Marital, unitive, procreative

The only moral sexual act is natural marital relations open to life. To be moral, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. This threefold meaning of the marital act is the moral object of sexual relations. If any one or more of these three meanings is absent in any sexual act, then the moral object is evil and the sexual act is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts are non-procreative, intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances, even within marriage. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be justified as a type of foreplay in order to prepare for the natural marital act because the end never justifies the means. And the absence of sexual climax does not change an intrinsically evil, gravely immoral, unnatural sexual act into an act that is good or morally defensible.

“…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)

“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)

Are you implying that neither husband nor wife can touch the other’s private parts, that no foreplay is allowed, and that the only permitted act is Tab A being inserted in Slot B?

Foreplay is a means to the end of natural marital relations. The end does not justify the means. Some acts of foreplay are moral, and other acts of foreplay are immoral. No act is justified merely because it is used as a type of foreplay. Each knowingly chosen act must stand on its own as to its morality.

Mere touching of private parts is not necessarily immoral. But any touching which is masturbatory, with or without climax, is intrinsically evil and gravely immoral.

Unnatural sexual acts, with or without sexual climax, are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, and such acts do not become moral by being done within marriage, nor by being done before or after natural marital relations open to life.

The only moral** per se sexual act** is natural marital relations open to life (any sexual position that is inherently procreative) – Tab A in Slot B, as you put it. In other words, every use of the genital sexual faculty must be marital, unitive, procreative.

Ron should post this disclaimer on all his claims, but he doesn’t:

Ron Conte repeatedly posts his OPINIONS on this topic on this forum. The Church doesn’t teach this, and it is not doctrine.

Ron asserts he is a qualified theologian because he has a bachelor’s degree from Boston College (per his website). However, NONE of his writings have an imprimatur or a nihil obstat. They have NOT been vetted by any Church authority.

This particular posting is very problematic and could lead people to erroneous conclusion. People should read authentic Church documents on this subject and books with an imprimatur.

1 Like

Right on.

I will put my trust in Church authority and not Mr. Conte.

Moderators, this is another thread destined to go south very quickly.

Sex pleasure is worshipped, & people want to turn their marriage acts into a porn flick. They do not want to hear anything that interferes with their pornflick type sex.

I will pray for your wife.(assuming that you are married) I’m sure glad that the Church does not teach what you promote. You are definitely hung up on something and cannot let it go. The marital embrace is the marital act and all things that a husband and his willing wife do for foreplay are part of that embrace and it must end allowing for procreation.

Now you can keep coming on this forum and throwing out all of your nonsense but you have no takers and this is a pretty conservative forum. So if you are hung up on the “fact” that you can only lay on your wife and be mechanical then you have issues and need to see a Catholic sex therapist. Please do not have us try to uphold your sex practices and/or impose them on us… teachccd

1 Like


Just because your married , doesn`t mean anything goes, if You are a devout Catholic & serious about living up to your Catholic Faith, there are certain things that You will just not do sexually for the Love of God

Porn flick type sex? Well you couldn’t be more opposite from Ron Conte. How about the millions of us who know that we love our spouses and utilize all of our sexual gifts to express that love. This is the weirdest thread but somehow I got drawn into it but I think that this is my exit.

You and Ron need to get more information from the proper sources. Your individual ideas are out in left field… teachccd


Yours are so correct right, I don`t think so, Most catholics are lukewarm, are U one of them. Devout catholics who are serious about their faith will not do certain type porn flick sex

A good Catholic does not judge…but you are hung up on porn flick sex (whatever in the world that means)…

Hey, when catholics say it`s ok to do anal & oral sex, then what is it?

Are You a ccd teacher, if so, I think You better give it up, Look at the way Your judging Ron, & I believe he is the smartest most devout Catholic who comes oin this forum

The end of natural marital relations does not justify the means.

I’m an unmarried, devout practicing Roman Catholic.

Ad hominem arguments are not valid.

My posts are my own theological understanding. I do not need to add a disclaimer saying that my posts are my opinion because all members’ posts are their opinion. This is my opinion as to the meaning of the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium on morality and marital relations.

However, all of the posts to the contrary are also merely opinion. Even when a post says “this is the teaching of the Church, and that is not the teaching of the Church”, it is the poster’s opinion that one idea is, and another idea is not, Church teaching. Also, if a book with the imprimatur contains an assertion on faith or morals, the assertion is the theological opinion of the author.

Yeah, I’ll give it up alright…:shrug:

Most Catholics are clueless about their faith, most of them dont even know why they are sitting in Church, they are clueless & even if they know, they are going to do it their way anyhow. 80% of Catholics across the world don`t even practice their religion at all, the other 20% that do, probably 2% know or care anything about the laws of the Church, or live them

Here is a post: Pornography is grave matter.

That is NOT my opinion so your claim that every post is an opinion is refuted. There are actual teachings of the Church that cannot be disputed or catagorized as opinion. If I post the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist it is NOT merely my opinion. My interpretation of the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist is irrelevant.

Granted that your being unmarried is not a basis for your interpretation but I would have to assert that the experience does actualize the Church’s understanding of the martital embrace. It’s like acknowledging the Eucharist rather than receiving this Sacrament of Love.

But I do not wish to judge as some other poster mentioned so I thank you for your opinion and I choose to abide by what the Church teaches and by what has been expressed by moral theologians. Now, that is my opinion…:wink:

Very Nice Teach, You renew my faith in human nature:thumbsup:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit