FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Contraception and Other Sexual Questions, 18+
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
So all forms of artificial contraception are forbidden.  No condoms, no pills, no pulling-out, etc.  I assume that NFP is a gray area on this forum, so we won't touch that, but I am not familiar with it, and probably not gonna use it.  Also I have heard that all sexual actions that do not have a procreative end are forbidden, so a husband and a wife could not perform sexual actions that couldn't result in conception.  Therefore all anal or oral sexual actions are forbidden, correct?

Now, if this is the case, why is it that the elderly can marry, since they cannot conceive children?  And also, would it then be sinful to have sexual relations with one's pregnant wife, since there is no way she can conceive and get double pregnant?
NFP is licit for serious reasons.  For example, in my last pregnancy, I had really, really bad preeclampsia - as in blood pressure so high they were concerned that I would (a) have a heart attack or (b) have seizures and other issues.  My baby was delivered via emergency C section at 29 weeks.  That's pretty early.  Now, my husband and I are using NFP to choose when to indulge because another pregnancy would be a terrible idea right now.  If there is any doubt about whether or not your situation is serious enough, talk to a priest. 

Remember that sex has two ends: (1) procreative and (2) unitive.  Those who have sex when they are infertile for any reason (for these purposes, pregnancy is a time when conception is not possible and therefor "infertile" in one sense - weird I know) are still fulfilling one of those ends.  Thus it is completely licit to engage in sex and enjoy it aplenty if you are elderly (slight ick factor in typing this one), infertile, or pregnant. 

As for anal and oral: my understanding is that coming in an orifice not indented intended for the purpose would not be cooperating with what God has intended.  It is an inherently selfish act rather than a gift of oneself to one's spouse.
Thank you!  That is useful to know. 
(04-18-2017, 04:14 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]So all forms of artificial contraception are forbidden.  No condoms, no pills, no pulling-out, etc. 

Yes. The use of contraceptive devices directly frustrates the primary natural end of the marital act. This is not licit.

(04-18-2017, 04:14 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]I assume that NFP is a gray area on this forum, so we won't touch that, but I am not familiar with it, and probably not gonna use it.

Periodic abstinence is permitted for relatively serious motives (Both Pius XI and Pius XII along with others have clearly established this). NFP is essentially the same as this periodic abstinence, but the danger is in its presentation. That can be seen from the two different terms. "Periodic abstinence" clearly suggest an abnormal situation, even if it is possible it is for an indefinite time. "NFP" suggests a long-term methodology underlying "family".

If presented as a method by which for relatively serious medical, psychological, moral, ascetic, or social reasons (i.e. the virtue of Prudence) can be used to limit the frequency of conception or its likelihood, this is acceptable and in agreement with the traditional moral teachings of the Church. But then the term "periodic abstinence" makes total sense.

If presented in general terms without specifying the need for a relatively serious motive, or teaching it more generally (e.g. outside of marriage prep) as acceptable, it becomes little more than "Catholic Birth Control" -- a method by which couples "plan" their families, using the same false premises as those using artificial contraception, but using a "natural" means.

(04-18-2017, 04:14 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]Also I have heard that all sexual actions that do not have a procreative end are forbidden, so a husband and a wife could not perform sexual actions that couldn't result in conception.  Therefore all anal or oral sexual actions are forbidden, correct?

It was well established beforehand, but especially in Casti Conubii, that the primary end of marriage is the bonum prolis (the generation of children). Secondarily, but also essential is the bonum fidei (the fidelity of the spouses to each other). Any action which directly frustrates these is going to be illicit, thus immoral.

In themselves complete sexual acts which are oral or anal in nature are therefore forbidden, since they directly frustrate the bonum prolis. These are properly called "unnatural sexual acts" or sodomy.

Incomplete sexual acts, however, are not strictly forbidden, since they could still lead to generation if the marital act ended in the correct manner. Still, these acts are closely tied to unnatural behavior, so ought not to be "standard operating procedure", since they come from a perverse culture.

Still, we can see also why polygamy is such an evil by these same standards. It directly frustrates the bonum fidei. Yet even if it would actually help the bonum prolis, since a man with several wives could have more children, it still directly frustrates an essential end of marriage.

(04-18-2017, 04:14 PM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]Now, if this is the case, why is it that the elderly can marry, since they cannot conceive children?  And also, would it then be sinful to have sexual relations with one's pregnant wife, since there is no way she can conceive and get double pregnant?

