foreplay in the sexual act
#51
(04-14-2011, 10:20 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:42 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:49 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

A vagina is not sterile.  A woman or man is sterile.

One of the basics of moral theology is that the moral ends of acts are natural and ordered.  The natural and ordered end of sexual relations is insemination.  We cannot force fertilization to occur, but we can be responsible for ensuring the natural and ordered end of the act whether fertilization is apparently possible or not.

Unlike Monty Python would have people believe, it's not "every sperm is sacred".  I mean, there is loss of seed even when the act is done licitly and naturally.  As is true with many sins, it is the nature and end of the action that goes to its sinfulness.
But does this also apply to pregnant women? In other words, is it licit to have intercourse with your pregnant wife? I don't have a particular horse in the race, so to speak, for an answer. I would simply like to know if, when I am married and having children, sex with my pregnant wife would be considered valid.

Yes, it's fine as long as there is no risk to the mother or baby.  BTW I think you mean licit, not valid.  Back on p1 SouthpawLink posted this from a text on moral theology:

Quote:Principle. The conjugal act is lawful and even meritorious as often as it is not opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity. (Sec. 859, 1)

The intrinsic reason for this (I Cor. vii, 3) is that the conjugal act is not only necessary for the propagation of the human race but also for the fostering of married love.  As often as one of these purposes is desired, the conjugal act is lawful, provided that no other ills or inconveniences ensue.  Consequently the partners in marriage are not obliged to exercise sexual intercourse simply for the sake of procreation.  Therefore this act is lawful even if both parties are sterile, also during the time of lactation of pregnancy, on Sundays and on feast days; but it is forbidden to exercise the sexual function by means of onanism or with serious danger to health or at the same time causing scandal to others, etc.
Reply
#52
Forgive me, but the relevant section in McHugh and Callan's Moral Theology: A Complete Course (vol. II) is too long for me to quote in a short period of time.  Instead, I'll quote a few snippets based on what's been discussed in this thread.

"Lewdness is an action not directed to the conjugal act.  Coition itself is lawful in the married state, and this legitimatizes all the preparatory or accessory endearments.  Hence, the rule as to married persons is that venereal kisses and other such acts are lawful when given with a view to the exercise of the lawful marriage act and kept within the bounds of decency and moderation; that they are sinful, gravely or lightly according to the case, when unbecoming or immoderate; that they are venially sinful, on account on the inordinate use of a thing lawful in itself, when only pleasure is intended; that they are mortally sinflul, when they tend to pollution, whether solitary or not solitary, for then they are acts of lewdness" (sec. 2510 e, p. 522).

"Oral abuse committed by or with either sex is indecent objectively and subjectively.  It is the filthiest form of lewdness, and is usually joined with pollution (irrumation)" (sec. 2512 b, p. 524).

"Fornication ... differs from lewdness, which consists in unconsummated acts, and from sodomitic intercourse, which is consummated but unsuited for generation" (sec. 2523, p. 534).

I hope this is helpful (although it does seem to offer a different opinion than that of Prümmer).
Reply
#53
(04-14-2011, 01:00 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: Forgive me, but the relevant section in McHugh and Callan's Moral Theology: A Complete Course (vol. II) is too long for me to quote in a short period of time.  Instead, I'll quote a few snippets based on what's been discussed in this thread.

"Lewdness is an action not directed to the conjugal act.  Coition itself is lawful in the married state, and this legitimatizes all the preparatory or accessory endearments.  Hence, the rule as to married persons is that venereal kisses and other such acts are lawful when given with a view to the exercise of the lawful marriage act and kept within the bounds of decency and moderation; that they are sinful, gravely or lightly according to the case, when unbecoming or immoderate; that they are venially sinful, on account on the inordinate use of a thing lawful in itself, when only pleasure is intended; that they are mortally sinflul, when they tend to pollution, whether solitary or not solitary, for then they are acts of lewdness" (sec. 2510 e, p. 522).

"Oral abuse committed by or with either sex is indecent objectively and subjectively.  It is the filthiest form of lewdness, and is usually joined with pollution (irrumation)" (sec. 2512 b, p. 524).

"Fornication ... differs from lewdness, which consists in unconsummated acts, and from sodomitic intercourse, which is consummated but unsuited for generation" (sec. 2523, p. 534).

I hope this is helpful (although it does seem to offer a different opinion than that of Prümmer).

I may have to decode it a bit for the casual reader, I think.

"when they tend to pollution" = can be used to cause spilling of seed
"irrumation" = fellatio

Though, I have to admit even with the decoder ring I find their statement confusing.  I know you haven't quoted the whole section, so clarity may reside in the missing pieces, but they seem to be saying most things are OK if the the act cannot bring someone to climax in and of itself (if it does not tend to pollution), but an act that can bring someone to climax is inherently lewd.

