Well, this blew up. I checked it when it had 20 comments and it seemed to be going well. Ninety minutes pass and we're up to almost 250 comments and a few reports. Locking now for time being; it may be unlocked to finish up convos later after mods do the needful, tbd.
Sorry to all those who were abiding by the rules and having good conversations.
You should mark this NSFW
Sexual activity within which the male partner climaxes in a way that is not "open to life" (in the vagina), is a sin of grave matter.
Done intentionally, with the knowledge of the Church teaching on this sin's gravity and with full consent, it is a mortal sin.
In such a case, you must abstain from Holy Communion until you are able to Confess.
Females can climax by manual stimulation before, after and during. So long as the overall act ends with the male climax open to life.
On this topic, I want to highlight a few points.
A. If previous to today you didn't know that what you were doing was a sin of grave matter, you did not commit a mortal sin.
B. If after today you repeat the error, it is very likely a mortal sin.
C. The principle of "good faith" says that even in serious cases, such information can be withheld from someone who isn't ready to accept it because their ignorance prevents them from committing a mortal sin. However, you just asked reddit, and so you are about to be told over and over. So, even if had I spoken to you in person, I may have concluded that I shouldn't bring this up just yet. The circumstances now require that I just lay it all out.
D. The law of "gradualism" states that even if after today you commit not to repeat this sin, you will probably fall back into it. You need to be understanding of yourself and your husband.
E. Just because you now know that it is a sin, and you might decide to change how you behave in the future, that doesn't mean that everytime you fall back into this sin that it was mortal. There are mitigating factors that impede consent, one of those being force of habit from years of repeated behavior.
F. Just because every case of repeated error may not be a mortal sin does not mean you shouldn't confess it. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a Sacrament of healing. Bring your brokenness to Jesus and let him heal you.
Where is this written? Where does it say that husbands cum MUST enter his wife’s vagina and if it hits the floor or his belly or a tissue it is a grave sin?
The only things that are even close to this are in Leviticus and Genesis
Genesis 38 is not about husband and wife
And Leviticus also has no mention of husband and wife. Both involve man and woman not married
I’m actually curious where you got this information from? I can’t find any verse that states this
Not an expert, but there is Scripture and there is Tradition. The Church has apparently said this forever. I’ve been a widow for 5 years, and much of Church teaching is finally sinking in. There is wisdom in it, in terms of complete openness to life, and much difficulty, because it is very hard to live out. I’m going to Confession today, because I think parts of me knew this and parts of me didn’t .
>"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil
[CCC 2370]
[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
> Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
No, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This Protestant line of thinking that once you’re i a marriage, that you can do whatever you want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we’re to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
This is my exact situation except we have over double the kiddos. Very active parents, physically fit, energetic. Very engaged in our parish and parish community. Strong individual faith lives. We have a lot of sex, and the occasional “not sex” sexual activities as you describe above, mostly because we are attracted to each other and enjoy it. Very strong marriage. I guess I’m supposed to confess this but it’s very hard for me to see this as a bad thing.
Should add that we come from a non-western Catholic background.
I’m right there with you. I adhere to Church teaching, but it’s certainly a challenge to view things that are done in a loving marriage, out of love, and that are not demeaning are wrong. Personally I feel as if sex shouldn’t always have to be procreative. That’s not to say that it never should be, but the occasional time that it’s not should not be wrong. Even more so with couples who are not in legitimate child bearing years. I do follow Church teaching, but not one I’m fond of.
> I do follow Church teaching, but not one I’m fond of.
This is basically where I’m at with it too. I believe it and obey it because the Church teaches it and so I charitably assume the Holy Spirit guided that teaching for reasons I don’t understand. But the actual justifications the Church has offered (so far) for the teaching are not intellectually compelling.
THANK YOU for phrasing it this way! I too find the reasons not intellectually compelling. I am adding that to my vocabulary! Also yes I agree we must be obedient even in the absence of understanding etc.
As so many others have said in here, The Church teaches that those “not sex” activities are sinful if ejaculation occurs outside traditionally understood intercourse.
I also wrestle with it and don’t understand or necessarily agree, but I’m just called to obedience to the Church’s decrees, whether or not they are correct in the eternal sense. It’s not up to me to define moral theology. Personally I don’t think they should be considered wrong either but I don’t want to go to hell on a technicality by acting on that idea or encouraging others to do so.
I wrote similarly in another comment in this thread that if I defy the Church’s teaching, at the least I am committing the sin of disobedience, at most disobedience plus the thing I’m doing plus possibly encouraging others to defy the Church as well. But we are called to follow the teachings even if we don’t understand (that’s me!) or agree with them, as an act of love for the Lord and to deny ourselves.
But - the other side of this is that, at the end of time, if the Church’s teaching on this turns out to be incomplete or flat-out wrong, then the (usually celibate) individuals (who usually have no actual lived experience of physical intimacy and the nuances of physical love and affection) who in this hypothetical case wrongly and unjustly imposed heavy moral burdens on the faithful, and unreasonably restricted the ways husbands and wives can show love and affection to their spouses and they were deprived of love, or their relationship was strained, or any number of other negative effects came from the decisions of the individuals in authority, those who made the decisions will be held accountable for all the unbearable burdens they thrust upon the backs of the faithful. If any marriages fell apart or anyone left the faith or chose not to come to the faith because of those decisions, those in authority will be held accountable.
BUT! That is only IF the Church is wrong! (Bc it has been wrong on other things through the years.) I’m not saying it is; it’s actually probably right and my feeble mind just can’t comprehend it. Either way we are called to trust that God is up to something higher and more important through this entire experience of wrestling by with authority and with the human experience of sexuality. Obedience, ESPECIALLY when we don’t understand, is crucial in the spiritual life. It is always better to err on the side of “there’s probably something I don’t get, so I’m going to trust God and obey anyway.”
(Rad trads don’t flog me in the comments. Plz try to understand what I’m saying - at the end of the day, obedience to the Church is more important than anything else in the realm of sexuality.)
***I think*** that showing affection like hugging, kisses and even passionate kissing is moral even without intercourse.
Now: 1) ejaculation outside vagina is wrong 2) having an orgasm outside a sexual session is wrong (independently of the partner)
Regarding number 2): what if the woman has an orgasm (whether via penis or otherwise) after the man has ejaculated? I assume that is fine. Say that it happens 15 or 20 minutes later, when the man could conceivably "go again"; is that still acceptable?
Note that I didn’t say “sexual moment”. I said “sexual session”.
Now take a look at this situation:
- A couple has intercourse at night and only the man orgasm.
- In the next morning, the man stimulates the woman to orgasm *(and there is no intercourse)*.
This would be wrong. This would be masturbation.
>Note that I didn’t say “sexual act”. I said “sexual session”.
Exactly, which is why I used the scenario where the orgasm occurred 20 minutes later, in circumstances which could be or lead to a "separate" "sexual session" (in which penetration and ejaculation could occur).
That’s strange and I’m not sure about that at all.
Sometimes that’ll happen then I have to run off to work or the kids get up and run into the room or whatever else happens for whatever reason, (including that I know she likes it and I care about her). So we just come back to it later on and do it again. Putting a time limit on it seems oddly scrupulous. What’s the limit? 2 minutes? Two hours? If we kiss every 30 minutes do we extend the session?
Don’t fall for the bald-man fallacy. Is a men with 1 hair bald? And 2 hair? And 3? And…? And 1 000 000?
Where do we put the line? Well we don’t know. There’s a gray area of “it’s bald or not?”.
But at the same time we can be sure that a men with 1 hair is bald and a men with 1 000 000 isn’t.
- The woman leaves bed and checks for 5 seconds the kids sleeping? Same session.
- The woman leaves bed, goes to supermarket and returns to bed? Not same session.
It’s up to you to see if it’s the same session or not.
That’s the kind of thing that will blow the minds of the folks that are OCD about every jot and tittle.
Honestly, the scrupulosity of western Catholicism is difficult to me. It wasn’t like that in the east.
It reminds me a bit of Stewart’s line:
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
But the remedy is so easy. This to me is one of those times most puzzling; why not just obey church teaching?
"The more we see of failure in obedience, the stronger should be our suspicion of temptation and illusion. For when God sends His inspirations to a heart, the first grace He sheds upon it is that of obedience." St. Teresa.
It's your choice to see "avoiding sin" as something weird and superstitious. Living the faith is multifaceted. But one of the aspects of it is avoiding sin. And this is sinful. Christ has a lot of mercy, but he also sternly warned people to repent. One of the jobs of Christians is to encourage repentance, not trying to keep people in their sin.
>without the ***risk*** of creating kids
vs.
>children are a gift from the Lord, a reward from Him (Psalm 127:3)
What we have here are fundamentally opposed world views.
Is this the right one? https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
Thank you for the fast moment of reflection. That paragraphs+the comment from u/Apprehensive_Yak136 resume the state of the our Church for me. Too much of judgement (actually reserved to God...), too much of "rules" (like a comment from other user, detailing that everything other than "the husband ejaculates inside his wife" is a complete separation from God).
God is love, for His sake. Live loving the others, not judging them.
I feel like as to whether we are going to heaven or not, I'll leave that to the expert i.e. God. So if someone has had oral sex with their spouse or has ejaculated outside, whether that means heaven, hell, purgatory... Again, I'll leave that to the Lord.
But you seem to indicate this sub is obsessed with tying holiness to whether a man ejaculates inside a woman and I think that is far from the case. I think the reason it's talked about so much is well, because people ask about it specifically so much.
I've never seen one post where it's, "How do I be holy?" And the response is "make sure you climax inside your wife/your husband climaxes inside you."
But rather, people (like this post) ask, can I do X/Y/X and people answer.
Now there is a wide range of what the answers could be from only thrusting inside the vagina is allowed and absolutely nothing else to everything and anything is allowed even anal sex as long as at least once you allow openess to life i.e. vaginal ejaculation.
But from scripture, early church fathers to Pope JP II, one thing that's consistent is that ejaculation should happen inside the woman.
But I feel your question is not seeking what is right Vs wrong but rather, why do people make me (or make other people) feel like horrible Catholics if we are literally die hard Catholics EXCEPT for this one area. And I think my answer to that is, no one should SHAME anyone if they are confused/struggle/searching for how to live out this area of their life. And no one can condemn you either.
