The Marital Act & Sin

[Convert_in_99]

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.

Sorry if graphic: It is not intentional. The man does not feel it coming out. It’s not his ejaculation, that he feels.

 

[Layp3rs0n]

Sorry if graphic: It is not intentional. The man does not feel it coming out. It’s not his ejaculation, that he feels.

No worries, I’m a guy. Anyway, two posts above, I found the answer on EWTN. Link is there too. Again, it’s fine as long as it is in moderation, isn’t the main focus and finishes where it ought

 

[Jaaanosik]

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)

Love is above the law.

 

[twoangels]

I can link to the full article (catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm),

You’re going to trust a site that has a web design from the mid-90’s, where citations are not references and the “authority” listed at the bottom doesn’t even list creditials like “Moral theology professor at such and such university.”?

Here’s a few facts. Before Casti Connubii was published in 1930 (the main official document of the time that condemned contraceptives) there was a lot of confusion over what the orthodox view was on sexuality. Certain earlier heretical movements had their sway to the overly conservative side. And as such, there were Catholics insisting that the Church taught that you couldn’t have sex after menopause or while your wife was pregnant. It was often common for people to say that rape was impossible in marriage because the wife had no right to refuse sex.

Heresies are reactionary. They focus on one aspect of a belief system and take it to an extreme, depriving it of context and generaizing things to the point of the ridiculous. And people often see flaws in what is going on. So just as a Catholic might look and see major problems in the sexual revolution. Conservatism is not an answer because no era completely gets it. And without knowing the history well, you’re liable to mistakes.

Casti Connubii was the Church’s response to the Angelican Church’s statement about birth control. And mind you, what it says is actually surprising. All it said was that while contraceptives are immoral, there may be grave circumstances, like the woman’s health, that justify contraceptives to a degree, though abstinence is still the moral ideal. It wasn’t until the 50’s that the Angelican Church made a statement that couples should not be judged over whether their reasons for using contraceptives are justified.

So anyway, the Church’s borrowed the Angelican Church’s affirmation that sex has a unitive purpose. From that context, we can see that the meaning of unitive refers to the emotional bonding.

Now, considering the contraceptive technology at the time, the primary methods of birth control were sexual acts that diverted the act away from it’s natural intent. This was more than just withdrawal. Certainly there were some crude condoms in existance, but these were often reusable unhygenic things So the big thing to get is that contraceptive acts are not merely the modern sense of devices, barriers and pills. Contraceptive acts are those things intentionally done to change the nature of the act. And this is seen as violating the natural law.

Now Rhythm actually wasn’t developed until the end of 1930 and it took awhile for it to catch on. Priests privately counseled couples to embrace the Rhythm method though the Church did not officially approve of it till the 50’s. Meanwhile the invention of baby formula and how quickly breastfeeding became taboo, women’s fertiities started unexpectedly returning sooner. So that may be one of the untold factors contributing to the Baby Boom Generation.

The developers of the pill thought that because the sexual act would not be messed with, the pill would be the approved method of Catholic birth control. There was a Catholic developer and many priests said “Yes, indeed. This is going to be approved just like the Rhythm method. Don’t worry about it.” And then that document linked where the advisory board advised the Pope to approve contraceptives. They did go out of bounds as they were only asked to look at the pill since it was so different, and instead they just wanted to have the Church pull down every contraceptive restriction.

I would say that while Humanae Vitae does condemn the pill clearly, it does not actually address the issue of “why” very well. And pro life groups have sense looked for every criticism they can make of the pill to motivate people to condemn in. In the end, this pro life focus on condemning the pill has changed the common Catholic idea of what makes birth control wrong and thus leads many Catholics to say “Well, I get the pill, but why not barrier methods?”

I think in understanding the history of it though, the key is to recognize when you’re engaging in contraceptives acts (as in seeking sexual pleasure in a way that thwarts the reproductive nature of the act) and when the same acts are not contraceptive acts but, say, a natural part of foreplay.

 

[fpt]

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.

Ron Conte,

According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband, in the human fashion. In consequence, she has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband on her own body, otherwise, she is a sinful wife, because she receives a masturbation coming from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her: she is a passive sinful person. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband: she is an active sinful person.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for her. She must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife, in the human fashion. In consequence, he has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife on his own body, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he receives a masturbation coming from his wife: he is a passive sinful person.The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him: he is an active sinful person. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for him. He must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to future spouses, during the preparation of marriage, that it is a moral obligation to refuse to give and to receive sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses to confess the sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Could you answer me on this forum, please, publicly and directly?

