Unitive "foreplay only" a grave matter?

[CuriousInIL]

• • • The goal of foreplay is to prepare the couple to engage in the one flesh union. Therefore foreplay that has no intention of creating the one flesh union is wrong. * * * But to intentionally engage in foreplay with the full knowledge that you will stop before intercourse occurs is problematic.

Do you have any citation to church teaching for this or are these just your opinions?

In either event, this thinking to me means that a married couple could not even snuggle a bit (especially if they are the types that sleep in the buff) before going to sleep. Is that intended to be among the prohibited activities?

 

[bilop]

Do you have any citation to church teaching for this or are these just your opinions?

In either event, this thinking to me means that a married couple could not even snuggle a bit (especially if they are the types that sleep in the buff) before going to sleep. Is that intended to be among the prohibited activities?

I think people are taking this all a little too far in looking for detailed guidance.

It seems pretty obvious to me the difference between kissing/cuddling etc. and foreplay. One’s loving, playful etc., the other is getting you revved up for sex. As long as the behavior is not the type designed to get you revved up, it’s fine outside of intercourse.

 

[rlg94086]

I think people are taking this all a little too far in looking for detailed guidance.

It seems pretty obvious to me the difference between kissing/cuddling etc. and foreplay. One’s loving, playful etc., the other is getting you revved up for sex. As long as the behavior is not the type designed to get you revved up, it’s fine outside of intercourse.

Fully agree…and well said!

 

[rlg94086]

The question was framed so that the sexual acts were unitive, and were sought to bring the couple together. Likewise, the sexual pleasure is not being sought “for it’s own sake” but for the sake of bringing the married couple closer.

If one reads the second clause of the Catechism as being informed by the first clause, then as long as one is not seeking the sexual pleasure for its own sake then it will ipso facto not be isolated from unitive and procreative purposes - particularly so when the sexual pleasure is not sought for its own sake but for the sake of a unitive purpose. That would then seem clearly to be permissible by this definition in the Catechism.

Philosphy grad student, right? You did take Basic Logic then, I suppose.

Chancellare:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC 2351
*“Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative **and ***unitive purposes.”

The circumstances in OP’s question tend to imply that sexual pleasure is sought for itself and that there is no intention to integrate the foreplay into “procreative and unitive purposes”. Therefore it is against CCC 2351.However, if the intention is not to limit the act within the “sexual pleasure only” but the couple remains open to the mutual self-giving within the procreative and unitive aspect of the act, there is no disorder.

“And” doesn’t mean “or,” so foreplay if used for sexual pleasure separate from the marital act (which is unitive and procreative), is a grave matter.

nobeerinheaven:

This seems to leave us right where we started from, unless a good case can be made that the ‘and’ is a conjunctive ‘and’ - meaning all sexual acts must be both unitive and procreative, but that seems intuitively wrong. Also, it seems legitimate to ask for what the Church defines as an act being “isolated” from procreative and unitive purposes. If one is open to having ordinary marital relations if things get too “hot and heavy” (as rwoehmke described) does that mean that the actions are not isolated from these purposes? More clarification seems to be needed to secure definitive teaching against “foreplay only.” Don’t you think?

Oh…wait a minute…you did see it. I don’t see how you got to the conclusion that it is “intuitively wrong” though? The completed marital act is “unitive and procreative” as long as the couple is open to procreation (iow…some try to claim that a sterile couple’s sex is not procreative, but that is not true).

 

[CuriousInIL]

Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative **and **unitive purposes.

“And” doesn’t mean “or,” so foreplay if used for sexual pleasure separate from the marital act (which is unitive and procreative), is a grave matter.

So, if “and” doesn’t mean “or,” as long as the act is either procreative or unitive it is fine. That is, if either A or B is true, then it is not isolated from A **and **B.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I think people are taking this all a little too far in looking for detailed guidance.

It seems pretty obvious to me the difference between kissing/cuddling etc. and foreplay. One’s loving, playful etc., the other is getting you revved up for sex. As long as the behavior is not the type designed to get you revved up, it’s fine outside of intercourse.

I wish I had your sense then because it is not at all clear to me and without getting into TMI, around here kissing/cuddling etc. are part of foreplay.

 

[bilop]

I wish I had your sense then because it is not at all clear to me and without getting into TMI, around here kissing/cuddling etc. are part of foreplay.

