Unitive "foreplay only" a grave matter?

[rlg94086]

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?

I think the distinction is intent in regards to sexual pleasure. Arousal happens…now there is a bawdy bumper sticker. What I mean is that the feeling and physical manifestations of arousal that occur from loving “snuggling” (e.g. kissing, light carresses, etc.) are different than setting out to physically arouse each other with heavy petting, direct genital stimulation, etc.

That’s why there is no…oh I don’t even want to type it, but I can’t think of an alternative phrase…hard-fast line that the Church can set for people. It isn’t orgasm, as some people contest, but we don’t have to avoid all contact for fear of stimulation. If you are “snuggling” up to your spouse in bed during a period of abstinance and start to get aroused, there is nothing wrong with giving her a very loving kiss and saying “goodnight…I love you” and leaving it at that. If, on the other hand, you feel the strong desire for mutual sexual pleasure and make a conscious decisision not to stop, then if you continue to purposefully stimulate each other and stop short of the marital embrace, you’ve “crossed the line” into sin.

Of course, this is my opinion, as formed by the Catechism, priests, theologians, etc., but I am not going to authoritively state that it is the absolute word from the Holy Catholic Church. (how’s that for a disclaimer? )

 

[bilop]

I think the distinction is intent in regards to sexual pleasure. Arousal happens…now there is a bawdy bumper sticker. What I mean is that the feeling and physical manifestations of arousal that occur from loving “snuggling” (e.g. kissing, light carresses, etc.) are different than setting out to physically arouse each other with heavy petting, direct genital stimulation, etc.

That’s why there is no…oh I don’t even want to type it, but I can’t think of an alternative phrase…hard-fast line that the Church can set for people. It isn’t orgasm, as some people contest, but we don’t have to avoid all contact for fear of stimulation. If you are “snuggling” up to your spouse in bed during a period of abstinance and start to get aroused, there is nothing wrong with giving her a very loving kiss and saying “goodnight…I love you” and leaving it at that. If, on the other hand, you feel the strong desire for mutual sexual pleasure and make a conscious decisision not to stop, then if you continue to purposefully stimulate each other and stop short of the marital embrace, you’ve “crossed the line” into sin.

Of course, this is my opinion, as formed by the Catechism, priests, theologians, etc., but I am not going to authoritively state that it is the absolute word from the Holy Catholic Church. (how’s that for a disclaimer? )

That sums up my understanding of the issue as well.

God Bless

 

[Annn]

Just a random question because I have not read Theology of the Body and have a rudimentary understanding of some of these issues: if a couple begins “foreplay” that is something that would clearly point to sex and one partner, say, loses interest or is having a hard time getting aroused, would the touching/etc that had been started have been a sin?

 

[newbetx]

Just a random question because I have not read Theology of the Body and have a rudimentary understanding of some of these issues: if a couple begins “foreplay” that is something that would clearly point to sex and one partner, say, loses interest or is having a hard time getting aroused, would the touching/etc that had been started have been a sin?

If you start an act with intention to complete it and can not complete it, it is no sin. Happens to us “old” guys now and then. Especially when the baby cries or kid has a nightmare or the MIL calls. No worries!

It’s covered in Christopher West’s The Good News About Sex and Marriage. Highly recommended reading. You’ll learn more than just the “rules about sex” if you read it. Honest!

 

[Seatuck]

Perhaps you all snuggle differently than the folks I know.

If you always associate deliberate stimulation of sexual organs with snuggle then I guess so. I snuggle all the time on the couch with my husband in front of my children. There is no sexplay going on. I snuggle on the couch or in bed before bedtime with my children. No sexplay involved.
Here’s my definition.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/snuggle

intransitive verb : to curl up comfortably or cozily transitive verb 1 : to draw close especially for comfort or in affection 2 : to make snug
— snuggle noun

 

[LittleOne1]

I think couples are open to a lot of degrees of affection so long as that does not lead them to the point over the edge, which maybe slightly different for each couple. Would I recommend couples push the limits with heavy petting of certain areas? No because that clearly goes beyond the level of affection a couple should display if they are not going to engage in the act.

