Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old Oct 7, '10, 11:24 am
notredame_999 notredame_999 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 2, 2009
Posts: 433
Religion: catholic
Default explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

what was the pre-vatican II position on sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse in marriage? Were they permissible for any reason? I have read on this site that acts like oral sex are permissible in marriage as long as the finished act is intercourse. This seems like a total contradiction of catholic teaching before Vatican II.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Oct 7, '10, 1:22 pm
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by notredame_999 View Post
what was the pre-vatican II position on sexual acts other than vaginal intercourse in marriage? Were they permissible for any reason? I have read on this site that acts like oral sex are permissible in marriage as long as the finished act is intercourse. This seems like a total contradiction of catholic teaching before Vatican II.
Things would have been the basically the same....in the years leading up to Vatican II as the years that followed the Council.
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Oct 7, '10, 1:59 pm
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 3,159
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

In order to be moral, each and every marital sexual act must be both unitive and procreative. The teaching of the Church on the morality of sexual acts does not depend on the presence or absence of climax, but on the marital, unitive, and procreative meanings. These meanings are inseparable; it is never moral to engage in a sexual act that is non-marital or non-unitive or non-procreative.

Pope Paul VI: "The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, 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." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12).

theologian Alice von Hildebrand: "It is precisely because the marital bed is sacred that one should approach acts within it with enormous reverence. Degrading and perverse sexual behavior -- even it is it done by a married couple, who do not practice contraception -- should be condemned, as an assault on human dignity. The 'pornification' of marriage should be resisted as vigorously as the pornification of our culture." (Catholic News Agency article: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=999)

Canon Jacques Leclerc: "There are many who believe that once they are married, they may do whatever they like.... they do not understand [that] the search for every means of increasing pleasure can be a perversion.... Now, there are even among the most Christian young people many who know nothing of the moral aspect of the problem and have only the rudimentary idea that everything is forbidden outside marriage, but that within marriage everything is allowed. It is thus a good thing to remember that the morality of conjugal relations does not allow that pleasure should be sought by every means, but calls for a sexual life that is at the same time healthy, simple and normal." (Marriage: A Great Sacrament, 1951, p. 88).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Oct 7, '10, 2:24 pm
dailey's Avatar
dailey dailey is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2010
Posts: 1,370
Religion: catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

I believe something similair was asked in the "ask an apologist" section. I was under the assumption that they answered according to the Churches views?


http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...light=oral+sex
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Oct 7, '10, 2:33 pm
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Reasonable, moderate and chaste foreplay is fine....but you are correct the in any case the husband may not climax other than vaginally ...outside "physical union with his wife in the martial act" ....and Christians are not hedonists...

The martial act must be always unitative and open to life....

But back to your question..yes it was basically the same as today --as one would find in moral manuals prior to the Council.

(though now with the Theology of the Body --gift from Pope John Paul II--certain things are more richly explained etc...)

Oh also other moderately arousing kissing, holding hands, thoughts about plans for marital relations...can take place outside of the marital act...as a loving affection..but one needs to avoid vehemently arousing things..and any near occasions to climax...one does not need to be engaged in foreplay etc to kiss ones spouse!
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Oct 7, '10, 2:36 pm
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by dailey View Post
I believe something similair was asked in the "ask an apologist" section. I was under the assumption that they answered according to the Churches views?


http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...light=oral+sex
(though do not take the answer as endorsing coitous interruptus...such would be contracetion and neither he nor the Church would say such is ok..he was answering the main question)
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Oct 7, '10, 7:40 pm
dailey's Avatar
dailey dailey is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2010
Posts: 1,370
Religion: catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

"The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only."

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were "allowed"?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Oct 7, '10, 10:02 pm
Catholic90 Catholic90 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: November 12, 2004
Posts: 16,671
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by dailey View Post
Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

"The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only."

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were "allowed"?
Tis 'zactly as he said.....oral can be foreplay only, meaning oral play can happen, but the male cannot "finish" orally; he must "finish" within his wife. It should more appropriately be called "oral foreplay" instead of "oral sex". Oral foreplay is fine.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Oct 7, '10, 10:08 pm
dailey's Avatar
dailey dailey is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: July 19, 2010
Posts: 1,370
Religion: catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catholic90 View Post
Tis 'zactly as he said.....oral can be foreplay only, meaning oral play can happen, but the male cannot "finish" orally; he must "finish" within his wife. It should more appropriately be called "oral foreplay" instead of "oral sex". Oral foreplay is fine.
Thanks for clarifying!

I found this too..which really helped. http://www.ewtn.org/vexperts/showmes...Pgnu=1&recnu=6
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Oct 7, '10, 10:33 pm
thirdworld thirdworld is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2010
Posts: 92
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

So does a man have to orgasm in order for the sex to "count" and not be sinful?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Oct 8, '10, 7:21 am
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by dailey View Post
Well than I am confused? What was meant by his following statement?

