Sexual Pleasure, The Various Sexual Acts, and Procreation

912 Pages·2016·3.26 MB·English

SEXUAL PLEASURE,
THE VARIOUS SEXUAL ACTS,
AND PROCREATION
Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or
true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our
teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own
interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private
interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings: dogmas and encyclicals.
Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on
any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site – even if our
position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach
blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any
position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have
further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks
about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is
uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you
think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a
reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until
you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.
Even though Natural Family Planning (NFP), Sensual Kisses and Touches, Sexual Thoughts
and Fantasies inside and outside of the marital act etc. are condemned in this article as a
mortal sin (even in a marriage), this position is false, and I do no longer adhere to it. Both pre-
and-post Vatican II theologians teach that such acts (Natural Family Planning (NFP), Sensual
Kisses and Touches, Sexual Thoughts and Fantasies inside and outside of the marital act etc.)
are licit in marriage and the marriage act, and as a preparation for the marriage act, provided
the acts are made with a good conscience and for the sake of love.
McHugh and Callan's Moral Theology (vol. II): A Complete Course, sec. 2510 e, p.
522: "Hence, the rule as to married persons is that venereal kisses and
other such acts are lawful when given with a view to the exercise of the lawful
marriage act and kept within the bounds of decency and moderation; that they are
sinful, gravely or lightly according to the case, when unbecoming or immoderate; that
they are venially sinful, on account of the inordinate use of a thing lawful in itself (85
a), when only pleasure is intended; that they are mortally sinful, when they tend to
pollution, whether solitary or not solitary, for then they are acts of lewdness."
St. Alphonsus Liguori, Moral Theology, Books 2-3, Kindle Locations 1151-1167: "25.—
Quaeritur: II. Whether spouses are permitted to take delectation in the conjugal act,
even if the other spouse were not present? The Salamancans (de matr. c. 15, p. 6, n. 90)
with Navarre, Sa, Roncaglia, etc., (cited by Croix, l. 6, p. 3, n. 537) reject this when the
delectation takes place with a commotion of the spirits, because they say such a
commotion is not licit for spouses unless it were ordered to copulation. But Roncaglia
and the Salamancans do not speak congruently, for they themselves admit (ibid. n. 84;
Roncaglia tr. 12, p. 296, q. 6, r. 11 with St. Antoninus, Conc. Diana, and it is a
common opinion, as we will say in book 6, de matrimonio, n. 933), that
unchaste touches (which certainly cannot be done without a great deal of
arousal) among spouses, provided the danger of pollution is absent, are
licit, at least they are not gravely illicit, even if they are done only for
pleasure and hardly ordered to copulation. I say, therefore, why is it not the
same thing to speak about delectation? This is why I regard Busembaum’s opinion as
probable, which says it is permitted for spouses to take delectation, even carnally, from
carnal relations they have had or are going to have, as long as the danger of pollution is
always absent. The reason is, because (exactly as the Salamancans say in tr. 9, c. 15, p.
6, n. 84 when speaking about unchaste touches) the very state of matrimony
renders all these things licit; otherwise the matrimonial state would be
exposed to excessive scruples. Besides, Bonacina, Sanchez, Lessius and Diana hold
this opinion, with Busembaum (as above, n. 23, in fine), St. Antoninus (p. 1, tit. 5, c. 1
§6.), Cajetan, (1.2. q. 74, art. 8 ad 4), Coninck (d. 34, dub. 11, concl. 1), Croix (l. 6, p. 5,
num. 337) with Gerson, Suarez, Laymann and a great many others; likewise Vasquez,
Aversa, etc., cited by the Salamancans (ibid. n. 89 and 90), who think it is probable. St.
Thomas also favors this opinion in question 15 of de malo, art. 2, ad 17, where he says
that for spouses, just as sexual relations are licit, so also delectation from them."
Buy this book on Lulu (Part 1-4)
Listing of Sections (CLICK ON ANY SECTION BELOW TO GO DIRECTLY TO IT)
 Part 1. Natural Family Planning (NFP), The Marital Sexual Act, and
Procreation
 Part 2. Sexual Pleasure, Lust, and the Various Sexual Acts in Marriage
 Part 3. Chastity: The Angelic Virtue
 Part 4. The Biblical and Apostolic Foundation for Priestly Chastity
.C -S .
WWW ATHOLIC AINTS NET
Free DVDs and Books
PART 1. NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING,
THE MARITAL SEXUAL ACT, AND PROCREATION
WHAT IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING?
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the practice of deliberately restricting the marital act
exclusively to those times when the wife is infertile so as to avoid the conception of a child.
NFP is used for the same reasons that people use artificial contraception: to deliberately avoid
the conception of a child while carrying out the marital act.
WHY IS NFP WRONG?
NFP is wrong because it’s birth control; it’s against conception. It’s a refusal on the part of
those who use it to be open to the children that God planned to send them. It’s no different
in its purpose from artificial contraception, and therefore it’s a moral evil just like
artificial contraception. Since the Church infallibly teaches that “the conjugal act is
destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” and that “those who in
exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and
commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii,
#54) in addition to teaching that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way
that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against
the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a
grave sin” (Ibid), this makes it perfectly clear to us that NFP is not only a very serious mortal
sin according to the teaching of the Church, but also a sin against the Natural Law that can
never be excused or changed.
The Catholic Church has always been officially opposed to contraception or birth control in all
its forms, but contrary to the practice of the Catholics of the first 1900 years of the Church, the
great majority of self professed Catholics living in our debauched era in time, ignore this
prohibition. However, as we will see from the teaching of the Church in addition to the
Natural Law and the Holy Bible as well as the teaching of all the Saints and Church Fathers,
the Catholic Church infallibly and officially condemns all forms of contraception as a heinous
mortal sin against God, life and nature, thus firmly declaring that those who practice any kind
of contraception, such as NFP, will lose their souls.
Indeed, The Holy Bible directly commands spouses when they perform the marital sexual act
that “thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of
children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in
children” (Tobias 6:22), and this totally condemns all contraceptive acts, such as NFP. As a
matter of fact, the Holy Word of God in the Bible explicitly condemns spouses who are
opposed to procreation, teaching that “the devil has power” over all spouses who selfishly
come together for the purpose of gratifying their fleshly pleasures, giving “themselves to
their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” instead of being
“moved rather for love of children than for lust” (Tobias 6:17) when they perform the
marital act that Our Lord commands.
The best biblical example of God’s utter hatred of all forms of contraceptive acts is found in
The Book of Genesis, where God Himself directly killed a man named Onan for practicing
contraception: “He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his
brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s
name. And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.” (Genesis 38:8-10)
Notice how clearly the biblical text shows that the reason he did this “detestable thing” was
“lest children should be born in his brother’s name”, thus showing us that the act of
performing the marital act while taking steps to hinder procreation is hated by God.
THE SEXUAL ACT MUST BE EXCUSED BY THE MOTIVE OF PROCREATION
SINCE IT IS INTOXICATING LIKE A DRUG, SHAMEFUL, AND DESTINED BY
NATURE FOR PROCREATION
There are three main reasons for why the Natural Law, the Holy Bible, Apostolic Tradition, as
well as the Church and Her Popes and Saints infallibly teaches that for the marital sexual act
to be lawful and without sin, spouses must always desire to beget children and make an
explicit act of their will by excusing the marital sexual act with the motive of procreation
before they perform every single marital act.
The first reason is that the Natural Law teaches that “the conjugal act is destined
primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54)
and that “the act of marriage exercised for pleasure only” is condemned as a sin
for both the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Denz. 1159).
Since even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage exercised for [the
motive of] pleasure only” is condemned as a sin even though this act is directly
procreative in itself, and the only intention and motive that excuses the marital sexual act
from sin is the procreation of children, according to teachings of the Popes, Saints and
Doctors of the Church, it is totally obvious that every single marital sexual act must be excused
by an explicit act of the will of having children before one performs the marital sexual act. The
Church have always taught that “the generative [sexual] act is a sin unless it is
excused” (St. Bonaventure, Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences) and that is why
those who deny that “the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...”
(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica) commit a sin against the Natural Law which can
never be excused.
The Natural Law is rooted in design. God, the Supreme Designer, has imprinted a design on
all created things – including the human person, both in his spiritual and physical being – a
purpose for which each has been created. Thus, with regard to the human person, the Creator
has designed speech for communicating the truth and the mouth to swallow food etc.
Likewise, the Creator has designed the sexual organs for something noble, namely, for
procreating children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 60), Dec. 31, 1930: “This sacredness of marriage which
is intimately connected with religion and all that is holy, arises from the divine origin
we have just mentioned, from its purpose which is the begetting and education
of children for God, and the binding of man and wife to God through Christian love
and mutual support; and finally it arises from the very nature of wedlock, whose
institution is to be sought for in the farseeing Providence of God, whereby it is the
means of transmitting life, thus making the parents the ministers, as it were, of the
Divine Omnipotence.”
