CONTENT WARNING: What's Okay in Marriage? (Christopher West)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Full Show: • Happiness, Sex, and Th...
Christopher West and Matt Fradd talk about what Chastity inside of a marriage looks like (i.e. what sexual acts are allowed).
🍺 Get episodes a week early, 🍺 score a free PWA beer stein, and 🍺 enjoy exclusive streams with me! Become an annual supporter at mattfradd.loca...
💵 Show Sponsors:
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/matt
Hallow: hallow.com/mat...
💻 Social Media:
Facebook: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Twitter: / pints_w_aquinas
TikTok: / pintswithaquinas
👕 Store: shop.pintswith...
Thank you for addressing these topics. I'm a young, unmarried woman coming back into the faith, and I really appreciate being able to hear about these things to help me prepare for marriage if God wants it for me.
@@Lauren_3000 welcome back to the fullness of truth! How old are you if you dont mind me asking?
@@justawanderingranger2234 Thank you! I just turned 24 a few days ago
This mirrors what every traditional priest has told me.
1. Location of completion for man matters far more than with a woman. Stimulation is one thing. Completion is another.
2. Spouses cannot use each other. They are both allowed to say no.
3. Something may "just" be venial, but still should be avoided.
4. Its very easy for a woman to feel abused and used. Absolute care and devotion and tenderness is needed by her husband.
Completion ?
Stimulation is according to the form, and is posterior to the final cause, that is where the act leads to. Thus for it to be moral, male stimulation should only be within the female genitals, else it would be contrary to the formal cause of the Marital Act.
Female stimulation, being not Causally Dependent within the act, but something which supports the act, can be done approximate to the Marital Act. This non-causal dependence of the Female Stimulation makes it so that Foreplay and Postplay is a licit act outside of the Marital Act, as long as it is approximate to the act, since it is not necessary but instead conducive towards the Procreative end (that is to be open to conception), and the Unitive End (that is the Union of the two Will in Love for one another in the single act).
To simplify: the stimulation of the Male Genitals is illicit outside of the Marital Act, that is the conjugation of the Male and Female Genitals. But the stimulation of the Female Genitals is allowed to be done approximate to the Marital Act (as well as obviously within it too).
What do priests know about it? Why would you get sex advice from someone who doesn’t have sex?
@@patriciag6030Like St. Paul?
@@patriciag6030 the best football coaches aren’t players themselves.
“Something Holy is being mocked, something beautiful is being mocked”
Wow best way to word corn
@@megancarney4511 definitely
It seems to me that the way these questions are frequently framed the wrong way by trying to ask the question "what can I or can I not do?". If you instead answer the question, "is what I'm doing ordered towards the total gift of myself to my spouse or is it ordered towards maximizing my own pleasure?" The lines start to become more clear, at least for myself anyway.
Those two things don't necesarilly have to be in conflict with one another.
No that is just nonsense. There is no need for that kind of obfuscation.
The "best gift to my spouse" vs. maximal pleasure is a false dichotomy in my understanding. It is supposed to be "and" not vs, not or.
It is obvious that if one partner is only concerned with maximal pleasure, the other partner and the whole relationship devolve to objectification.
But if one person in the relationship is only concerned with the best for the other, no one would enter sexual intimacy. Nobody would like to get pregnant and have babies.
It should be a balance between the two.
Thank you so much for touching on this subject. It’s one that so many are hesitant to bring up, but so many people need to know. I once had a traditional Latin priest tell me the same thing. He said, “As long as it ends in vaginal intercourse, that oral is permitted.”
Matt, this makes a lot sense. I appreciate you posting this specifically. This changes my perspective, and I am grateful to recognize a better way. Thank you!
Sex is just the icing on the cake of intimacy. You can't use sex to build intimacy, it can only meld and compliment the intimacy that you build with your spouse.
It’s not the icing on the cake, it’s the chocolate chips in the chocolate chip cookie.
@@richvestal767 Well said
Wish I had any of that in my marriage.
@@doritoreiss8089Have hope. It can get much better. Start every day knowing that your own choice to lay down your life and love your spouse as you love Christ can pay dividends. Don’t hold grudges or resentment but forgive your spouse like God has forgiven you and try to love them the best you can without any expectation of reciprocation. I promise that this mindset will transform a marriage and over time increase intimacy and repair years of resentment and hurt feelings.
Not so. Particularly for men. While for most women it might be icing on the cake, for men intimacy is more or less unachievable until the two are physically bonded. And the proof of this is when a couple have not bonded in a while the husband will begin to feel a lack of something, even if he can’t quite name what it is.
