Catholic Answers Forums

Catholic Answers Forums (http://forums.catholic.com/index.php)
-   Moral Theology (http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Conjugal sex (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=373986)

SCH Sep 5, '09 3:13 pm

Conjugal sex
 
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

Other Eric Sep 5, '09 3:17 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5662407)
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

As opposed to, say, clothing oneself with a condom?

teachccd Sep 5, '09 3:18 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Yes they can.

Lorrie Sep 5, '09 3:32 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
I thought this was going to be a thread about conjugal visits in prison.

Simon X Sep 5, '09 3:48 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
I wasnt sure where this thread was going, but respectfully wonder where the OP got the idea that married folks couldnt be naked during intercourse?

Revert TSIEG Sep 5, '09 3:57 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorrie (Post 5662473)
I thought this was going to be a thread about conjugal visits in prison.

Me too!

Irish Becca Sep 5, '09 4:17 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Some cultural beliefs are such that it is sinful for the man and woman to see each other fully naked. This would be a cultural belief, however, and not Church teaching.

Other Eric Sep 5, '09 4:59 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Becca (Post 5662630)
Some cultural beliefs are such that it is sinful for the man and woman to see each other fully naked. This would be a cultural belief, however, and not Church teaching.

Which cultures? My understanding is that this is the case for Hindus but that it obviously does not apply to married couples. Ever see a Karma Sutra?

Jguerra Sep 5, '09 6:00 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon X (Post 5662521)
I wasnt sure where this thread was going, but respectfully wonder where the OP got the idea that married folks couldnt be naked during intercourse?

Weren't the puritans in colonial America believers in such thoughts? I read during my college years of a 'wedding' or 'marital' garment worn by the wife specifically during relations. It facilitated relations without the 'shame' of nudity.

Mattapoisett64 Sep 5, '09 6:04 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
There's a line in the movie "The Leopard" where Burt Lancaster plays a Sicilian prince during the Garibaldi era, and he makes a comment about the number of children he's had with his wife, but that he's never seen her naked. I have read a number of references to the fact that at times and places in Europe, the moral teaching was so strict that couples had intercourse through a hole in a sheet between them. I used to think this was an "urban legend," but I've seen it referred to a number of times. It was not, as far as I know, a Church teaching. Not that joyful physical pleasure between spouses was anything the Church particularly wanted to think about, certainly not with terms like "rendering the marriage debt."

AChris Sep 5, '09 6:47 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5662407)
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

What about NOT during intercourse?

Other Eric Sep 5, '09 7:07 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattapoisett64 (Post 5662970)
There's a line in the movie "The Leopard" where Burt Lancaster plays a Sicilian prince during the Garibaldi era, and he makes a comment about the number of children he's had with his wife, but that he's never seen her naked. I have read a number of references to the fact that at times and places in Europe, the moral teaching was so strict that couples had intercourse through a hole in a sheet between them. I used to think this was an "urban legend," but I've seen it referred to a number of times. It was not, as far as I know, a Church teaching. Not that joyful physical pleasure between spouses was anything the Church particularly wanted to think about, certainly not with terms like "rendering the marriage debt."

Having sex through a sheet was something recommended in Victorian-era anti-sex literature. While it is certain there were those who took a dim view of the marital embrace, this was more of a cultural attitude or a personal opinion far removed from what the Church actually taught.

Simon X Sep 5, '09 7:15 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jguerra (Post 5662961)
Weren't the puritans in colonial America believers in such thoughts? I read during my college years of a 'wedding' or 'marital' garment worn by the wife specifically during relations. It facilitated relations without the 'shame' of nudity.

Maybe, but not in Catholic teachings, heck, I ve seen posts here where some think it's a big deal if a wife wears anything that might be conidered too sexy to bed. :shrug:

Seatuck Sep 5, '09 8:16 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jguerra (Post 5662961)
Weren't the puritans in colonial America believers in such thoughts? I read during my college years of a 'wedding' or 'marital' garment worn by the wife specifically during relations. It facilitated relations without the 'shame' of nudity.