This means, according to the teaching of the Church, that spouses must actively think about
the fact that they are performing the marital act for the sake of begetting children before they
perform every single marital act, while also desiring to beget children for the love and glory of
God. The Holy Bible even gives spouses a good example of a short prayer to use before they
perform the marital act: “And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take
my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be
blessed for ever and ever.” (Tobias 8:9)
This teaching of the Church is of course directly rooted in Holy Scripture and Apostolic
Tradition, which are the two infallible sources of the Church. We see this truth being taught to
us in the Holy Bible by God when He spoke to Tobias through the Archangel Raphael, saying:
“thou shalt take [that is, perform the marital act with] the virgin with the fear of the Lord,
moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou
mayest obtain a blessing in children… [Tobias said:] And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not
for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in
which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.” (Tobias 6:22; 8:9) Our Lord’s words about
“the seed of Abraham” is explained by St. Paul to refer to those who are going to be saved from
Hell by Christ’s blood since God says in the New Testament that “if you be Christ’s, then are
you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29)
It is thus clear that the Holy Bible teaches us that spouses who perform the marital act must
make an explicit act of their will before they perform every single marital act, desiring to
beget children and being “moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of
Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children.” Notice how insistently and clearly the
infallible, Holy Scripture commands spouses to perform the marital act for the explicit
purpose and love of begetting children (and not for lust), teaching them to excuse the marital
sexual act with the motive of procreation and that “thou shalt take [that is, perform the
marital act with] the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children
than for lust”.
Thus, according to the Church, this act of the will or motive to beget children that renders the
marital act lawful and moral and that are performed by the spouses before every marital
sexual act, is used by them to excuse the shameful and intoxicating nature of the marital
sexual act, just like a sick person excuses his usage of an intoxicating drug with the motive of
alleviating his suffering or illness. St. Thomas Aquinas also confirms the truth that the marital
act must be excused since it is intoxicating like a drug, teaching that: “because the reason
is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the pleasure, so that it is
unable to understand anything at the same time, [as in the case of intoxication of
drugs]... the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...” (Summa
Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 1, 5)
The Magisterium of the Church also teaches that one must desire to beget children before one
performs every single marital act in order for the act to be lawful and without sin since “the
conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope
Pius XI, Casti Connubii #54) and since even the normal, natural and procreative “act of
marriage exercised for [the motive of] pleasure only” is condemned as a sin for both
the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Various Errors on Moral
Matters # 9, 1679). Since even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage
exercised for [the motive of] pleasure only” is condemned as a sin even though this act
is directly procreative in itself, and the only intention and motive that excuses the marital
sexual act from sin is the procreation of children according to teachings of the Popes, Fathers,
Saints and Doctors of the Church, it is totally obvious that every single marital sexual act must
be excused by an explicit act of the will before one performs the marital sexual act.
This is also why Pope St. Gregory the Great (c. 540-604), who is one of the greatest Popes in
human history as well as a Father and Doctor of the Church, teaches that: “The married
must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the
purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate
intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure.
Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in
wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they efface by frequent prayer
what they befoul in the fair form of conjugal union by the admixture of pleasure.” (Pope St.
Gregory the Great, "Pastoral Care," Part 3, Chapter 27, in "Ancient Christian Writers," No. 11,
pp. 188-189)
Pope Pius XI adds in Casti Connubii that the “sacredness of marriage which is intimately
connected with religion and all that is holy, arises… from its purpose which is the
begetting and education of children for God” (Casti Connubii, #60) and that all
“Christian parents must also understand that they are destined… to propagate and preserve
the human race on earth” (Casti Connubii, #13). Our Lord Jesus Christ, speaking through the
mouth of Saint Paul in the New Testament of the Bible also connects the will to bear children
to salvation, teaching that a woman: “shall be saved through child-bearing; if she
continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15)
The second reason why spouses must always desire to beget children before they perform the
marital act (in order to be able to perform the marital act without any sin) is that all sexual
acts (even marital, natural, lawful and procreative ones) are intoxicating and affects the
person similar to the effect of a strong drug. In fact, the sexual act is many times more
intoxicating than many drugs that are unlawful to abuse. But when people are performing the
sexual act, not for the motive of begetting children, but for the sake of lust or for satisfying or
quenching their fleshly desires, they are committing an act that is intrinsically sinful, selfish,
and unreasonable, and are thus abusing the marital act in a similar way that a drug user
abuses drugs, or a glutton abuses food. It is an inherently selfish act that are not founded on
reason, but only on their unlawful, unbridled and shameful search for a carnal pleasure,
similar to the action of a person that uses drugs in order to get intoxicated or high.