Yes, but there is a clear difference between “cuddling” and “cuddling to arousal”. If an action leads to arousal, it’s probably foreplay.

God Bless

 

[rlg94086]

So, if “and” doesn’t mean “or,” as long as the act is either procreative or unitive it is fine. That is, if either A or B is true, then it is not isolated from A **and **B.

LOL. Good point. However, you run into this little problem:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

and this problem:

2352 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."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” 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."139

IOW…foreplay (as opposed to cuddling, etc.) without the marital embrace is “sexual pleasure” outside of the “unitive and procreative”…which can’t be separated.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, but there is a clear difference between “cuddling” and “cuddling to arousal”. If an action leads to arousal, it’s probably foreplay.

God Bless

I agree, but if the couple were cuddling, started to be aroused and therefore stopped cuddling because they were in a period of abstinence, I would say there was no grave sin in that case. Intent matters when it comes to sin.

 

[bilop]

I agree, but if the couple were cuddling, started to be aroused and therefore stopped cuddling because they were in a period of abstinence, I would say there was no grave sin in that case. Intent matters when it comes to sin.

I concur. It would be sinful only if they intended to become aroused, or knew it was very likely.

God Bless

 

[He_Man]

Yes, but there is a clear difference between “cuddling” and “cuddling to arousal”. If an action leads to arousal, it’s probably foreplay.

God Bless

Does this apply to women as well? I have heard that it is okay to pleasure your wife during times of abstinence, since the man would not be spilling any seed outside of the womb.

And to say “the lines do not need to be drawn cleqrly” is not true. The Church is dealing with people who can potentially go to Hell, FOREVER. There is no second chance after death. There is no wiggle room. Therefor, the expectation on behalf of the Church’s followers HAS TO BE some certainty in the “rules.”

It is akin to saying “there are some laws that can send to jail for life if you break them, but I can’t specifically tell you whay they are.”

 

[bilop]

Does this apply to women as well? I have heard that it is okay to pleasure your wife during times of abstinence, since the man would not be spilling any seed outside of the womb.

And to say “the lines do not need to be drawn cleqrly” is not true. The Church is dealing with people who can potentially go to Hell, FOREVER. There is no second chance after death. There is no wiggle room. Therefor, the expectation on behalf of the Church’s followers HAS TO BE some certainty in the “rules.”

It is akin to saying “there are some laws that can send to jail for life if you break them, but I can’t specifically tell you whay they are.”

A man can stimulate his wife to orgasm, DURING the marital act (foreplay or afterplay) but NOT in isolation from it.

The reason the lines can’t be drawn clearly is intent. XYZ act maye be sinful or not depending on the couples’ likely reaction, intentions etc. Only the couple can know what there intentions are.

If they intend to become aroused and do acts to provoke this, outside of lead up to the marital act, it is most likely sinful. But no one can, in the abstract, say what acts will lead to arousal, or whether a couple intends this.

God Bless

 

[He_Man]

A man can stimulate his wife to orgasm, DURING the marital act (foreplay or afterplay) but NOT in isolation from it.

The reason the lines can’t be drawn clearly is intent. XYZ act maye be sinful or not depending on the couples’ likely reaction, intentions etc. Only the couple can know what there intentions are.

If they intend to become aroused and do acts to provoke this, outside of lead up to the marital act, it is most likely sinful. But no one can, in the abstract, say what acts will lead to arousal, or whether a couple intends this.

God Bless

I understand, I just think being vague is a bit unfair when proclaiming the doctrine of Hell’s certainty and the doom of mortal sin (both of which i agree with, mind you…)

 

[whatevergirl]

None of us mere mortals can speak with absolute certainty of who will arrive in hell, or reach eternal salvation.

The trouble I have with these conversations, is that it borderlines that we somehow feel that if we follow the rules, we will ‘earn’ salvation. It can’t be earned…Jesus’ death on the cross paid for our sin debt, it is our responsibility and duty as Christians to lead pure and holy lives, so that we can truly say that we are followers of Christ…not just hearers of the Word. When we follow God’s laws, we show Him our love. When we know His laws, and refuse to follow them–we show Him that we love ourselves more. That being said, mortal sin is not an easy place to be in…I don’t imagine that God expects perfection from us…but He expects us to learn His laws, and keep trying to improve…to strive towards perfection. Only One was perfect.

