Unitive "foreplay only" a grave matter?

[bilop]

So I am confused. Is foreplay with my wife bad? I am looking for a yes or no. Any advise? I know that masturbation is wrong but I have not heard a lot about foreplay.

No.

Foreplay (and, suprisingly to some, the Church has a pretty broad range of acceptable foreplay) is fine and necessary as long as it leads to intercourse.

Foreplay, for the purpose of sexual enjoyment, when you don’t intend to have intercourse, could very well be sinful.

God Bless

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Foreplay, for the purpose of sexual enjoyment, when you don’t intend to have intercourse, could very well be sinful.

This is misleading. The Church has said that sexually pleasurable foreplay is morally permissible - even during periods when one does not plan to continue on to have sex. It is thus not sinful. However, some acts of foreplay can be sinful if they are done out of lust and not out of genuine regard for one’s spouse. Not all acts of foreplay are like that though, which is why this is misleading. Foreplay without any planned sex afterwards is perfectly fine.

 

[armyross]

No.

Foreplay (and, suprisingly to some, the Church has a pretty broad range of acceptable foreplay) is fine and necessary as long as it leads to intercourse.

Foreplay, for the purpose of sexual enjoyment, when you don’t intend to have intercourse, could very well be sinful.

God Bless

Thanks, I am a new Catholic and I just want to be the best Catholic that I can be for myself and family.

 

[bilop]

This is misleading. The Church has said that sexually pleasurable foreplay is morally permissible - even during periods when one does not plan to continue on to have sex. It is thus not sinful. However, some acts of foreplay can be sinful if they are done out of lust and not out of genuine regard for one’s spouse. Not all acts of foreplay are like that though, which is why this is misleading. Foreplay without any planned sex afterwards is perfectly fine.

No it hasn’t.

Please provide a source for your statement. An actual Church document or a theologian with the Nihil Obstat on the document.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Thanks, I am a new Catholic and I just want to be the best Catholic that I can be for myself and family.

Welcome home to the Church! Welcome to CA!

If you are interested in the theology of marriage and sex, I would reccomend you check out JP II’s writings on the “Theology of the Body” or, for a simpler version, Christopher West’s interpretation of them. West is a Catholic theologist, and his books have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat , so are free from doctrinal error.

I would also warn you to beware that there are some posters on CA who take extreme positions, that are not supported by the Church. If something sounds weird, wait for others to reply, or demand an actual Church document or theologian to support it.

God Bless

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

No.

Foreplay (and, suprisingly to some, the Church has a pretty broad range of acceptable foreplay) is fine and necessary as long as it leads to intercourse.

Foreplay, for the purpose of sexual enjoyment, when you don’t intend to have intercourse, could very well be sinful.

God Bless

Not to get jammed-up between rlg 94086 and nobeerinheaven, but let’s see if I got this straight: If I cuddle with my wife (with no intention to take things further - it’s late, I’m old) and *don’t *enjoy it, that’s morally permissible. But if I *do *- or *we *do - derive physical pleasure from cuddling, then that’s morally suspect if not sinful. Is that Canon Catch-22?

 

[armyross]

Welcome home to the Church! Welcome to CA!

If you are interested in the theology of marriage and sex, I would reccomend you check out JP II’s writings on the “Theology of the Body” or, for a simpler version, Christopher West’s interpretation of them. West is a Catholic theologist, and his books have the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat , so are free from doctrinal error.

I would also warn you to beware that there are some posters on CA who take extreme positions, that are not supported by the Church. If something sounds weird, wait for others to reply, or demand an actual Church document or theologian to support it.

God Bless

Thanks for the advise.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

No it hasn’t.

Please provide a source for your statement. An actual Church document or a theologian with the Nihil Obstat on the document.

LOL - Read the thread. It’s on page 5, and I’ve said that there is that on page 5 two or three times now!

The link is here, if you don’t want to go searching for it:

1. Marital chastity during the fertile time is not the same as pre-marital chastity. A married couple can engage in a degree of kissing and touching that would be objectively sinful for the unmarried; for the married couple, such behavior looks forward to the full sexual union they may legitimately have now or are postponing until later. If passion should take over, they may rather obviously engage in full marital relations.

1. Activities that are sexually arousing are permissible provided that they do not become excessively arousing. That is, they should be expressions of marital love and affection, but they should not lead to orgasm or provide excessive temptation for either spouse to seek relief of sexual tension through masturbation.

1. Spouses may engage in activities they know will be sexually arousing, providing they intend to keep such activities under control as in the paragraph above.

1. Spouses may engage in these activities with the intention of experiencing a certain degree of sexual pleasure, provided they intend to keep such activities and degree of pleasure under control.

Nihil obstat: Rev. Christopher R. Armstrong
Imprimatur: Most Rev. James H. Garland, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Cincinnati,
August 16, 1988

 

[bilop]

Not to get jammed-up between rlg 94086 and nobeerinheaven, but let’s see if I got this straight: If I cuddle with my wife (with no intention to take things further - it’s late, I’m old) and *don’t *enjoy it, that’s morally permissible. But if I *do *- or *we *do - derive physical pleasure from cuddling, then that’s morally suspect if not sinful. Is that Canon Catch-22?

No. Cuddling, kissing, passionate kissing, hugging, etc. are not what I mean by foreplay, they’re fine pretty much any time. By foreplay, I’m referring to acts deliberately intended to get you ready for intercourse.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

LOL - Read the thread. It’s on page 5, and I’ve said that there is that on page 5 two or three times now!

The link is here, if you don’t want to go searching for it:

That’s not foreplay they are referring too.

That’s affection. Kissing, hugging, cuddling, etc. They may end up being arousing, but are not intentional meant to arouse.

Foreplay is deliberate actions to arouse in preparation of intercourse.

That citation is clearly not referring to something like genital stimulation (which is foreplay).

God Bless

 

[jmcrae]

Not to get jammed-up between rlg 94086 and nobeerinheaven, but let’s see if I got this straight: If I cuddle with my wife (with no intention to take things further - it’s late, I’m old) and *don’t *enjoy it, that’s morally permissible.

Um, I think it’s more, if you enjoy it in a non-sexual and unaroused kind of way - ie: that it’s nice to be warm, and feels good to be hugged.

As to the rest of it, like I said above, we should avoid sexually teasing our spouses, I think. Don’t get them all warm and then leave them hanging, so to speak.

 

[theistgal]

Man … I just had to turn up the air conditioning after reading this thread!

 

[nobeerinheaven]

But if I *do *- or *we *do - derive physical pleasure from cuddling, then that’s morally suspect if not sinful.

No, that puritanical position is not endorsed by any official Chuch document - even if the pleasure you derive is sexual pleasure.

Spouses may engage in activities they know will be sexually arousing, providing they intend to keep such activities under control [by not leading to orgasm or provide excessive temptation for either spouse to seek relief of sexual tension through masturbation].

Nihil obstat: Rev. Christopher R. Armstrong
Imprimatur: Most Rev. James H. Garland, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Cincinnati

Clearly engaging in foreplay - activity that is known to be sexually arousing - with no intention to engage in sex afterwards is perfectly fine according to an authoritative spokesperson for the Church. Bilop, clearly you are wrong to think this is not speaking of sexual acts, and only applying to non-sexual acts of foreplay - they explicitly endorse sexual acts without normal marital relations afterward.

 

[LittleOne1]

The whole problem with this appears to be what peole consider by the term foreplay.

I think bilop and nobeerinheaven accpet the same principles of what to avoid, but this arguement keeps going because you two understand that word differently. if you both agree by what is meant by the link nobeerinheaven mentions and not some act that purposefully places a spouse close to climax or desiring to mastubate, then I think this conversation is moot.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

LittleOne1, I disagree. I understand foreplay to include most sexual acts that normally lead up to sex - heavy petting, passionate kissing, etc. According to the Church, one can round the bases without intending a home run, if you understand my meaning. I am not talking about “foreplay” as the same as cuddling or other non-sexual acts.

 

[LittleOne1]

Well then I am sorry I disagree then because that is like dangling the proverbial carrot in front of the rabbit. You cannot push yourself to the edge and hope to not fall over. If a couple goes into some strong degree of affection with the idea that if it does get really arousing, they would be open to compelting the act, that would be different, but if you are trying to abstain; it is unwise to see how far you can push the carriage before it goes over the edge; a little close to check out the scernery sure, but pushing as you sound like you are saying goes beyond what is permitted.

 

[newbetx]

Me thinks there is entirely too much focus on sin and too little focus on love.

