The Marriage Bed

[LongingSoul]

Jesus was rebuked because His disciples did not wash their hands before eating. His response should be our own as well, when we confront questions of hygiene.

I’m quite sure you don’t read those verses as being lessons against handwashing before meals. I’m quite sure you don’t neglect to enforce the importance of hand washing in general to your children. I’m sure that you understand if someone sees you preparing a meal for them without having washed your hands and comments on that fact that you wouldn’t say to them, ‘I’m sorry, but Jesus said handwashing is not necessary’. That wasn’t the point of that lesson at all and common sense tells us that.

Eating steak tartar (raw) is not dangerous if we know that the steer was properly raised and butchered. Eating raw fish happens every single day around the world.

As a general rule, it is unsafe to eat raw meat. A good chef will understand that there are highly specific, highly regulated conditions under which meat or fish is safe to eat raw and that buying your cuts from the supermarket for your family doesn’t come anywhere near meeting those conditions. To imply that this is a simple matter of taste and choice is seriously unethical.

I lent my daughter my toothbrush while on vacation when she lost her own.

Why do you even have a ‘my’ toothbrush and ‘her’ toothbrush in the first place if a cup of communal toothbrushes is acceptable for the family? Why not just treat them like eating utensils that everyone shares?

Societal taboos change with time, place, culture, etc. They are not universal or static. They usually serve a purpose for the common good of everyone. In the case of sexual taboos, any that are dependent upon hygiene will fall out of common knowledge when daily hygiene standards increase. We have seen a dramatic and historic change in hygiene standards in the 19th and 20th centuries. We have indoor plumbing, toilets instead of chamber pots, hot water for frequent bathing, all kinds of inexpensive soaps, cleansers, lotions, perfumes. We have flushable toilet paper, even wet and lightly scented flushable wipes! Our hineys have never been so clean and fresh, in all the history of humanity! So, the concern of trace amounts of urine or fecal matter is easily addressed with a quick hop in the shower. Problem solved.

That certainly applies to practices like circumcision and menstrual prohibitions, but the practice we are addressing here is anal and oral penetration. No amount of hygiene work is going to protect from the transmission of bacteria or disease in the most OCD person let alone the general population.

With respect to taboos associated with STD transmission, and the secondary diseases that may result, I stand by what I said before. For a previously chaste, totally monogamous couple, those taboos DO NOT APPLY. It is simply not applicable to such a couple. The secular world argues for safer sex (condoms) and birth control. The Church teaches chastity and fidelity. If a couple sides with the Church all their lives, then those social taboos related to public health and STDs and whatnot simply have zero binding on said couple. For instance, the world argues for condoms to reduce the chances of STD transmission. But the Catholic couple knows condoms are forbidden. If we are free from such general rules BECAUSE of chastity, then we are free from them all BECAUSE of chastity. That is the freedom that chastity offers. You are free to kiss or touch all of your spouse’s body directly, with no physical barrier, and there are no off-limits areas.

To me that sounds very “well let them eat cake”. You’re saying that people like yourselves that are highly sexually pure are entitled to oral and anal sex, but the rest of society can either refrain or suffer the consequences of their immorality. It sounds very classist and exclusionary. That’s the kind of thinking that sent the lepers into exile and sees society as ‘them and us’ and rather than asking how can we serve each other’s needs… it asks, how can we banish the diseased and unworthy so we don’t have to think of them. The common good encompasses the welfare of every person in society regardless of their circumstances and general rules consider the welfare of the community as one body in an of itself. So for example, we may love the taste of fatty salty food, but we have to consider the effect of that sort of diet on the body as a whole in the big picture and moderate our behaviours accordingly.

 

[LongingSoul]

Now, with all of what I say, I acknowledge and embrace the Church’s teaching that fellatio to completion is off-limits, as is anal sex. But the Church does NOT say that oral-genital contact is immoral, or that one spouse may not touch the other on their bottom. I am not arguing for either completed fellatio or anal sex. They are both a substitution for the holy marital act, and are therefore wrong, all hygiene issues aside. But we cannot extrapolate and say that, therefore, no mouth on genitals and no hands near the bottom. Furthermore, many good examination of consciences list oral sex and anal sex as mortal sins, but are careful to say immediately following that oral stimulation is permitted as foreplay. So, there you go. It is not that genitals and hineys are gross or dirty. We are simply not permitted to perform sexual acts INSTEAD OF coitus, but those body parts are not therefore untouchable or unkissable.

