Whats Ok and What's Not Regarding Marital Sexuality?

[TIME]

Whats Ok and What’s Not Regarding Marital Sexuality? A lot of discussions on the Forums at this time about Holy Matrimony and part Human Sexuality plays in God’s Plan.

These writings came up in another post from the Catholic Answers Library which are very interesting. I would encourage everyone to review.

Contraceptive Claims:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

"Claim: The Church’s teaching on birth control is not static but has grown and developed over time. Early patristic teachers taught that intercourse was exclusively for procreation. Later it was recognized that infertile couples could enjoy full conjugal relations. Still later the Church recognized that couples could have intercourse during times when conception was unlikely to occur. (From this latter development comes natural family planning.) With this, the Church recognized the legitimacy of birth control qua birth control. Now it should recognize that not every act of intercourse need be open to the possibility of conception. Approval of contraception is, or at least should be, the next step in the Church’s developing teaching.

Response: Although it is true that the teaching on birth control is not static but has grown and developed over time, this is not to say that it will move in a particular direction, especially when this movement would be contradictory to early teaching. We can see the inherent weakness of the “development argument” by pursuing it to its end. If it is argued that the next logical step would be the recognition that not every act of intercourse need be open to the possibility of conception, then the following step is to say (as some Protestant ministers do) that some, many, or most acts of intercourse ought to be contraceptive. The step after that would be to say that all acts of intercourse ought to be contracepted, an absurdity."

Birth Control:
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

“In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.”

“Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.”

Why aren’t these broadcast Loud and Proud by the Church? I have not heard of any in-depth preparation for Holy Matrimony that really educates couple these days or in the past few decades on the full teaching of the Church for Marriage.

Is this something the Priest and Bishops think is an “Oh By the Way” teaching? Seems like the full understanding from material classes to courses on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” would lead to stronger more fulfilling marriages. Do the Bishops not think this is important or marriage is a top priority.

Sorry, I do not believe that you can even scratch the surface with one Engaged Encounter Weekend.

 

[TIME]

Convent did not see you on line so took the liberty of “Cut and Pasting” your write up here. Hope it is not a problem?

Originally Posted by Convert in 99:
As for what is allowed…its really quite simple.

The husband must always, 100% of the time climax (ejaculate) inside his wife’s vagina.

The wife may climax either directly before vaginal intercourse (during foreplay she may be stimulated to climax), during vaginal intercourse, or directly after vaginal intercourse (after her husband finishes inside of her, she may be stimulated to climax also.)

Oral or manual stimulation of the man or woman is fine, the woman may climax from this stimulation directly before, during, or directly after vaginal intercourse. The man may NOT be stimulated to climax anywhere outside of his wife’s vagina.

Some foreplay (NOT to the point of climax) is allowed between one act of vaginal intercourse and another, such as during the fertile times for NFP using couples, or from one day to the next for other couples. But this must NEVER EVER result in a climax for EITHER spouse. It also must not continue to the point where it would make it difficult for a spouse to not continue on to vaginal intercourse, or be tempted to sin through masturbation or other grave faults. Each couple is different and many couples will experience that they simply cannot have any genital contact outside of vaginal intercourse, as it is too stimulating and arousing. Others will find that it can be tolerated in moderation, and helps the couples to look forward to the next time where they can be together fully.

Again, I stress, this foreplay outside of vaginal intercourse must NEVER EVER lead to climax, such a climax, outside of vaginal intercourse (or during that act as a whole for the woman) is a grave and mortal sin. Period.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Convent did not see you on line so took the liberty of “Cut and Pasting” your write up here. Hope it is not a problem?

**No problem at all!

In reading your post, I just wanted to make two comments. I don’t think it was EVER church teaching that infertile couples couldn’t engage in the marital act. Reason I say this is that it is very contrary to the biblical examples we have, such as we wouldn’t have St. John the Baptist, or Isaac.

However, you were correct in that there used to be teachings regarding not engaging in the marital act during a woman’s monthly period. I don’t know if this was due more to the fact that it was ancient Jewish law, or that it was not medically understood that it poses no health risk to husband or wife to engage in relations during that time of month.

Today, however, having a more complete knowledge of medical science, it has been deemed acceptable to engage in marital relations at any time of the month, even during the monthly period, or at times when the woman is less- or not at all -fertile. It also continues to be acceptable for couples with limited fertility or infertility to engage in marital relations. Their marital act is still 100% open to life, and they can still conceive should God work a miracle and open their womb, like He did for so many biblical and saintly examples.
**

 

[Gaurdian]

Whats Ok and What’s Not Regarding Marital Sexuality? A lot of discussions on the Forums at this time about Holy Matrimony and part Human Sexuality plays in God’s Plan.