Puritans in colonial America were Protestants.

CFI Sep 5, '09 8:42 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5662407)
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

Clothing is a physical barrier, so I think that they must be full naked during the intercourse.
I think that they can be naked also in other times, when they have not sex.

Revert TSIEG Sep 5, '09 9:06 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChris (Post 5663106)
What about NOT during intercourse?

One can have sex with out being naked... Trust me! :D Not my preferred way thought.

teachccd Sep 5, '09 9:06 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Weren't Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden? It wasn't until they sinned that they saw their nakedness. God's initial creation of perfect humans did not include clothing and God saw that it was good...............teachccd :)

teachccd Sep 5, '09 9:07 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Revert TSIEG (Post 5663540)
One can have sex with out being naked... Trust me! :D Not my preferred way thought.

some might leave their socks on..........:D

Ghoti Sep 5, '09 9:18 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattapoisett64 (Post 5662970)
There's a line in the movie "The Leopard" where Burt Lancaster plays a Sicilian prince during the Garibaldi era, and he makes a comment about the number of children he's had with his wife, but that he's never seen her naked. I have read a number of references to the fact that at times and places in Europe, the moral teaching was so strict that couples had intercourse through a hole in a sheet between them. I used to think this was an "urban legend," but I've seen it referred to a number of times. It was not, as far as I know, a Church teaching. Not that joyful physical pleasure between spouses was anything the Church particularly wanted to think about, certainly not with terms like "rendering the marriage debt."

  • marriage debt
  • deposit of faith
  • economy of salvation
  • saving plan

Who are these people? Theologians or accountants?

Lorrie Sep 5, '09 9:26 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattapoisett64 (Post 5662970)
I have read a number of references to the fact that at times and places in Europe, the moral teaching was so strict that couples had intercourse through a hole in a sheet between them.

That's so hot. :blush:

Roman_Army Sep 5, '09 9:30 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
I guess the puritans might have taken an extremely fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. The Church does not teach such protestant distortions. What the Church condemns is lust even if committed with one's own spouse. Lust is defined as sexuality done or thought of for the sole purpose of carnal pleasure isolated from the necessary indivisibility of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.

Sair Sep 6, '09 2:37 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Back when I was an anxious teenager with many fears about sexual morality, I used to speak regularly to a local priest who essentially was my confessor, if that is the correct term. He said that it was perfectly acceptable - even encouraged - for married couples to enjoy every aspect of their sexual relations, and treat it as a means to nurturing their relationship through mutual pleasure. I guess that means that the clothing-on or clothing-off approaches are both just fine, depending on the moment and the couple's preferences... :thumbsup:

SCH Sep 6, '09 2:41 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CFI (Post 5663477)
Clothing is a physical barrier, so I think that they must be full naked during the intercourse.

I didn't think in that. Really nudity is the only way for a whole gift of ourselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CFI (Post 5663477)
I think that they can be naked also in other times, when they have not sex.

In what sense they can be naked in other times?

TLM08 Sep 6, '09 4:34 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5662407)
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

I think so..... but you can always leave your socks on just in case.
:D

teachccd Sep 6, '09 8:02 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TLM08 (Post 5664213)
I think so..... but you can always leave your socks on just in case.
:D


Were you peeking in the window of post #18? ;):D

Gerard Nadal Sep 6, '09 4:30 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5662407)
According the Catholic teaching, the wife and the husband can be full naked during the intercourse?

Is there any other way?!:love::love::bigyikes::rotfl:

Seriously, during sex, the arousal of ALL the senses, including sight and touch help to strengthen the unitive aspect of sex between spouses. It does so from the gentle and sublime softness of touch to the intensity of unbridled passion. It is all a part of God's creation that finds its greatest good in marriage.

It is not only permissible, but commendable.

God Bless

CFI Sep 6, '09 7:08 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SCH (Post 5664074)
In what sense they can be naked in other times?

