The marital act

[underacloud]

Yes, it’s clear. The masturbation is not good if it’s outside of marriage.

When in marriage then the CC quote would lead us back to Gaudium et Spes and HV.
How do you violate “human procreation” if there is no marital act?

You must have stopped reading and missed this: "For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

Note the reference to human procreation. Mutual masturbation, outside of the context of a completed marital act, clearly is not procreative. Mutual masturbation is still not OK in marriage.

You’re looking for a loophole that isn’t there. You will not find any credible moral theologian who would agree with what you are trying to argue.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

This is all rather puzzling. Of course masturbation is forbidden, we all know that, but how can oral sex, for example, be masturbation?
But then I could see, for example, use of a peg or something in the marital act being considered masturbation.
Underacloud and The Wanderer (or whoever else happens to read this ) what exactly do mean by saying foreplay is masturbating? Or did you not mean to say that at all?
In any case, all this about the man ejaculating outside the woman is also puzzling. It is something one has little control over, isn’t it?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

This is all rather puzzling. Of course masturbation is forbidden, we all know that, but how can oral sex, for example, be masturbation?
But then I could see, for example, use of a peg or something in the marital act being considered masturbation.

Oral sex isn’t the topic of this thread but a distinction should be made between oral sex and oral stimulation. Oral stimulation is fine as long has the man ejaculates inside his wife.

Underacloud and The Wanderer (or whoever else happens to read this ) what exactly do mean by saying foreplay is masturbating? Or did you not mean to say that at all?

Neither one said nor implied that.

In any case, all this about the man ejaculating outside the woman is also puzzling. It is something one has little control over, isn’t it?

This is probably why some people object to oral stimulation. If this happens often then there may be something different going on. Perhaps one intends that that ejaculation happens outside the vagina which is contraceptive or the man is now conditioned to become aroused primarily through oral stimulation which is moving away from the unitive aspect of the marital act.

 

[travissbeloved]

This is all rather puzzling. Of course masturbation is forbidden, we all know that, but how can oral sex, for example, be masturbation?
But then I could see, for example, use of a peg or something in the marital act being considered masturbation.
Underacloud and The Wanderer (or whoever else happens to read this ) what exactly do mean by saying foreplay is masturbating? Or did you not mean to say that at all?
In any case, all this about the man ejaculating outside the woman is also puzzling. It is something one has little control over, isn’t it?

The man should be careful not to ejaculate outside of the woman. This is something he can completely control and his wife should help him control. Mutual masturbation to the point of orgasm outside of vaginal intercourse would be immoral.

 

[underacloud]

Underacloud and The Wanderer (or whoever else happens to read this ) what exactly do mean by saying foreplay is masturbating? Or did you not mean to say that at all?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

Essentially, foreplay is allowed as it prepares a couple for intercourse. Within the context of a completed marital act, foreplay is fine.

Outside of that context, it isn’t actually foreplay, is it? It’s something different and not allowable.

In any case, all this about the man ejaculating outside the woman is also puzzling. It is something one has little control over, isn’t it?

Accidents do happen, and that’s OK. You can’t sin by accident. It is when it’s a deliberate attempt to gain pleasure through sex without the procreative aspect intact that there is sin.

 

[SMGS127]

The full marital act would include penile penetration into the vagina and male orgasm into the vaginal canal. There are many other foreplay acts that are allowed in the Catholic church too but it always has to end with the man ejaculating into the woman.

I didn’t see anyone else add this, but I wanted to add that it does not have to end in that. It merely has to occur. If the wife is slower than the husband, it is perfectly licit for the husband to bring her to climax through alternate methods provided that, at some point during intercourse, he ejaculates into the vagina.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Bruised Reed, I just mean, the posts were all about what non-penetrative touching/sex is permissible, but the term masturbation wasn’t actually used until they mentioned it, I believe.
I guess you’re right about ejaculating, Under a Cloud.
But I’d like to reiterate something that’s been brought up here before: there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with just playing around with each others genitals without actually copulating. This is a perfectly legitimate and common form of love making. One doesn’t necessarily always have time for the alternative. It’s one thing to have a bit of fun as you get your pajamas on together, it’s another to actually do the full, energy-demanding production. What could be sinful about this? It doesn’t misuse God’s gift of sex. Would you agree?
SMGS
That makes sense.

