Unitive "foreplay only" a grave matter?

[rlg94086]

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.

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.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “arousal.” If you mean an involuntary physical response caused by kissing, carressing, etc., then I would say as long as you aren’t cuddling for the purpose of sexual pleasure, you are okay. Now, mutual masturbatory acts with the genitals, IMHO, would be pretty hard to justify as a form of cuddling with no desire for sexual pleasure…but maybe that’s just me being prudish.

This is why the intent is one of the big lines from my understanding.

newbetx:

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 with you…again this is where intent comes in. If you didn’t intend sexual arousal for pleasure outside of the marital embrace, then I think you are less culpable for “going to far” then if that was your original intent. That argument could even be made, if you went all the way to orgasm because you may have lost your senses once you were aroused. However, if you are aware, you would recognize the signs of sexual arousal and learn to stop before “going too far” the next time. To use the “technicality” constantly would be dishonest and a sign that you really were mortally sinning.

newbetx:

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.

Yes, but if it is for the purpose of sexual pleasure outside of the marital act, then it isn’t the proper expression of love according to Church teaching, whether it was an expression of love or not.

 

[rlg94086]

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.

Right…which is why I don’t see how salvation by works is even connected to this conversation. No one is saying that if you avoid sins against chastity that you will be saved.

 

[rlg94086]

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

Arousal of a woman to orgasm (or even short of it, if the intent is sexual pleasure) outside of the marital embrace is a grave sin.

 

[He_Man]

Arousal of a woman to orgasm (or even short of it, if the intent is sexual pleasure) outside of the marital embrace is a grave sin.

Succinct, and helpful, thanks man.

 

[whatevergirl]

Right…which is why I don’t see how salvation by works is even connected to this conversation. No one is saying that if you avoid sins against chastity that you will be saved.

Excellent! I understand the points being made, now.

 

[rlg94086]

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’d be curious to know exactly what you asked and exactly what they answered. Both bilop and I have been discussing the intent and explaining that it has a lot of weight in determining the sinfulness of an act. I am guessing your Canon lawyer and Priest would agree.

nobeerinheaven:

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.

Would they really? Well, in that case, the foreplay isn’t for sexual pleasure, correct? If that is the case, what sort of “foreplay only” are you talking about? The Catechism does not say “orgasm” seperate from the marital act - it says “sexual pleasure.” If your “foreplay only” isn’t for sexual pleasure, then I take it you are talking about cuddling.

 

[rlg94086]

btw nobeerinheaven…If I understand you correctly, under the arguments you make, a man and woman could actually do anything short of orgasm. Is this what you believe? If so, then what is the difference, theologically, between that and a couple who engage in the marital act and stop short of orgasm (coitul interupt)?

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Well, in that case, the foreplay isn’t for sexual pleasure, correct? If that is the case, what sort of “foreplay only” are you talking about? The Catechism does not say “orgasm” seperate from the marital act - it says “sexual pleasure.” If your “foreplay only” isn’t for sexual pleasure, then I take it you are talking about cuddling.

I said before the foreplay was not done for it’s own sake, but for a unitive purpose (after all, check the thread title!) - and sexual pleasure may be and often is unitive, among many acts within a marriage that are unitive. What I am describing are situations many who use NFP likely know well - during the period of abstinence, the couple may still fool around without intending to “go all the way” but willing to “go all the way” if that were necessary to avoid any sin. This fooling around isn’t simply for the sake of giving each other pleasure, but also for the sake of feeling close during periods they must abstain from the marital act or else have a child. This is not been clearly condemned by anything quoted from the Catechism, and even when people make arguments that something falls under a definition in the Catechism - the point of this thread was to ask about what the Church thinks about that. Thus, we should be checking to see if any authoritative Church documents endorse the arguments of those here in condemning “foreplay only.” If they do not, there is a pretty large burden of proof on the arguers, as their arguments would thus not count as clear Church teaching - undermining the claim that certain actions could be construed as grave matter.

rlg94086:

what is the difference, theologically, between that and a couple who engage in the marital act and stop short of orgasm (coitul interupt)?