That may seem like a logical question, but using that logic any sexual intercourse which does not result in conception would also be illicit : If a couple has sex and does not conceive then they would have mortally sinned.

Clearly that's not true, so there must be some distinction to be made. And it will fall on precisely what differentiates a couple which is contracepting from one who is simply unable to conceive -- namely, the will -- and it is in the will where we find sin. The will to intentionally frustrate the end is what makes a couple who is using contraception do evil and one not using contraception which simply doesn't conceive do well.

So we apply that distinction to your case: The elderly can marry even if because of their natural constitution procreation is improbable, because they can engage in the marital act without introducing any direct willful frustration to the bonum prolis. They, like many couples, have sex and simply don't conceive. They do not intend not to conceive or place any barrier to conception. The case then with a pregnant wife would be exactly the same.
As always, MM has the detailed response.  Nice!  You go into way more detail than I did and explained things to very nicely!
I have read that oral is allowed to an extent. The resource I looked at said that you could perform oral sex on a man as long as you did not bring him to climax (thus not distorting the marital act), but that a woman can be brought to climax because any emissions would not be life-giving: her life-giving elements are from the eggs and not her emissions, unlike a man.

Anal is sodomy and thus absolutely condemned.

If I am incorrect on this, please do let me know.
(04-18-2017, 10:52 PM)In His Love Wrote: [ -> ]I have read that oral is allowed to an extent. The resource I looked at said that you could perform oral sex on a man as long as you did not bring him to climax (thus not distorting the marital act), but that a woman can be brought to climax because any emissions would not be life-giving: her life-giving elements are from the eggs and not her emissions, unlike a man.

Anal is sodomy and thus absolutely condemned.

If I am incorrect on this, please do let me know.

The problem with how you've expressed it is that this would permit a woman to perform self-stimulation outside of the marital act -- that obviously isn't correct. Sexual pleasure is ordered principally toward generation and secondarily toward the unity of the spouses. One cannot enjoy that complete pleasure when it is not connect with the principle end.

That is the reason that masturbation in men is wrong. It is also the reason that a man cannot masturbate to obtain a specimen for in-vitro fertilization, even though the seed isn't wasted, because masturbation isn't ordered toward generation. But the same applies to a woman. She could not give herself sexual pleasure outside of the marital act because that isn't ordered toward generation.

A principle we could start with : Any sexual act which can lead to generation between those who are married is licit.

If we start there, the rest becomes easy.

Incomplete oral or anal sexual contact between the married, like manual contact would be licit in itself, so long as there were no risk of pollution, and the act ended correctly and could lead to generation.

Still, oral sexual contact isn't exactly a very noble manner of relations. In many cases there could be a serious risk that the act would not end correctly, and this would at least be a venial sin of imprudence, if no desire for the complete unnatural act exists (which would be a grave sin). Oral sexual contact is a form of quasi-sodomy (and was illegal in most places with sodomy laws), even if it's not technically the sin of sodomy (i.e., you don't confess "sodomy" in the confessional if you've engaged in oral sex).

Anal intercourse follows the same principle. Were it incomplete and the act finished correctly, it's not strictly forbidden. The same provisions above apply, and even more strongly, since now we're dealing with an act which if complete would be the sin of sodomy (and thus is even more disordered).

Both oral and anal contact, then, are tied to a disordered sexual desire.

Regarding a woman : in the context of the normal marital act, it is licit that after the man has climaxed, if she has not, she could stimulate herself or her husband could stimulate her so she could obtain complete pleasure, but this is because it is tied to that normal marital act (of which complete sexual pleasure is the material outcome), and does not harm the possibility of generation (and in fact can help it).
I see. Thank you for clarifying that. By 'pollution,' do you mean that the contact is licit as long as there isn't a risk of the act(s) coming to an improper end for one or both parties?
Okay, so just as a general rule, oral and anal sexual acts are licit, so long as they end in a generative way and leave open the possibility of conception (though I really don't view any of that as, well as noble as you  have said, nor respectful, and in some ways dangerous, so none of that.)

So it is fine if I touch my wife to help her climax?

Also, as a side note, how does someone stop having wet dreams?
(04-19-2017, 09:40 AM)Justin Alphonsus Wrote: [ -> ]Also, as a side note, how does someone stop having wet dreams?

How old are you Justin? 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6