But, God is all merciful. We cannot know with absolute certainty the destiny of a person’s soul…only God knows.

 

[rlg94086]

None of us mere mortals can speak with absolute certainty of who will arrive in hell, or reach eternal salvation.

The trouble I have with these conversations, is that** it borderlines that we somehow feel that if we follow the rules, we will ‘earn’ salvation**. It can’t be earned…Jesus’ death on the cross paid for our sin debt, it is our responsibility and duty as Christians to lead pure and holy lives, so that we can truly say that we are followers of Christ…not just hearers of the Word.

But, God is all merciful. We cannot know with absolute certainty the destiny of a person’s soul…only God knows.

I don’t see the connection. Being concerned with the sinful nature of some of our relationships has nothing to do with “earning” our salvation. In fact, it is just the opposite. The concern is that we could lose our salvation by committing mortal sin which goes unrepented/unabsolved.

 

[newbetx]

Does this apply to women as well? I have heard that it is okay to pleasure your wife during times of abstinence, since the man would not be spilling any seed outside of the womb.

Do you mean to orgasm? No, definately not. Do you mean by touching her “there”? Some here would say it is off limits. And the quote of the CCC would seem to imply somenting like that.

And to say “the lines do not need to be drawn cleqrly” is not true. The Church is dealing with people who can potentially go to Hell, FOREVER. There is no second chance after death. There is no wiggle room. Therefor, the expectation on behalf of the Church’s followers HAS TO BE some certainty in the “rules.”

Some lines ARE drawn. Some are not. So far, we’ve heard the line is somewhere between orgasm and kissing. Although if the “anything that causes arrousal” definition is used, I’ll have to move out of the house.

It is akin to saying “there are some laws that can send to jail for life if you break them, but I can’t specifically tell you whay they are.”

The good thing here is that if we don’t understand that we went too far, then it is not mortal. I don’t like using the technicallity, though. I know a lot of folks want the rule written. Just as many want to know how many kids are required, too. These questions have been left to the couple.

Again, I think it pertains to the couple. What is love? How do we express it to one another? How do we reflect that showing of affection to our relationship with God?
So does it come down to this?
“If a spouse touches specific portion(s) of the partners body, then the couple must have sex or they will go to hell.” Is that what “we” are looking for? Certainly, I could agree that some actions should be left for the marital embrace that would include more than the mear orgasm. So again, we need to be prudent, but I don’t think, prudish.

If ANY action is for sexual pleasure only and not an expression of love, then there is STILL a problem, whether you had sex or not.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

It seems pretty obvious to me the difference between kissing/cuddling etc. and foreplay. One’s loving, playful etc., the other is getting you revved up for sex. As long as the behavior is not the type designed to get you revved up, it’s fine outside of intercourse.

And so anything that “revs” one up is wrong? That seems to lead to the absurd conclusion that passionately kissing one’s spouse during a period of abstinence is wrong. On top of that absurdity, I simply do not see any Church support for this argument (and have been assured by a Canon lawyer and Priest that there is nothing wrong with that). More citations need to be supplied for this line of thought to hold weight - has the Church endorsed these conclusions?

I don’t see how you got to the conclusion that it is “intuitively wrong” though? The completed marital act is “unitive and procreative” as long as the couple is open to procreation.

It was part of the same post

nobeerinheaven:

Assuming the sexual pleasure is not sought for its own sake, we may ask what the sense of “and” is in the Catechism (“isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes”) - is it the disjunctive ‘and’ or the conjunctive ‘and’? That is, must all sexual acts be done for the sake of something that is both unitive and procreative? Prima facie, no: for, if so, that would imply that a passionate kiss is morally impermissible even if it is done as foreplay leading up to sex - as it is isolated (at least in some sense) from a procreative purpose - the act of kissing does little to bring about a child. Additionally, NFP seems to allow that even completed sexual acts lack procreative purpose (understood as ‘intent to bring about a child’), even though they are open to life. Likewise, it seems as though the ‘and’ is a disjunctive ‘and’: sexual acts should be done for the sake of either uniting a couple, or procreating between the couple, and ideally both (but not both by moral necessity).

CuriousInIL helpfully pointed out the ambiguity in what this phrase describes: if sexual activity is unitive in purpose (and we’ve framed the question that it is so), then it seems strange to say that it is “isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes.” You may think that the ‘and’ here is one of strict conjunction; thus, sexual activity involves *both *unitive *and *procreative purposes - and if one of those purposes is lacking, then it is isolated from the conjunctive set that is unitive and procreative purposes.

