Permissable sexual acts


#1

I heard Father Corapi the other day saying that in marriage, all sexual acts were permissable as long as they led to procreation. I was thinking that this makes sense, but had a question.

Shouldn't it be alright for a married couple to kiss passionately and sexually if you will if they don't intend on procreating right after?

You probably catch my drift


#2

Why would it not be?

Is sexual intercourse the only way for a couple to physically express their love for each other?

Seems that the Song of Solomon beings "Let him kiss me again and again....." (or similar words) if memory serves.


#3

I can't imagine why God would unite two people, only to stifle their passion for one another (in whatever form it takes). Of course, the Catholic Doctrine is decidedly against the idea: if even so much as kissing is arousing, you'd better be trying to make a baby, at least in theory.


#4

I am not sure that you are familiar with Catholic doctrine on marital love. The statement you make above is not at all accurate.

I am aware of no Catholic document that requires kissing, hugging, messaging or other forms of affection to result in intercourse. Acts that are directly sexual in nature must be open to the possibility of life and not artificially truncated or frustrated.


#5

The above statement is not accurate with regards to the Catholic teaching on sex within marriage.

From the Catechism:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, 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.”

2369 “By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood.”

Sexual intercourse must be procreative and unitive meaning open to life and uniting a husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows, an expression of their love. When they engage in foreplay it is then that they will complete the marital act through sexual intercourse keeping the aforementioned meanings present in the act.

However, if a husband and wife are to passionately kiss, hug, even give a massage that does not have to lead to sexual intercourse. There are many (non-sexual) ways that a married couple can express their love through kissing, hugging, etc. that will not lead to sexual intercourse.

Please read “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West or “Holy Sex” by Gregory Popcak


#6

I think what he meant was that if the couple don't intend on completing the marital act, they need to watch how far they go with foreplay to avoid sinning by becoming overly excited. That is indeed Catholic teaching. If you know you're not going to drive the car, you don't warm it up... not too much anyway. ;) The point is to avoid an occasion of sin.


#7

I saw this also and while I thought it a good answer, I also thought it was maybe not thorough enough.
Any act is permissable assuming it is:

  1. In the context of marriage,
  2. Oriented toward vaginal climax
  3. Agreeable to both parties
  4. Not degrading or harmful to one or both of the partners either emotionally or physically.
    In other words the act must be grounded in Love.

As to your specific question, what you are really talking about is foreplay whether it takes place 5 minutes or 5 days before the act is irrelevant. My wife and I use to say that our “foreplay” started the day after we finished…, becuase all of our actions were geared toward mutual Love and respect, and we made every effort to show our Love in every facet of our life together. We still do even though we no longer are able to engage in the unitive act.

Peace
James


#8

[quote="whm, post:4, topic:184442"]

I am aware of no Catholic document that requires kissing, hugging, messaging or other forms of affection to result in intercourse.

[/quote]

My nephew frequently sends text messages to his girlfriend, some of which probably express his affection for her. I'm sure he'd convert to Catholicism in an instant if the Church required that messaging result in intercourse. :thumbsup:


#9

:rotfl:

After marriage, of course.


#10

[quote="rick43235, post:8, topic:184442"]
My nephew frequently sends text messages to his girlfriend, some of which probably express his affection for her. I'm sure he'd convert to Catholicism in an instant if the Church required that messaging result in intercourse. :thumbsup:

[/quote]

blasted spell checker! :D Okay messaging or massaging still works


#11

[quote="Voice_of_Reason, post:3, topic:184442"]
I can't imagine why God would unite two people, only to stifle their passion for one another (in whatever form it takes). Of course, the Catholic Doctrine is decidedly against the idea: if even so much as kissing is arousing, you'd better be trying to make a baby, at least in theory.

[/quote]

I know of no catholic doctrine such as what you speak of here.

Can you post your source for this idea?

Peace
James


#12

[quote="sarahraegraham, post:6, topic:184442"]
I think what he meant was that if the couple don't intend on completing the marital act, they need to watch how far they go with foreplay to avoid sinning by becoming overly excited. That is indeed Catholic teaching. If you know you're not going to drive the car, you don't warm it up... not too much anyway. ;) The point is to avoid an occasion of sin.

[/quote]

If that is indeed what he was trying to say then he said it poorly.

One thing that we try to do on this forum is to accurately portray Catholic Doctrine. The statement that, "Catholic Doctrine is decidedly against the idea....", is clearly a misstatement.

As to how far foreplay should go in a given situation is, of course, peculiar to the individuals and the specific circumstances but should be controlled so as not to lead either to sin or scandal, or give a poor example to others.

Peace
James


#13

Sin or scandal, how? How can any physical thing that is consented to in marriage lead to sin or scandal unless God is prohibitive even within marriage? Does he never stop making arbitrary decrees?

Example: felatio or cunnalingus, to it’s completion is a sin. Why? No good reason, except that the church is decidedly against certain things…


#14

But there is good reason. Neither of these acts are open to life. They are a sin (to their completion that is) for the same reason ABC is, they frustrate the procreative aspect of sex.


#15

[quote="LovinmyLife, post:14, topic:184442"]
But there is good reason. Neither of these acts are open to life. They are a sin (to their completion that is) for the same reason ABC is, they frustrate the procreative aspect of sex.