First, you misrepresent my argument by including ‘hands near the bottom’ as the same as saying mouths inside the anal, vaginal orifices and penis inside the mouth. There’s a world of difference which you don’t seem to comprehend.

Secondly, I don’t buy the reasoning that only the final orgasm of fellatio and sodomy are ‘a substitution for the holy marital act’. When the tongue is acting as a penis and the mouth acting as a vagina during foreplay, the act of substitution has already begun during the ‘holy marital act’. The union is unnatural once those substitutions occur. The pleasure derived is already unholy under that criterior.

So, to summarize: taboos have their place, but have lots of exceptions to the general rule, and are very dependent of time, place, persons, culture. And what the Church does not see fit to forbid, neither may we usurp Her authority to forbid. I think the Church is very clear about the proper ends of sexual relations, and the holiness of the marital act, and the boundaries within which the Catholic couple may act. If we try to bind the conscience of others beyond what the Church herself does, it is our sin, not the couple who is acting within the freedom the Church provides.

I am not trying to ‘bind the conscience of others’ beyond Church teaching. I am speaking to reason and common sense for the sake of the common good of all. I’m saying that as Christians, love of neighbour makes us sensitive to the effect of unhealthy practices and attitudes that are very self interested and insular and seek to break down taboos that make them feel uncomfortable regardless of how those taboos support the common good of all.

Every married couple must discern for themselves what actions feel loving and holy and pleasing. They each have their own way of kissing and caressing and positions for coitus and things they love about each other’s bodies. It is different for every single couple. So, if you don’t like something or don’t want to do it, then of course, don’t do it. But please do not assume that your aversion equals a moral prohibition, because it doesn’t. (Remember, I am not talking about what the Church already prohibits, such as fellatio or anal sex.)

You again mistake my argument. Kissing, caressing and positions are not at issue. It is anal and oral sex we are talking about here. In that regard, I am impelled to speak from the Christian notion of the common good as love of neighbour… and openly express a truth which is accessible to all people through reason and nature.

 

[The_Bucket]

mommamaree you’ve done well and fought the good fight in terms of explaining actual Church teaching as opposed to personal proclivities being the guiding light in these matters…

…

And you see where that got ya?!

Can’t ever take these threads seriously. Which is a shame since there are plenty of people with real and honest questions. But answering them honestly and with no amount of humor and/or sarcasm just results in rational people slamming their heads against the wall out of frustration when Puritans take over.

Remember folks, the Puritans were not Catholic. Stop acting like them. Sometimes I wonder if the Albigensian Crusade really did stomp out the Cathars…

 

[Cat]

Do you accept that general taboos have an important and authoritative place in society that is tied to the common good of all? For example, the general rule of handwashing or the general rule of not eating raw meat, or the general rule of not sharing toothbrushes.

None of these is addressed by the Magisterium and of course people can choose not to follow those general rules and may even be forced to break the general rule out of necessity if there is no other choice. But to take a position of ideological opposition to the general rule itself as being wrong or irrelevant or an offense against the individuals right to choose… is a sympton of secularism. It is only in recent times that oral and anal sex have become mainstream sexual behaviours. Many young people who haven’t had strong moral grounding aren’t even aware that these acts were ever considered unnatural. They are groomed by the anything goes society we live in, to enjoy what was once considered taboo on many levels. ‘Grooming’ is a well know factor in suppressing the humans sensitivity to moral truth.

As a general rule, oral and anal penetration are an unnatural bodily union and have already contributed to the weakening of societies biological and moral immune system. Of course people can choose to do whatever they like behind the closed doors of their own house, but to then promote those standards are acceptable societal standards is selfish and irresponsible and a rejection of the notion of a common good of all.

Are you married?

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you married?

Married 26 years this year. Lifetime Catholic. Three adult kids.

 

[mommamaree]

I’m quite sure you don’t read those verses as being lessons against handwashing before meals. I’m quite sure you don’t neglect to enforce the importance of hand washing in general to your children. I’m sure that you understand if someone sees you preparing a meal for them without having washed your hands and comments on that fact that you wouldn’t say to them, ‘I’m sorry, but Jesus said handwashing is not necessary’. That wasn’t the point of that lesson at all and common sense tells us that.