 

[underacloud]

But I’d like to reiterate something that’s been brought up here before: there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with just playing around with each others genitals without actually copulating. This is a perfectly legitimate and common form of love making. One doesn’t necessarily always have time for the alternative. It’s one thing to have a bit of fun as you get your pajamas on together, it’s another to actually do the full, energy-demanding production. What could be sinful about this? It doesn’t misuse God’s gift of sex. Would you agree?

Start fooling around but then stop because sex is too energy-demanding?

Sorry, but this idea is so foreign to me that I can’t even consider it.

If my wife started deliberately arousing me, I would assume sex was going to occur and proceed on that basis. I would be most displeased is she started and then stopped and said I’m too tired and going to bed. That’s just bad manners!

This idea is sometimes talked about when a couple is using NFP and want to play around a bit while abstaining. I find this idea to be foolish, as it leads to frustration and temptation to do something either sinful (contracept) or unwise (have sex where there is a chance of conceiving but there exists a serious reason to avoid).

 

[Rau]

That is, broadly speaking, my understanding of the Church teaching.

The one qualification is that foreplay needs to be foreplay (i.e. preparing the couple for intercourse), not substitutional acts that are desired for their own end, and merely appended to intercourse in an attempt to make them licit.

God Bless

I assume you meant prepended, not appended? But in any case, that seems unduly clinical, restrictive and hair splitting. I like a back rub, but it doesn’t turn me on. Can you elaborate and/ or justify?

 

[Rau]

Take NFP. A married couple is in the abstinence period. They are in bed. They hold, kiss, touch, … are they involved in the love-giving (unitive) aspect of the marital act or not?
If yes, then they are not suppose to separate it from life-giving aspect.

Is that correct?

I should think one complies by simply avoiding intentional orgasm in the absence of ejaculation inside the woman. (Apologies for providing a somewhat redundant post in light of other contributions…)

 

[RPRPsych]

I didn’t see anyone else add this, but I wanted to add that it does not have to end in that. It merely has to occur. If the wife is slower than the husband, it is perfectly licit for the husband to bring her to climax through alternate methods provided that, at some point during intercourse, he ejaculates into the vagina.

Yes, I believe that’s correct.

The critical issue here is the male orgasm and ejaculation, not the female orgasm - at least, according to Church law. (Can you tell that those who wrote the law didn’t have wives?)

 

[Jaaanosik]

You must have stopped reading and missed this: "For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

Note the reference to human procreation. Mutual masturbation, outside of the context of a completed marital act, clearly is not procreative. Mutual masturbation is still not OK in marriage.

You’re looking for a loophole that isn’t there. You will not find any credible moral theologian who would agree with what you are trying to argue.

When you check footnotes source:
138 CDF, Persona humana 9.
139 CDF, Persona humana 9.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm

It’s clear the CC 2352 talks about self masturbation.

Also from the link:

All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of “impurity,” “unchasteness” and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.

… the immorality of self masturbation is based on the tradition only!

 

[travissbeloved]

When you check footnotes source:
138 CDF, Persona humana 9.
139 CDF, Persona humana 9.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm

It’s clear the CC 2352 talks about self masturbation.

Also from the link:

… the immorality of self masturbation is based on the tradition only!

Tradition can still be law!

 

[bilop]

*Originally Posted by bilop View Post
That is, broadly speaking, my understanding of the Church teaching.

The one qualification is that foreplay needs to be foreplay (i.e. preparing the couple for intercourse), not substitutional acts that are desired for their own end, and merely appended to intercourse in an attempt to make them licit.

God Bless*

I assume you meant prepended, not appended? But in any case, that seems unduly clinical, restrictive and hair splitting. I like a back rub, but it doesn’t turn me on. Can you elaborate and/ or justify?

What I specifically had in mind was something like anal penetration. That is not foreplay in any real sense; it does nothing to prepare the spouses for intercourse. It is a substitute for coitus, not a preparation.

Just because it happens in the same love making session as coitus, that does not make it legitimate.

God Bless

 

[travissbeloved]

What I specifically had in mind was something like anal penetration. That is not foreplay in any real sense; it does nothing to prepare the spouses for intercourse. It is a substitute for coitus, not a preparation.

Just because it happens in the same love making session as coitus, that does not make it legitimate.