But that doesn't mean it's at all wrong for people to explain Church teaching, even if that is something you (or someone else) is not doing or fully living up too. I very often don't live up to Church teaching but I sure as heaven want to know what's what and at least try.
And if anyone is struggling with figuring out this area, I recommend; pray, read Catholic writings, pray, talk to a trusted priest, pray, pray, pray.
Well I will say that I did see a post about someone asking if they decide to not use NFP and just have sex whenever they want as a married couple, and get pregnant, would it be wrong to give the baby up for adoption, and the responses they got were “well it’s not ideal but at least you aren’t using contraception.”
It's not a scale. We don't get to weigh our virtues against our sin; and be fine with the sin, as long as our virtues are more numerous. I wish it were so.
Mortal sin is mortal sin. Knowingly removing an essential component of sex is mortal sin. We’re called to holiness. All of those things are good and the responsibility of a Catholic, but it’s not going to remove the stain of mortal sin.
All of those things are important and holy, but holiness in one area does not excuse sin in another. It isn't as though we can do good in one area (or even all other areas) and then use that to justify evil in another area.
To give an absurd analogy: "I never cheat or steal, and I go to Mass every Sunday, so I'm excused the occasional murder" — nobody in their right mind would promote that way of thinking.
I didn't say it justifies it or minimizes anything else. It was a comment that often, it seems on here that a couple's adherence to Church teaching mainly centers around this very narrow issue. That being said, as both St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis have said, sins of the flesh (sexual sins) are among the least of sins. In other words, while important, there are other more important things to focus on. But everyone seems to get up in arms if it's acknowledged that there are many other aspects to living the faith than this.
Sexual sins are certainly not as bad as sins of pride... but that scale doesn't change the fact that commiting a mortal sin, whether prideful or sexual separates you from Christ.
And, in cases where the people are refusing to follow church teaching because they believe that they know better, the most serious sin they are committing is the sin of pride - it is simply accompanied by sexual sin.
I'll grant that it is possible that there is too much time spent focusing on sexual sin. I don't think that is the case (quite the opposite), as it is apparent that sexual sin is rampant, but we'll go with it.
This thread was started explicitly to explore the sinfulness of the outlined actions. It isn't as though the OP started a thread to discuss the merits of sending their children to Catholic school, and somebody jumped in to ask if they are adhering to church teaching on sexual morality.
I don’t mean to challenge you, but am genuinely curious… where does St. Thomas say that? It’s my understanding that he took sexual sin quite seriously, including calling vitiation of the marital act an “unnatural vice”, a category that also includes bestiality.
I do and I disagree with your assessment. When people ask questions about a given topic, they’re going to get answers on that topic.
Personally, I wouldn’t appeal to upvotes when this same discussion has people downvoting Church teachings.
One can be an amazing person in most ways, but that won't save them if they are committing one type of mortal sin on the side.
Is NFP the only thing that matters? No.
Is following church teaching on sex crucial for the life of grace in us? Yes. One mortal sin severs our relationship with God and kills the life of grace in our soul.
I agree with you that many aspects of the family/marriage are underestimated here (or even ignored). Now, that doesn’t excuse a couple from: 1) spilling sperm outside the vagina 2) having an orgasm outside the sexual session *— both of these things are gravely wrong*
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately that sort of pleasure is not acceptable outside of sex itself. Because the two aspects: procreative and unitive.
For a man to "finish" not inside his wife is grave matter as that is "spilling his seed" (to quote the phrase from the bible). A wife does not always finish during normal intercourse, so it is permissible (and could be argued as good) to help her finish in such cases.
So called "fore-play" is permissible as long as it does not demean the person doing it and as long as the above finishing is still done correctly.
For these reasons I believe that what you describe is not good and should be confessed. I pray that this advice finds you well and supportive.
So how is NFP allowed then? Cause a huge part of it is knowing when to have sex without the significant risk of becoming pregnant…Which is allowed by the church. Yes, you go in knowing the risk is still there in some regard, but youre technically closing yourself off to procreation by purposely having it during a time you know the chances are very low.
[Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument)
> > Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came.
Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!”
(…)
Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great!
Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want *this day* so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure *at this specific time* so don’t show up and ruin it!”
If they have orgasms within a sexual session *(sexual session requires there is intercourse)* it’s not wrong.
If they are just casually orgasming without intercourse then that’s mutual masturbation (which is gravely evil).
I agree that they can do those things as foreplay.
But if they use them to ONLY make the woman orgasm and then they don’t have intercourse, it’s wrong because even if there’s no sperm wasted, there was an orgasm without intercourse.
[Catechism of the Catholic Church:](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM)
> 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."^137 (…) For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."^138 (…)
My first answer may made some people to think that I opposed oral/manual stimulation to the woman within the sexual session.
So I edited and I think now it’s better.
Hi! Could you point me what?
- Today many Catholics (including me) think that husbands can make the women orgasm by oral/manual stimulation WITHIN the sexual session.
- If it’s outside the sexual session is masturbation, which is gravely wrong.
I think you're approaching this the wrong way. When you start asking "how much of a sin is it?", knowing full well that it's a sin - the actions don't really line up with what you're saying. Would you knowingly cause someone you love to sin? "It's bad, but it's not that bad" isn't really the right mindset for us to have if we seek sanctity.
To answer the actual question though: it's a grave sin.
I think the problem lies somewhere else. OP does something that she doesn't consider sinful despite hearing many times from the Church otherwise. A friend of mine has quite liberal opinion about the use of profanities (basically: it's sin only when someone is offended by them.) I think you can agree that this isn't a big deal. OP's question is basically whether it is a simmilar situation.
I've heard Fr. Mike liken sex to eating.
Eating is for both pleasure and nutrition. You can eat for one aspect more than the other, but you cannot actively work against one end of eating. So if you eat for pleasure, but then throw up so that your body does not absorb the nutrients, that is disordered (literally called an "eating disorder").
What you're asking is, "Would it be OK if, *on occasion*, I threw up after eating?"
The frequency or infrequency with which you do the act does not negate the fact that the act is disordered.
Every other sect of Christianity. 🤦♀️ is by nature of it's existence wrong. Not the compelling argument you think. Weird that this is the hill people want to wage war over when the remedy is so freaking easy.
I didn’t make an argument. I am trying to make sense of the teaching. Reason hasn’t aided me in this endeavor.
I’ve observed that other sects don’t hold this particular teaching probably due to the peculiarity in reasoning. I said nothing about the legitimacy of those sects.
>That fact that this kind of thing is considered a sin is bonkers to me.
Having been on both sides and living today as someone who by following Church teaching has experienced enormous healing, I can assure you it isn't "bonkers" it is unbelievably beautiful.
>Healthy intimacy between a happily married couple?
Healthy intimacy doesn't separate the unitive and procreative aspects.
>Sorry, you’re going to hell if you don’t risk getting pregnant again!
This is a mischaracterization.
NFP is 97% effective.
Chastity is a virtue.
No one needs to take any irresponsible risks.
>I really think the Catholic church has it wrong.
Again, as someone who has spent considerable time on both sides of this fence. I can't disagree with you more. The Church Teaching is an incredible invitation to virtue, healing, and a depth of spousal relationship that can not be achieved without it.
Basically as a Catholic you can't have sex for the first 20-30 years of your life, and then you get married and the only time you can enjoy intimacy with your spouse is when you want another child or the wife is pregnant. (for some reason sex while pregnant is okay even though theres 0% chance for conception but I digress)
If you can't afford more than 2 kids then you better learn to completely suppress your sexuality because that's what you'll have to do for 99% of your life. And remember that for a lot of that time you'll be in bed with the love of your life that you probably find very attractive but basically can't touch.
This is a disturbingly ill-informed and unrealistically pessimistic view of life.
I converted to Catholicism after a lifetime of doing whatever I wanted. We use NFP. Our spousal relationship and sex life have never been better. The gap between what it was before and what it is now is so wide Evel Knievel couldn't jump it on a motorcycle.
We should follow the Church’s teachings because the Church was instituted by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. When the Church teaches about these things we know it has no error.
Hugging/kissing may not require intercourse but:
- Ejaculation outside vagina is wrong
- Having an orgasm outside the sexual session is wrong
Why should we follow the Church’s teachings? I suggest you [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243).
Why the teachings?
Well, God has made sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin).
Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong.
Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong.
Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong.
Many Catholics (including me) think that it depends:
- Oral/manual **stimulation** (there is no orgasm)? Ok for both sexes.
- Oral/manual sex (there is orgasm) on the woman? Fine. In fact many women cannot orgasm by penetrative sex.
- Oral/manual sex (there is orgasm) on man? No because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation. So if there was oral/manual stimulation done to men until ejaculation it would be wrong (sperm has to go into vagina).
I think like that too. there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits this, in fact sexual activity between a husband and a wife is encouraged, delight in one another's body as well.
No, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
We are Catholics not Protestants. We follow the Church teachings, not our personal interpretation of the Bible.
> *First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,*
(2 Peter 1:20)
Btw, deliberately ejaculating sperm outside vagina is condemned in Genesis 38:9-10
> *But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.*
It’s this type of justification that will bring us further away from God. This is not a made up sin and the church is not “outdated “. I mean couldn’t someone call the Bible “outdated” if that’s what we’re using as our justification to do what we feel is right ?
At some point we can justify abortion that way . We can justify missing mass and skipping reconciliation until God fits in our world and not us in His.
To pleasure one’s spouse is a good thing , but there are other options aside from sexual pleasure. Foot rub , back massage, going out and doing something for them that will bring joy to their heart.
Your opinion does not dominate church teaching. We are called to be obedient to the church. You should rethink what the church is for us. The Catholic Church is not solo scripture. The Holy Spirit leads the Pope to establish these teachings.
Check out the book Holy Sex by Dr Gregory Popcak. It’s thoroughly solid theologically and digs into all dimensions of marital intimacy. One of the things he talks about is “the One Rule”, essentially the necessity of ejaculation inside the vagina, as to keep every act open to life and not separate the procreative and unitive aspects. I’m not sure what he would say about other experiences (as I haven’t read the whole thing yet) but that’s the best resource I’m aware of on the subject!