In the conjugal life, sexual intercourse is prescribed, but also other "not-completed" sexual activities are allowed.
At least at home when they are alone spouses always can be naked.

emma411 Sep 6, '09 7:24 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
I had to take an art class as part of my general education course elective at High Point University. And we were studying this one painting, now I can not recall all the details, but it was focused on a room. As we were studying this painting, related during that time period... which I forgot, you may want to look up for more accurate info, but I kid you not when a newly married coupled had sexual relations, the parents from either side, would sit in the room with them. They wanted to make sure, that the new couple fulfilled their marital act as well as doing it accurately. DO YOU KNOW HOW GROSSED out I was!! I didn't want to even begin to fathom what that would have been like. But that just goes to show you the major differences in cultures. I saw this topic was kinda going another way, and had to add it. :o

Gerard Nadal Sep 6, '09 7:24 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TLM08 (Post 5664213)
I think so..... but you can always leave your socks on just in case.
:D

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

cassman Sep 6, '09 7:50 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Is there a point to this thread?

TLM08 Sep 7, '09 4:34 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cassman (Post 5666702)
Is there a point to this thread?

Yea..... it's called "fun".... Sometimes it's good to lighten things up a bit!
:o

teachccd Sep 7, '09 7:21 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cassman (Post 5666702)
Is there a point to this thread?

We are establishing the dress requirements for the marital embrace. We have gone from nothing to a sheet with a hole in it to parents who sit and watch their newly married kids consummate their marriage.

Is there a point to this thread?? Of course not.....................teachccd :D

Matrix Refugee Sep 7, '09 2:55 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by emma411 (Post 5666588)
I had to take an art class as part of my general education course elective at High Point University. And we were studying this one painting, now I can not recall all the details, but it was focused on a room. As we were studying this painting, related during that time period... which I forgot, you may want to look up for more accurate info, but I kid you not when a newly married coupled had sexual relations, the parents from either side, would sit in the room with them. They wanted to make sure, that the new couple fulfilled their marital act as well as doing it accurately. DO YOU KNOW HOW GROSSED out I was!! I didn't want to even begin to fathom what that would have been like. But that just goes to show you the major differences in cultures. I saw this topic was kinda going another way, and had to add it. :o

Mm, this practice was especially true among royalty and the upper nobility; some would even go so far as to have a special ceremonial bed designed for the couple to consummate the sacrament. The point wasn't to titillate the on-lookers, but to make sure the sacrament was consummated. Back then, people were a lot more frank about sex and the body. All babies were breast-fed and since society was more agrarian, people were more familiar with animals "doin' what comes nat'rally", thus by their standards, something like this wouldn't be considered dirty or obscene.

janesansible Sep 10, '09 11:23 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Other Eric (Post 5662781)
Which cultures? My understanding is that this is the case for Hindus but that it obviously does not apply to married couples. Ever see a Karma Sutra?

Many Muslims (depending on the school of Islam) believe also, that you cannot see your spouse naked. When you have sex you must have sex in the dark or be covered by blankets so as not to incite lust.

CFI Sep 11, '09 10:13 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by janesansible (Post 5682013)
Many Muslims (depending on the school of Islam) believe also, that you cannot see your spouse naked. When you have sex you must have sex in the dark or be covered by blankets so as not to incite lust.

This is the recent teaching of a scholar, but it is against the Muslim tradition.
Islamic scholars have defined "Awrah" the part of human body that cannot be shown. There is some differences of opinion between the Islamic schools of Law, but there is a consensus among scholars about some elements:
1) In public, men's awarah is from navel to knees (i.e. this part of the body cannot be shown).
2) In public, women's awarah is the whole body except face, hands and feet.
3) Children who are 4 years old or younger have no awrah (i.e. there are no rules about their clothing and they also can go naked, as we can see in some rural communities).
4) Between husband and wife there is not awrah (i.e. they can be naked as long as they want, not only when they have sex).