God Bless

I have wondered about this particular act as well. I think the thing that voids it in most cases is that it would be very unhealthy and unclean to do that and then engage in vaginal intercourse. The woman could get an infection of some kind.

 

[thewanderer]

When you check footnotes source:
138 CDF, Persona humana 9.
139 CDF, Persona humana 9.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df75se.htm

It’s clear the CC 2352 talks about self masturbation.

Also from the link:

… the immorality of self masturbation is based on the tradition only!

And??? The Bible doesn’t explicitly say that its wrong to torture others, that is only held explicitly in Church tradition, so that means torture is moral, right?

 

[clem456]

I have wondered about this particular act as well. I think the thing that voids it in most cases is that it would be very unhealthy and unclean to do that and then engage in vaginal intercourse. The woman could get an infection of some kind.

To put it in shorthand, it is an unnatural act, for the reasons you mentioned, plus it leads to nowhere in the natural scheme of things.

 

[fpt]

The marriage is* a sexed and sexual institution and a sexed and sexual contract between one man and one woman* : the sexual alterity and sexual complementarity for all the life between male and female.The object of contract is *the mutual and reciprocal donation of person (body and soul), what means the mutual and reciprocal donation of souls (the union of souls), the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies, the mutual and reciprocal donation of nudities, the sexual cooperation between wife and husband, in the human fashion, in order to make one flesh *(the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the sexual debt, the sexual rights, the sexual privileges, the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, see Canon Law).

The fact of making one flesh, in the human fashion with the sexual cooperation between wife and husband, is the definition of the marital act: the marital act** is linked to the human time that was created by God what means that there are three principle moments, before the union of bodies, during the union of bodies and after the union of bodies.** Each moment has its own particularities with rights, duties and obligation for each member of couple. The female sexuality and the male sexuality during the marital act are very different, also each member of couple has to respect this sexual alterity and this sexual complementarity. Thus during the marital act, there are the institutional and contractual rights of the husband on the body of his wife, the contractual obligations of the husband on the body of his wife and the duties of husband on the body his wife, and also there are the institutional and contractual rights of wife on the body of her husband, the institutional duties of wife on the body her husband and the contractual obligations of wife on the body of her husband. Then, there are the rights/duties/obligations of each one on its own body.

The regime of the natural moral order of the practice of the marital act, what is it?: to do, not to do, to allow to do, not to allow to do, to allow not to do, to give, not to give, to allow to give, not to allow to give, to allow not to give, to receive, not to receive, to allow to receive, not to allow to receive, to allow not to receive, to take, not to take, to allow to take, not to allow to take, to allow not to take, to offer, not to offer, to allow to offer, not to allow to offer, to allow not to offer, to be active, to be passive, not to be active, not to be passive, to refuse, not to refuse, to sacrifice, not to sacrifice, to say yes, not to say yes, to say no not to say no…, conjugally sexually speaking;

 

[clem456]

Given the pre-occupation of the human race with the details of sexuality spanning many millennia, I find it interesting that the Church does not provide a manual for sex between married couples. Yet Christ says

I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Could this include one’s wife perhaps??? Is it possible that the practitioners of seemingly legitimate sex could be sinning?
What of the porn-fueled libido of a husband who uses his wife as a sex object, who seemingly obeys all the rules yet does not respect his wife a whole human person? Does he sin?
Is it possible that any legitimate act could be sinful if done out of lust?

There is a huge element of intent in these matters.

 

[travissbeloved]

Given the pre-occupation of the human race with the details of sexuality spanning many millennia, I find it interesting that the Church does not provide a manual for sex between married couples. Yet Christ says

Could this include one’s wife perhaps??? Is it possible that the practitioners of seemingly legitimate sex could be sinning?
What of the porn-fueled libido of a husband who uses his wife as a sex object, who seemingly obeys all the rules yet does not respect his wife a whole human person? Does he sin?
Is it possible that any legitimate act could be sinful if done out of lust?

There is a huge element of intent in these matters.

I don’t think a man would be sinning if he looked at his wife and thought about her in a sexual way as long as he does it because he loves and respects her and sees the beauty of her sexuality. He should not dwell on these thoughts without acting them out with his wife or use them for masturbation.

I do think it is sinful though if a man ONLY cares about his wife’s sexuality and doesn’t really care about her soul and other aspects of who she is. Even if they are following the rules, he is not making love in a unitive way…he is just lustfully releasing his needs.