A few questions on sex.

[joshkt79]

I have a few questions that has always confused me so I need someone to explain.

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

I have been told different things by different people. A priest during our pre-wedding classes was asked both questions and said that as long as you are married, both husband and wife agree(in the mood) and NFP is being used, then there is no sin involved. He said that "in the old days" the missionary position was the only acceptable position in the Catholic religion, but since times have changed, then as long as you are "open to life" and using NFP, no sin involved.

Can someone please explain this to me? Please, if you post a verse from the bible, explain the verse in your own words.

Thanks and God bless

[VetA]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

I have a few questions that has always confused me so I need someone to explain.

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

I have been told different things by different people. A priest during our pre-wedding classes was asked both questions and said that as long as you are married, both husband and wife agree(in the mood) and NFP is being used, then there is no sin involved. He said that "in the old days" the missionary position was the only acceptable position in the Catholic religion, but since times have changed, then as long as you are "open to life" and using NFP, no sin involved.

Can someone please explain this to me? Please, if you post a verse from the bible, explain the verse in your own words.

Thanks and God bless

i have heard the same things, but only from 'liberals' so i take that with a grain of salt,

[Alexander Smith]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

I have a few questions that has always confused me so I need someone to explain.

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

I have been told different things by different people. A priest during our pre-wedding classes was asked both questions and said that as long as you are married, both husband and wife agree(in the mood) and NFP is being used, then there is no sin involved. He said that "in the old days" the missionary position was the only acceptable position in the Catholic religion, but since times have changed, then as long as you are "open to life" and using NFP, no sin involved.

Can someone please explain this to me? Please, if you post a verse from the bible, explain the verse in your own words.

Thanks and God bless

Hello and welcome.

I am a young un-married man, so don't take my post too seriously, but I will try to answer as best I can based on what I have read on the subject.

First of all, I don't know exactly what you mean by "recreational" sex. The world itself means something done at liesure or in one's spare time, which sounds fine to me, so I don't know how that would differ from any other type. I have no idea what that priest meant about NFP, but NFP never factors into the morality of sexual intercourse for married couples. A married couple can have sex as often as they both desire whether they use NFP or not. Sounds to me like this priest was talking about NFP as "protection" the way people talk about artificial birth control.

As for what sexual positions are acceptable, that's not something that the Church will explicitly state. There have been plenty of rumors that this or that Church father stated the missionary position was the only acceptable position, but this is not the case, and AFAIK such statements are myths. The only thing that would make a sexual position sinful, would be if it was intended to de-humanize, or animalize the act. No matter what position is used, the unifying aspect should always be maintained. Neither spouse can treat the other as an object, or have the act be about them. Sexual relations are a mutual self-giving, and that must be taken into account.

I hope that helped.

[PatrickSebast]

Well I have never seen any official church teachings either way and the Catechism nor Cannon Law seem to have anything about it. The bible doesn't have any real mentions of besides what one can attempt to divulge from the Song of Solomon. Honestly if an official teaching can't be found stating "Only position X may be used" then there would be no reason to do so. Good luck trying to argue for one position being more pure and sacred than another without authority, everything would fall apart when someone asked you what the maximum angle the male body could be slanted at was.

[thirdworld]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

I've always taken the concept of "recreational sex" to be casual fornication between unmarried people i.e one night stands or people who use birth control. Sex is for married couples for the purposes of unity and procreation. Sexual pleasure is not a sin. Using someone as a sex toy is a sin. So no sex can't "just" be for recreation because that's not the purpose of sex.

[Bookcat]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

I have a few questions that has always confused me so I need someone to explain.

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

I have been told different things by different people. A priest during our pre-wedding classes was asked both questions and said that as long as you are married, both husband and wife agree(in the mood) and NFP is being used, then there is no sin involved. He said that "in the old days" the missionary position was the only acceptable position in the Catholic religion, but since times have changed, then as long as you are "open to life" and using NFP, no sin involved.

Can someone please explain this to me? Please, if you post a verse from the bible, explain the verse in your own words.

Thanks and God bless

1. Not sure the meaning exactly of the term as it is being used here. But if you mean sex between husband and wife which is open to life..that is for love and self gift...enjoying being together ....but not "trying right then and there to have a baby"...such is yes just regular marital relations...in just moderation....