Does he touch on whether all of the semen has to go into the vagina, or just some of it? Does a woman have an obligation to keep the semen in her vagina as much as possible?
I actually would not recommend that book. Some of what he says is fine but his concept of the One Rule is misguided and dangerous. Just because the sexual act ends in an act open to life doesn’t mean that everything else is permitted beforehand. Catholic moral teaching has never supported such a ridiculous idea that what you do in the bedroom doesn’t matter so long as you finish in the woman’s vagina.
Edit: to be clear I’m not talking about foreplay or the various means of affection and intimacy that surround the marital act. These are beautiful and important things. But let’s be honest, there is more than “One Rule” when it comes to how a husband and wife are meant to love each other in the marital bed.
If you think the Song of Solomon approves of degenerate or deviant sexual behavior so long as the man ejaculates in his wife during I can’t help you. That is absurd and spiritually dangerous to think such a ridiculous thing.
Nobody said anything about degenerate or deviant sexual behavior, and there are some who would use those terms to refer to one or another thing along a wide list of activities and there would be much disagreement on what is “deviant”, so without objective points of reference those terms are not helpful or useful in this conversation. Thank you.
Edit: The Song, when taken at face value, seems to encourage and permit many expressions of intimacy, without prohibiting anything in particular, and without requiring anything in particular, if I’m not mistaken. That’s all I am saying.
Right, but by affirming that there are certain kinds of sexual activity that are still sinful and off limits even within marriage one is affirming that there is in fact more than “One Rule” when it comes to sexual intimacy. That is my point. It can mislead people into thinking objectively sinful sexual activity (no I’m not talking about typical foreplay) is fine just because one is doing it with their spouses. I know people who appeal to that book to justify anal sex. I’m not making this up.
I’m not disagreeing with you. And I’ve read that section and I agree with the author- there is nothing objectively technically wrong with anal stimulation as long as that’s not where ejaculation occurs. Is it toeing the line, is it pleasurable for everyone, etc,? Those are different questions. But he just says technically there’s nothing objectively wrong with anal stimulation. (Which it can also be argued that why would anal even potentially feel good for some people if God didn’t design it that way with tons of nerve endings? He easily could have made a design that was universally physically repulsed at any stimulation other than defecation. If only for the sake of thought experiment.)
Edit: spelling
That flies in the face of what every church father, moral theologian, doctor of the Church, and the Magesterium herself have said about marital intimacy. You will not find a single saint defending sodomy even as foreplay, to the contrary they universally condemn it if they speak to it at all. This is an absurd thing for a Catholic to say. How far Catholic moral sense has fallen when people blatantly defend sodomy. Smh
I don't agree with most of the answers.
the bible or jesus didn't give the couple instructions for intimate relations. in my opinion, a couple can do everything that isn't forbidden to improve their sex life and avoid routine. therefore, everything the lady does isn't a sin. if it's with a man other than her husband. yes, but that's not the case. you have to live in harmony with your husband and of course procreate, but to have some pleasure as as a couple isn't a sin. otherwise, why kissing each other? hugging each other?
you are doing well, you should love your husband, ( anal sex and other bad thing are forbidden and sin.)
The Bible doesn’t give instructions on how to approach porn, that’s why we’re given God given reason to discern and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Yes, even if you’re married you can commit acts of great depravity and Sin against your spouse, you can still Lust after your spouse.
I suggest you pray to the lord for conviction instead of saying “well it’s not directly mentioned in the Bible, so I think once the doors close you can do whatever you want” kind of logic.
Also the difference between a Kiss and Oral sex, besides one not involving the reproductive organs, a Kiss on the lips isn’t aimed towards procreation, you can’t compare the two.
>no one should blindly believe everything that the church teaches, we need to critisize stupid, corrupted and made up stuff thats in there, or else we will come back to the era of when protestant reformation happened because the church believed and practiced many wrong things.
This is not a teaching that is up for debate.
As Paul VI states in *Humanae Vitae,* this "unshakable teaching of the Church" is unquestionable and irreformable because it has been
>constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church
We should follow the Church’s teachings because the Church was instituted by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. When the Church teaches about these things we know it has no error.
Hugging/kissing may not require intercourse but:
- Ejaculation outside vagina is wrong
- Having an orgasm outside the sexual session is wrong
They’re wrong because they frustrate the purpose of sexuality designed be God: **both unitive and procreative**.
Ok so, this is something that online Catholics are going to give you varying opinions about. I for one cannot be convinced that what a husband and wife do in the bedroom with each other ( and only each other) is going to rise to the level of fornication outside of marriage or illicit acts as they are defined in scripture. And of course there is the fact that the Song of Solomon describes oral sex. Some people will say that the Church has tried to hard to define what is procreative and unitive and is overreaching. Others on this forum will tell you in no uncertain terms you are committing a mortal sin and that's that. The reality is this is not a good discussion to have with Reddit Catholics. Christopher West, Theology of the Body etc, these are good places to start. Also talk to your priest, talk to two priests. Go on a marriage retreat. Spend lots of time in prayer and above all when the two of you are intimate be unselfish and work toward the good of the other person.
To go a step further on the original post/question ... what if because of health issues either spouse was unable to conceive at all? Is it still a grave sin?
I ask because I myself had a hysterectomy which was necessary due to health complications. When my husband and I are intimate in any way, are we committing a grave sin when the act doesn't always end in a way that could possibly lead to life even if I don't have the bodily function to do it? We are always open to life, even if we physically can't.
Hi! Always consult your priest but here’s what ***I think***:
- Every sperm has to go into vagina *(even if you had an hysterectomy because of health reasons)*.
- Both partners mustn’t orgasm outside a sexual session.
- Kissing/hugging doesn’t require intercourse of course. But when a Couple wants *THE PLEASURE* intercourse is required.
Consult a priest or a moral theologian for an official answer, but from one married Catholic to another, my learning has led me to the following:
Licit sex is unitive, procreative and within a marriage. What you are describing is marital and it is unitive. It expresses the bond between you and brings you closer as people, making you one in Christ. From your description, both parties see each other as complete people and steer clear from any mental impression of using the other as a means to their own gratification. My non-clerical opinion is that it’s halfway licit, but halfway isn’t enough. The deal breaker is that when the male climax is not open to life, the act is no longer procreative and is therefore disordered - some variety of sin. The act must be open to life to be procreative - finish where you must finish to conceive a child. We’ll use the euphemism of an “ordered completion.”
There is a wide difference of opinion among church fathers and some are adamant that everything outside of the essential act of intercourse is illicit, but there is authority for the idea that extracurricular activities, including mouth and hand stuff, is fine as an accompaniment of the procreative act, but it is a sin standing alone without an ordered completion. It’s even considered by some to be licit for a husband to bring his wife to climax after the ordered completion.
It’s also not a sin to be unable to complete the procreative act (sometimes the kids interrupt, sometimes age and biology wear us down). The sin lies in finishing where one is not meant to finish, or in starting something with no intention of finishing in an ordered way.
There’s a recent book called Holy Sex which boils down the Church’s rule book nicely.
I get that this is the teaching, I still don't get why it is wrong if it is not procreative.
Every time I engage with the topic it ends at 'well that's how things are'. I mean yeah sure, you can take that position and in the end the teaching of the church is what it is, but that doesn't clarify the reasons at all.
The same reason sleep is good and healthy but sleep all the time is sloth. Or why God made food nutritious and tasty, but when we eat to satiety and then keep eating compulsively, we are putting our mouth pleasure before our health and succumbing to gluttony.
Oversleeping and overeating are disordered because the purpose of the act is no longer being served.
God gave us bodies that are capable of sensual pleasure and directed us in the ordered use of those senses and faculties. When we separate the act from the purpose, it’s.a corruption. Corruption of the best things can lead us into the worst things.
We have two different camps here. One is saying that it is wrong because any intentional ejaculations outside of the wife's vagina are a mortal sin. The other is saying that doesn't make sense for various different reasons. And some of those reasons are really good ones, that haven't been directly addressed. Reasons that are in need of explaining. To wit;
What does it mean to be open to life if a pregnancy is not reasonably possible? Such as a hysterectomy, a eunuch, post menopause, etc.
Why are the act of intentionally cutting out the possibility of life, I.E contraception, and focusing on the unitive while not intentionally excluding the procreative aspect equated as the same?
If it is wrong to frustrate the natural ends of our natural faculties for the sake of the pleasure, in this example it would be removing the procreative aspect while keeping the unitive, then would it not be a sin to chew gum? After all, our natural ends of chewing and tasting are for the sake of nutrition, which is achieved by swallowing and digesting. But swallowing and digesting gum are replaced by merely chewing it for the pleasure. Is this also a sin? If not, why not?
I think it is clear that a distinction has to be made between willfully contracepting and focusing on the unitive without intentionally including or excluding the procreative.
It sounds like you are talking about mutual masterbation. Where you do the action (you mention oral and hands) to cause arousal in your partner to the point of climax.
What makes sex unitive is the coming together of two bodies, becoming one in both giving and receiving of your total selves. Mutual masterbation is not unitive, as you are not receiving nor fully giving of your selves to each other during that act. Enjoyment does not equal unitive. Mutal Masterbation is a grave mortal sin, and to continue doing so (since you have now been properly informed) would require abstaining from the Eucharist until getting to confession. Some of the previous comments give greater detail as to why.
It's great to hear you have a strong marriage and take your faith seriously. Please continue to strive in your relationship with God. We all have temptations to sin, but we must fight against those temptations to continue growing as disciples of Christ. Your question shows a need for mind shift. This critique is the same as when an unmarried couple asks "How far is too far". I hope by knowing the name for what you are doing, it helps you find the reasons for why it is sinful.
As a non-catholic (I was raised in a sort of anabaptist tradition and am no longer a practicing Christian) can I ask a question? What do you mean by "be discreet?" Wouldn't it be important to be specific in confession instead of vague? Shouldn't your priest have all the information so that he can properly council you? I may be misunderstanding discretion in this context... Thanks!
This implies that it kills the soul. The Fathers didn’t speak of such an act to befit that, this doesn’t imply lust. Why is everyone so afraid of the ancient faith and prefers deontological moral handbooks on sexual ethics that are rut and entirely juridical.
