Sex for married couples


#1

Sorry if these questions offend anyone. But we do not know where to go for answers, and quite honestly are too embarrassed to ask our friends in church.

If a man is not to waste his seed - is a woman allowed to have an orgasmic experience without intercourse?

Is intercourse the only sexual relationship a married couple may have.

I travel a lot for work, of course during that time when NFP would come into the picture (I think my spouse plans it that way, just kidding). Does that mean that we are just out of luck and cannot enjoy a sexual relationship together on a somewhat regular basis?

It is not that we do not want any kids, we have several.


#2

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

[Biblical Evidence That Contraception Is Immoral](“Biblical Evidence That Contraception Is Immoral”)

The question regarding the woman, masturbation is one of the sins against chastity as mentioned in the Catechism.

God bless you both.


#3

Is the question, can a woman be satisfied by her husband in ways other than intercourse BECAUSE she is in a fertile time (such that intercourse might lead to children)?

If that's the question, it's my understanding that that is a No; it wouldn't be a total, free, fruitful act of love. It would be avoiding the fruits of love.

If the question is about masturbation (self, while on the road away from spouse, etc.), the answer is No. These would be opportunities to practice self-mastery, and to use the means God gives us to communicate with our spouse and to express our love. Phone calls, sending flowers, hiding gifts in the house where she will see them during the course of her day. Etc. These are acts of love too, and they encourage later and deeper intimacy and union when you get home.

If the question though is...let's just say this: can a woman be satisfied by her husband in ways other than intercourse, BECAUSE the husband/wife - - for whatever reason - can't stimulate her sufficiently by means of intercourse - - I THINK the answer is Yes. If the husband over excites and ejaculates prematurely, then I think it's permissible to use the means God gives a husband to satisfy his wife. I am not completely sure though.

Women may have their own legitimate/emotional/biological reasons for unresponsiveness.

These cases might be considered, though, fun projects "to work on together" as a couple. "Honey, you're too beautiful for me, help me to love you more slowly/tenderly". Or, "Honey, I am nervous and can't seem to fully relax....help me to relax in your love".

Need to remember here that making love is a fun project, full of great generosity and candor, giving and sharing, making great and happy, free, selfless efforts to help each other, and for laughing out loud when "more work is required".


#4

The Magisterium teaches that morality is determined by the three fonts (sources)

  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances

This teaching is found in the Catechism (1750-1754) and the Compendium of the Catechism (367-269).

In particular, the Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts, i.e. any act with an evil moral object, are always immoral, even with a good intention, in any circumstance.

This teaching is found in the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (the Splendor of Truth), throughout the document, see for example, n. 81-82.

The Magisterium also teaches that each and every marital act (sex in marriage) must be both unitive and procreative. The unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations cannot be separated into separate acts. This teaching is in the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

To be moral, a sexual act must have three meanings to its moral object: the marital meaning, the unitive meaning, and the procreative meaning.

So not every sexual act in the marital bedroom is moral. Even between a husband and wife, sexual acts that are non-unitive or non-procreative are immoral because they are intrinsically evil. No intention, however good, and no circumstance, however dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.

Here are some articles that I wrote on this subject:
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

This set of brief articles gives a theological argument to support what I am saying about what is and is not moral in the marital bedroom.

[In order to avoid any contention or acrimony, I will **not be posting any additional messages in this thread. I know that some Catholics disagree strongly with what I am saying. But the reader can consider my theological arguments, and decide for himself or herself if this is the correct understanding of Catholic teaching.]


#5

[quote="Ron_Conte, post:4, topic:201577"]
The Magisterium teaches that morality is determined by the three fonts (sources)

  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances

This teaching is found in the Catechism (1750-1754) and the Compendium of the Catechism (367-269).

In particular, the Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts, i.e. any act with an evil moral object, are always immoral, even with a good intention, in any circumstance.

This teaching is found in the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (the Splendor of Truth), throughout the document, see for example, n. 81-82.

The Magisterium also teaches that each and every marital act (sex in marriage) must be both unitive and procreative. The unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations cannot be separated into separate acts. This teaching is in the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

To be moral, a sexual act must have three meanings to its moral object: the marital meaning, the unitive meaning, and the procreative meaning.

So not every sexual act in the marital bedroom is moral. Even between a husband and wife, sexual acts that are non-unitive or non-procreative are immoral because they are intrinsically evil. No intention, however good, and no circumstance, however dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.

Here are some articles that I wrote on this subject:
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

This set of brief articles gives a theological argument to support what I am saying about what is and is not moral in the marital bedroom.

[In order to avoid any contention or acrimony, I will not be posting any additional messages in this thread. I know that some Catholics disagree strongly with what I am saying. But the reader can consider my theological arguments, and decide for himself or herself if this is the correct understanding of Catholic teaching.]