CFI Sep 11, '09 11:30 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Irish Becca (Post 5662630)
Some cultural beliefs are such that it is sinful for the man and woman to see each other fully naked. This would be a cultural belief, however, and not Church teaching.

Unfortunately the Victorian era harmed the western culture.

Matrix Refugee Sep 12, '09 11:30 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by CFI (Post 5689354)
Unfortunately the Victorian era harmed the western culture.

Mmm, a lot of the problems with shame over anything remotely sexual, even between husband and wife and even if you're talking about sexuality from a medical or biological standpoint, comes to us from the ethics of the middle class in Victorian England. The thing was, the middle class was trying to get some level of credibility in society (the upper class were pretty much "anything goes" since they had the money or clout to silence any objectors, and the lower class were so marginalized, they may as well have been invisible), thus, the only thing they had to go by was to follow a morally rigorous code of ethics, up to and including such absurdities as hiding the legs of chairs or tables or pianos under cloth covers so that young men wouldn't think about a young lady's legs. The word "leg" was practically taboo, hence why a chicken leg is called a "drumstick" even to this day. Using the word "bull", even when you meant a male cow, was considered unacceptable as well; the word "ox" was used, even though an ox is a castrated male cow trained for pulling heavy wagons.

emma411 Sep 13, '09 6:29 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix Refugee (Post 5691038)
Mmm, a lot of the problems with shame over anything remotely sexual, even between husband and wife and even if you're talking about sexuality from a medical or biological standpoint, comes to us from the ethics of the middle class in Victorian England. The thing was, the middle class was trying to get some level of credibility in society (the upper class were pretty much "anything goes" since they had the money or clout to silence any objectors, and the lower class were so marginalized, they may as well have been invisible), thus, the only thing they had to go by was to follow a morally rigorous code of ethics, up to and including such absurdities as hiding the legs of chairs or tables or pianos under cloth covers so that young men wouldn't think about a young lady's legs. The word "leg" was practically taboo, hence why a chicken leg is called a "drumstick" even to this day. Using the word "bull", even when you meant a male cow, was considered unacceptable as well; the word "ox" was used, even though an ox is a castrated male cow trained for pulling heavy wagons.

Wow, I never new that! It's amazing where, when and how the origins of things came to be.

God Bless You:highprayer:

AChris Sep 14, '09 11:01 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman_Army (Post 5663614)
...What the Church condemns is lust even if committed with one's own spouse. Lust is defined as sexuality done or thought of for the sole purpose of carnal pleasure isolated from the necessary indivisibility of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage.

Thanks Roman_Army. This is what I was looking for. I don't really care what non-Catholics think.

So then, not having anything on with a spouse, if done completely outside of the context of the marital act, it would not be procreative, and therefore could possibly be motivated merely by carnal pleasure (lust).

If lust is sinful, even for the married, then it makes sense that they should not be naked together outside of the context of the marital act. What do you think?

Lorrie Sep 14, '09 11:09 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
How does one get aroused without some form of lust? I would think they go hand-in-hand? I mean, I guess one could pray for an erection, not sure how well that would work out though.

Other Eric Sep 15, '09 1:44 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorrie (Post 5698062)
How does one get aroused without some form of lust? I would think they go hand-in-hand? I mean, I guess one could pray for an erection, not sure how well that would work out though.

Lust is a self-centered distortion of human sexuality. It is neither desirable nor necessary to complete the conjugal act.

CFI Sep 15, '09 4:13 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChris (Post 5698022)
If lust is sinful, even for the married, then it makes sense that they should not be naked together outside of the context of the marital act. What do you think?

I don't think so. It seems to me that here we have some confusion between nudity and lust. Perhaps that come from the misgivings about the body, inheritance of the Victorian era.
Nudity should be natural between spouses: they are one flesh. Nudity also can be a way to express the full gift of themselves, that it is not limited to the marital act.
On the other hand, the moral theology traditionally teach that married can have any activity that is not inherent sinful. It is not the case of nudity.