[/quote]

No more than cutting a make-out session short does (to which I was refering when I said, "if even so much as kissing is arousing, you'd better be trying to make a baby, at least in theory").


#16

[quote="Voice_of_Reason, post:15, topic:184442"]
No more than cutting a make-out session short does (to which I was refering when I said, "if even so much as kissing is arousing, you'd better be trying to make a baby, at least in theory").

[/quote]

If that make-out session (and the make-out session alone) is leading to ejaculation, then there is either more then just kissing going on or that is one heck of a good kisser.

Kissing itself does not cause babies. Kissing can lead to other activities that can cause babies, but cutting a make out session short does not qualify as frustrating the procreative aspect of sex. kissing, even making out, is not sex.

the reason oral sex to completion is a sin is the same as birth control because, like birth control, it purposely prevents the possibility of conception from that sexual act, either chemically like with the pill, by a barrier as with a condom, or by simply being nowhere near the vagina.


#17

[quote="LovinmyLife, post:16, topic:184442"]
If that make-out session (and the make-out session alone) is leading to ejaculation, then there is either more then just kissing going on or that is one heck of a good kisser.

Kissing itself does not cause babies. Kissing can lead to other activities that can cause babies, but cutting a make out session short does not qualify as frustrating the procreative aspect of sex. kissing, even making out, is not sex.

the reason oral sex to completion is a sin is the same as birth control because, like birth control, it purposely prevents the possibility of conception from that sexual act, either chemically like with the pill, by a barrier as with a condom, or by simply being nowhere near the vagina.

[/quote]

So neither of the following are sinful?:
1) receiving felatio and discontinuing right-before ejaculation
2) Performing cunnalingus to the point of orgasm, which, in the famale, has nothing to do with procreation


#18
  1. yes, if the husband then finishes inside his wife’s vagina.

  2. i am not 100% sure on this one, so i look to someone more knowledgeable to correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe that if it is done within the context of vaginal intercourse, as foreplay for example, then it is permissible. I think i read in Christopher West’s book “Good News about Sex and Marriage” that it was permissible (and even encouraged) for a husband to manually stimulate his wife to orgasm if it did not happen during intercourse.


#19

What if a man only orgasms upon receiving felatio? (I can hear men and women chiming in, "I can hardly imagine that being the case!). Obviously if his greatness, Christopher West, said a female can achieve orgasm through alternative methods, then there can’t be anything intrinsically wrong with sex that obviously isn’t geared towards procreation. Dissatisfaction with the status quo doesn’t make alternatives acceptible (not that I subscribe to any of the above). If a man stops before ejaculating while receiving felatio (but has no intention of intercourse), it’s all represented on the same continuum. A make out session is just the lower part of the continuum that leads to the higher part (felatio) that leads to the unacceptable part - for the man (ejaculating) - and acceptable for the woman under arbitrary circumstances (if intercourse doesn’t bring the woman to orgasm the way oral sex might). You see my difficulty though.


#20

[quote="Voice_of_Reason, post:19, topic:184442"]
What if a man only orgasms upon receiving felatio? (I can hear men and women chiming in, "I can hardly imagine that being the case!). Obviously if his greatness, Christopher West, said a female can achieve orgasm through alternative methods, then there can't be anything intrinsically wrong with sex that obviously isn't geared towards procreation. Dissatisfaction with the status quo doesn't make alternatives acceptible (not that I subscribe to any of the above). If a man stops before ejaculating while receiving felatio (but has no intention of intercourse), it's all represented on the same continuum. A make out session is just the lower part of the continuum that leads to the higher part (felatio) that leads to the unacceptable part - for the man (ejaculating) - and acceptable for the woman under arbitrary circumstances (if intercourse doesn't bring the woman to orgasm the way oral sex might). You see my difficulty though.

[/quote]

You are correct that female orgasm is not required for an act of sexual intercourse to be open for life (although there are studies that suggest that the contractions of the uterus may aid in conception), but there are two aspects to sex- the procreative AND the unitive. No, the husband does not have to bring his wife to orgasm, but sex is supposed to be a way for a husband and wife to show their love for one another, and the loving thing for a husband to do is to bring his wife to orgasm if she is unable to during sex.

This is different because the male and female orgasm are different. One is necessary for creating new life, the other isn't. But in both cases, it is only licit during an act of completed intercourse, foreplay included. The female orgasm occurring before or after intercourse does not affect her ability to conceive. The male orgasm occurring anywhere except his wife's vagina renders the vaginal intercourse sterile- making it a sin.

Open to life: act must not be intentionally sterilized in any way- either birth control or ejaculation out side of vaginal intercourse (some of the basis for this is the story of Onan, who "spilled his seed" on the floor before in order to avoid giving his brother children by his widow)
Unitive: sex is an expression of love between a husband and wife. Now, I'm chaste so I can't say from experience, but I get the feeling I wouldn't feel very loved if my future husband was the only one who got to fully enjoy sex. Sex is meant to bring a couple closer together, a physical expression of their love. As I said, a husband does not have to bring his wife to orgasm, but what loving husband would deny his wife the full enjoyment of sex?

(unfortunately I have an early class tomorrow and must go to bed. I look forward to continuing this discussion later)


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