Coitus interruptus, also known as withdrawal or the pull out method, is a method of contraception in which, during sexual intercourse, the penis is removed from the vagina prior to ejaculation, primarily to avoid introducing semen into the vagina.

The difference between “foreplay only” and Coitus interruptus is that the latter results in the deliberate obstruction of the potential for procreation. The former has no potential for procreation, since there is no ejaculate or orgasm. One is contraceptive, the other is not. If you are describing some variant of the Coitus interruptus method, whereby someone engages in normal marital relations up to the point of almost reaching orgasm and then they both stop altogether, I do not see that this is condemned by the Church as long as it brings the couple closer together and it is done for that purpose - though it is imprudent.

 

[Paul2274]

LOL - No, philosophy grad student.

I get to pick first…I want you on my team!!

Paul

 

[rlg94086]

I said before the foreplay was not done for it’s own sake, but for a unitive purpose (after all, check the thread title!) - and sexual pleasure may be and often is unitive, among many acts within a marriage that are unitive. What I am describing are situations many who use NFP likely know well - during the period of abstinence, the couple may still fool around without intending to “go all the way” but willing to “go all the way” if that were necessary to avoid any sin. This fooling around isn’t simply for the sake of giving each other pleasure, but also for the sake of feeling close during periods they must abstain from the marital act or else have a child. This is not been clearly condemned by anything quoted from the Catechism, and even when people make arguments that someone falls under a definition in the Catechism - the point of this thread was to ask about what the Church thinks about that. Thus, we should be checking to see if any authoritative Church documents endorse the arguments of those here in condemning “foreplay only.” If they do not, there is a pretty large burden of proof on the arguers, as there arguments would thus not count as clear Church teaching - undermining the claim that certain actions could be construed as grave matter.

As I have never seen a priest or theologian make the argument you are making, I would require you to give some evidence, other than your personal philosophical gymnastics, for your theory. Please provide an authoritative source to back up your claims. The fact that most people who accept the teachings of Theology of the Body realize that foreplay is licit only if it ends in the marital act is good enough for me.

nobeerinheaven:

The difference between “foreplay only” and Coitus interruptus is that the latter results in the deliberate obstruction of the potential for procreation. The former has no potential for procreation, since there is no ejaculate or orgasm. One is contraceptive, the other is not. If you are describing some variant of the Coitus interruptus method, whereby someone engages in normal marital relations up to the point of almost reaching orgasm and then they both stop altogether, I do not see that this is condemned by the Church as long as it brings the couple closer together and it is done for that purpose - though it is imprudent.

Yes, that is what I am talking about. Please ask your Canon lawyer and priest that one…I will be surprised if they agree with you.

 

[rlg94086]

nobeerinheaven,

Just curious, but what sort of guidelines do you give the unmarried?

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God.** They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love**. They will help each other grow in chastity.

2353 *Fornication *is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

Is everything short of coitus (and sodomy, of course) is licit? “Heavy petting” is fine as long as it doesn’t lead to a marital embrace? Or are they denied all unitive and the procreative expressions? Where does sexual pleasure come in?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Arousal of a woman to orgasm (or even short of it, if the intent is sexual pleasure) outside of the marital embrace is a grave sin.

Succinct, and helpful, thanks man.

While I am sure that the intent in the succinct statement was to be correct; it is so succint that, as written, it is quite incorrect or needs much interpretation to be correct.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I’d be curious to know exactly what you asked and exactly what they answered. Both bilop and I have been discussing the intent and explaining that it has a lot of weight in determining the sinfulness of an act. I am guessing your Canon lawyer and Priest would agree.

Would they really? Well, in that case, the foreplay isn’t for sexual pleasure, correct? If that is the case, what sort of “foreplay only” are you talking about? The Catechism does not say “orgasm” seperate from the marital act - it says “sexual pleasure.” If your “foreplay only” isn’t for sexual pleasure, then I take it you are talking about cuddling.