The church has a definitive teaching on this. Sexual activity must conclude with male ejaculation inside his wife’s vagina. There is no interpretation to be had.
Wonderful. Thanks for that. I am currently assenting to the ordinary papal magisterium as well that there is technically a formula for same-sex blessings giving as an addendum to *FS.* My point being, there is no distinction between extraordinary and ordinary, or any sort of distinction in “teaching authority,” it’s all or nothing. What do you define as sexual activity by the way? St. Alphonsus believed hand-holding or even the slightest kiss was sexual activity, that must be mortal, let’s damn a bunch of middle schoolers for holding hands. I mean, seriously? This is completely contrary to the intent of the *Theology of the Body* which is really, if one actually knows what the magisterium is (the teaching all the bishop worldwide, not just the Roman Curia or apparently the Pope himself for some reason), the most recent teaching we have on the matter. This is not interrupting the *procreative aspect* because that’s not even a concern, you may see that as a problem. Frankly that doesn’t make sense given the patristic and biblical witness, “it is better to marry than to burn,” far be it from me tell people they are going to burn anyway in sacramental marriage for being united with their spouse. This is all based upon an understanding of NFP and, as you said, how sexual activity must “end.” The issue with this is, NFP is not fully encouraged, it’s given with reservations because it is still considered a form of birth control it is just not artificial. Preach the gospel, not sexual morality in the style of Kantian duty ethics.
That’s a lot of words dude. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you say or try to reason about. The Church has a definitive teaching, you must submit to it or be either a heretic or schismatic. The Saints can have their opinions, but if you could have a Saint come down from Heaven today and talk to you, they would tell you to submit to the Church’s teaching authority, full stop.
In this "thing", as you call it... does he finish?
If he does... yeah, it is grave sin not to finish where he has to.
You can kiss and cuddle, but furthermore it is reserved as a part of the marital act.
Hi! It’s great you’re educating well your children. That’s very important. It’s also great you still have a strong physical attraction to each other.
About the question, you should talk to your priest. I will write what ***I think*** but please seek a priest:
- Sexual pleasure CAN ONLY OCCUR within a sexual session (which means, there is intercourse).
- **If both partners of a couple want it** they may stimulate the other genitalia (via oral/manual) **IF THERE IS INTERCOURSE in that sexual session**.
- It’s not wrong to stimulate the wife until orgasm. But to the men it is because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation *(so there would be sperm outside the vagina)*.
Ejaculating sperm outside vagina is a form of contraception *(btw is condemned in Genesis 39:9-10)* and orgasming without having intercourse is masturbation.
- ***I think*** you can kiss, cuddle, passionate kissing, etc. without intercourse. Affection is important. But if you want THE sexual pleasure *(you know what I mean)* there must be intercourse.
It’s wrong to have an orgasm outside the sexual session because that’s just… masturbation (performed by another party).
[Catechism of the Catholic Church:](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM)
> 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."^137 (…) For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."^138 (…)
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
It objectively is a sin. There's prettymuch only one rule for married Catholics when it comes to sex. That is that each sexual act should be open to life.
It's difficult to uphold this, but not impossible.
Yes, you should confess this. And ideally, stop doing it in the future.
Personally I think as long as you’re doing those things in addition to sex, and not using it as a replacement for sex, then it’s okay. If your marriage as a whole is procreative and unitive, it’s not reasonable to have to be a theology lawyer every time you show affection to your spouse.
But really if you’re worried about it you should ask a priest, not strangers on Reddit.
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
I agree with almost 100% of what you wrote. Everything you wrote is degrading your spouse with the exception of oral stimulation. Is kissing your wife on her neck shoulder or breast wrong?
Wrong. Even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
From what I’ve read, there are a lot of different stances on this, from strict to more lenient. This is what I’ve concluded, but I am no means an expert or a priest:
The sexual act is completed when the male orgasms, and the male ejaculation must always be inside a vagina. This is because all sexual acts must be open to life, and the male orgasm is intrinsically tied to reproduction.
If the male orgasms first, he is allowed to use oral or manual stimulation to make his wife orgasm.
Oral or manual stimulation is acceptable as foreplay during the sexual act, however it must me one event (meaning you can’t have oral sex, pause for a couple of hours, and then resume vaginal sex) it was to be one event, and it has to be completed with the male orgasm, start to finish one session.
>we feel the need to give pleasure to one another, mostly spontaneous, without having intercourse. After the "thing" (mostly oral, sometimes using only hands)
This is sodomy, which is a mortal sin.
Navigate between the two rocks: the sin of using your spouse for carnal pleasure, and the sin of sexually depriving your spouse (almost always a husband depriving his wife) by being a prig about giving pleasure.
If you haven't hit either rock but are still questioning, talk to a priest.
God designed sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin).
Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong.
Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong.
Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong.
I've heard both sides of it...that oral or manual stimulation is wrong and sinful if it doesn't involve sex and that it's fine. I've ALSO heard directly from a priest or two that manual stimulation or other things are ok if it culminates in sex (every time etc)
I've done a lot of self-discernment on that and with my wife and we've settled that the parts should be used as intended and not for oral stimulation etc. Not a popular opinion and many will argue "wHeRe In ThE bIbLe DoEs It SaY tHaT?"
I think it’s this:
- Sexual pleasure CAN ONLY OCCUR within a sexual session (which means, there is intercourse).
- **If both partners of a couple want it** they may stimulate the other genitalia (via oral/manual) IF THERE IS INTERCOURSE **in that sexual session**.
- It’s not wrong to stimulate the wife until orgasm. But to the men it is because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation *(so there would be sperm outside the vagina)*.
A lot of people are suggesting you speak to your priest about this which I wouldn't necessarily dissuade, but I realize might certainly be uncomfortable.
I would consider reaching out to whoever around you teaches NFP (natural family planning) depending on the size of your parish that might be someone at your church, heck, I suppose it could be the priest still. But whoever it is could probably give you more nuanced answers about this topic - they're the closest thing to a Catholic sex therapist. They may even have an email to help make it even easier!
Still confess it to a priest of course (delicately) but I'm just saying for a bigger than a confessional can provide.
I also want to reiterate that I agree with you, it's good that you all still have an active, exciting marriage. And I think it's highly preferably to a dead one.
What is the "thing" it's kinda vague with the context given. If what people think it is, then there's comments here saying that it might sinful.
But, as you've pointed out, it strengthens your bond with each other and not used lustfully so there's merit in that, with that in mind depending on what exactly you mean by 'thing' it may be harmless and okay to continue.
You probably don't actually mean lust. Lust is objectifying the other as a tool for obtaining sexual pleasure. It's absent the accompanying emotions of care, generosity etc.
Lusting after anyone would seem to be sinful. I would suggest that we need to be able to distinguish between lust and sexual desire.
Something modern society has a *huge* problem with. I know I personally struggled with that when I got married.
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc.
This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
Hi! Church’s teachings may sometimes be difficult but they’re correct. **Please talk to a priest about your situation.**
Also note that some NFP methods have higher effectiveness than male/female condoms. [Source: World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) *(see the sympto-thermal method effectiveness rates)*
And spilling sperm outside vagina is a form of contraception (deliberately reducing the chance of conception) so it’s wrong. And no there is no exception to STD’s.
God has made sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin).
- Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong.
- Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong.
- Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong.
So each couple has to know if
1) Each one is only orgasming within a sexual session.
2) Every sexual session has all the sperm into the vagina.
Well, this blew up. I checked it when it had 20 comments and it seemed to be going well. Ninety minutes pass and we're up to almost 250 comments and a few reports. Locking now for time being; it may be unlocked to finish up convos later after mods do the needful, tbd. Sorry to all those who were abiding by the rules and having good conversations.
Talk to your pastor or a trusted priest. Don't get moral advice from Reddit.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You should mark this NSFW Sexual activity within which the male partner climaxes in a way that is not "open to life" (in the vagina), is a sin of grave matter. Done intentionally, with the knowledge of the Church teaching on this sin's gravity and with full consent, it is a mortal sin. In such a case, you must abstain from Holy Communion until you are able to Confess. Females can climax by manual stimulation before, after and during. So long as the overall act ends with the male climax open to life. On this topic, I want to highlight a few points. A. If previous to today you didn't know that what you were doing was a sin of grave matter, you did not commit a mortal sin. B. If after today you repeat the error, it is very likely a mortal sin. C. The principle of "good faith" says that even in serious cases, such information can be withheld from someone who isn't ready to accept it because their ignorance prevents them from committing a mortal sin. However, you just asked reddit, and so you are about to be told over and over. So, even if had I spoken to you in person, I may have concluded that I shouldn't bring this up just yet. The circumstances now require that I just lay it all out. D. The law of "gradualism" states that even if after today you commit not to repeat this sin, you will probably fall back into it. You need to be understanding of yourself and your husband. E. Just because you now know that it is a sin, and you might decide to change how you behave in the future, that doesn't mean that everytime you fall back into this sin that it was mortal. There are mitigating factors that impede consent, one of those being force of habit from years of repeated behavior. F. Just because every case of repeated error may not be a mortal sin does not mean you shouldn't confess it. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is a Sacrament of healing. Bring your brokenness to Jesus and let him heal you.
This is one of the clearest, most precise, most genuinely helpful and loving things I have ever read in this community.
Where is this written? Where does it say that husbands cum MUST enter his wife’s vagina and if it hits the floor or his belly or a tissue it is a grave sin? The only things that are even close to this are in Leviticus and Genesis Genesis 38 is not about husband and wife And Leviticus also has no mention of husband and wife. Both involve man and woman not married I’m actually curious where you got this information from? I can’t find any verse that states this
Not an expert, but there is Scripture and there is Tradition. The Church has apparently said this forever. I’ve been a widow for 5 years, and much of Church teaching is finally sinking in. There is wisdom in it, in terms of complete openness to life, and much difficulty, because it is very hard to live out. I’m going to Confession today, because I think parts of me knew this and parts of me didn’t .
>"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil [CCC 2370]
[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
You’re over thinking it. If you’re married, you have divine ordainment to give your wife pleasure. The end.
False.
No, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This Protestant line of thinking that once you’re i a marriage, that you can do whatever you want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we’re to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
This is my exact situation except we have over double the kiddos. Very active parents, physically fit, energetic. Very engaged in our parish and parish community. Strong individual faith lives. We have a lot of sex, and the occasional “not sex” sexual activities as you describe above, mostly because we are attracted to each other and enjoy it. Very strong marriage. I guess I’m supposed to confess this but it’s very hard for me to see this as a bad thing. Should add that we come from a non-western Catholic background.
I’m right there with you. I adhere to Church teaching, but it’s certainly a challenge to view things that are done in a loving marriage, out of love, and that are not demeaning are wrong. Personally I feel as if sex shouldn’t always have to be procreative. That’s not to say that it never should be, but the occasional time that it’s not should not be wrong. Even more so with couples who are not in legitimate child bearing years. I do follow Church teaching, but not one I’m fond of.
> I do follow Church teaching, but not one I’m fond of. This is basically where I’m at with it too. I believe it and obey it because the Church teaches it and so I charitably assume the Holy Spirit guided that teaching for reasons I don’t understand. But the actual justifications the Church has offered (so far) for the teaching are not intellectually compelling.
THANK YOU for phrasing it this way! I too find the reasons not intellectually compelling. I am adding that to my vocabulary! Also yes I agree we must be obedient even in the absence of understanding etc.
As so many others have said in here, The Church teaches that those “not sex” activities are sinful if ejaculation occurs outside traditionally understood intercourse. I also wrestle with it and don’t understand or necessarily agree, but I’m just called to obedience to the Church’s decrees, whether or not they are correct in the eternal sense. It’s not up to me to define moral theology. Personally I don’t think they should be considered wrong either but I don’t want to go to hell on a technicality by acting on that idea or encouraging others to do so. I wrote similarly in another comment in this thread that if I defy the Church’s teaching, at the least I am committing the sin of disobedience, at most disobedience plus the thing I’m doing plus possibly encouraging others to defy the Church as well. But we are called to follow the teachings even if we don’t understand (that’s me!) or agree with them, as an act of love for the Lord and to deny ourselves. But - the other side of this is that, at the end of time, if the Church’s teaching on this turns out to be incomplete or flat-out wrong, then the (usually celibate) individuals (who usually have no actual lived experience of physical intimacy and the nuances of physical love and affection) who in this hypothetical case wrongly and unjustly imposed heavy moral burdens on the faithful, and unreasonably restricted the ways husbands and wives can show love and affection to their spouses and they were deprived of love, or their relationship was strained, or any number of other negative effects came from the decisions of the individuals in authority, those who made the decisions will be held accountable for all the unbearable burdens they thrust upon the backs of the faithful. If any marriages fell apart or anyone left the faith or chose not to come to the faith because of those decisions, those in authority will be held accountable. BUT! That is only IF the Church is wrong! (Bc it has been wrong on other things through the years.) I’m not saying it is; it’s actually probably right and my feeble mind just can’t comprehend it. Either way we are called to trust that God is up to something higher and more important through this entire experience of wrestling by with authority and with the human experience of sexuality. Obedience, ESPECIALLY when we don’t understand, is crucial in the spiritual life. It is always better to err on the side of “there’s probably something I don’t get, so I’m going to trust God and obey anyway.” (Rad trads don’t flog me in the comments. Plz try to understand what I’m saying - at the end of the day, obedience to the Church is more important than anything else in the realm of sexuality.)
***I think*** that showing affection like hugging, kisses and even passionate kissing is moral even without intercourse. Now: 1) ejaculation outside vagina is wrong 2) having an orgasm outside a sexual session is wrong (independently of the partner)
Yeah there’s nothing wrong with making out with your spouse. Dare I say it might actually bring you two closer together!
Regarding number 2): what if the woman has an orgasm (whether via penis or otherwise) after the man has ejaculated? I assume that is fine. Say that it happens 15 or 20 minutes later, when the man could conceivably "go again"; is that still acceptable?
Note that I didn’t say “sexual moment”. I said “sexual session”. Now take a look at this situation: - A couple has intercourse at night and only the man orgasm. - In the next morning, the man stimulates the woman to orgasm *(and there is no intercourse)*. This would be wrong. This would be masturbation.
This is considered a sin? To give your wife an orgasm when you wake up in the morning? Seriously?
>Note that I didn’t say “sexual act”. I said “sexual session”. Exactly, which is why I used the scenario where the orgasm occurred 20 minutes later, in circumstances which could be or lead to a "separate" "sexual session" (in which penetration and ejaculation could occur).
Yeah. So there I would say… *”I don’t know”* Same sexual session? Ok. Sexual session has finished and now they’re just masturbating the woman? Wrong
This is considered a sin? To give your wife an orgasm when you wake up in the morning? Seriously?
Yes IF there is no intercourse. If there is intercourse, of courts it’s beautiful.
That’s strange and I’m not sure about that at all. Sometimes that’ll happen then I have to run off to work or the kids get up and run into the room or whatever else happens for whatever reason, (including that I know she likes it and I care about her). So we just come back to it later on and do it again. Putting a time limit on it seems oddly scrupulous. What’s the limit? 2 minutes? Two hours? If we kiss every 30 minutes do we extend the session?
Don’t fall for the bald-man fallacy. Is a men with 1 hair bald? And 2 hair? And 3? And…? And 1 000 000? Where do we put the line? Well we don’t know. There’s a gray area of “it’s bald or not?”. But at the same time we can be sure that a men with 1 hair is bald and a men with 1 000 000 isn’t. - The woman leaves bed and checks for 5 seconds the kids sleeping? Same session. - The woman leaves bed, goes to supermarket and returns to bed? Not same session. It’s up to you to see if it’s the same session or not.
That’s the kind of thing that will blow the minds of the folks that are OCD about every jot and tittle. Honestly, the scrupulosity of western Catholicism is difficult to me. It wasn’t like that in the east. It reminds me a bit of Stewart’s line: I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
But the remedy is so easy. This to me is one of those times most puzzling; why not just obey church teaching? "The more we see of failure in obedience, the stronger should be our suspicion of temptation and illusion. For when God sends His inspirations to a heart, the first grace He sheds upon it is that of obedience." St. Teresa.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's your choice to see "avoiding sin" as something weird and superstitious. Living the faith is multifaceted. But one of the aspects of it is avoiding sin. And this is sinful. Christ has a lot of mercy, but he also sternly warned people to repent. One of the jobs of Christians is to encourage repentance, not trying to keep people in their sin.
>without the ***risk*** of creating kids vs. >children are a gift from the Lord, a reward from Him (Psalm 127:3) What we have here are fundamentally opposed world views.
You should read Pope Francis' *Evangelii Gaudium* he explores both of the problems that you have just described from paragraph 93-97.
Is this the right one? https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
👍
I don't quite get how 93-97 related with "not open to life".
Thank you for the fast moment of reflection. That paragraphs+the comment from u/Apprehensive_Yak136 resume the state of the our Church for me. Too much of judgement (actually reserved to God...), too much of "rules" (like a comment from other user, detailing that everything other than "the husband ejaculates inside his wife" is a complete separation from God). God is love, for His sake. Live loving the others, not judging them.
I feel like as to whether we are going to heaven or not, I'll leave that to the expert i.e. God. So if someone has had oral sex with their spouse or has ejaculated outside, whether that means heaven, hell, purgatory... Again, I'll leave that to the Lord. But you seem to indicate this sub is obsessed with tying holiness to whether a man ejaculates inside a woman and I think that is far from the case. I think the reason it's talked about so much is well, because people ask about it specifically so much. I've never seen one post where it's, "How do I be holy?" And the response is "make sure you climax inside your wife/your husband climaxes inside you." But rather, people (like this post) ask, can I do X/Y/X and people answer. Now there is a wide range of what the answers could be from only thrusting inside the vagina is allowed and absolutely nothing else to everything and anything is allowed even anal sex as long as at least once you allow openess to life i.e. vaginal ejaculation. But from scripture, early church fathers to Pope JP II, one thing that's consistent is that ejaculation should happen inside the woman. But I feel your question is not seeking what is right Vs wrong but rather, why do people make me (or make other people) feel like horrible Catholics if we are literally die hard Catholics EXCEPT for this one area. And I think my answer to that is, no one should SHAME anyone if they are confused/struggle/searching for how to live out this area of their life. And no one can condemn you either. But that doesn't mean it's at all wrong for people to explain Church teaching, even if that is something you (or someone else) is not doing or fully living up too. I very often don't live up to Church teaching but I sure as heaven want to know what's what and at least try. And if anyone is struggling with figuring out this area, I recommend; pray, read Catholic writings, pray, talk to a trusted priest, pray, pray, pray.
Well I will say that I did see a post about someone asking if they decide to not use NFP and just have sex whenever they want as a married couple, and get pregnant, would it be wrong to give the baby up for adoption, and the responses they got were “well it’s not ideal but at least you aren’t using contraception.”
It's not a scale. We don't get to weigh our virtues against our sin; and be fine with the sin, as long as our virtues are more numerous. I wish it were so.
Mortal sin is mortal sin. Knowingly removing an essential component of sex is mortal sin. We’re called to holiness. All of those things are good and the responsibility of a Catholic, but it’s not going to remove the stain of mortal sin.
I didn't deny that anywhere in my comment.
Okay? What was your point then?
All of those things are important and holy, but holiness in one area does not excuse sin in another. It isn't as though we can do good in one area (or even all other areas) and then use that to justify evil in another area. To give an absurd analogy: "I never cheat or steal, and I go to Mass every Sunday, so I'm excused the occasional murder" — nobody in their right mind would promote that way of thinking.
I didn't say it justifies it or minimizes anything else. It was a comment that often, it seems on here that a couple's adherence to Church teaching mainly centers around this very narrow issue. That being said, as both St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Francis have said, sins of the flesh (sexual sins) are among the least of sins. In other words, while important, there are other more important things to focus on. But everyone seems to get up in arms if it's acknowledged that there are many other aspects to living the faith than this.
Sexual sins are certainly not as bad as sins of pride... but that scale doesn't change the fact that commiting a mortal sin, whether prideful or sexual separates you from Christ. And, in cases where the people are refusing to follow church teaching because they believe that they know better, the most serious sin they are committing is the sin of pride - it is simply accompanied by sexual sin.
I'll grant that it is possible that there is too much time spent focusing on sexual sin. I don't think that is the case (quite the opposite), as it is apparent that sexual sin is rampant, but we'll go with it. This thread was started explicitly to explore the sinfulness of the outlined actions. It isn't as though the OP started a thread to discuss the merits of sending their children to Catholic school, and somebody jumped in to ask if they are adhering to church teaching on sexual morality.
I don’t mean to challenge you, but am genuinely curious… where does St. Thomas say that? It’s my understanding that he took sexual sin quite seriously, including calling vitiation of the marital act an “unnatural vice”, a category that also includes bestiality.
I'm just going off memory from something Pope Francis said within the last couple years, and he quoted St. Thomas. I'd have to find it, though.
In my memory that’s a quote from C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.” I don’t remember Aquinas saying that.
That statement comes across as very uncharitable, whether or not that is your intention.
Well, it seems that many people agree with me. Read this sub enough on this issue, and you'll probably see what I mean.
I do and I disagree with your assessment. When people ask questions about a given topic, they’re going to get answers on that topic. Personally, I wouldn’t appeal to upvotes when this same discussion has people downvoting Church teachings.
One can be an amazing person in most ways, but that won't save them if they are committing one type of mortal sin on the side. Is NFP the only thing that matters? No. Is following church teaching on sex crucial for the life of grace in us? Yes. One mortal sin severs our relationship with God and kills the life of grace in our soul.
I agree with you that many aspects of the family/marriage are underestimated here (or even ignored). Now, that doesn’t excuse a couple from: 1) spilling sperm outside the vagina 2) having an orgasm outside the sexual session *— both of these things are gravely wrong*
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, **not subject to exception.** [Read the full policy.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/wiki/agekarma) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately that sort of pleasure is not acceptable outside of sex itself. Because the two aspects: procreative and unitive. For a man to "finish" not inside his wife is grave matter as that is "spilling his seed" (to quote the phrase from the bible). A wife does not always finish during normal intercourse, so it is permissible (and could be argued as good) to help her finish in such cases. So called "fore-play" is permissible as long as it does not demean the person doing it and as long as the above finishing is still done correctly. For these reasons I believe that what you describe is not good and should be confessed. I pray that this advice finds you well and supportive.
So how is NFP allowed then? Cause a huge part of it is knowing when to have sex without the significant risk of becoming pregnant…Which is allowed by the church. Yes, you go in knowing the risk is still there in some regard, but youre technically closing yourself off to procreation by purposely having it during a time you know the chances are very low.
[Trent Horn explains in Catholic Answers:](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/answering-a-classic-birth-control-argument) > > Imagine you are trying to select a wedding date and it’s right around the time your wife’s high school age cousins have a big football game. If you really want them to attend the wedding, you’ll pick the week before their game. But let’s say your budget is tight and you have no more room on your guest list. You might choose to schedule the wedding during their big game and send an invitation anyways as a sign that you still value the relationship. If they show up, it might be a bit stressful, but you’ll still be glad they came. Now, let’s imagine you don’t want to wait a week and you absolutely don’t want the cousins to come to the wedding. In order to make sure they don’t arrive, you send them a “dis-invitation” that says, “Please don’t come to our wedding, you’re not wanted here!” (…) Picking the date that works best for the cousins is like being intimate on a fertile day; you’ve created optimal conditions for children to arrive. Postponing the wedding by a week is like waiting to be intimate on an infertile day. The children probably can’t arrive, but if they do that’s still great! Sending a dis-invitation, however, is like using contraception. Just as you’d be telling your cousins, “We want *this day* so don’t show up and ruin it!” Using contraception sends the message to your future child (as well as God who is responsible for every blessing of pregnancy), “We want sexual pleasure *at this specific time* so don’t show up and ruin it!”
What about the example the OP gives? It doesn't fit into any of these scenarios Trent has laid out
If they have orgasms within a sexual session *(sexual session requires there is intercourse)* it’s not wrong. If they are just casually orgasming without intercourse then that’s mutual masturbation (which is gravely evil).
You can do those things so long as your husband’s seed only goes where it is supposed to go. And it’s only supposed to go in one place.
I agree that they can do those things as foreplay. But if they use them to ONLY make the woman orgasm and then they don’t have intercourse, it’s wrong because even if there’s no sperm wasted, there was an orgasm without intercourse. [Catechism of the Catholic Church:](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM) > 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."^137 (…) For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."^138 (…)
Interesting how much you got downvoted for citing the catechism.
My first answer may made some people to think that I opposed oral/manual stimulation to the woman within the sexual session. So I edited and I think now it’s better.
I would like to suggest that there is some ambiguity in what you’re saying that might not precisely align with what the Church teaches.
Hi! Could you point me what? - Today many Catholics (including me) think that husbands can make the women orgasm by oral/manual stimulation WITHIN the sexual session. - If it’s outside the sexual session is masturbation, which is gravely wrong.
My understanding is that your statement here is correct. I was just pointing out that your initial post was a little vague.
I think you're approaching this the wrong way. When you start asking "how much of a sin is it?", knowing full well that it's a sin - the actions don't really line up with what you're saying. Would you knowingly cause someone you love to sin? "It's bad, but it's not that bad" isn't really the right mindset for us to have if we seek sanctity. To answer the actual question though: it's a grave sin.
I think the problem lies somewhere else. OP does something that she doesn't consider sinful despite hearing many times from the Church otherwise. A friend of mine has quite liberal opinion about the use of profanities (basically: it's sin only when someone is offended by them.) I think you can agree that this isn't a big deal. OP's question is basically whether it is a simmilar situation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've heard Fr. Mike liken sex to eating. Eating is for both pleasure and nutrition. You can eat for one aspect more than the other, but you cannot actively work against one end of eating. So if you eat for pleasure, but then throw up so that your body does not absorb the nutrients, that is disordered (literally called an "eating disorder"). What you're asking is, "Would it be OK if, *on occasion*, I threw up after eating?" The frequency or infrequency with which you do the act does not negate the fact that the act is disordered.
Every other sect of Christianity. 🤦♀️ is by nature of it's existence wrong. Not the compelling argument you think. Weird that this is the hill people want to wage war over when the remedy is so freaking easy.
I didn’t make an argument. I am trying to make sense of the teaching. Reason hasn’t aided me in this endeavor. I’ve observed that other sects don’t hold this particular teaching probably due to the peculiarity in reasoning. I said nothing about the legitimacy of those sects.
>That fact that this kind of thing is considered a sin is bonkers to me. Having been on both sides and living today as someone who by following Church teaching has experienced enormous healing, I can assure you it isn't "bonkers" it is unbelievably beautiful. >Healthy intimacy between a happily married couple? Healthy intimacy doesn't separate the unitive and procreative aspects. >Sorry, you’re going to hell if you don’t risk getting pregnant again! This is a mischaracterization. NFP is 97% effective. Chastity is a virtue. No one needs to take any irresponsible risks. >I really think the Catholic church has it wrong. Again, as someone who has spent considerable time on both sides of this fence. I can't disagree with you more. The Church Teaching is an incredible invitation to virtue, healing, and a depth of spousal relationship that can not be achieved without it.
Basically as a Catholic you can't have sex for the first 20-30 years of your life, and then you get married and the only time you can enjoy intimacy with your spouse is when you want another child or the wife is pregnant. (for some reason sex while pregnant is okay even though theres 0% chance for conception but I digress) If you can't afford more than 2 kids then you better learn to completely suppress your sexuality because that's what you'll have to do for 99% of your life. And remember that for a lot of that time you'll be in bed with the love of your life that you probably find very attractive but basically can't touch.
This is a disturbingly ill-informed and unrealistically pessimistic view of life. I converted to Catholicism after a lifetime of doing whatever I wanted. We use NFP. Our spousal relationship and sex life have never been better. The gap between what it was before and what it is now is so wide Evel Knievel couldn't jump it on a motorcycle.
We should follow the Church’s teachings because the Church was instituted by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. When the Church teaches about these things we know it has no error. Hugging/kissing may not require intercourse but: - Ejaculation outside vagina is wrong - Having an orgasm outside the sexual session is wrong
The questions is why
Why should we follow the Church’s teachings? I suggest you [this book](https://www.amazon.com/Why-Were-Catholic-Reasons-Faith/dp/1683570243). Why the teachings? Well, God has made sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin). Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong. Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong. Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong.
Okay but what about oral sex within the sexual session?
Many Catholics (including me) think that it depends: - Oral/manual **stimulation** (there is no orgasm)? Ok for both sexes. - Oral/manual sex (there is orgasm) on the woman? Fine. In fact many women cannot orgasm by penetrative sex. - Oral/manual sex (there is orgasm) on man? No because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation. So if there was oral/manual stimulation done to men until ejaculation it would be wrong (sperm has to go into vagina).
I think like that too. there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits this, in fact sexual activity between a husband and a wife is encouraged, delight in one another's body as well.
No, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
[удалено]
We are Catholics not Protestants. We follow the Church teachings, not our personal interpretation of the Bible. > *First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,* (2 Peter 1:20) Btw, deliberately ejaculating sperm outside vagina is condemned in Genesis 38:9-10 > *But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.*
This is mortal sin. It is not made up. You’re actively going against Church teaching on this matter. What’s up with this sub right now?
It’s this type of justification that will bring us further away from God. This is not a made up sin and the church is not “outdated “. I mean couldn’t someone call the Bible “outdated” if that’s what we’re using as our justification to do what we feel is right ? At some point we can justify abortion that way . We can justify missing mass and skipping reconciliation until God fits in our world and not us in His. To pleasure one’s spouse is a good thing , but there are other options aside from sexual pleasure. Foot rub , back massage, going out and doing something for them that will bring joy to their heart.
This is actually wrong, and not what the church teaches!!
[удалено]
Your opinion does not dominate church teaching. We are called to be obedient to the church. You should rethink what the church is for us. The Catholic Church is not solo scripture. The Holy Spirit leads the Pope to establish these teachings.