That being said, I think things do happen that are acceptable and not sins. For instance if one spouse tries to get the other n the mood by starting some passionate kissing and heavy petting, and the other spouse says that they are not feeling well tonight and so they discontinue. Another thing would be like other people said, some thing happens like kid crying or other things that might prevent full union. Also if a husband has premature ejaculation while preparing his wife this would not be a sin, so long he did not will it (more a medical problem), or say the wife experienced pain and they could not complete the act. If its in your hearts desire to experience climax apart from union, there is the sin; otherwise accidents or issues can arise that leave foreplay ending just at that and these are not sins.

 

[CuriousInIL]

If you always associate deliberate stimulation of sexual organs with snuggle then I guess so. I snuggle all the time on the couch with my husband in front of my children. There is no sexplay going on. I snuggle on the couch or in bed before bedtime with my children. No sexplay involved.

Here’s my definition.
intransitive verb : to curl up comfortably or cozily transitive verb 1 : to draw close especially for comfort or in affection 2 : to make snug
— snuggle nounFor me this raises a few points. First, saying snuggle = no sexplay may well define an answer to the question of what is the difference between some snuggles and foreplay but begs the question of what does one mean by sexplay. Second, I was not intending to put the word “always” into the discussion at all. I was reaching all the way back to my prior post that asked

…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 see now that might have been misunderstood because of the vagaries of language and the points I left unsaid because I thought were clear but apparently are not. Perhaps the question should be (and now this will likely sound much more stilted):
Is this intended to indicate that, where a married couple (for example, especially those that sleep nude) knows well that drawing close especially for comfort or affection before going to sleep will often result in arousal for one or both of them, the couple generally should avoid such drawing close unless they are committed to going through a completed marital act or at least minimize the drawing close to try to avoid the arousal?

 

[jmcrae]

For me this raises a few points. First, saying snuggle = no sexplay may well define an answer to the question of what is the difference between some snuggles and foreplay but begs the question of what does one mean by sexplay. Second, I was not intending to put the word “always” into the discussion at all. I was reaching all the way back to my prior post that asked

I see now that might have been misunderstood because of the vagaries of language and the points I left unsaid because I thought were clear but apparently are not. Perhaps the question should be (and now this will likely sound much more stilted):
Is this intended to indicate that, where a married couple (for example, especially those that sleep nude) knows well that drawing close especially for comfort or affection before going to sleep will often result in arousal for one or both of them, the couple generally should avoid such drawing close unless they are committed to going through a completed marital act or at least minimize the drawing close to try to avoid the arousal?

I think that, just as a matter of courtesy to one’s spouse, anything that could be construed as “teasing” (in the sexual sense of the word) should be avoided.

 

[rlg94086]

Is this intended to indicate that, where a married couple (for example, especially those that sleep nude) knows well that drawing close especially for comfort or affection before going to sleep will often result in arousal for one or both of them, the couple generally should avoid such drawing close unless they are committed to going through a completed marital act or at least minimize the drawing close to try to avoid the arousal?

Hi CuriousInIL,

I’ve tried to answer this question two or three times, but I guess I haven’t been very clear. The answer is “no.” (that should be clear ) If snuggling causes sexual arousal, there is nothing wrong with that. However, once unintentionally sexually aroused, what does the couple do?

Does the couple make a conscious choice to seek sexual pleasure by using snuggling for that purpose and/or going further than snuggling ("heavy petting)?
Do they just continue to snuggle and ignore the unintentional arousal?
Do they decide to continue arousing each other to the completion of the conjugal act?
Do they give each other a kiss and roll over?

IMHO, all but the very first option are licit. The reason I asked nobeerinheaven about an incompleted sexual act (coitus interruptus without orgasm), was to make it clear that his understanding of sexual pleasure is “orgasm.” To me, that is a pretty narrow definition, and it doesn’t make sense in light of the Church’s teaching on masturbation (i.e. a masturbatory act is still masturbation - “deriving sexual pleasure” -regardless of orgasm).

Btw…as a bonus ( ), I haven’t previously quoted this part of the Catechism, which is probably the clearest on the inseparability of the unitive and procreative…primarily because it uses the word “inseparable.”

CCC:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

Clearly, the example I gave of coitus interruptus without orgasm would be contrary to this teaching. However, I think from my understanding of the Theology of the Body, my other points are on target, as well.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Rlg94086, on page three I posted an argument that also answers the section of the catechism you just quoted:

nobeerinheaven:

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.