AChris Sep 15, '09 8:40 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work... but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything...say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust...which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute...I always wondered what that meant...don't pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

Lorrie Sep 16, '09 1:19 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChris (Post 5705017)
Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work... but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything...say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust...which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute...I always wondered what that meant...don't pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

I actually started a thread about this which can be found here.

Quote from that thread regarding lust:
Quote:

Lust means simply an inordinate desire for carnal sexual pleasure for itself alone isolated and separated from the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act. It is selfish and at times infertile. By unitive is meant the intention of expressing that sacrificial love one has for one's spouse and God which is necessarily fertile and must be thought of as a form of self-denial by placing God and one's spouse before self. By procreative is meant the natural uninterruption of the possibility of giving life to offspring. The sin of lust lies in one's intention, not in what one does or thinks during the conjugal act in order to get physically aroused. It is fine to get oneself aroused through foreplay in order to be able to perform well in expressing one's love for one's spouse, so long as one's will intends only to express love to one's wife and cooperate with God's creativity in the divinely instituted natural gift of procreation.
Dictionary's definition of lust:
Quote:

  1. Intense sexual craving.
    1. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
    2. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
  2. Obsolete. Pleasure; relish.
intr.v., lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts. To have an intense desire, especially one that is sexual.
Quite a difference between the two. Go figure.

Albizzi Sep 16, '09 4:36 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix Refugee (Post 5669824)
Mm, this practice was especially true among royalty and the upper nobility; some would even go so far as to have a special ceremonial bed designed for the couple to consummate the sacrament. The point wasn't to titillate the on-lookers, but to make sure the sacrament was consummated. Back then, people were a lot more frank about sex and the body. All babies were breast-fed and since society was more agrarian, people were more familiar with animals "doin' what comes nat'rally", thus by their standards, something like this wouldn't be considered dirty or obscene.


I remember of a true story about the French king Louis XIII (XVIIth century).
This newly married king was so poorly skilled, so ignorant regarding the sexual act that he didn't know what exactly he had to do with his wife (probably herself was a bit more ignorant than him, otherwise...).
He went to ask his cousin the Duke of Epernon (if I remember well) who was married long ago. The Duke was so happy to help the king in that crucial matter that he proposed him to attend an intercourse with his wife and possibly ask questions if necessary. That the king joyfully and gratefully accepted.
The story doesn't says if they were naked or dressed.

StillWondering Sep 16, '09 11:46 am

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChris (Post 5705017)
Lorrie makes a good point. At some point there has to be some form of lust for sex to work... but on the other hand, Other Eric says it all depends on the intention. But then again, what intention could they have, other than lust, when they are alone naked, but not doing anything...say just eating pizza. At least the husband, I should think, would naturally have lust...which the Church says is bad even in marriage (and therefore it is bad).

St. Paul says not to be with your wife like a prostitute...I always wondered what that meant...don't pay her? Maybe it means have the proper intention. Respect her. Interesting.

Hello Chris.

As Roman Army stated lust is what the Church condemns and he gave the definition in the description. Words change over time and gets added and subtracted to. However, the Church has been around for 2000 years. To me I see a lot of confusion in words not because the Church is not clear, but we tend to take the words out of context. The Church often use words in their original meaning. It is society that changes the meanings of the word. Such as the word marriage and pornography. Marriage is the exclusive and total giving of a man and a woman to each other in a life long journey seal by martial vows and, if sacramental, blessed by God's graces. And pornography is the distortion of reality to appeal, appease, and satisfy individuals out of the natural context of such realities.

So to know what the Church teaches and what the words the Church usages actually mean, check references like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or a Catholic glossary. It would be a good idea in general to know these terms since twenty or thirty years from now, our understand of lust as a society may change, but the Church teachings will not.