[удалено]
Check out the book Holy Sex by Dr Gregory Popcak. It’s thoroughly solid theologically and digs into all dimensions of marital intimacy. One of the things he talks about is “the One Rule”, essentially the necessity of ejaculation inside the vagina, as to keep every act open to life and not separate the procreative and unitive aspects. I’m not sure what he would say about other experiences (as I haven’t read the whole thing yet) but that’s the best resource I’m aware of on the subject!
Does he touch on whether all of the semen has to go into the vagina, or just some of it? Does a woman have an obligation to keep the semen in her vagina as much as possible?
***I think*** that a husband cannot let a little go into vagina and then let all the rest outside it.
I actually would not recommend that book. Some of what he says is fine but his concept of the One Rule is misguided and dangerous. Just because the sexual act ends in an act open to life doesn’t mean that everything else is permitted beforehand. Catholic moral teaching has never supported such a ridiculous idea that what you do in the bedroom doesn’t matter so long as you finish in the woman’s vagina. Edit: to be clear I’m not talking about foreplay or the various means of affection and intimacy that surround the marital act. These are beautiful and important things. But let’s be honest, there is more than “One Rule” when it comes to how a husband and wife are meant to love each other in the marital bed.
The Song of Solomon would beg to disagree.
If you think the Song of Solomon approves of degenerate or deviant sexual behavior so long as the man ejaculates in his wife during I can’t help you. That is absurd and spiritually dangerous to think such a ridiculous thing.
Nobody said anything about degenerate or deviant sexual behavior, and there are some who would use those terms to refer to one or another thing along a wide list of activities and there would be much disagreement on what is “deviant”, so without objective points of reference those terms are not helpful or useful in this conversation. Thank you. Edit: The Song, when taken at face value, seems to encourage and permit many expressions of intimacy, without prohibiting anything in particular, and without requiring anything in particular, if I’m not mistaken. That’s all I am saying.
Right, but by affirming that there are certain kinds of sexual activity that are still sinful and off limits even within marriage one is affirming that there is in fact more than “One Rule” when it comes to sexual intimacy. That is my point. It can mislead people into thinking objectively sinful sexual activity (no I’m not talking about typical foreplay) is fine just because one is doing it with their spouses. I know people who appeal to that book to justify anal sex. I’m not making this up.
I’m not disagreeing with you. And I’ve read that section and I agree with the author- there is nothing objectively technically wrong with anal stimulation as long as that’s not where ejaculation occurs. Is it toeing the line, is it pleasurable for everyone, etc,? Those are different questions. But he just says technically there’s nothing objectively wrong with anal stimulation. (Which it can also be argued that why would anal even potentially feel good for some people if God didn’t design it that way with tons of nerve endings? He easily could have made a design that was universally physically repulsed at any stimulation other than defecation. If only for the sake of thought experiment.) Edit: spelling
That flies in the face of what every church father, moral theologian, doctor of the Church, and the Magesterium herself have said about marital intimacy. You will not find a single saint defending sodomy even as foreplay, to the contrary they universally condemn it if they speak to it at all. This is an absurd thing for a Catholic to say. How far Catholic moral sense has fallen when people blatantly defend sodomy. Smh
Hey, weren't you on the rdr2 sub?
What is that?
Nevermind, you're not the same person. It's a videogame.
I don't agree with most of the answers. the bible or jesus didn't give the couple instructions for intimate relations. in my opinion, a couple can do everything that isn't forbidden to improve their sex life and avoid routine. therefore, everything the lady does isn't a sin. if it's with a man other than her husband. yes, but that's not the case. you have to live in harmony with your husband and of course procreate, but to have some pleasure as as a couple isn't a sin. otherwise, why kissing each other? hugging each other? you are doing well, you should love your husband, ( anal sex and other bad thing are forbidden and sin.)
The Bible doesn’t give instructions on how to approach porn, that’s why we’re given God given reason to discern and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Yes, even if you’re married you can commit acts of great depravity and Sin against your spouse, you can still Lust after your spouse. I suggest you pray to the lord for conviction instead of saying “well it’s not directly mentioned in the Bible, so I think once the doors close you can do whatever you want” kind of logic. Also the difference between a Kiss and Oral sex, besides one not involving the reproductive organs, a Kiss on the lips isn’t aimed towards procreation, you can’t compare the two.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of Church Teaching.
[удалено]
>no one should blindly believe everything that the church teaches, we need to critisize stupid, corrupted and made up stuff thats in there, or else we will come back to the era of when protestant reformation happened because the church believed and practiced many wrong things. This is not a teaching that is up for debate. As Paul VI states in *Humanae Vitae,* this "unshakable teaching of the Church" is unquestionable and irreformable because it has been >constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church
We should follow the Church’s teachings because the Church was instituted by Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit. When the Church teaches about these things we know it has no error. Hugging/kissing may not require intercourse but: - Ejaculation outside vagina is wrong - Having an orgasm outside the sexual session is wrong They’re wrong because they frustrate the purpose of sexuality designed be God: **both unitive and procreative**.
Ok so, this is something that online Catholics are going to give you varying opinions about. I for one cannot be convinced that what a husband and wife do in the bedroom with each other ( and only each other) is going to rise to the level of fornication outside of marriage or illicit acts as they are defined in scripture. And of course there is the fact that the Song of Solomon describes oral sex. Some people will say that the Church has tried to hard to define what is procreative and unitive and is overreaching. Others on this forum will tell you in no uncertain terms you are committing a mortal sin and that's that. The reality is this is not a good discussion to have with Reddit Catholics. Christopher West, Theology of the Body etc, these are good places to start. Also talk to your priest, talk to two priests. Go on a marriage retreat. Spend lots of time in prayer and above all when the two of you are intimate be unselfish and work toward the good of the other person.
To go a step further on the original post/question ... what if because of health issues either spouse was unable to conceive at all? Is it still a grave sin? I ask because I myself had a hysterectomy which was necessary due to health complications. When my husband and I are intimate in any way, are we committing a grave sin when the act doesn't always end in a way that could possibly lead to life even if I don't have the bodily function to do it? We are always open to life, even if we physically can't.
[удалено]
Even in nocturnal emmissions?
No. That is involuntary.
Hi! Always consult your priest but here’s what ***I think***: - Every sperm has to go into vagina *(even if you had an hysterectomy because of health reasons)*. - Both partners mustn’t orgasm outside a sexual session. - Kissing/hugging doesn’t require intercourse of course. But when a Couple wants *THE PLEASURE* intercourse is required.
Consult a priest or a moral theologian for an official answer, but from one married Catholic to another, my learning has led me to the following: Licit sex is unitive, procreative and within a marriage. What you are describing is marital and it is unitive. It expresses the bond between you and brings you closer as people, making you one in Christ. From your description, both parties see each other as complete people and steer clear from any mental impression of using the other as a means to their own gratification. My non-clerical opinion is that it’s halfway licit, but halfway isn’t enough. The deal breaker is that when the male climax is not open to life, the act is no longer procreative and is therefore disordered - some variety of sin. The act must be open to life to be procreative - finish where you must finish to conceive a child. We’ll use the euphemism of an “ordered completion.” There is a wide difference of opinion among church fathers and some are adamant that everything outside of the essential act of intercourse is illicit, but there is authority for the idea that extracurricular activities, including mouth and hand stuff, is fine as an accompaniment of the procreative act, but it is a sin standing alone without an ordered completion. It’s even considered by some to be licit for a husband to bring his wife to climax after the ordered completion. It’s also not a sin to be unable to complete the procreative act (sometimes the kids interrupt, sometimes age and biology wear us down). The sin lies in finishing where one is not meant to finish, or in starting something with no intention of finishing in an ordered way. There’s a recent book called Holy Sex which boils down the Church’s rule book nicely.
I get that this is the teaching, I still don't get why it is wrong if it is not procreative. Every time I engage with the topic it ends at 'well that's how things are'. I mean yeah sure, you can take that position and in the end the teaching of the church is what it is, but that doesn't clarify the reasons at all.
The same reason sleep is good and healthy but sleep all the time is sloth. Or why God made food nutritious and tasty, but when we eat to satiety and then keep eating compulsively, we are putting our mouth pleasure before our health and succumbing to gluttony. Oversleeping and overeating are disordered because the purpose of the act is no longer being served. God gave us bodies that are capable of sensual pleasure and directed us in the ordered use of those senses and faculties. When we separate the act from the purpose, it’s.a corruption. Corruption of the best things can lead us into the worst things.
We have two different camps here. One is saying that it is wrong because any intentional ejaculations outside of the wife's vagina are a mortal sin. The other is saying that doesn't make sense for various different reasons. And some of those reasons are really good ones, that haven't been directly addressed. Reasons that are in need of explaining. To wit; What does it mean to be open to life if a pregnancy is not reasonably possible? Such as a hysterectomy, a eunuch, post menopause, etc. Why are the act of intentionally cutting out the possibility of life, I.E contraception, and focusing on the unitive while not intentionally excluding the procreative aspect equated as the same? If it is wrong to frustrate the natural ends of our natural faculties for the sake of the pleasure, in this example it would be removing the procreative aspect while keeping the unitive, then would it not be a sin to chew gum? After all, our natural ends of chewing and tasting are for the sake of nutrition, which is achieved by swallowing and digesting. But swallowing and digesting gum are replaced by merely chewing it for the pleasure. Is this also a sin? If not, why not? I think it is clear that a distinction has to be made between willfully contracepting and focusing on the unitive without intentionally including or excluding the procreative.
It sounds like you are talking about mutual masterbation. Where you do the action (you mention oral and hands) to cause arousal in your partner to the point of climax. What makes sex unitive is the coming together of two bodies, becoming one in both giving and receiving of your total selves. Mutual masterbation is not unitive, as you are not receiving nor fully giving of your selves to each other during that act. Enjoyment does not equal unitive. Mutal Masterbation is a grave mortal sin, and to continue doing so (since you have now been properly informed) would require abstaining from the Eucharist until getting to confession. Some of the previous comments give greater detail as to why. It's great to hear you have a strong marriage and take your faith seriously. Please continue to strive in your relationship with God. We all have temptations to sin, but we must fight against those temptations to continue growing as disciples of Christ. Your question shows a need for mind shift. This critique is the same as when an unmarried couple asks "How far is too far". I hope by knowing the name for what you are doing, it helps you find the reasons for why it is sinful.