2. no. (but certainly avoid hedonism etc...and anything contrary to openness to life or human dignity etc)

As for NFP ...one may only use NFP to avoid pregnancy when one has serious reasons...these of course can be of many and varied kinds and need not be "life or death"

Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

497. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

498. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

[1ke]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

Please define your terms.

Originally Posted by joshkt79

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

The church does not have any teaching on this matter.

Originally Posted by joshkt79

He said that "in the old days" the missionary position was the only acceptable position in the Catholic religion,

This is not true.

[dsf11785]

A very knowledgeable priest I know who is like an encyclopedia on Catholic teachings once told me that it is sinful to have sex for any other purpose than to have children. Therefore, even if you are married, you may not have oral or anal sex, you may not have protected sex, etc. If you apply this principle to whatever you mean by "recreational sex" and "missionary position", it should answer the question.

Others might argue that you should not believe what my priest told me, but if so, they need to offer some evidence to the contrary.

[PatrickSebast]

Originally Posted by dsf11785

A very knowledgeable priest I know who is like an encyclopedia on Catholic teachings once told me that it is sinful to have sex for any other purpose than to have children. Therefore, even if you are married, you may not have oral or anal sex, you may not have protected sex, etc. If you apply this principle to whatever you mean by "recreational sex" and "missionary position", it should answer the question.

Others might argue that you should not believe what my priest told me, but if so, they need to offer some evidence to the contrary.

Like the references to the catechism on birth regulation in post #66?

[dsf11785]

Originally Posted by PatrickSebast

Like the references to the catechism on birth regulation in post #66?

Yes. Thank you.

It is not clear to me whether the catechism cited answers the question about sexual positions, however. Can we assume that only positions facilitating procreation are acceptable, or can we deduce that if sex during infertility periods is allowed, then other sexual acts not leading to procreation are also allowed?

[PatrickSebast]

Originally Posted by dsf11785

Yes. Thank you.

It is not clear to me whether the catechism cited answers the question about sexual positions, however. Can we assume that only positions facilitating procreation are acceptable, or can we deduce that if sex during infertility periods is allowed, then other sexual acts not leading to procreation are also allowed?

There are no teachings on position and as far as anyone has ever been able to demonstrate on this forum there have never been any teachings on it so the logical assumption is the position doesn't matter. As for "other" sexual acts all the Church teaches is that the act must be open to life (a man must finish inside of the woman). There haven't been any direct comments by Popes or direct teachings on the matter but there have been many theological writings on it from various Catholic theologians and they all seem to agree that oral stimulation is an acceptable means of foreplay and it has become an effecitively accepted teaching to the point where most priests will tell you that oral stimulation is fine and EWTN has posted an answer saying the same thing: http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmes...Pgnu=1&recnu=6

Without any official teachings on it, that is the best we can answer really.

[puzzleannie]

Originally Posted by joshkt79

I have a few questions that has always confused me so I need someone to explain.

1. Is "recreational" sex a sin in marriage?

2. Is the "missionary" position the only acceptable position for sexual intercourse?

Is

no and no
you already got solid instruction in your pre-cana class and have asked your priest, why are you listening to uninformed people who are speaking without authority, and apparently without even accurate knowledge?

[Bookcat]

Originally Posted by dsf11785

Yes. Thank you.

It is not clear to me whether the catechism cited answers the question about sexual positions, however. 1. Can we assume that only positions facilitating procreation are acceptable, or can we deduce that if sex during infertility periods is allowed, 2. then other sexual acts not leading to procreation are also allowed?

1. Yes withing reason an virtue etc ....

2. No...(I assume here one means the martial act per se)...the martial act in must be open to life at all times (even "infertile") ...the seed must be in the right place...even if the soil is not fertile to grow a tree....

[Just Lurking]

See here for some snippets about the medieval Catholic Church and the missionary position.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by Just Lurking

See here for some snippets about the medieval Catholic Church and the missionary position.

Interesting... but it was always theological speculation, not Church teaching. Particularly since it turned out the underlying facts were wrong, as was a good part of the supporting theology in some cases, we can safely leave some of these condemnations aside. As long as the act is open to life -- or, to use the strictest, coldest legal language, as long as Dad's live sperm end up inside Mom's vagina -- the Church has no formal teaching.

The "doggy-style" position still strikes me, on a visceral level, as deeply dehumanizing, so I'd be very cautious about something like that. But the "woman-on-top" or "spooning" or even one of the strange ones, like standing or scissors or the "coital alignment" or some other such nonsense... should be fine.

I feel awkward now.