“And” needn’t be used in this way, though. But what if it is? you say that “The completed marital act is “unitive and procreative” as long as the couple is open to procreation.” OK, so the satisfaction of the procreative purpose of a sexual act is that it is open to life. That is important because: nothing in sexual stimulation during “foreplay only” is closed to life, at least as I have constructed the hypothetical scenario. These acts are open to life in the sense that if things went “out of control” the act would be completed in ordinary marital relations. Likewise, it seems that from your own conditions, “foreplay only” would even satisfy the strictly conjunctive reading of the Catechism.

[1 of 2]

 

[nobeerinheaven]

[2 of 2]

This helps us understand how the following is unproblematic and does not supply definite teaching against “foreplay only”:
Catechism:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

Your complaint seems to be that “foreplay only” stifles the transmission of life - but it only does so in the sense that any action besides sex during and shortly before ovulation stifles transmission of life. It is certainly open to life, as we have already described, so the acts involved do not stifle life-giving potential. This is the important dividing line between completed non-vaginal acts of sex, such as masturbation, and normal marital relations: the act has life giving potential which is intentionally prevent from being actualized. “Foreplay only” does not have life giving potential and thus cannot be lumped into the same category as masturbation or other strictly condemned acts.

Likewise:
Catechism:

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.”*

Again, the point the Catechism seems to be making is that sexual acts which have life giving potential that are purposefully obstructed from actualizing that potential are wrong. This falls into the clear teachings of the Magisterium: masturbation, (completed) oral sex, sodomy, contraception, etc are wrong - wrong because they actively prevent life from being produced when there is natural potential for life in the acts. However, there is no life giving potential in the acts of “foreplay only” and is thus not part of the clear teaching the Catechism is alluding to here.

We can see this more clearly when you look at the case of NFP: clearly, sex during the infertile times of a woman’s cycle are not procreative - and yet they are not condemned as against or opposed to “the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” Why not? Because there is no stifling of the potential to give life in the actions - it is open to the actualization of any life potential coming from those actions. The potential for life that is there is not obstructed from being actualized. Similarly, “foreplay only” does not obstruct any potential for life, as it has no potential for life. It is thus equally open to life as using NFP, since it does not obstruct the actualization of potentially procreative actions and is open to any procreation, were it to arise.

To me, much more clear Church teaching needs to surface for this to count as definite prohibition by the Church. Clearly some things are being condemned, but it seems like people are loosely lumping clearly distinct sets of actions in with already prohibited ones in order to satisfy their presuppositions about what the Church teaches. One important thing to ask is if any reliable and authoritative clergy member has taught that “foreplay only” is wrong. If not, then a massive burden of proof rests on those that condemn “foreplay only” as wrong.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t see the connection. Being concerned with the sinful nature of some of our relationships has nothing to do with “earning” our salvation. In fact, it is just the opposite. The concern is that we could lose our salvation by committing mortal sin which goes unrepented/unabsolved.

I don’t disagree…

But, willingness to commit a sin, needs to be present when one is calling something a mortal sin. If one willingly commits a sin, doesn’t care that he/she is violating God’s laws, and dies without repentance…it is possible that he/she could lose salvation. But, again…we cannot say with CERTAINTY who will lose it or have it.

 

[He_Man]

Do you mean to orgasm? No, definately not. Do you mean by touching her “there”? Some here would say it is off limits. And the quote of the CCC would seem to imply somenting like that.

Yes, I meant to orgasm, when intercourse is not going to occur. The woman only, obviously.

Some lines ARE drawn. Some are not. So far, we’ve heard the line is somewhere between orgasm and kissing. Although if the “anything that causes arrousal” definition is used, I’ll have to move out of the house.

Agreed. I think arousal is misleading. My arouses me with a witty comment! I think arousal and orgasm need to be distinguished here. As much as hate typing the word on Catholic Answers repeatedly

The good thing here is that if we don’t understand that we went too far, then it is not mortal. I don’t like using the technicallity, though. I know a lot of folks want the rule written. Just as many want to know how many kids are required, too. These questions have been left to the couple.

I agree, and I think if one is worried, they need to pull back. We cannot however, live life with blinders intentionally.