As a general rule, it is unsafe to eat raw meat. A good chef will understand that there are highly specific, highly regulated conditions under which meat or fish is safe to eat raw and that buying your cuts from the supermarket for your family doesn’t come anywhere near meeting those conditions. To imply that this is a simple matter of taste and choice is seriously unethical.

Why do you even have a ‘my’ toothbrush and ‘her’ toothbrush in the first place if a cup of communal toothbrushes is acceptable for the family? Why not just treat them like eating utensils that everyone shares?

That certainly applies to practices like circumcision and menstrual prohibitions, but the practice we are addressing here is anal and oral penetration. No amount of hygiene work is going to protect from the transmission of bacteria or disease in the most OCD person let alone the general population.

To me that sounds very “well let them eat cake”. You’re saying that people like yourselves that are highly sexually pure are entitled to oral and anal sex, but the rest of society can either refrain or suffer the consequences of their immorality. It sounds very classist and exclusionary. That’s the kind of thinking that sent the lepers into exile and sees society as ‘them and us’ and rather than asking how can we serve each other’s needs… it asks, how can we banish the diseased and unworthy so we don’t have to think of them. The common good encompasses the welfare of every person in society regardless of their circumstances and general rules consider the welfare of the community as one body in an of itself. So for example, we may love the taste of fatty salty food, but we have to consider the effect of that sort of diet on the body as a whole in the big picture and moderate our behaviours accordingly.

I am done discussing this with you. I have repeatedly said that I am NOT speaking about oral and anal sex, and you repeatedly bring it up. That is dishonest and obsessive.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope John Paul gave us a most beautiful letter in the Marian year, 1988, which was the year that I married. Entitled “ON THE DIGNITY AND VOCATION OF WOMEN”. Of all his writings, this is the one I most cherish and I think that has come about gradually as my children got older. It’s not just that I desire very much for my daughter to experience herself as a woman in the image of God, but I desire for my sons to experience themselves as men in the image of God. I believe with all my heart that to orient yourself daily towards God through prayer and contemplation on the Gospels, makes you more and more revolted by the effects of original sin in marriage and relationships in general. It will never be a popular stance to have in debates with younger people, but it begs to be articulated for the sake of all women and men.

When you read the passage below and recognise the disorder that original sin created in marriage ie. to the woman…“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), you can see how a womans drive and consent manifests as a desire to please and keep her husband rather than her sense of dignity. A mans drive and demands of his need to possess/own, manifest as ruling over his wife rather than as respect for her dignity. These are the effects of sin that we are constantly called to rise above. What is different about Catholics is that we strive to grow in holiness as part of our salvation. It’s not the right way to keep saying ‘well it’s not in the Catehism so it’s not a sin and you can do whatever you like’. Ours is a lifelong struggle to grow holy and transcend what is our disordered nature. Not to say I’m baptised now so so long as I follow the Catechism I’m saved.

I hope a few of you are moved to read this Apostolic letter which is especially meaningful for women.

"He shall rule over you"

1. The biblical description in the Book of Genesis outlines the truth about the consequences of man’s sin, as it is shown by the disturbance of that original relationship between man and woman which corresponds to their individual dignity as persons. A human being, whether male or female, is a person, and therefore, “the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake”; and at the same time this unique and unrepeatable creature “cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self”.32 Here begins the relationship of “communion” in which the “unity of the two” and the personal dignity of both man and woman find expression. Therefore when we read in the biblical description the words addressed to the woman: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16), we discover a break and a constant threat precisely in regard to this “unity of the two” which corresponds to the dignity of the image and likeness of God in both of them. But this threat is more serious for the woman, since domination takes the place of “being a sincere gift” and therefore living “for” the other: “he shall rule over you”. This “domination” indicates the disturbance and loss of the stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the “unity of the two”: and this is especially to the disadvantage of the woman, whereas only the equality resulting from their dignity as persons can give to their mutual relationship the character of an authentic “communio personarum”. While the violation of this equality, which is both a gift and a right deriving from God the Creator, involves an element to the disadvantage of the woman, at the same time it also diminishes the true dignity of the man. Here we touch upon an extremely sensitive point in the dimension of that “ethos” which was originally inscribed by the Creator in the very creation of both of them in his own image and likeness.