The problem with that is, and without getting graphic, there isn't a universal rule although they claim to be making an objective argument.  In some people, climax can happen even without touching the genitalia.  I suppose in that case it would be an occasion of sin for those susceptible to that, but not for others. ???

While all this is very interesting from a theoretical standpoint, I still think the best course of action is to deal with the embarrassment and ask one's priest.
Reply
#54
(04-14-2011, 05:06 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 04:12 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote: At the very least, this seems wrong for the reason that it endangers the woman's health if certain bacteria and such got where it didn't belong.  We teach children to wipe "front-to-back" for a reason.

Well, this isn't secular humanist health class so I'm not going to go into details about how to make an unnatural act safer.  But safety isn't necessarily an issue, though certainly it can be.

I just personally think it's gross and stupid.  You won't see me interested in it.  :shrug:

I just consider that to be more evidence that it is unnatural and gross.  And stupid.  :)
Reply
#55
(04-14-2011, 11:27 AM)Walty Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:42 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:49 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

The events of Sarah and Elizabeth are miraculous, and extraordinary. I agree though, that even for an aged woman, or one whom doctors have said is sterile can surely by the grace of God, conceive. However, a pregnant woman is not the same. A pregnant woman cannot possibly get pregnant until the child conceived is brought forth. I am not questioning the power of God to open the sterile womb, but that is a rare occurrence. It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.
Reply
#56
(04-14-2011, 06:32 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 11:27 AM)Walty Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 01:42 AM)Dante Alighieri Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:49 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: Why does it matter whether the seed is sprinkled on the floor (i.e. masturbation) or in a sterile vagina? In either case it is not for procreation, and a waste of seed that could be avoided. For example, a couple who has sex while the woman is pregnant would mean fertility is impossible at that time.

I'm curious about this as well.

Quis gave a good response here, but I might just add that, in laymen's terms, we just have to do our job.  That is acting naturally and morally in regards to sex.  We cannot discount that God performs miracles and can, as with Sarah, bring life even in a sterile woman.  He does not do this with masturbation or contraceptive sex because we are purposefully frustrating the ability for new life to emerge and are rejecting that possibility with our free will.  Intercourse, even while sterile, is open to children.

The events of Sarah and Elizabeth are miraculous, and extraordinary. I agree though, that even for an aged woman, or one whom doctors have said is sterile can surely by the grace of God, conceive. However, a pregnant woman is not the same. A pregnant woman cannot possibly get pregnant until the child conceived is brought forth. I am not questioning the power of God to open the sterile womb, but that is a rare occurrence. It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.

In that case, the couple is so open to life that they are indeed pregnant at the moment.  It is not humanity's "fault" that the process of procreation to birth takes nine months.  That is just natural and how God has created us.  So, in that case, we may still have sex because we are not frustrating the life giving act of marriage in any way.  A husband and wife are merely doing what they do while God is in the process of creating that little baby.  All the other examples mentioned here show a contraceptive mentality in which what we do is to purposefully cut ourselves off from insemination.
Reply
#57
(04-14-2011, 06:32 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.

It's been answered.  See the section of the moral theology text that SPL cited and I quoted above.  The sin come from frustrating pregnancy or doing something that is not ordered to pregnancy.  Because someone doesn't end up pregnant doesn't make it sinful.  If it did, most marital embraces would be sinful.
Reply
#58
(04-14-2011, 04:10 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:48 PM)Andrew Wrote: But you know, that's what I like about Authoritarian institutions:  I don't have to agree;  I just have to obey.  In a Democracy you have to worry about all that stupid consensus stuff. 

Can I put this in my sig?  It's amazing!

Are you teasing me?  ???



Reply
#59
(04-14-2011, 07:19 PM)Andrew Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 04:10 AM)OCLittleFlower Wrote:
(04-13-2011, 09:48 PM)Andrew Wrote: But you know, that's what I like about Authoritarian institutions:  I don't have to agree;  I just have to obey.  In a Democracy you have to worry about all that stupid consensus stuff. 

Can I put this in my sig?  It's amazing!

Are you teasing me?   ???

I don't think she is.
Reply
#60
(04-14-2011, 06:53 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(04-14-2011, 06:32 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: It is the issue of pregnancy that still seems unanswered.

It's been answered.  See the section of the moral theology text that SPL cited and I quoted above.  The sin come from frustrating pregnancy or doing something that is not ordered to pregnancy.  Because someone doesn't end up pregnant doesn't make it sinful.  If it did, most marital embraces would be sinful.

So be it. I will cease commenting on this discussion for three reasons:
One, I took up the argument merely for arguments sake (which is vain).
Two, I have never had sex, and am not married, so the issue is far from my knowledge.
Three, the virgin or celibate is more appealing and superior for pursuit; God willing I may pursue it.

I digress....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)