When answering the question, "How much intimacy is acceptable?" I might suggest starting with a phrase other than, "Let me take it from various angles."
😂😂😂
A-yooo, daddy chill 😂😂
LOL 😂
HAHA WTH
Not uncommon humour amongst the worlds standards
Such a holy tenderness... God bless you both!
Dude is upset the word Intimacy’s connotation has changed because people don’t want to use the word sex, proceeds to answer the question with metaphors rather then directly
Sorry it all flew over your head
@@brandonbenitez9746🤦♂️
@@brandonbenitez9746That doesn’t refute what he said 🤦♂️
Nothing inconsistent on his part.
In keeping with St. Paul's "things of which we do not speak", but in a more positive way.
SO FREAKING EXCITED ABOUT THIS EPISODE!!!!
Damn. THAT IS GOOD NEWS ABOUT MARRIAGE LETS GOOOOOOOO!
Thanks for not shying away from the couples' question! I think we should be frank (but not gratuitous) about sexual subjects in Christian circles. Our hesitance to iron these things creates a lot of confusion and vagueness imo.
I'm new to Catholicism and find its sexual morality very interesting but also confusing. For example, why is NFP allowed yet "spilling seed" not allowed when both are done to avoid conception? That's just one example, but my point a lot of Catholic sexual ethics seems oddly strict about what acts specifically a married couple can do in bed, when you would think them being married would make most acts permissible. But that's just a newbie's thoughts.
I'm soon to be confirmed and hoping God leads my heart where it needs to be, as I would love to marry one day but feel I would be an inadequate father for many reasons. Peace!
@@sandstorm7768 NFP is using our body's the way they were designed to be used- God designed a woman's body to only be able to conceive on certain days, and gave us physical signs of when those days were. Sex is designed to be both unitive and procreative- using NFP does not hinder either of these purposes, as again, it's using our bodies the way they were designed, and our bodies are inherently open to life.
Not completing the sexual act or "spilling seed" takes the procreative out of the act. Ifs twisting the marital union and using it outside its intended purpose. When using NFP, you are still leaving it up to God- when not completing, you are taking it into your own hands and not fully trusting Him. Sex is now neither unitive or procreative.
I highly recommend Holy Sex by Gregory Popcak, as well as JP2's writings- Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body. Christopher West's books have great explanations on this as well. It's all about using sex and our bodies in the way God designed them- any time we distort God's design, it hurts us!
Its confusing because they paint NFP as fundamentally morally different when it really isnt. Its just a more passive and natural method of the same thing with the same ends/intentions.
Albeit a dramatic analogy, its like the difference between negligent homicide and regular homicide through a direct act. The former might not really be “doing anything” and just taking advantage of a preexisting situation deliberately for the same purpose as the active homicide.
Either both are bad or both are okay.
Hi! Christopher has a channel on yt where he discuses those things you mentioned, I really recommend it! It's called Theology of the body institute 😊
Have a wonderful confirmation!!! God bless you!!!
@@nathaniel5261 there is a difference. With NFP a couple chooses to abstain from sex during the females fertile window. This is chastity. A form of sacrifice or going without sex at all. The egg is not disturbed or forced away from the womb. It is just not fertilized. And again it is due to both parties choosing to be chaste and sacrifice. Where as with regard to "spilling the seed" sexual arousal to completion for the man has taken place and the "seed" or sperm is spilled or lost because it was not in the womb. No sacrifice or abstinence is involved this case. The difference is nfp says "I understand what I want may result in a child I am not ready for so I will wait and be chaste. The other says, I want to have sex but I do not wish to abstain fully or sacrifice so this way I get what I want. Nfp sacrifice but also trusting God. The other is all about self. Still have sex, no sacrifice and no trust in God.
@@nathaniel5261your comment is quite strange and lacks logic
He is not condoning those sexual acts as some people here seems to say. He is saying quite clearly that the purpose of the act is " to bring and sow the seed in the garden only" if you know Mr. West and his language you know what this means.
Apart from that he is using the verb "to kiss" which obviously is very different from having sex.
That's what I got from the video.
He condemns them. He calls it sinful and other catholics call it a mortal sin that could send you to hell. None of that is true and none of it can be found in scripture.
The ejaculation goes into the vagina. Whatever you want to do before that, is fine. Obviously not using pornography or animals etc. But between just the two spouses, however they want to show their love to each other is not sinful. If the man is to ejaculate, then it is to be into the woman's vagina. Scripture condemns Onan when he spilled his seed, so that is one reference from the Bible the Church uses. Also, increase and multiply, which implies the act must be open to life evereytime......not that life will be conceived every time, just the openness to it, which implies no artificial contraception or Onanism.