 

[LongingSoul]

This statement in Genesis 3:16 is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and woman in marriage. It refers to the desire born in the atmosphere of spousal love whereby the woman’s “sincere gift of self” is responded to and matched by a corresponding “gift” on the part of the husband. Only on the basis of this principle can both of them, and in particular the woman, “discover themselves” as a true “unity of the two” according to the dignity of the person. The matrimonial union requires respect for and a perfecting of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The woman cannot become the “object” of “domination” and male “possession”. But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman. Burdened by hereditary sinfulness, they bear within themselves the constant “inclination to sin”, the tendency to go against the moral order which corresponds to the rational nature and dignity of man and woman as persons. This tendency is expressed in a threefold concupiscence, which Saint John defines as the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3: 16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the “inclination to sin”, will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.

These words of Genesis refer directly to marriage, but indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life: the situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or discriminated against by the fact of being a woman. The revealed truth concerning the creation of the human being as male and female constitutes the principal argument against all the objectively injurious and unjust situations which contain and express the inheritance of the sin which all human beings bear within themselves. The books of Sacred Scripture confirm in various places the actual existence of such situations and at the same time proclaim the need for conversion, that is to say, for purification from evil and liberation from sin: from what offends neighbour, what “diminishes” man, not only the one who is offended but also the one who causes the offence. This is the unchangeable message of the Word revealed by God. In it is expressed the biblical “ethos” until the end of time.33

In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.

The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfilment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible - “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” - can be conquered only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[fpt]

The marriage being a sexed and sexual contract and an sexed and sexual institution of which the object is the donation of persons (body, soul and heart) for making one flesh, there is certainly a minimum of sexual obligations, of sexual rights and sexual duties for each one. The day of marriage, each one give sexual rights on the body.The sexual cooperation is an obligation, a right and a duty for each one: to do, to give, to take, to offer, to receive, to sacrifice, to allow.

The sexual cooperation means work together, be active and be passive. The husband has to be active on the body of his wife, the wife has to be active on the body of her husband. Each one has to give a sexual trust to the other. The right to kiss all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to massage all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to caresse all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to lick all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to suck all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to touch all the body of the other with love and tenderness. The sexual cooperation has to be made in the human manner. The marital act implies sexual touchings, sensual touchings, erotic touchings. Here, touchings can be done by the hands, the fingers, the lips of the mouth, the tongue, the body and by the other parts of body.

In materiality, the marital act is a sexual physical relationship that means an exchange of fluids, an exchange of kissings, an exchange of massages, an exchange of touchings, an exchange of caresses, an exchange of licks, an exchange of suctions, with love and tenderness. In the context of the marital act,each one has to agree with the fact of being touched and co by the other, in the human fashion, with the love and the tenderness and has to agree with the fact of touching the other, in the human manner, with the love and the tenderness.

If you do not want to be touched and if you do not want to touch, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you. The vows of marriage implies this agreement. The vows of marriage implies the agreement of foreplay and sexual foreplay.

 

[fpt]

The marriage being a sexed and sexual contract and an sexed and sexual institution of which the object is the donation of persons (body, soul and heart) for making one flesh, there is certainly a minimum of sexual obligations, of sexual rights and sexual duties for each one. The day of marriage, each one give**s **sexual rights on the body.The sexual cooperation is an obligation, a right and a duty for each one: to do, to give, to take, to offer, to receive, to sacrifice, to allow.

The sexual cooperation means work together, be active and be passive. The husband has to be active on the body of his wife, the wife has to be active on the body of her husband. Each one has to give a sexual trust to the other. The right to kiss all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to massage all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to caresse all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to lick all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to suck all the body of the other with love and tenderness, the right to touch all the body of the other with love and tenderness. The sexual cooperation has to be made in the human manner. The marital act implies sexual touchings, sensual touchings, erotic touchings. Here, touchings can be done by the hands, the fingers, the lips of the mouth, the tongue, the body and by the other parts of body.

In materiality, the marital act is a sexual physical relationship that means an exchange of fluids, an exchange of kissings, an exchange of massages, an exchange of touchings, an exchange of caresses, an exchange of licks, an exchange of suctions, with love and tenderness. In the context of the marital act,each one has to agree with the fact of being touched and co by the other, in the human fashion, with the love and the tenderness and has to agree with the fact of touching the other, in the human manner, with the love and the tenderness.

If you do not want to be touched and if you do not want to touch, sexually speaking, the marriage is not for you. The vows of marriage imply this agreement. The vows of marriage imply the agreement of foreplay and sexual foreplay.