These writings came up in another post from the Catholic Answers Library which are very interesting. I would encourage everyone to review.

Contraceptive Claims:
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp

"Claim: The Church’s teaching on birth control is not static but has grown and developed over time. Early patristic teachers taught that intercourse was exclusively for procreation. Later it was recognized that infertile couples could enjoy full conjugal relations. Still later the Church recognized that couples could have intercourse during times when conception was unlikely to occur. (From this latter development comes natural family planning.) With this, the Church recognized the legitimacy of birth control qua birth control. Now it should recognize that not every act of intercourse need be open to the possibility of conception. Approval of contraception is, or at least should be, the next step in the Church’s developing teaching.

Response: Although it is true that the teaching on birth control is not static but has grown and developed over time, this is not to say that it will move in a particular direction, especially when this movement would be contradictory to early teaching. We can see the inherent weakness of the “development argument” by pursuing it to its end. If it is argued that the next logical step would be the recognition that not every act of intercourse need be open to the possibility of conception, then the following step is to say (as some Protestant ministers do) that some, many, or most acts of intercourse ought to be contraceptive. The step after that would be to say that all acts of intercourse ought to be contracepted, an absurdity."

Birth Control:
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

“In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.”

“Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.”

Why aren’t these broadcast Loud and Proud by the Church? I have not heard of any in-depth preparation for Holy Matrimony that really educates couple these days or in the past few decades on the full teaching of the Church for Marriage.

Is this something the Priest and Bishops think is an “Oh By the Way” teaching? Seems like the full understanding from material classes to courses on John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” would lead to stronger more fulfilling marriages. Do the Bishops not think this is important or marriage is a top priority.

Sorry, I do not believe that you can even scratch the surface with one Engaged Encounter Weekend.

I think I know exactly why the Church does not “Broadcast” these teachings “Loud and Proud”. The marriage rate (for a few years) and birth rate would plummet. What male would knowingly give up so much of their young life, to be told what they could or could not do, what they could spend their money, when they could go out or not, etc, etc.?

Why would a guy not stay single until their 36-40yrs? Be debt free, Live as Christ lived, searching for the Joy of God, be even closer to God like the Priest, with no one to bug them? Just delay getting married for 10 - 20yrs. Their is no sin in not being married. Their is no sin in not taking care of a female. Their is no sin not having children.

Although having a family is very rewarding, their is no sin in waiting. The Church could very well be fearful of letting the fullness and truth about married life out before hand. Would any sane man get married in their 20’s or early 30’s with full knowledge of what was ahead? Can you spell E-N-T-R-A-P-M-E-N-T?

I know their are plenty of derelict husbands and fathers out there too. Who no poor women should have to endure and the same is true for those gals.

 

[ack]

I think I know exactly why the Church does not “Broadcast” these teachings “Loud and Proud”. The marriage rate (for a few years) and birth rate would plummet. What male would knowingly give up so much of their young life, to be told what they could or could not do, what they could spend their money, when they could go out or not, etc, etc.?

Was this post sarcastic, or do you seriously believe that the church is intentionally withholding its teachings on contraception because telling people to avoid contraception would LOWER the birth rate?

This is a first. Usually, when I hear cynical conspiracy theories regarding the church and its contraception teachings, the writer claims that the anti-contraception teachings will RAISE the birth rate (to produce more Catholics and make the church money), not LOWER it!

Why would a guy not stay single until their 36-40yrs? Be debt free, Live as Christ lived, searching for the Joy of God, be even closer to God like the Priest, with no one to bug them? Just delay getting married for 10 - 20yrs. Their is no sin in not being married. Their is no sin in not taking care of a female. Their is no sin not having children.

I don’t understand this part of your post either. Any guy serious about “living as Christ lived” and “searching for the Joy of God” would know that he has potentially has a vocation to marry and serve his family. Such a man would marry as soon as possible, not because he’s lonely, and not because he thinks marriage will guarantee happiness, but because he can seek God through service to his wife.

 

[Gaurdian]

Convert,

“The husband must always, 100% of the time climax (ejaculate) inside his wife’s vagina.”…

“The wife may climax either directly before vaginal intercourse (during foreplay she may be stimulated to climax), during vaginal intercourse, or directly after vaginal intercourse (after her husband finishes inside of her, she may be stimulated to climax also.)”…

Wait a second, where did you get this information and where is it documented in any “Church Rules and Regulations”? This is a real double standard. The wife has many options and the husband has only one(not that it’s a bad option)? What if the wife just decides to quit or she thinks one of the children is stirring or any other interruption, the wife ends up way fully satisfied and the husband is left fully frustrated?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Convent did not see you on line so took the liberty of “Cut and Pasting” your write up here. Hope it is not a problem?