Really. Sex is an extention of love when done properly. Sex, done without love for the other, but for one’s own or “mutual” pleasure only is lust and a sin no matter how far you go or do not.

I think we can agree that once intercourse starts, a couple should continue it (except for extenuating circumstances).
Touching the other’s privates is preparation for the act and should be reserved for such. However, there may be situations where the act can not be completed (health reasons, etc.) and a more excitable state for the couple might be “justifiable” (sorry can’t think of the right word, now). Organsm, of course, is reserved for the formal and completeable act.

From what I understand from TOB, sex is a gift of self for the enjoyment of the couple as an expression of love for each other. We must remember that it is fantastic gift. But so is the company, affection and snuggling of a spouse. All things in moderation, I guess.

 

[newbetx]

Man … I just had to turn up the air conditioning after reading this thread!

Save energy… find your spouse and take off clothes instead.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

You cannot push yourself to the edge and hope to not fall over. If a couple goes into some strong degree of affection with the idea that if it does get really arousing, they would be open to compelting the act, that would be different, but if you are trying to abstain it is unwise

The way I set up the question, and the way that the essay I linked to set up the scenario, is that if things get too “hot and heavy” the act would be completed in normal marital relations - even if the plan was otherwise to abstain, it is better to have a child than to commit a sin.

Touching the other’s privates is preparation for the act and should be reserved for such.

Notice, again, this is private personal opinion and the Church does not say anything like this. First it doesn’t draw a line in the sand, reserving some foreplay to only before sex, and second it doesn’t say any foreplay - no matter how sexually stimulating, as long as it does not result in temptation or sin - is wrong, even if no sex is intended afterwards. Some acts of foreplay count as lust, if they are done purely for sexual pleasure, but other acts of foreplay are permitted even when the couple does not intend to engage in sex afterwards. *Notice that this can also include genital stimulation - that is morally permissible, according to the Church - even if no sex is intended. *

 

[bugz2007]

LOL - Read the thread. It’s on page 5, and I’ve said that there is that on page 5 two or three times now!

The link is here, if you don’t want to go searching for it:

How about we actually quote the guidelines from that document in their entirety, instead of choosing the parts that support our arguments?

1. Marital chastity during the fertile time is not the same as pre-marital chastity. A married couple can engage in a degree of kissing and touching that would be objectively sinful for the unmarried; for the married couple, such behavior looks forward to the full sexual union they may legitimately have now or are postponing until later. If passion should take over, they may rather obviously engage in full marital relations.

1. Activities that are sexually arousing are permissible provided that they do not become excessively arousing. That is, they should be expressions of marital love and affection, but they should not lead to orgasm or provide excessive temptation for either spouse to seek relief of sexual tension through masturbation.

1. Spouses may engage in activities they know will be sexually arousing, providing they intend to keep such activities under control as in the paragraph above.

1. Spouses may engage in these activities with the intention of experiencing a certain degree of sexual pleasure, provided they intend to keep such activities and degree of pleasure under control.

5: Spouses should have good reason for engaging in any such activity because it may carry the remote possibility of involuntary orgasm. Such reasons would include the need to be held, to be appreciated, and even to take the edge off sexual tension. In every case the primary intention of the spouses ought to be the promotion of their marriage bond, not just the pleasure to be experienced.

1. The spouses should not engage in those activities which normally lead to complete carnal arousal and completed relations. Thus it is hard to justify one spouse repeatedly caressing the clitoris or penis of the other outside of immediate foreplay for marital intercourse. This is why fellatio and cunnilingus should only be used as foreplay for normal intercourse.

1. The caress and kissing of each other’s breasts and chest depends on its effects. For some couples this would be overpowering and should be limited to immediate foreplay; other couples apparently can do this without being excessively aroused. The type and duration of kissing can also have varying effects. Some couples can handle open-mouthed kissing for some time; others find it excessively arousing and best suited as part of immediate foreplay.

The purpose of this brochure is not to encourage the practice of seeing “how far can we go.” It has been developed to provide answers to repeated questions. There can be dangers in seeking to maximize pleasure, especially on an habitual basis. There are real spiritual benefits for a certain degree of asceticism even in the marital relationship. Furthermore, a heavy emphasis on the erotic during the fertile time may serve to detract from the development off non-genital marital court

ship that is so necessary for building and enriching a good marital relationship.