The marital act is not a simple coitus. In the vows of marriage, the bride gives her body and the husband gives his body. In the context of the marital act, each one has right/obligation/duty to give sexual pleasures and to receive sexual pleasures, in the human manner.

 

[fpt]

By principle, and normally speaking.

If you do not want to share your normal fluids with the other, there are issues. If you do not want to kiss the body of your wife or of your husband, there are issues. If you do not want to caresse the body of your wife or of your husband, there are issues. If you do not want to touch the body of your wife or of your husband, there are issues. If you do not want to lick the body of your wife or of your husband, there are issues. If you do not want to suck the body of your wife or of your husband, there are issues.

Here, when I say by principle, I means that there are exeptions, of course. But exceptions are not the principle.

Anal sex is morally wrong (even as foreplay), oral sex is morally wrong, what means that each one has to refuse those acts. The oral, manual and digital stimulations of sexual intimate parts are not morally wrong, they have to be accepted by principle. All the other acts are morally normal, they have to be accepted by principle, by principle. Only, just exceptions are fair.

 

[fpt]

For instance:

By principle, the couple has right to make love during periods of the wife. By principle, the husband has right to request the marital act during her periods, and she has to agree with. By principle, the wife has right to request the marital act during her own periods, and he has to agree with. Per se, the periods of the wife are not relevant reasons for refusing the practice of the marital act, whatever the refusal coming from her or him. Only, some effects coming from periods can justify a refusal if and only if the reasons are real, objective, true, fair and reasonable. We are catholic, we are not linked to the Old Testament, for everything.

In summary, Old Testament, New Testament, Catholic Teaching, Reason and Faith, Faith and Reason, objective philosophy, realistic philosophy, personalist philosophy, phenomenological philosophy, the liberty are the rules. In the certain way, the marriage is a “free alienation” wanted, accepted for conjugal love. The “free alienation” wanted, accepted and agreed with the day of marriage for practicing the marital act, with some sexual cooperation, in the human manner, in love and tenderness. The rule of reason, the reasonability, the balance and the moderation are the keys for understanding everything. In addition, each one has to make efforts and sacrifices, in positive. The wife or the husband has to try to cope with his or her sexual fears: a moral obligation of means that has to be wanted.

 

[mommamaree]

I have come very close to taking the step of being confirmed in the church, but I just discovered, and am really struggling with the topic of what sexual acts are “permitted” within marriage. I understand that the sexual act must ultimately end (for the man) with climax inside of his wife. That makes sense to me. What I am struggling with is this: I recently read and saw people saying things such as places you can and can’t touch your wife or do with your wife during the sexual act, or as foreplay. I understand that the church is trying to keep the sexual relations between a man and woman pure. But if you’re really doing things for each other’s pleasure, and ultimately the end result is unitive and procreative, I don’t see what the problem is… I don’t even know if what I read was a church teaching or if it was some extremely conservative Catholic’s opinion. But if the act ends as unitive and procreative, does it really make sense to worry about those other things? Unfortunately this has scared me out of the church for the time being… So any help or advice would be great… Thank you.

Caught in Wonder,
As you can see in the responses to your question, there are a lot of personal objections that get elevated to moral directives when it comes to talking about intimate acts.
Ultimately, the answer to your question is rather simple, and some previous posters have already given it. But I would like to summarize it once again.
Sexual intercourse is holy and a blessing to married couples. It serves both procreative and unitive ends (babies and bonding). The act of coitus should not be replaced or substituted for by mutual masturbation, oral sex or anal sex. However, bringing pleasure to one’s spouse with your mouth or hands is totally acceptable during foreplay, coitus, and afterplay. There is no region of your spouse’s body that needs a “No Touching” zone, unless either you or your spouse discover you do not like to touch or be touched in that way. Same goes for kissing. Intimate kisses of the mouth on genitals is the moral equivalent of nibbling an earlobe, sucking on a finger, toe, or nipple, or licking the neck or navel.
No spouse should ever coerce another spouse to do something against their will, but suggesting a type of kiss or caress or even surprising one’s spouse with a new sensation is totally acceptable.
Many lovers delight in the smells and tastes of their spouses body. Some people are squeamish or put off by certain things. To each their own.
Taboos do not equate to moral imperatives, and neither do personal preferences.
As long as a couple keeps in mind the proper ends of sexual intercourse, and they avoid what is prohibited (because those actions distort the act and disrupt the proper ends), and they aim to make each other feel loved and joyful and satisfied, whatever particular form their lovemaking takes is between them and God.
I really wish, since this is Catholic Answers (and not Catholics Answer With Their Own Opinion As Fact), that presenting what the Church herself has to say, in magisterial documents and published examination of consciences with imprimatur, would be enough of an answer for the people posting questions about the moral teachings of the Church. After all, the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus Christ founded, and is not the Church of Joe Pewwarmer. What freedom the Church Herself gives married couples, it is not up to Mr. Pewwarmer to deny them.