Ronald L. Conte Jr.
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible
author of numerous articles and several books of Roman Catholic theology
read my Q & A on Marital Sexual Ethics

[/quote]

Readers please note:

These web pages above are not recommended sources for Catholic sexual ethics....other areas too are of private opinion or are problematic or incorrect from a theological or canonical view or indeed taken out of context and misapplied.

Instead seek out sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and books for sale from Catholic Answers.


#6

Sorry if these questions offend anyone. But we do not know where to go for answers, and quite honestly are too embarrassed to ask our friends in church.

If a man is not to waste his seed - is a woman allowed to have an orgasmic experience without intercourse?

If within the context of the marital act only...foreplay...during physical intercourse and right after the climax of the husband

Is intercourse the only sexual relationship a married couple may have.

climax can only take place within the marital act...but this does not mean one that other moderate signs of affection our out...just be careful to get too aroused....

I travel a lot for work, of course during that time when NFP would come into the picture (I think my spouse plans it that way, just kidding). Does that mean that we are just out of luck and cannot enjoy a sexual relationship together on a somewhat regular basis?

It is not that we do not want any kids, we have several

when one has serious reasons to avoid via nfp...there will be the times that are infertile....where you can have marital relations...and yes there are going to be times where you are going to get to grow greatly in virtue :)


#7

I can’t confirm this definitively either, but I’m almost positive this is the case.


#8

The Magisterium teaches that morality is determined by the three fonts (sources)

  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances

Catechism ...vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM

This teaching is found in the Catechism (1750-1754) and the Compendium of the Catechism (367-269).

In particular, the Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts, i.e. any act with an evil moral object, are always immoral, even with a good intention, in any circumstance.

yes this is true

This teaching is found in the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (the Splendor of Truth), throughout the document, see for example, n. 81-82.

yes

The Magisterium also teaches that each and every marital act (sex in marriage) must be both unitive and procreative. The unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations cannot be separated into separate acts. This teaching is in the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

here is where Mr. Conte constantly gets it wrong...I refer reader to the actual document. Yes each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative (that is open to life) --this part is true. But then Mr. Conte starts thinking that foreplay is a separate act from the martial act..and since a wife may climax during foreplay that is part of a marital act..Mr. Conte thinks this is an unnatural evil act...well it is not. For foreplay forms a kind of moral unity with the physical act of intercourse..it is not a separate act..... What Humanae Vitae was teaching in regards there is that one could not say that so long as most of our acts of marital intercourse are open to life it does not matter if we use some contraceptives in some of them...this is what the document is talking about at this point--every act of intercourse must be open to life.. (as I learned at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Sexual and Medical Morality) Mr. Conte is misreading the document at this point.

To be moral, a sexual act must have three meanings to its moral object: the marital meaning, the unitive meaning, and the procreative meaning.

So not every sexual act in the marital bedroom is moral. Even between a husband and wife, sexual acts that are non-unitive or non-procreative are immoral because they are intrinsically evil. No intention, however good, and no circumstance, however dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.

Yes not every act is moral...sure...and yes no circumstances can make an intrinsically evil act into a good one...yes...but Mr. Conte misreads things from there in some of his applications...I refer readers to Various Orthodox Catholic Moral Theologians such as Dr. Germain Grisez et al

Here are some articles that I wrote on this subject:
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

NOT recommended source

This set of brief articles gives a theological argument to support what I am saying about what is and is not moral in the marital bedroom.

His personal opinions...much of which are not the teachings of the Church or of orthodox moral theologians

[In order to avoid any contention or acrimony, I will **not be posting any additional messages in this thread. I know that some Catholics disagree strongly with what I am saying. But the reader can consider my theological arguments, and decide for himself or herself if this is the correct understanding of Catholic teaching.]

and we have to say...The Catholic Church does not teach what you teach about some things...such as foreplay....they are your views ....

I refer readers to sources from Catholic Answers etc..


#9

Regarding ...a wife (only wife...Husband must be in the proper place..) during context of marital act...including forplay

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503081&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=climax&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=25&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=


#10

[quote="Bookcat, post:8, topic:201577"]

The Magisterium also teaches that each and every marital act (sex in marriage) must be both unitive and procreative. The unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations cannot be separated into separate acts. This teaching is in the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

here is where Mr. Conte constantly gets it wrong...I refer reader to the actual document. Yes each and every marital act must be unitive and procreative (that is open to life) --this part is true. But then Mr. Conte starts thinking that foreplay is a separate act from the martial act..and since a wife may climax during foreplay that is part of a marital act..Mr. Conte thinks this is an unnatural evil act...well it is not. For foreplay forms a kind of moral unity with the physical act of intercourse..it is not a separate act..... What Humanae Vitae was teaching in regards there is that one could not say that so long as most of our acts of marital intercourse are open to life it does not matter if we use some contraceptives in some of them...this is what the document is talking about at this point--every act of intercourse must be open to life.. (as I learned at Franciscan University of Steubenville in Sexual and Medical Morality) Mr. Conte is misreading the document at this point.