I am correct then that in your thinking cuddling never causes sexual pleasure???

 

[rlg94086]

I am correct then that in your thinking cuddling never causes sexual pleasure???

Nope…that would mean you haven’t read all my posts.

 

[Seatuck]

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 would not include handholding , kissing or snuggling before sleep as foreplay. Foreplay is deliberate stimulation of sexual organs.

 

[Seatuck]

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 would agree. It’s a matter of discernment as to where the time to stop takes place and sin begins.As you say it is a matter of intent. At what point does the couple become aware they have crossed the line. Requires some discernment and perhaps a little spiritual counseling.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

I would not include handholding , kissing or snuggling before sleep as foreplay. Foreplay is deliberate stimulation of sexual organs.

But isn’t the point what the *Church *would consider foreplay, and therefore prohibited to even married couples unless the full and unimpeded marital act were intended? Maybe not handholding, but certainly kissing (especially deep kissing) and bodily contact (especially among in-the-buff sleepers) can certainly cause “stimulation of the sexual organs.” So are we then saying that under certain - maybe even many - circumstances, married couples can’t kiss or “snuggle” – those circumstances being when there’s a danger of arousal and no intention to perform the Marital Act? Or is it a matter of direct stimulation vs. indirect stimulation of the genitals?

 

[Seatuck]

This is a non-sequitur, as far as I can tell. Even if the purpose of foreplay is to prepare one for the completed sexual act, that does not imply the preparation must be for an *immediate *sexual act. Nothing in the language of the Catechism precludes that preparation from occurring several days before the act - nor do I see anything in the Catechism that defines the only permissible goal of foreplay as preparation for sex. Thus, “foreplay only” several days before the sexual act would be morally licit, insofar as it psychologically prepares one for the marital relations being planned for in the near future.

Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that the definition of a “unitive purpose” is a purpose to have ordinary marital relations; “unitive” thus means something like “of or pertaining to vaginal sex.”

This does not seem to be defined as such by the Catechism (or, if you think it is defined in that way, please show why we should agree). Certainly ordinary marital relations would be sufficient to be unitive, but it does not seem to be necessary. My giving my wife a hug is unitive too. It unites and celebrates the fact that we are one flesh. Insofar as foreplay also celebrates that fact, I do not see how this definition condemns “foreplay only” as lust.

The Catechism is not the end of study. It is a starting point for teaching. You probably want to delve deeper into the moral theology of the marital union. Theology of the Body for instance. Or Karol Wotyla’s Love and Responsibility as well as any of the Christopher West stuff. A good Moral Theology text would be helpful. Perhaps your priest could lend you one of his. You could check into the references contained within those sources as well.

I’ve always seen writers use the language of certain activities being allowed to take place within the context of a marital act. The implication of a short period of time is always there. I’ve never seen any instruction which implied that days before was within the context of a marital act.

West describes foreplay as the acts by which spouses prepare each other for genital intercoure. I would never in a million years compare a good morning hug or goodbye have a good day hug with my husband as foreplay. We both know we are not at that moment preparing for genital intercourse. We both know that those body parts are not involved in genital intercourse and we both know that we are not intenionally stimualating any genital organs in preparation for intercourse. My husband gave me hug today when I was crying over finding out a co-worker is mortally ill. Trust me it was a loving act and in no way was a preparation for genital intercourse.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Nope…that would mean you haven’t read all my posts.

I read them all. They just don’t make sense to me on this issue.

Perhaps you can explain then this statement:

If your “foreplay only” isn’t for sexual pleasure, then I take it you are talking about cuddling.

This seems to say that if the purpose of foreplay is not sexual pleasure then it isn’t foreplay but it is cuddling. That seems to imply that cuddling is on the non-sexual pleasure side of the ledger.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I would not include handholding , kissing or snuggling before sleep as foreplay. Foreplay is deliberate stimulation of sexual organs.

Perhaps you all snuggle differently than the folks I know.