 

[LongingSoul]

For the OP… an important aspect of the Catholic faith is the call to grow in holiness each and every day and we do this by co-operating with Gods grace in prayer and penance and constant renewal. This can be a strange transition for someone converting from the Protestant faiths especially because they believe that faith alone saves and that there is no merit in striving for holiness.

This attitude can influence the way you understand the teachings of the Church and how those teachings are capable of facilitating this important endeavour… striving for ever greater holiness.

If you notice the many threads that bring up the topic of sexual practices in marriage they often begin in this way of ‘the Catechism doesn’t list it’ or ‘the Church has no teaching on it’ therefore it is not a sin and you are ‘good to go’. That is not the way that a Catholic is meant to regard marriage. There are definitely outright prohibitions and then there is special behoving to chastity and purity. To approach purity as what’s the limit to which we can get our pleasures out of our body’s and still be ‘legal’… we are missing the point.

As people co-operate with grace and grow in charity and chastity, there is a move towards the beautitude of true holiness. This is associated with more moderate approach to our sexual communion that while enjoying the natural pleasure of the communion, does not dwell heavily in maximising sensual pleasures. The emphasis grows more interested in the virtues of patience, kindness, forgiveness, generosity and loving sacrifice within the relationship in general. This is more than physical pleasure. This is beatitude.

The call to Catholicism is a call to a growth in holiness rather than a call to a set of strict rules to see how well you can stick to them. The rules exist to guide our growth in holiness not to cage us.

All that being said, it is prudent to observe the general rules of hygiene that make oral sex and anal penetration whether as foreplay or all the way, especially risky practices for the long term health of society.

 

[fpt]

If she doesn’t want to give her physical own femininity to her husband, she is not ready for the marriage; if she doesn’t want to receive the physical masculinity of her husband, she is not ready for the marriage. If he doesn’t want to give his physical own masculinity to his wife, he is not ready for the marriage; if he doesn’t want to receive the physical feminity of his wife, he is not ready for the marriage.

The marital act implies some carnal acts, some physical acts and some material acts. What are they? That is the question!!! The marital act is not angelic: that is a body to body, an exchange of fluids, of touchings, of caresses, of massages, of licks, of suctions, an erection of penis, an erection of clitoris, a vaginal lubrification, a vaginal opening, a vaginal penetration, sexual movements coming from him, sexual movements coming from her, female sexual pleasures, orgasm of clitoris, vaginal orgasm, orgasm of cervix, male sexual pleasures, male ejaculation…etc. Each one has to give touchings, has to receive touchings, has to take the body of the other, has to receive the body of the other, has to possess the body of the other, in the human manner with some sexual cooperation and with love and tenderness.

The marriage bed is physical, carnal, material and is a body to body of love.

 

[Galbin]

For the OP… an important aspect of the Catholic faith is the call to grow in holiness each and every day and we do this by co-operating with Gods grace in prayer and penance and constant renewal. This can be a strange transition for someone converting from the Protestant faiths especially because they believe that faith alone saves and that there is no merit in striving for holiness.

This attitude can influence the way you understand the teachings of the Church and how those teachings are capable of facilitating this important endeavour… striving for ever greater holiness.

If you notice the many threads that bring up the topic of sexual practices in marriage they often begin in this way of ‘the Catechism doesn’t list it’ or ‘the Church has no teaching on it’ therefore it is not a sin and you are ‘good to go’. That is not the way that a Catholic is meant to regard marriage. There are definitely outright prohibitions and then there is special behoving to chastity and purity. To approach purity as what’s the limit to which we can get our pleasures out of our body’s and still be ‘legal’… we are missing the point.

As people co-operate with grace and grow in charity and chastity, there is a move towards the beautitude of true holiness. This is associated with more moderate approach to our sexual communion that while enjoying the natural pleasure of the communion, does not dwell heavily in maximising sensual pleasures. The emphasis grows more interested in the virtues of patience, kindness, forgiveness, generosity and loving sacrifice within the relationship in general. This is more than physical pleasure. This is beatitude.