Originally Posted by Convert in 99:
As for what is allowed…its really quite simple.

The husband must always, 100% of the time climax (ejaculate) inside his wife’s vagina.

The wife may climax either directly before vaginal intercourse (during foreplay she may be stimulated to climax), during vaginal intercourse, or directly after vaginal intercourse (after her husband finishes inside of her, she may be stimulated to climax also.)

Oral or manual stimulation of the man or woman is fine, the woman may climax from this stimulation directly before, during, or directly after vaginal intercourse. The man may NOT be stimulated to climax anywhere outside of his wife’s vagina.

Some foreplay (NOT to the point of climax) is allowed between one act of vaginal intercourse and another, such as during the fertile times for NFP using couples, or from one day to the next for other couples. But this must NEVER EVER result in a climax for EITHER spouse. It also must not continue to the point where it would make it difficult for a spouse to not continue on to vaginal intercourse, or be tempted to sin through masturbation or other grave faults. Each couple is different and many couples will experience that they simply cannot have any genital contact outside of vaginal intercourse, as it is too stimulating and arousing. Others will find that it can be tolerated in moderation, and helps the couples to look forward to the next time where they can be together fully.

Again, I stress, this foreplay outside of vaginal intercourse must NEVER EVER lead to climax, such a climax, outside of vaginal intercourse (or during that act as a whole for the woman) is a grave and mortal sin. Period.

I do not think this is acurrate as posted. My understanding is below in an editted version of the post (I would state things a bit differently if I was not editting another’s work.):

The couple must always intend the husband to climax (ejaculate) inside his wife’s vagina if his climax is intended.

The wife may climax either during foreplay, during vaginal intercourse, or during after play.

Oral or manual stimulation of the man or woman is fine; the woman may climax from this stimulation before, during, or after the marital act. The man may NOT intentionally be stimulated to climax anywhere outside of his wife’s vagina.

Some foreplay (NOT to the point of intentional climax) is allowed between one marital act and another, such as during the fertile times, or from one day to the next . But this must NEVER EVER be intended to result in a climax for EITHER spouse (it is IMO far from clear how to define the beginning and end of the marital act and is also not clear that this is true (especially for the wife )(especially if the time intended between acts is short). However, I will leave it as amended). It also must not intentionally continue to the point where it would make a spouse sin through masturbation or other grave faults. Each couple is different and many couples will experience that they simply cannot have any intentional genital contact outside of the marital act that is intentionally too stimulating and arousing. Others will find that it can be tolerated in moderation, and helps the couples to look forward to the next time where they can be together fully.

 

[Footprints04]

I guess I also have to point something out. Physiologically too there may be an “accident” that happens on account of the man especially if he is being self-less during relations. A woman takes a longer time to be ready for the full marital act (ie: her body doesn’t “rev up” like a man’s does). This can especially pose problems for a newly married man who has not yet learned how to prolong his climax for the benefit of his wife.

The way I understand it is it is the intent that is the important piece of the morality of this issue. There might be “accidents” especially if the man is doing his loving duty to his wife

 

[Gaurdian]

Ack,

“I don’t understand this part of your post either. Any guy serious about “living as Christ lived” and “searching for the Joy of God” would know that he has potentially has a vocation to marry and serve his family. Such a man would marry as soon as possible, not because he’s lonely, and not because he thinks marriage will guarantee happiness, but because he can seek God through service to his wife.”

That is kind of my point. Would any man get married “as soon as possible” if they really knew what the letter of the law was for contraception? Several husbands on the forums have stated(and I would agree) that it would easier to sleep in another room than to sleep with someone that is, often denying you and turning you away. For weeks sometimes months, husbands live celibate lives, so what’s the difference than being single? Some lowliness, but no one trying to boss you around either.

As well their are no high maintenance hormones to deal with. If someone gets “Cranky” you just say goodbye for the day and call later. I am not saying never get married, just be at peace with yourself so you can be a better husband later. And it lets the ladies find out who they are

 

[Truly_Beloved]

Would any man get married “as soon as possible” if they really knew what the letter of the law was for contraception?

I think so. My husband and I knew all the “rules” prior to getting married, but we also knew that once we got married, we’d be ABLE to have relations. Admittedly, we were both virgins, so all the “rules” of contraception and marital chastity didn’t seem bad at all. When you go from zero lovemaking before getting married, to even having sex a few days per month after the wedding, it really seems like an improvement.

Maybe I should also state that we’d like a large family, so birth control isn’t really an issue, anyway. Does that make a difference? I imagine it probably does.