In regards to the questions posted. Yes you can be naked while having sexual intercourse with your spouse. In fact, it can be very helpful since you will hide nothing from each other -- which is a physical way of fully giving yourself. In sex, spouses need to fully give themselves to each other. You do not need to be naked all the time. Sex is a renew of your vows with your spouse and so can be shared in different ways as long as they are not disordered. I will not get into details but I would imagine you have an idea. On the moment you made your vows, you are well dressed. In your relationship, always be well dressed inside. Always show your spouse the love and respect they deserve. Be to your spouse as Jesus is to the Church, always present, always loving, always fully giving. If you do this, it is hard to go wrong on the details.

You can also be naked outside of sex as long as it is appropriate. Being naked in public is not only unlawful in most places, it is also given strangers something that is reserved only for your spouse. But being naked in each others company such as around the showers, changing, or trying out clothes are fine as long as you do it in respect and reverence that your spouse loves and trust you so much to continual share with you her physical self.

I think it was just three weeks ago in the second reading, it was from James, you can hear the Scriptures teaches us to distinguish between what is God's will and what is human culture. Aspects of human culture that is loving, giving, and confirms with God's will are good and so can be utilized for the benefit of the individual, his love ones, and/or society. The aspects that contradicts or attempts to undermined God's will should be ignored, thrown out, or taken down. I'm mentioning this because of how we mentioned Victorian culture, American culture, and other things that are not necessarily in God's will.

larsenl1 Sep 16, '09 1:50 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix Refugee (Post 5669824)
Mm, this practice was especially true among royalty and the upper nobility; some would even go so far as to have a special ceremonial bed designed for the couple to consummate the sacrament. The point wasn't to titillate the on-lookers, but to make sure the sacrament was consummated. Back then, people were a lot more frank about sex and the body. All babies were breast-fed and since society was more agrarian, people were more familiar with animals "doin' what comes nat'rally", thus by their standards, something like this wouldn't be considered dirty or obscene.

In royal society the king and queen lose much privacy. The king generally had an attendent to help him wipe after his first bowel movement of the morning, too. Again this points to cultural standards, not a church doctrine.:D

Dtmccameron Sep 16, '09 8:36 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AChris (Post 5663106)
What about NOT during intercourse?

I think it might promote un-needed lusts, and Lust. Celibacy outside of marriage, but Chastity, always.

Then again, there does come a point, doesn't there, where the sight of your naked spouse doesn't serve to arouse, but merely cause one to muse, "Why're they naked?" or even, "Dash it all! Put some clothes on would'ya! I just finished eating!"
:p

CFI Sep 17, '09 2:10 pm

Re: Conjugal sex
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Albizzi (Post 5705635)
I remember of a true story about the French king Louis XIII (XVIIth century).
This newly married king was so poorly skilled, so ignorant regarding the sexual act that he didn't know what exactly he had to do with his wife (probably herself was a bit more ignorant than him, otherwise...).
He went to ask his cousin the Duke of Epernon (if I remember well) who was married long ago. The Duke was so happy to help the king in that crucial matter that he proposed him to attend an intercourse with his wife and possibly ask questions if necessary. That the king joyfully and gratefully accepted.
The story doesn't says if they were naked or dressed.

I don't know where you can read this story, but the real story was quite different.
Louis XIII was born on September 27, 1601. He was raised in a way that we cannot describe as modest, at least according our standards.
We know many things about Louis' childhood by the diary of his physician, Jean Héroard. We can report something. The little child "laughs noisily when the nanny swings his penis". Playing with him, "the Queen catches his penis". There are many of these events in Héroard's diary.
Louis XIII ascended to the throne in 1610, at the age of eight and a half. An year later is officially engaged with the daughter of the King of Spain, Anne of the same age.
On October 18, 1615 the marriage was celebrated by proxy in Burgos (Spain). On November 25, 1615 the marriage was solemnly celebrated in Paris. The spouses were only 14 years old, but by order of the Queen Mother, the marriage was consummated the same night. Jean Héroard took charge over check.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 am.


Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.