The call to Catholicism is a call to a growth in holiness rather than a call to a set of strict rules to see how well you can stick to them. The rules exist to guide our growth in holiness not to cage us.

All that being said, it is prudent to observe the general rules of hygiene that make oral sex and anal penetration whether as foreplay or all the way, especially risky practices for the long term health of society.

May I ask if you are male or female?

Also, I am not sure why posters here tend to stick 100% to whatever the Magesterium says, but then on the other hand say that the Magesterium isn’t everything. It’s rather confusing…

 

[mommamaree]

May I ask if you are male or female?

Also, I am not sure why posters here tend to stick 100% to whatever the Magesterium says, but then on the other hand say that the Magesterium isn’t everything. It’s rather confusing…

Longing Soul is a female. Her profile information in the title bar of her posts says female.

 

[LongingSoul]

May I ask if you are male or female?

Also, I am not sure why posters here tend to stick 100% to whatever the Magesterium says, but then on the other hand say that the Magesterium isn’t everything. It’s rather confusing…

Yes I’m female.

I’ve been Catholic all my life, formed in a thoroughly Catholic environment and a lot of times I find the approach that some Catholics advise to others is just so foriegn to that. It’s that approach that I try to question and influence with another perspective.

I trust in everything the Magisterium teaches. What we are talking of here are some behaviours that aren’t addressed by the Magisterium specifically just as many things are not specifically addressed by the Magisterium because that would require 10 libraries full of rule books.

When we talk about chastity, either celibate or marital, we aren’t talking about a behavioural quality, we are talking about an ontological disposition that is directly related to charity. As the Catechism says “2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.”

There is a strong suggestion that chastity is dictated by personal desire and can manifest vastly differently in marriages. But in reality desire is dictated by the chaste disposition and is much more uniform than other qualities that are subject to choice dictated by culture, time and individual preference.

In religious celibate chastity, there is a universal ideal of chastity and the practices and exercises all seek to overcome the dominance of fleshly desire as the sympton of original sin.

In marriage there is also an ideal of chastity and in its own way, the marital desire needs to be moderated by that ideal and not the other way around.

When someone says of an act ‘it isn’t mentioned in the Catechism or addressed by the Magisterium, therefore it isn’t sinful you’re good to go’… that is foriegn to the attitude of chastity. Chastity isn’t a matter of personal choice dependent of personal preferences. That is the language associated with hedonism ie. it is my right and no one can tell me otherwise. It is like reverse scrupulosity.

And also, when there is a strong emphasis on sex being a ‘right and duty’ in the hedonistic sense of entitlement, that is also foriegn to the Catholic regard for marital intimacy.

All these things are important and relevant along with the fact that it is unhygenic to engage with fecal matter in this act and to engage the mouth in pursuits detrimental to its purpose.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes I’m female.

I’ve been Catholic all my life, formed in a thoroughly Catholic environment and a lot of times I find the approach that some Catholics advise to others is just so foriegn to that. It’s that approach that I try to question and influence with another perspective.

I trust in everything the Magisterium teaches. What we are talking of here are some behaviours that aren’t addressed by the Magisterium specifically just as many things are not specifically addressed by the Magisterium because that would require 10 libraries full of rule books.

When we talk about chastity, either celibate or marital, we aren’t talking about a behavioural quality, we are talking about an ontological disposition that is directly related to charity. As the Catechism says “2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.”

There is a strong suggestion that chastity is dictated by personal desire and can manifest vastly differently in marriages. But in reality desire is dictated by the chaste disposition and is much more uniform than other qualities that are subject to choice dictated by culture, time and individual preference.

In religious celibate chastity, there is a universal ideal of chastity and the practices and exercises all seek to overcome the dominance of fleshly desire as the sympton of original sin.

In marriage there is also an ideal of chastity and in its own way, the marital desire needs to be moderated by that ideal and not the other way around.

When someone says of an act ‘it isn’t mentioned in the Catechism or addressed by the Magisterium, therefore it isn’t sinful you’re good to go’… that is foriegn to the attitude of chastity. Chastity isn’t a matter of personal choice dependent of personal preferences. That is the language associated with hedonism ie. it is my right and no one can tell me otherwise. It is like reverse scrupulosity.