[/quote]

Bookcat, can you provide for me the definition of Marital Act? As you mention above, foreplay is part of the Marital Act. As each Marital Act must be unitive and procreative, suppose a man ejaculates as a result of foreplay and then proceeds to have intercourse in which he ejaculates a second time. Is this not a singular Marital Act that is unitive and procreative?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually agree with your post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.


#11

Thank you for all the replies,

You have shed some light on this confusing subject for us. Not everything we wanted to hear but will abide.

We will read the links and CC today to continue our education on this matter.

The question was never about masterbation when I was away, It was more do we have to perform intercourse when we know could result in a boby. That question was answered.

Thanks again.


#12

[quote="Dredgemate, post:10, topic:201577"]
Bookcat, can you provide for me the definition of Marital Act? As you mention above, foreplay is part of the Marital Act. As each Marital Act must be unitive and procreative, suppose a man ejaculates as a result of foreplay and then proceeds to have intercourse in which he ejaculates a second time. Is this not a singular Marital Act that is unitive and procreative?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually agree with your post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

[/quote]

Marital act is well ...sexual intercourse of husband and wife...that is open to life etc Foreplay of course forms a moral unity with the physical intercourse ....

If the husband ejaculates outside during foreplay...then this would be not good...there can be sin involved...mortal if done with full knowledge and complete consent....

If a pure accident..then this is not a sin if not wanted...not consented to..but it is important not to get into a near occasion of this..for that can be sinful in some way..

....also it is important to always seek to be ready to enter into the physical act of intercourse so the seed ends up in the right place (then there will be no ejaculation outside...) should this start to happen....

as to going on after it accidentally happens outside....if one can..then yes this is still the one marital act...

Pure Accidents are well.... accidents...


#13

[quote="Dredgemate, post:10, topic:201577"]
Bookcat, can you provide for me the definition of Marital Act? As you mention above, foreplay is part of the Marital Act. As each Marital Act must be unitive and procreative, suppose a man ejaculates as a result of foreplay and then proceeds to have intercourse in which he ejaculates a second time. Is this not a singular Marital Act that is unitive and procreative?

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually agree with your post. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

[/quote]

I am glad you asked that question, because it is something I have wondered about as well. During a leisurely experience, both male and female are capable of multiple climaxes, so if the couple, while enjoying caressing, experiences climaxes at some point without intercourse having yet commenced, or maybe after an initial round of intercourse occurs to completion, are they sinning? I would be curious to see resources that address that specifically. Or maybe it falls within an area which the Church does not see a need to address? I know that some things are prohibited, while so many other ways of interacting are not explicitly addressed.
And to be clear, I am not asking about contraceptive behavior. I am asking mostly about afterplay, the post-coital bliss period where additional climaxes can and do occur.


#14

One does not have to ‘try real hard’ to have a baby…if one does not have serious reasons to use nfp to avoid…but one cannot intentionally abstain during the entire fertile time and make use only of the infertile time if one does not have a serious reason…(of course if you are not together for some other reason…like travel…not for that intention…that is just life)

it is not like one has to have relations each day she is fertile! :slight_smile:


#15

Hummm lets be careful here...this is the warning from Karl Keating:

The Catholic Answers forums accept as members people who are age 13 and over. This means that young people will have access to whatever is discussed in these forums.

Certain issues regarding sexuality are properly discussed here, but some issues should not be brought up in a public forum.

If you have a question on a sensitive issue (one, for example, that you are not likely to bring up before a group of young teenagers), do not discuss it here. Instead, contact one of Catholic Answers' staff apologists by letter or telephone.

Threads that, in the opinion of the moderators, fall outside the boundaries of due propriety will be deleted.


Karl


#16

[quote="Bookcat, post:15, topic:201577"]
Hummm lets be careful here...this is the warning from Karl Keating:

The Catholic Answers forums accept as members people who are age 13 and over. This means that young people will have access to whatever is discussed in these forums.

Certain issues regarding sexuality are properly discussed here, but some issues should not be brought up in a public forum.

If you have a question on a sensitive issue (one, for example, that you are not likely to bring up before a group of young teenagers), do not discuss it here. Instead, contact one of Catholic Answers' staff apologists by letter or telephone.

Threads that, in the opinion of the moderators, fall outside the boundaries of due propriety will be deleted.