"The examples you mentioned would be allowed as foreplay only."

There is no misunderstanding that he is saying the examples the OP posted were "allowed"?
He meant the what the person was asking mainly about OS ...just not the "interruptus" which is a form of contraception at the moment of the completion (not foreplay) of the marital act for the man...where the seed is outside the body.

He just was answering the question too fast and focused on the main question ...his eyes skipped over the latin in the (example)..thats all...he and the Church recognize that such would be gravely sinful...

That was what I was talking about...I did not notice it at first either...and I have seen this answer posted before on this forum...and have read it without noticing...easy to do
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old Oct 8, '10, 7:26 am
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 3,159
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catholic90 View Post
Tis 'zactly as he said.....oral can be foreplay only, meaning oral play can happen, but the male cannot "finish" orally; he must "finish" within his wife. It should more appropriately be called "oral foreplay" instead of "oral sex". Oral foreplay is fine.
Not true. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they lack the procreative meaning. Neither are such acts truly unitive. If a particular sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, because it is non-procreative and non-unitive, the same act does not become procreative, nor unitive, by the absense of sexual climax.

Unnatural sexual acts are never chaste, never moderate, never reasonable, and never permissible, regardless of intention or circumstances, because such acts are intrinsically gravely disordered.

Labeling an act foreplay does not make the act moral. The intention to use the first act (foreplay) as a means to accomplish the second act (natural intercourse) does not justify the first act. The end of natural marital relations does not justify the means of non-procreative sexual acts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old Oct 8, '10, 7:28 am
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by thirdworld View Post
So does a man have to orgasm in order for the sex to "count" and not be sinful?
yes ...(and in the actual marital act)

unless of course it is an unintended "in-completion" ..like nature does not permit it at that moment even though one has been reasonably trying for a good amount of time (it just cannot happen) ...or some interruption happens like a kid wakes up screaming and is sick and he has to be taken to the hospital ..and one can not "complete the act" due to the emergency...

(one can then try again ....)

oh another example...

the husband has a heart attack
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old Oct 8, '10, 7:31 am
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 3,159
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Some relevant quotes on this topic:

"...nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men.... by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife." (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).

"For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife.... But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman." (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).

"And since the man who is too ardent a lover of his wife acts counter to the good of marriage if he use her indecently, although he be not unfaithful, he may in a sense be called an adulterer; and even more so than he that is too ardent a lover of another woman." (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 8).

"Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the 'vas' [vessel, orifice] than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances." (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 154, article 12).

"Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act, intrinsically evil by virtue of its object, into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice." (Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)

"No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church." (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 62)

"Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception)." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2399)

"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who, in exercising it, deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose, sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 54)

"No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 61)

"For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order." (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 21)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old Oct 8, '10, 7:43 am
Bookcat Bookcat is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 19,169
Religion: Christian! Catholic! Disciple of Jesus of Nazareth!
Default Re: explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Not true. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral because they lack the procreative meaning. Neither are such acts truly unitive. If a particular sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, because it is non-procreative and non-unitive, the same act does not become procreative, nor unitive, by the absense of sexual climax.

Unnatural sexual acts are never chaste, never moderate, never reasonable, and never permissible, regardless of intention or circumstances, because such acts are intrinsically gravely disordered.

Labeling an act foreplay does not make the act moral. The intention to use the first act (foreplay) as a means to accomplish the second act (natural intercourse) does not justify the first act. The end of natural marital relations does not justify the means of non-procreative sexual acts.
Such is not the teaching of the Church. Foreplay is not per se unnatural. Nor is it some separate act not taken together with the intercourse.

In is good to note that these are Mr. Conte's own ideas which he from time to time posts here on the forum. He also has in the past quoted certain documents...but in this regards to this area they are "misreadings" of the documents (not how the Church reads them or very sound and orthodox Catholic moral theologians read them)

(To call an act unnatural of course does not make it so...though of course truly "unnatural" or otherwise sinful acts (such as pornography etc ) are mortal sins..one should never do an evil for "a good"..all three aspects must be good..the moral object,the intention and the circumstances...)

I would suggest of course other sources...for example Catholic Answers themselves or well known orthodox Catholic Moral theologians etc for a good understanding of this area.
__________________
VIVAS IN DEO
IHCOY XPICTOY

Last edited by Bookcat; Oct 8, '10 at 7:59 am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics > Moral Theology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8540Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: Kellyreneeomara
5198CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: James_OPL
4433Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3870SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany
3838Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3397Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: Amiciel
3300Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3231Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3152For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: flower lady



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 9:16 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.