 

[Rau]

Ron Conte,

According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband, in the human fashion. In consequence, she has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband on her own body, otherwise, she is a sinful wife, because she receives a masturbation coming from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her: she is a passive sinful person. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband: she is an active sinful person.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for her. She must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife, in the human fashion. In consequence, he has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife on his own body, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he receives a masturbation coming from his wife: he is a passive sinful person.The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him: he is an active sinful person. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for him. He must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to future spouses, during the preparation of marriage, that it is a moral obligation to refuse to give and to receive sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses to confess the sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Could you answer me on this forum, please, publicly and directly?

You have asked Ron those questions many times on various threads. I don’t believe he intends to answer. So why not instead examine the citations / quotations he has provided and give your alternative interpretation of them. Demonstrate that they do not lead to his interpretation (or at least your understanding of it).

 

[votelife]

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.

As many have pointed out, the website is a layman’s personal opinion about morality. It does not represent the Church’s opinion. He is certainly free to believe and live his life according to those stricter moral guidelines, but his personal moral opinion is not binding on all Catholics.

I’m not going to say he is crazy or going against the Church or any of that. Just that his opinion on morality is just that, his opinion. It is not defined moral teaching binding on all the faithful. It’s pretty simple really.

 

[fpt]

Corrections with a plus

Ron Conte,

According to you, in the context of the marital act between husband and wife:

The wife has to refuse to be touched on her external sexual parts by her husband, in the human fashion. In consequence, she has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from her husband on her own body, otherwise, she is a sinful wife, because she receives a masturbation coming from her husband. The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for her: she is a passive sinful person. The wife has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of her husband. She has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to her husband, otherwise, she is a sinful wife because she gives a masturbation to her husband: she is an active sinful person.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for her. She must confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

The husband has to refuse to be touched on his external sexual parts by his wife, in the human fashion. In consequence, he has the natural moral obligation not to receive the sexual caresses coming from his wife on his own body, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he receives a masturbation coming from his wife: he is a passive sinful person.The fact of receiving those caresses is always morally wrong for him. The husband has to refuse to touch the external sexual parts of his wife. He has the natural moral obligation not to give the sexual caresses to his wife, otherwise, he is a sinful husband, because he gives a masturbation to his wife. The fact of giving those caresses is always morally wrong for him: he is an active sinful person. Thus, he must to confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

==== The reason is that the fact of giving or of receiving those sexual caresses is always morally wrong for him. He must confess to a priest those acts that are always morally wrong.

Do you know any priests who teach to future spouses, during the preparation of marriage, that it is a moral obligation to refuse to give and to receive sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Do you know any priests who teach to spouses to confess the sexual foreplay, in the context of the marital act, because they are sexual sins of masturbation?

Could you answer me on this forum, please, publicly and directly?

In reality, your intellectual approach seems to be against the right to the body, the right on the body and the right of the body by a deep reduction of the conjugal act to a simple coitus. For you, the sexual privileges on the body of the other seems to be so reduced. What are your advice for the conjugal act? Your logic is not linked to the catholic moral philosophy. Could you explain your crazy thought?

 

[fpt]

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.

Ron Conte,

Do you agree with the following doctrines and / or the following practices? Yes or No.

the encratism of the conjugal act;
the manicheism of the conjugal act;
the catharism of the conjugal act;
the jansenism of the conjugal act;
the fideism of the conjugal act;
the quietism of the conjugal act;
the puritanism of the conjugal act;
the victorianism of the conjugal act;
the externalism of the conjugal act;
the judgmentalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-personalism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-phenomenologism of the conjugal act;
the rabbitism of the conjugal act;
the absolute natalism of the conjugal act;
the absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the theoretical providentialism of the conjugal act;
the quiverfullism of the conjugal act;
the anti responsible pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
the primary anti-conjugal erotism of the conjugal act;
the pharisaism of the conjugal act;
the scrupulism of the conjugal act.
the angelism of the conjugal act;
the absolute immaterialism of the conjugal act;
the machism of the conjugal act;
the misogynism of the conjugal act;
the misandrism of the conjugal act;
the left radical feminism of the conjugal act;
the refusal of the sexed and sexual differentialism in the procedure of the conjugal act;
the reductionism of the conjugal act to a simple coitus;