@@huntsman528He teaches that a man intentionally climaxing anywhere outside of his wife's reproductive organ is a sin (this is Church teaching). Doing other things as foreplay, leading up to climaxing in the proper place can be okay if it's done in love and respect for each other.
I don't know what denomination you come from or what you believe, but the Catholic Church does not follow "Sola Scriptura." Not every sin is completely spelled out and outlined in the Bible. That is why Christ gave us the Church. Whether or not you accept His Church's pastoral authority is up to you.
“His language” why can’t he just use the universal English language and say it bluntly instead of speaking metaphorically
@@huntsman528 actually it's in the Bible where it talks about how a man should not waste his seed. It goes to an extreme to make a point and says that it is better for a man to impregnate a prostitute than to waste his seed. So that's probably what he's referencing as a starting point for knowing the purpose of sex and what is considered a good and prosperous sexual act versus a careless one. I haven't read his books but that's just what comes to mind when talking about why oral interactions probably aren't a "good" sexual act. But he's being clear here that it isn't about what part of your spouse you touch, it's the intent behind it, and do you respect the intimacy between you and your partner as something holy or is it perverted in your heart and mind because of culture. I think we have to ask ourselves if we'd be ashamed to have God in the room with us while we're being intimate with a spouse. If the answer is yes, then our intentions behind sex and intimacy are probably polluted and twisted in some way and keeping us from treating sex as a sacred act that honors the spouse.
Though I know there is a focus on the pornification of boys and young men, it also happens to women. It has been so healing to be on a spiritual journey and be with my husband and learn to enjoy the marital act in an ordered way. No nitty gritty details, but these expressions of love have never been better
Saint Alphonsus of Liguori goes in depth on this matter.
The most compelling part of his argument for me is his explanation of how certain acts can be reductionistic. I can easily see how in my life certain actions, while not explicitly condemned by the church, can lead to the formation of attachments to certain aspects of physicality at the expense of a whole-person view of intimacy. How often do we see that in the media? I’m certainly susceptible.
Please don’t pretend oral sex is “kissing”. If it’s wrong, then it’s wrong. If it’s not wrong, it doesnt have to be bc it’s just kissing.
You just can't ejaculate during oral.
He isn't pretending, he isn't simply being literal he's being delicate with speech
@ he’s being a snake
Clear concise answer, thanks
@5:07
Huh I didn't realize oral sex is permissible under Catholic teaching as long as you don't finish in that act.....Would this extend to other acts? I understand the hesitation in discussing this but you can do it educationally and avoid titillation (in fact I think you did that admirably here). So would the "as long as you don't finish" rule apply to say sodomy? How about Non penetrative sexual acts (I'm trying to avoid specifics as not to titillate so I hope you grasp my meaning)?
Yes, it can. And I feel like being specific here is necessary. The permissibilty extends even to a husband performing foreplay on his wife (not just the other way around) even to the point that SHE reaches orgasm. This is according to John Paul II. It can even be done for the purpose of helping her reach orgasm AFTER the sexual act if she hasn't. However, again, while SHE can, HE can't finish during foreplay, and foreplay must always take place in conjunction with vaginal sex and not just on its own. As long as it takes place in the procreative act, promotes the unitive and procreative elements, does not involve a hysband finishing outside, and respects human dignity, it is permissible unless the church explicitly condemns it. In fact, foreplay can be a moral GOOD when it glorifies the sexual act rather than desecrate it. Foreplay is amoral; it can be used for good or bad. To preach otherwise borders on scrupulosity. Trent Horn does an excellent job elaborating on this issue whenever it comes up in his podcasts.
As far as it being permissible, It depends on what you mean by oral sex. Is it inherently a sin for lips and genitals to touch? No. It depends on the nature of that act.
For sex to be loving, there are a few requirements:
- the intention behind the act (is it an act of love and giving, or using?)
- the fruit of the act (could it produce life? Does it bond the spouses?)
Sex is for two things: unification of the spouses and procreation. Both are necessary.
On moral rules, keep in mind rules don't solely determine morality. Rules are helpful to determine how to act, but acts aren't moral just because rules were followed. In fact, acts can be immoral when rules are followed. For example, if a man kisses his girlfriend for the intention of using her and not loving her, it's wrong, even if kissing is otherwise appropriate within the relationship.
I hope this helps
It's not permissible, and the principle cannot be extended to anything else.