It is error to think that because something is not expressly forbidden then it must necessarily be permissible. But it equally an error to think that because something is not expressly permitted then it must necessarily be forbidden. I can understand your argument against the former, but the latter is equally problematic.

It seems that Jesus was just as concerned (if not more so) with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, and so to that extent I can understand what you’re saying. But statements such as:

This is associated with more moderate approach to our sexual communion that while enjoying the natural pleasure of the communion, does not dwell heavily in maximising sensual pleasures.

…give me the impression that, given their adoption, we are (and you’ll forgive the oxymoron, I pray) locked into a kind of spirit-of-the-law legalism, a poetic scrupulosity that has us, in the midst of a welcome passion, ask ourselves silly questions like, “am I enjoying this too much?”

it is unhygenic to… …engage the mouth in pursuits detrimental to its purpose.

Like kissing? Serious question.

Additionally, I believe it is a demonstration of scrupulosity to pursue lines of thought such as the suggestion that other posters are interested in coming as close to sinning as possible without actually sinning. Now I’ve seen this opinion expressed in many threads here, both sexuality related and otherwise. But it doesn’t work. Consider the example: is it the sin of theft to take a quarter from a “take a penny, leave a penny” jar, because there’s nothing that says it’s OK to take a quarter? Now imagine someone responding, “the OP only asks this because he wants to get as close to sin as possible without actually sinning.” No, the OP is asking it because he needed a quarter one time. Like, for real people, let’s get a grip.

 

[Galbin]

Yes I’m female.

I’ve been Catholic all my life, formed in a thoroughly Catholic environment and a lot of times I find the approach that some Catholics advise to others is just so foriegn to that. It’s that approach that I try to question and influence with another perspective.

I trust in everything the Magisterium teaches. What we are talking of here are some behaviours that aren’t addressed by the Magisterium specifically just as many things are not specifically addressed by the Magisterium because that would require 10 libraries full of rule books.

When we talk about chastity, either celibate or marital, we aren’t talking about a behavioural quality, we are talking about an ontological disposition that is directly related to charity. As the Catechism says “2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.”

There is a strong suggestion that chastity is dictated by personal desire and can manifest vastly differently in marriages. But in reality desire is dictated by the chaste disposition and is much more uniform than other qualities that are subject to choice dictated by culture, time and individual preference.

In religious celibate chastity, there is a universal ideal of chastity and the practices and exercises all seek to overcome the dominance of fleshly desire as the sympton of original sin.

In marriage there is also an ideal of chastity and in its own way, the marital desire needs to be moderated by that ideal and not the other way around.

When someone says of an act ‘it isn’t mentioned in the Catechism or addressed by the Magisterium, therefore it isn’t sinful you’re good to go’… that is foriegn to the attitude of chastity. Chastity isn’t a matter of personal choice dependent of personal preferences. That is the language associated with hedonism ie. it is my right and no one can tell me otherwise. It is like reverse scrupulosity.

And also, when there is a strong emphasis on sex being a ‘right and duty’ in the hedonistic sense of entitlement, that is also foriegn to the Catholic regard for marital intimacy.

All these things are important and relevant along with the fact that it is unhygenic to engage with fecal matter in this act and to engage the mouth in pursuits detrimental to its purpose.

Times have thankfully changed in the Catholic Church, and IME the church of 2014 actively encourages marital love between couples. In fact, it goes so far as to celebrate it. So I am not sure why you are bringing up the idea of chastity within a marriage! Perhaps you and your husband have not engaged in oral sex (which is obviously your choice, and perfectly fine), but it is not right for you to deride couples that do. Particularly since some women cannot experience sexual pleasure from intercourse alone.

I also strongly disagree with your statement that sex is not a marital duty. It absolutely is, and I personally am saddended to see all the men here who are suffering due to their wife’s sexual issues. My doctor told me to abstain for a month recently to see if it would help my health issues. It didn’t, so we resumed normal relations. However, there is absolutely no way I would ever refrain from sexual activity on a long term basis without doing everything I could to fix the issue. I would see doctors, psychologists, therapists - whatever it took in order to fix my issues. So I cannot believe these people who just let their spouses suffer, particularly since the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce (neither do I!).

I basically feel that it is cruel and heartless to deny your spouse sexual relations. It is also contrary to God’s laws on marriage. Chastity has no place in a marriage whatsoever, aside from for NFP reasons.