This is also why the Church teaches that even the normal, natural and procreative “act of
marriage exercised for pleasure only” is condemned as a sin for both the married and
unmarried people alike and “that those marriages will have an unhappy end which
are entered upon... because of concupiscence alone, with no thought of the sacrament
and of the mysteries signified by it.” (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, #12) Since the Church
and the Natural Law condemns even the normal, natural and procreative marital act exercised
for the motive of pleasure only, it is obvious that all sexual acts that is performed without the
will to beget children are condemned by the Church as even worse sins, since they are utterly
unreasonable, shameful, and selfish.
A sick person is allowed by God’s permission to take drugs in order to lessen his pain. But
when this sick person uses more drugs than he needs in order to get intoxicated, or continues
to use the drug after he gets well, he commits the sin of drug abuse. This is a perfect example
of those who perform the marital act for the only sake of lust or for pleasing or quenching
their sensual desires. They are gluttonous or overindulgent in the marital act, and are thus
sinning against their reason and the Natural Law. For “the sin of lust consists in seeking
venereal pleasure not in accordance with right reason...” and “lust there signifies
any kind of excess.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second
Part, Q. 154, Art. 1)
A person who uses a drug that makes him intoxicated needs an absolutely necessary reason
(such as a grave illness) to excuse his usage of the drug from being a sin, and when he does not
have such an absolutely necessary excuse to excuse his drug usage, he commits the sin of drug
abuse. It is exactly the same in the case of married people. When married spouses do not
excuse the marital act (which is intoxicating in a way similar to a drug) with the honorable
motive of begetting children, they perform an act that is inherently sinful, selfish,
unreasonable, and unnatural since “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature
for the begetting of children” and since “the act of marriage exercised for pleasure
only” is condemned as a sin by the Natural Law. And so, the marital act needs an
absolutely necessary excuse to legitimize and make moral the inherently evil act of getting
intoxicated just like one needs an excuse like a grave illness to legitimize and make moral the
inherently evil act of getting intoxicated by a drug.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 1: “Now there is a
loss of reason incidental to the union of man and woman, both because the
reason is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the
pleasure, so that it is unable to understand anything at the same time, [as
in the case of intoxication of drugs] as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 11); and
again because of the tribulation of the flesh which such persons have to suffer from
solicitude for temporal things (1 Corinthians 7:28). Consequently the choice of this
union cannot be made ordinate except by certain compensations whereby that same
union is righted, and these are the goods [procreation, sacrament and fidelity] which
excuse marriage and make it right.”
Therefore, the normal, natural and procreative marital act performed for the motive of
begetting children by two married spouses is the only sexual act that can be excused from sin
since man knows by nature and instinct that one must excuse an act of intoxication with an
absolutely necessary motive. Anything contrary to this is unnatural and evil.
An inherently evil act (such as intoxication) must always be excused with an absolutely
necessary motive or purpose. Otherwise, it will always be a sin. Two examples that clearly
demonstrates this fact of “excusing” an otherwise evil act are found in the case of a man
injuring another person, which is excused in the case of self-defense; or as in the case of a man
getting intoxicated, which is excused when a man is sick and requires this intoxication in
order to get pain relief. All other inherently evil acts than what is absolutely necessary are
strictly condemned as sins, since they cannot be excused with an absolutely necessary motive.
For example, a man cannot hurt another man if he wants his money, or if he does not like
him, and a man cannot get drunk or intoxicated just because he is sad or unhappy, for none of
these excuses are absolutely necessary. Thus, these excuses are not enough by themselves to
excuse these acts from being sinful. In truth, some evil acts cannot even be excused at all, such
as in the case of a man suffering from hunger, but who nevertheless is never allowed to kill
another person in order to get food to survive. It is thus a dogmatic fact of the Natural Law
that “the generative [sexual] act is a sin unless it is excused.” (St. Bonaventure,
Commentary on the Four Books of Sentences, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1) It could not be more clear from
the Natural Law as well as the teachings of the Church that “Coitus is reprehensible and
evil, unless it be excused” (Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris, Sententiarum, 3, d. 37, c.
4) and that is also why all who commit the marital act without excusing it, will always commit
sin. “Therefore the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused...” (St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement, Q. 49, Art. 5)
Someone might claim (in opposition to the teaching of Pope Innocent XI and the Natural
Law) that the marital act for the sole purpose of pleasing or quenching one’s sexual desire or
concupiscence is really necessary and allowed and not sinful because it helps people stay away
from committing sins like adultery, fornication or other sexual sins, but this argument is false
and easily refuted since no one will ever be so tempted that he cannot withstand the sensual
temptation of the flesh. It is thus not absolutely necessary to perform the marital act for the