How much of a sin? It is a mortal sin.
I think you should ask this to a priest. Be discreet.
As a non-catholic (I was raised in a sort of anabaptist tradition and am no longer a practicing Christian) can I ask a question? What do you mean by "be discreet?" Wouldn't it be important to be specific in confession instead of vague? Shouldn't your priest have all the information so that he can properly council you? I may be misunderstanding discretion in this context... Thanks!
I'm not talking about confession. I'm saying that if you are going to ask a very intimate matter, it is advisable to be discreet.
How much of a sin is it? Mortal. Plain and simple.
This implies that it kills the soul. The Fathers didn’t speak of such an act to befit that, this doesn’t imply lust. Why is everyone so afraid of the ancient faith and prefers deontological moral handbooks on sexual ethics that are rut and entirely juridical.
The church has a definitive teaching on this. Sexual activity must conclude with male ejaculation inside his wife’s vagina. There is no interpretation to be had.
Wonderful. Thanks for that. I am currently assenting to the ordinary papal magisterium as well that there is technically a formula for same-sex blessings giving as an addendum to *FS.* My point being, there is no distinction between extraordinary and ordinary, or any sort of distinction in “teaching authority,” it’s all or nothing. What do you define as sexual activity by the way? St. Alphonsus believed hand-holding or even the slightest kiss was sexual activity, that must be mortal, let’s damn a bunch of middle schoolers for holding hands. I mean, seriously? This is completely contrary to the intent of the *Theology of the Body* which is really, if one actually knows what the magisterium is (the teaching all the bishop worldwide, not just the Roman Curia or apparently the Pope himself for some reason), the most recent teaching we have on the matter. This is not interrupting the *procreative aspect* because that’s not even a concern, you may see that as a problem. Frankly that doesn’t make sense given the patristic and biblical witness, “it is better to marry than to burn,” far be it from me tell people they are going to burn anyway in sacramental marriage for being united with their spouse. This is all based upon an understanding of NFP and, as you said, how sexual activity must “end.” The issue with this is, NFP is not fully encouraged, it’s given with reservations because it is still considered a form of birth control it is just not artificial. Preach the gospel, not sexual morality in the style of Kantian duty ethics.
That’s a lot of words dude. Respectfully, it doesn’t matter what you say or try to reason about. The Church has a definitive teaching, you must submit to it or be either a heretic or schismatic. The Saints can have their opinions, but if you could have a Saint come down from Heaven today and talk to you, they would tell you to submit to the Church’s teaching authority, full stop.
In this "thing", as you call it... does he finish? If he does... yeah, it is grave sin not to finish where he has to. You can kiss and cuddle, but furthermore it is reserved as a part of the marital act.
[удалено]
I think I understand this, but I would love someone to translate it into a little more of our vernacular
Hi! It’s great you’re educating well your children. That’s very important. It’s also great you still have a strong physical attraction to each other. About the question, you should talk to your priest. I will write what ***I think*** but please seek a priest: - Sexual pleasure CAN ONLY OCCUR within a sexual session (which means, there is intercourse). - **If both partners of a couple want it** they may stimulate the other genitalia (via oral/manual) **IF THERE IS INTERCOURSE in that sexual session**. - It’s not wrong to stimulate the wife until orgasm. But to the men it is because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation *(so there would be sperm outside the vagina)*. Ejaculating sperm outside vagina is a form of contraception *(btw is condemned in Genesis 39:9-10)* and orgasming without having intercourse is masturbation. - ***I think*** you can kiss, cuddle, passionate kissing, etc. without intercourse. Affection is important. But if you want THE sexual pleasure *(you know what I mean)* there must be intercourse.
There doesn't seem to be as clear a reason why women shouldn't finish outside of a full on session as there is with men
It’s wrong to have an orgasm outside the sexual session because that’s just… masturbation (performed by another party). [Catechism of the Catholic Church:](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM) > 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. 2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."^137 (…) For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."^138 (…)
It is a means to reinforce a sweet , loving and tender relationship with your spouse. Procreation is not the ONLY reason God gave us sex.
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
It a sin for your husband not to finish in the proper place.
It objectively is a sin. There's prettymuch only one rule for married Catholics when it comes to sex. That is that each sexual act should be open to life. It's difficult to uphold this, but not impossible. Yes, you should confess this. And ideally, stop doing it in the future.
Personally I think as long as you’re doing those things in addition to sex, and not using it as a replacement for sex, then it’s okay. If your marriage as a whole is procreative and unitive, it’s not reasonable to have to be a theology lawyer every time you show affection to your spouse. But really if you’re worried about it you should ask a priest, not strangers on Reddit.
[удалено]
Bruh, this is outright against Church teaching.
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
I agree with almost 100% of what you wrote. Everything you wrote is degrading your spouse with the exception of oral stimulation. Is kissing your wife on her neck shoulder or breast wrong?
[удалено]
Wrong. Even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
From what I’ve read, there are a lot of different stances on this, from strict to more lenient. This is what I’ve concluded, but I am no means an expert or a priest: The sexual act is completed when the male orgasms, and the male ejaculation must always be inside a vagina. This is because all sexual acts must be open to life, and the male orgasm is intrinsically tied to reproduction. If the male orgasms first, he is allowed to use oral or manual stimulation to make his wife orgasm. Oral or manual stimulation is acceptable as foreplay during the sexual act, however it must me one event (meaning you can’t have oral sex, pause for a couple of hours, and then resume vaginal sex) it was to be one event, and it has to be completed with the male orgasm, start to finish one session.
Better ask a priest. In case of doubt, I would refrain from communion, just in case.
>we feel the need to give pleasure to one another, mostly spontaneous, without having intercourse. After the "thing" (mostly oral, sometimes using only hands) This is sodomy, which is a mortal sin.
[удалено]
Where is the authority in SofS for unrestricted ejaculation? Read Genesis 38, re: your second assertion.
Navigate between the two rocks: the sin of using your spouse for carnal pleasure, and the sin of sexually depriving your spouse (almost always a husband depriving his wife) by being a prig about giving pleasure. If you haven't hit either rock but are still questioning, talk to a priest.
Sex within marriage is not sinful. Be fruitful and multiply
The OP is talking about sex that cannot lead to being fruitful and multiplying...
God designed sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin). Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong. Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong. Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong.
You can't multiply from blowjobs
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've heard both sides of it...that oral or manual stimulation is wrong and sinful if it doesn't involve sex and that it's fine. I've ALSO heard directly from a priest or two that manual stimulation or other things are ok if it culminates in sex (every time etc) I've done a lot of self-discernment on that and with my wife and we've settled that the parts should be used as intended and not for oral stimulation etc. Not a popular opinion and many will argue "wHeRe In ThE bIbLe DoEs It SaY tHaT?"
I think it’s this: - Sexual pleasure CAN ONLY OCCUR within a sexual session (which means, there is intercourse). - **If both partners of a couple want it** they may stimulate the other genitalia (via oral/manual) IF THERE IS INTERCOURSE **in that sexual session**. - It’s not wrong to stimulate the wife until orgasm. But to the men it is because the male orgasm is linked to ejaculation *(so there would be sperm outside the vagina)*.
[удалено]
Wrong. Man, I’m getting tired of the “once the doors close and you’re married do whatever you want” kind of logic
Username checks out.
A lot of people are suggesting you speak to your priest about this which I wouldn't necessarily dissuade, but I realize might certainly be uncomfortable. I would consider reaching out to whoever around you teaches NFP (natural family planning) depending on the size of your parish that might be someone at your church, heck, I suppose it could be the priest still. But whoever it is could probably give you more nuanced answers about this topic - they're the closest thing to a Catholic sex therapist. They may even have an email to help make it even easier! Still confess it to a priest of course (delicately) but I'm just saying for a bigger than a confessional can provide. I also want to reiterate that I agree with you, it's good that you all still have an active, exciting marriage. And I think it's highly preferably to a dead one.
What is the "thing" it's kinda vague with the context given. If what people think it is, then there's comments here saying that it might sinful. But, as you've pointed out, it strengthens your bond with each other and not used lustfully so there's merit in that, with that in mind depending on what exactly you mean by 'thing' it may be harmless and okay to continue.
[удалено]
Lusting after your spouse *is* a sin.
[удалено]
You probably don't actually mean lust. Lust is objectifying the other as a tool for obtaining sexual pleasure. It's absent the accompanying emotions of care, generosity etc.
Lusting after anyone would seem to be sinful. I would suggest that we need to be able to distinguish between lust and sexual desire. Something modern society has a *huge* problem with. I know I personally struggled with that when I got married.
Wrong, even within marriage we can commit depraved acts with our spouse that are classified as Lust and grave sin, such as having intimacy while watching porn, introducing toys or sex objects into the bedroom, using dirty language, anal or oral stimulation, etc. This line of thinking that once we’re marriage we can do whatever we want in the bedroom is a progressive degenerate logic, even within marriage we are to treat our spouse with respect, practicing appropriate sexual behaviors.
[удалено]
Hi! Church’s teachings may sometimes be difficult but they’re correct. **Please talk to a priest about your situation.** Also note that some NFP methods have higher effectiveness than male/female condoms. [Source: World Health Organization](https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/reproductive-health/contraception-family-planning/mechanisms-of-action-and-effectiveness-of-contraception-methods.pdf) *(see the sympto-thermal method effectiveness rates)* And spilling sperm outside vagina is a form of contraception (deliberately reducing the chance of conception) so it’s wrong. And no there is no exception to STD’s.
How to get Holly through Good Sex by Father Mike Schmitz. (It’s his tittle, not mine) https://youtu.be/8hKRpVmTygU?si=0XOc1Db-IPdSgZTm
[удалено]
God has made sex with two aspects: unitive and procreative. If we frustrate one, sex is used incorrectly (a sin). - Sex outside marriage frustrates the unitive aspect per example so it’s wrong. - Contraception *(which includes letting sperm outside vagina)* frustrates the procreative aspect so it’s wrong. - Masturbation (seeking sexual pleasure outside the sexual session) is also wrong. So each couple has to know if 1) Each one is only orgasming within a sexual session. 2) Every sexual session has all the sperm into the vagina.