he speaks of a man and woman “not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial methods of copulation” (my emphasis). Since these “monstrous and bestial methods”, being clearly the worst of the “either/or” alternatives he has in mind, would have to include consummated (orgasm-attaining) acts of oral and anal sex, what could the previous alternative be (“undue means”) other than unconsummated acts of the same sort?
Click to expand...
The very end of the next article (Q. 154, art. 12, ad 4) is similar, but clearer. Here Thomas again brands as an unnatural sin the behaviour of a man and woman who “do not observe the right manner of copulation”. But he adds that such a sin “is more grievous if the abuse regards the receptacle (vas) than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances”…
Click to expand...
And how grave are such sins? These same articles of the Summa make it clear that St. Thomas sees unnatural male-female acts as being the least grievous form of the “sin against nature” except for masturbation. But, like all orthodox Catholic moralists, he considers even unconsummated masturbation to be per se mortally sinful (“grave matter”, in theological language). So does the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that masturbation, defined simply as deliberately seeking isolated sexual pleasure from one’s own organs (i.e., with or without reaching orgasm) is “gravely disordered” (no. 2352). So it is clear that Aquinas, even though he does not spell this out, would logically consider even unconsummated oral and anal sex between husband and wife to be mortally sinful, thus creating a need for sincere sacramental confession prior to approaching Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
 
  1. Saint Augustine condemned this type of sexual behavior within marriage as gravely immoral.
“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).
  1. In Theologia Moralis, Saint Alphonsus Liguori dealt with the specific question of a wife using “touches” subsequent to marital intercourse to obtain climax. He condemned this behavior because it is neither procreative nor unitive.
  2. As Pope Pius XII taught in Address to Midwives:
"66. If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” [the generation and education of offspring] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.

"67. Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.

“68. This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian – a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality.”

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they are deprived of both the procreative and unitive meanings. I do not want any of my fellow Catholics to be led into committing grave sexual sins within marriage. For holy Matrimony is a Sacrament, and the Sacrament includes marital relations.
 
OP just so you know this thread will most likely be locked now :rolleyes:

Please stick with our former suggestions on this topic. Ron is not ordained and has no authority to be speaking on this matter, or filling our heads with his opinions (and that is all that they are!). You are completely fine with all we discussed earlier. God bless!
 
Ron_Conte said:
I would like to respectfully address a few points raised by the posts above.
  • I am a current member of CAF, not a former member.
  • ad hominem arguments are not valid, and should not carry weight in a theological discussion among Christians. I reasonably expect a discussion with my fellow Catholics to be polite and free of personal attacks.
  • Other authors have proposed similar answers to questions on marital foreplay and sexual acts. For example:
  1. Catholic theologians Alice von Hildebrand and her husband Dietrich.
    catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999
  2. Father Gow gives his answer in a CAF thread here:
    forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=535187
  3. Fr. Morrow, who has a Ph.D. from the John Paul II Institute for Studies in Marriage and Family, argues that “oral-genital and anal-genital acts should be considered illicit in (or out of) marriage” (p. 63) even if these foreplay activities would conclude with procreative vaginal intercourse. Fr. Thomas G. Morrow, “Rethinking marital foreplay.” Homiletic and Pastoral Review (May 2010) p. 58-63.
  4. Fr. Brian W. Harrison O.S. S.T.D., in his article “Probabilism, Probabiliorism, and Marital Chastity”, condemns unconsummated unnatural sexual acts as gravely immoral. Here is a quote from his article:
Click to expand...
Why do you refuse, still, to answer to my questions, to my objections and to my interrogations concerning the moral order of the marital act, in the details with all subtleties? What are your reasons for not answering? Why do you refuse to develop your deep intellectual approach about this very particular topic? Why do you use, always, always and always, the same reasoning?
 
Without getting into the particular questions (no time and there are solid Catholic sources out there) - I would not recommend that website (Catholic Planet). Nor am I aware of any Catholic person of note or organization of note that would recommend it either. Note too there is a lack of the needed imprimatur for published works (at least two of them require such).
 
Let’s see catechism of the Catholic Church states in #2362:

"The acts of 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. SEXUALITY IS A SOURCE OF JOY AND PLEASURE.

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"

OK where does it say we can’t enjoy sex and all that comes with it! 😉 As long as the male climax (the sperm) always goes in the vagina, looks like it’s pretty much all good! 👍
 
Ron_Conte said:
  1. Saint Augustine condemned this type of sexual behavior within marriage as gravely immoral.
“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).
  1. In Theologia Moralis, Saint Alphonsus Liguori dealt with the specific question of a wife using “touches” subsequent to marital intercourse to obtain climax. He condemned this behavior because it is neither procreative nor unitive.
  2. As Pope Pius XII taught in Address to Midwives:
"66. If nature had aimed exclusively, or at least in the first place, at a reciprocal gift and possession of the married couple in joy and delight, and if it had ordered that act only to make happy in the highest possible degree their personal experience, and not to stimulate them to the service of life, then the Creator would have adopted another plan in forming and constituting the natural act. Now instead, all this is subordinated and ordered to that unique great law of the “generatio et educatio prolis,” [the generation and education of offspring] namely the accomplishment of the primary end of matrimony as the origin and source of life.

"67. Unfortunately, unceasing waves of hedonism invade the world and threaten to submerge, in the swelling tide of thoughts, desires, and acts, the whole of marital life, and not without serious dangers and grave prejudice to the primary duty of husband and wife.

“68. This anti-Christian hedonism too often is not ashamed to elevate itself to a doctrine, inculcating the ardent desire to make always more intense the pleasure, in the preparation and in the performance of the conjugal union, as if in matrimonial relations the whole moral law were reduced to the normal performance of the act itself, and as if all the rest, in whatever way it is done, were justified by the expression of mutual affection, were sanctified by the Sacrament of Matrimony, and made worthy of praise and reward before God and conscience. There is no thought at all of the dignity of man and of the Christian – a dignity which restrains the excess of sensuality.”

Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they are deprived of both the procreative and unitive meanings. I do not want any of my fellow Catholics to be led into committing grave sexual sins within marriage. For holy Matrimony is a Sacrament, and the Sacrament includes marital relations.
Click to expand...
They won’t be led into grave sin because it’s not any kind of sin. Leading others to despair and hopelessness can also be a sin, even a grave one. You are being “more Catholic than the Pope!”
 
I believe that Jesus’s own words in Matthew 23 warn us strongly against trying to see what us the strictest interpretation we can justify…

Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees.
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. 3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

Praying for us all,
  • curl
(spoken by one who has personally paid a VERY heavy price for the Catholic teachings on sexuality and the misapplication thereof)
 
Convert_in_99 said:
O
Oral and manual stimulation of the male is fine so long as his climax occurs vaginally. A woman can be orally or manually stimulated even to climax right before or after vaginal sex if it doesn’t work out for her during sex (which it doesn’t for a lot of women.). Anal stimulation is never allowed.

What you mentioned in your post is fine! 🙂
Click to expand...
I hope you are right…

Um to challenge, just so we are clear, doesn’t um pre-ejaculate fluid contain several tens of millions of sperm? Doesn’t it go to waste via oral? Marriage might be down the road relatively soon for me and I’d like to not offend my Lord.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top