Karl

[/quote]

I am so sorry. I guess you are probably referring to my post. I was really trying to use gentle language, and not be overly explicit, but I guess I still failed. I didn't realize such young people were admitted to these forums. If a moderator feels the need to delete my post, I will happily accept that and in the future will not ask such questions. I didn't mean to cause scandal; I just really wanted to know, but maybe I should have known better. Sorry.:blush:


#17

For everyone…these posts can end up getting deleted easily :slight_smile:

So I could write freely I sent the answer you in PM though…


#18

It sounds (reads?) to me like the OP is either talking about mutual masturbation or oral sex to completion w/out intercourse. If that is what he's asking, then the answer is NO, that is not allowed by Church teaching.

In Christ,

Ellen


#19

[quote="Ron_Conte, post:4, topic:201577"]
The Magisterium teaches that morality is determined by the three fonts (sources)

  1. intention
  2. moral object
  3. circumstances

This teaching is found in the Catechism (1750-1754) and the Compendium of the Catechism (367-269).

In particular, the Magisterium teaches that intrinsically evil acts, i.e. any act with an evil moral object, are always immoral, even with a good intention, in any circumstance.

This teaching is found in the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor (the Splendor of Truth), throughout the document, see for example, n. 81-82.

The Magisterium also teaches that each and every marital act (sex in marriage) must be both unitive and procreative. The unitive and procreative meanings of marital relations cannot be separated into separate acts. This teaching is in the Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 11-12.

To be moral, a sexual act must have three meanings to its moral object: the marital meaning, the unitive meaning, and the procreative meaning.

So not every sexual act in the marital bedroom is moral. Even between a husband and wife, sexual acts that are non-unitive or non-procreative are immoral because they are intrinsically evil. No intention, however good, and no circumstance, however dire, can cause an intrinsically evil act to become moral.

Here are some articles that I wrote on this subject:
Questions and Answers on Catholic Marital Sexual Ethics
catechism.cc/articles/QA.htm

This set of brief articles gives a theological argument to support what I am saying about what is and is not moral in the marital bedroom.

[In order to avoid any contention or acrimony, I will **not

[/quote]

be posting any additional messages in this thread. I know that some Catholics disagree strongly with what I am saying. But the reader can consider my theological arguments, and decide for himself or herself if this is the correct understanding of Catholic teaching.]


Ronald L. Conte Jr.
translator of the Catholic Public Domain Version of the Bible
author of numerous articles and several books of Roman Catholic theology
read my Q & A on Marital Sexual Ethics

Yesterday in a thread that was deleted it was mentioned that Ron Conte in relation to his 'theological works'....that his works are all self-published, not peer-reviewed and not peer-approved by anyone.

In rebuttal, Ron Conte mentioned that he knew a Father Gow that would approve of his teachings, that Father Gow ran the site www.CatholicWatchtower.com, and that we were welcome to contact him concerning this.

I did send correspondence to Father Gow yesterday concerning Ron Contes use of his name in support of what he was teaching.

Here is the reply back from Father Gow:

Re: [clean-contact] Ron Conte using your name on Catholic Answers Forum
From:

Fr. John Gow <_______@gmail.com>

Add to Contacts
To: Me <
______@yahoo.com>

The name is familiar because he has been in contact with me about the site that I am building. I do not ever remember endorsing or approving any of his teachings. He has read some old posts of mine (in and about a moral issue) and said that he totally agreed with what I said in them. That is the only time I have ever communicated with this person on any understanding of the teachings of the Church. It is untrue if he is saying something by which I have endorsed his thought in any way, I do not endorse people that post on the forums, however I have and always will only endorse the teaching of the Church on the forum.

I do not approve of what he said because I honestly do not know what it is he wrote, the thread has been pulled. I would appreciate him knowing that I do not take well to having my named used as endorsement to promote another person's opinion especially having it being used in such a manner. If you could rectify this that would be great.

I am grateful for your getting a hold of me about this.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Me. <------------l@yahoo.com> wrote:
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=465323&page=2

Ron Conte has made a post on Catholic Answers indicating that you approve of his teachings. Is this so?

--
Father John Gow

Parochial Vicar | SS. Peter & Paul

Cary, IL 60013

www.catholicwatchtower.com


#20

[quote="Bookcat, post:12, topic:201577"]
Marital act is well ...sexual intercourse of husband and wife...that is open to life etc Foreplay of course forms a moral unity with the physical intercourse ....

If the husband ejaculates outside during foreplay...then this would be not good...there can be sin involved...mortal if done with full knowledge and complete consent....

If a pure accident..then this is not a sin if not wanted...not consented to..but it is important not to get into a near occasion of this..for that can be sinful in some way..

....also it is important to always seek to be ready to enter into the physical act of intercourse so the seed ends up in the right place (then there will be no ejaculation outside...) should this start to happen....

as to going on after it accidentally happens outside....if one can..then yes this is still the one marital act...

Pure Accidents are well.... accidents...

[/quote]

I understand accidents ;). I'm thinking of a more deliberate act. If I complete in a normal fashion, is it less procreative if I also ejaculate outside? After all, it only takes one sperm.


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.