That is, given what is explicitly condemned by the Church, the Catechism seems to imply that the the only acts which are condemned as separating the unitive and procreative purposes are those acts which are closed to life. “Foreplay only” does not qualify as being closed to life since it has no life-giving potential. If you want to argue that “foreplay only” is separated from procreative purposes, one of the first things you need to explain is how both a hug and the use of NFP are not separated from procreative purposes either. The only plausible solution I can see is that they satisfy this procreative purpose because they do not involve an intentional obstruction of life-giving potentiality.

Edit:

This essay has an nihil obstat and Imprimatur, and advises couples that “foreplay only” during periods of abstinence **is **morally permissible (I’m guessing for the reasons I outlined above: it is still linked to procreative purposes since it is open to life):

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.

I think that more or less settles the position against “foreplay only” as morally impermissible, as the Rev. Christopher R. Armstrong and the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati Most Rev. James H. Garland ruled that “foreplay only” IS morally permissible.

 

[whatevergirl]

Rlg94086, on page three I posted an argument that also answers the section of the catechism you just quoted:

That is, given what is explicitly condemned by the Church, the Catechism seems to imply that the the only acts which are condemned as separating the unitive and procreative purposes are those acts which are closed to life. “Foreplay only” does not qualify as being closed to life since it has no life-giving potential. If you want to argue that “foreplay only” is separated from procreative purposes, one of the first things you need to explain is how both a hug and the use of NFP are not separated from procreative purposes either. The only plausible solution I can see is that they satisfy this procreative purpose because they do not involve an intentional obstruction of life-giving potentiality.

I’m confused–oral sex also has no ‘life giving’ potential…but, it is not something we should do, to ‘completion.’ I think that typically, foreplay would lead to sex between a husband and wife. I don’t remember a time, when my husband and I viewed foreplay as anything other than the time spent to bring one another to arousal…we don’t view foreplay as hugs. We hug when we walk in from work…sometimes snuggle and have a few kisses while watching tv…this is not foreplay, to me. Maybe it might cause arousal, but it really is not foreplay, in the true sense of the word. (to me)

 

[nobeerinheaven]

whatevergirl: the ejaculate of fellatio is has the potential for life, had it been involved in a licit sexual act. Had the fellatio stopped, before orgasm, then the act had no life giving potential and is likewise seen by the Church as perhaps imprudent, but morally permissible.

 

[rlg94086]

That is, given what is explicitly condemned by the Church, the Catechism seems to imply that the the only acts which are condemned as separating the unitive and procreative purposes are those acts which are closed to life. “Foreplay only” does not qualify as being closed to life since it has no life-giving potential. If you want to argue that “foreplay only” is separated from procreative purposes, one of the first things you need to explain is how both a hug and the ***use of NFP are not separated from procreative purposes either. ***The only plausible solution I can see is that they satisfy this procreative purpose because they do not involve an intentional obstruction of life-giving potentiality.

Easy…a hug isn’t foreplay, unless it is used for deriving *sexual pleasure. *

NFP, first of all, is completely open to life. Further, the Catechism says "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." …as I already quoted…now with added emphasis on “ordered per se.” It also says, “Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.” (2370).

Clearly, “ordered per se” means that the conjugal act during an infertile period, or by a couple who is physically sterile, including those where the woman is in menopause, does not separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act.

 

[rlg94086]

whatevergirl: the ejaculate of fellatio is has the potential for life, had it been involved in a licit sexual act. Had the fellatio stopped, before orgasm, then the act had no life giving potential and is likewise seen by the Church as perhaps imprudent, but morally permissible.

Please explain what ejaculation has to do with either of these teachings from the Catechism:

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.

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

I don’t see where orgasm (for a man or a woman) is mentioned.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Hi CuriousInIL,

I’ve tried to answer this question two or three times, but I guess I haven’t been very clear. The answer is “no.” (that should be clear ) If snuggling causes sexual arousal, there is nothing wrong with that.

---

Well, I see lots of posts between this one and the one I am quoting that raise many new points. But, I wanted to say thanks for sticking with this and I now do get your answer and even see how it fits with your prior answers which were confusing to me before.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Again, the issue is settled. The Church has ruled that “foreplay only” (i.e. foreplay intended at least partially for sexual pleasure without intent to continue into normal marital relations) is morally permissible.