 

[Gaurdian]

Truly Beloved, “I think so. My husband and I knew all the “rules”…Maybe I should also state that we’d like a large family, so birth control isn’t really an issue, anyway. Does that make a difference? I imagine it probably does.”…Ok, You Da Babe.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Convert,

“The husband must always, 100% of the time climax (ejaculate) inside his wife’s vagina.”…

“The wife may climax either directly before vaginal intercourse (during foreplay she may be stimulated to climax), during vaginal intercourse, or directly after vaginal intercourse (after her husband finishes inside of her, she may be stimulated to climax also.)”…

Wait a second, where did you get this information and where is it documented in any “Church Rules and Regulations”? This is a real double standard. The wife has many options and the husband has only one(not that it’s a bad option)? What if the wife just decides to quit or she thinks one of the children is stirring or any other interruption, the wife ends up way fully satisfied and the husband is left fully frustrated?

**The husband must always climax/ejaculate inside his wife’s vagina because during that climax he ejaculates the live giving sperm that is so central to the procreative dimension of married love. If he were to ejaculate anywhere but his wife’s vagina he is spilling the life giving seed, and is just as evil as contracepting.

The husband ALWAYS (unless he has some particular health issue) climaxes during vaginal marital relations. The wife, most times, does NOT. If your wife is one of the lucky women who CAN and DOES climax during vaginal marital relations, then she should only climax during vaginal marital relations. If this is impossible for her, then she may be stimulated to climax during foreplay prior to vaginal marital relations or directly after them.

The reason the wife is “exempt” is because God did not create her life giving seed as part of her climax. Her climax is not central to the procreative dimension of marital relations.

As to the “fairness” of it, that is the way God made it. He knows best. For us to judge otherwise is imprudent at best and sinful at worst. That is why it is so pertinent for the husband and wife to work together to ensure both parties are happy, satisfied, and fulfilled emotionally and physically during their marital relations. If either party is purposely denied by the other, without a significant reason for doing so (illness, stress, child care, ect.) that is very sinful.

Does that help at all?

**

 

[whatevergirl]

I have often wondered if only Catholics follow this, what type of ‘rules’ do non Catholics (but Christians) have? If a Protestant has sex that are not part of these principles, is he/she sinning? I’m not speaking of masturbation…I’m talking about two married people pleasing one another out of love, but let’s say, have oral sex, and not vaginal sex…and not even knowing these rules exist as part of the Catholic love language.

???

 

[TIME]

Saw this on another post, thought it was very good frame of reference.

1 Corinthians 7: 4-5

4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

 

[TIME]

Convert in 99, I hear what you are saying. Can you point me to a reference or was this from a lecture?

 

[ack]

Would any man get married “as soon as possible” if they really knew what the letter of the law was for contraception?

Yes, many do. I’m in my 20s and I know many other guys in their 20s who married, with full knowledge of all the church’s teachings, including the ones on contraception. It really doesn’t seem like that big of a deal.

For weeks sometimes months, husbands live celibate lives, so what’s the difference than being single?

Plenty. Marriage is about more than just sex. You’re married; you should know this.

 

[chicago]

I have often wondered if only Catholics follow this, what type of ‘rules’ do non Catholics (but Christians) have? If a Protestant has sex that are not part of these principles, is he/she sinning? I’m not speaking of masturbation…I’m talking about two married people pleasing one another out of love, but let’s say, have oral sex, and not vaginal sex…and not even knowing these rules exist as part of the Catholic love language.

???

Objectively, it would remain sinful matter, though subjectively they certainly wouldn’t be commiting a mortal sin (an unintentional venial sin, at most.)

 

[TIME]

Also came across these teachings:
John Paul II also says that if the only reason a couple is having sex is to transmit life, then they may be in danger of using each other rather than loving each other (see Love & Responsibility p. 233).

Also, John Paul describes the “beatifying experience” of conjugal union as a foretaste of the joys of heaven (see TB, Dec 16, 1981 and Jan 13, 1982). In Love & Responsibility, by his detailed discussion of the husband’s responsibility - out of authentic love for his wife - to see that she achieves sexual climax (see Love & Responsibility pp. 270-278).

 

[actorgirl]

Convert,

the wife ends up way fully satisfied and the husband is left fully frustrated?

I think the opposite is usually the norm. somtimes the race could be over before the woman gets out the gate. Maybe that’s why women are giving more opportunities.

 

[Gaurdian]

I think the opposite is usually the norm. somtimes the race could be over before the woman gets out the gate. Maybe that’s why women are giving more opportunities.

Hmmm, Maybe that’s why our house rule is “Ladies First”