If there are arguments against this claim, then we know from the outset that either the argument is invalid or some premise or other of the argument must be wrong because the conclusion they derive is wrong. Thus we know that rlg94086’s position is merely private opinion that goes against Church ruling, and now we may speculate as to how he has arrived at the erroneous position - where was the misstep in his reasoning that gave him the conclusion we now know to be false?

My suggestion is that he is reading too much into the Catechism’s position that sexuality must be linked to procreative and unitive purposes. It can be linked to those purposes as long as the acts are open to life; thus acts that are closed to life - acts that obstruct life giving potential - are immoral. However, sexual acts that do not result in orgasm have no life giving potential and thus are no more closed to life than a hug. Neither has a contraceptive mentality, as neither prevents the actualization of life giving potential. There may be other problems with rlg94086’s reasoning about what the Catechism implies, but we know from the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati that his position is more puritanical than the Church’s - he condemns these acts, but the Church has clearly ruled they are morally permissible.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, the issue is settled. The Church has ruled that “foreplay only” (i.e. foreplay intended for sexual pleasure without intent to continue into normal marital relations) is morally permissible.

Um…no, She hasn’t. Please provide a clear statement anywhere near that.

nobeerinheaven:

If there are arguments against this claim, then we know from the outset that either the argument is invalid or some premise or other of the argument must be wrong because the conclusion they derive is wrong. Thus we know that rlg94086’s position is merely private opinion that goes against Church ruling, and now we may speculate as to how he has arrived at the erroneous position - where was the misstep in his reasoning that gave him the conclusion we now know to be false?

My suggestion is that he is reading too much into the Catechism’s position that sexuality must be linked to procreative and unitive purposes. It can be linked to those purposes as long as the acts are open to life; thus acts that are closed to life - acts that obstruct life giving potential - are immoral. However, sexual acts that do not result in orgasm have no life giving potential and thus are no more closed to life than a hug. Neither has a contraceptive mentality, as neither prevents the actualization of life giving potential. There may be other problems with rlg94086’s reasoning about what the Catechism implies, but we know from the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati that his position is more puritanical than the Church’s - he condemns these acts, but the Church has clearly ruled they are morally permissible.

 

[rlg94086]

whatevergirl: the ejaculate of fellatio is has the potential for life, had it been involved in a licit sexual act. Had the fellatio stopped, before orgasm, then the act had no life giving potential and is likewise seen by the Church as perhaps imprudent, but morally permissible.

As I was searching for what in the world you were referencing in the other post regarding the Auxiliary Bishop of Cincinatti, I found this:
presentationministries.com/brochures/SpeakTruthLove.asp

Does the Church say that oral sex as foreplay in marital relations is OK?
No, the Church has never said anything officially on this. So the Church has not said oral sex followed by vaginal sex is OK, nor has the Church said it is not OK. In this case we must apply basic moral principles without the help of the Church’s specific guidance. In all marital relations, each spouse should have a profound respect for the other. All marital relations should ex-press the total self-giving of the spouses to each other. Therefore, lust, which by definition focuses on self-gratification, is contradictory to love. Also, the natural functions of our bodies should be respected; so unnatural acts are wrong. Applying these principles, I believe that oral sex in marriage is wrong and sows seeds of destruction which will eventually undermine a marriage. Because of this, pastors and caring people should bring up this subject rather than let spouses sow the seeds of destruction in their marriages.
…
Nihil obstat**: **Reverend Ralph J. Lawrence, April 29, 1999.
Imprimatur: † Most Reverend Bishop Carl Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, May 3, 1999.

Nothing about “foreplay only,” but the Auxiliary Bishop may disagree with you on this issue since he gave an Impramatur.

 

[armyross]

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.

 

[nobeerinheaven]

Um…no, She hasn’t. Please provide a clear statement anywhere near that.

Page 5 has the link to the article that says these acts are permissible, with both nihil obstat and imprimatur.

Given this, it is clear you are misapplying unclear sections of the Catechism. Unless you can come up with an authoritative Church official who clearly denounces “foreplay only” (and not just denounces things you think also apply to foreplay only), then this issue has been settled by the Church, through the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.

amyross: The Church, through a Bishop, has ruled that foreplay is morally permissible. Ideally this is in the context of foreplay for immediate (non-contracepted) sex, but it need not be in order to be OK.