Oral sex which implies climax for the man without penis in vagina is not permissable. Because that is not sex. Oral stimulation is an entirely different thing and entirely permissible and indeed, even recommendable in many situations
Sodomy, if you mean anal penetration, is harmful to a person’s body, so it would not apply here. It is immoral regardless of whether the male climaxes or not
Can someone better explain why the “seed must end up in the garden”? Where did this come from?
The sin of Onan in the Bible. He was struck dead because he wasted his seed. It’s to make the transmission of life possible. Wasting your seed makes you God by not allowing life to happen if it has been His will.
Basically, the purpose of the genitals is procreation. The eyes see, the heart pumps blood, the stomach digests. What do genitals do? They create new human beings during sex. A man or woman's body on it's own doesn't make sense, but when they're married together, the purpose of their genitals becomes clear. This is why Catholics view purely pleasure-focused sexual acts and homosexuality to be "disordered" and a misuse of our sexual faculties.
It comes from their “Natural Law” theory if so-called “ethics”, where arbitrary abstract rules are made around what is claimed to be the “purpose” of certain things and we’re simply not allowed to use those things for other purposes because the rules say so… of course this isnt based on real, pragmatic ethics that concerns itself with real life causes/effects of actions and how they help/hurt people
@@andreanease4215 so God kills those who waste their seed? How are any guys still alive?
@ any grave sin is a rejection of God and kills your soul. God has an active will and a permissive will, and we have free will. If you choose a grave sin we are choosing the consequences that follow. God always gives us opportunity to repent. In this particular story it serves as a warning of what can happen and how serious it is. God is merciful and puts up with a lot, hoping we will be like prodigal sons and return to Him.
Brothers and sisters. We should be seeking intimacy with our Father in heaven. We are children in his eyes and what we do in this reflects on what he has done in our lives. Yes sexually should be moral and consential between husband and wife. But first seek intimacy with our Father.
I say this so that you grow as children in his kingdom and into what his will is for you. This is something that a lot of us are missing if you had heard the spirit speaking means you have a direct line to him. Call out to him and he will answer. Pour your heart to him. Guard your hearts from the world because your hearts belong to him.
I live without any intimacy in my marriage. We’re living like roommates.
I was like that for over 20 years. We are now in the process of divorce.
You married for better or worse if you take the vows seriously
@@anthonylangford7797 I have no plans for divorce.
@mariamoments478 I took them seriously. I also still love him…and our kids. He’s a good man too. I’m just very lonely.
Sex is about pleasure bonding, in addition to procreation. Pleasure one another, but don't waste the seed.
Sodomy is a sin
waste the seed ?
A man cant waste his sperm ?
If that's your position then practicing NFP is also sinful as your seed dies and is wastes when not used and you're specifically avoiding procreation. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
NFP ACTUALLY IS sinful. Why do you need to be in control of when you need to have kids when that's all in God's Time? @huntsman528
No, it is primarily for procreation. Pleasure is just an incentive. Bonding is to keep the family together.
5:20 This is the equivalent of people who buy cars and drive them maniacally fast while saying “I paid for the whole speedometer, I’m gonna use the whole speedometer!” Sure, you’re going to also abuse the piss out your car in the process and it’s going to fall apart. Furthermore, public roads aren’t racetracks. Drive appropriately in context. Same goes for marital sex.
The marriage bed is undefiled.
I dislike all these apologists that talk about the theology of the body, because they always discuss it in the most effeminate way possible. 3:38, for one.
I would rather became a hermit than have to expose myself like this.
This is a public vid on UA-cam and children may hear...that's why.
Can you address the wesbite Catechism CC by Ronald conte? it pops up as one of the main and only clear websites when searching about these topics online and makes some claims I had not heard elsewhere. It quotes st Alphonsus giving an answer the complete opposite of what's in this video. I don't know what to believe
I would stick with what St. Alphonsus says personally
Conte is just a kook with a website who misinterprets Catholic teaching and writes books on his own authority.
Omg, yes! I trust that CW is knowledgeable about these topics, but to some extent, I think Conte brings up some good points. Trent Horn is solid, but surprisingly, he said in one article that sex toys could be used as long as the end in the final act. CW seems ok with or*l and possibly a*al sex, as well as mutual m*sturbation, but if an act is intrinsically disordered as the Church says, they are “always gravely sinful.” I wish they would address this cause I will always follow what the Church teaches even if it seems hard
Trust the traditional Catholic moral theology on the matter. Don't let yourself be mislead by these modern and liberal ideas.
Maria, you can trust this video. Beware of these people who qualify exactly for the condemnation that Christ gave the Pharisees: in the name of their so-called 'traditional theology' they put burdens on people that the magisterium herself has not. They pray on people who want to resist the liberal and secular insanity, and who want to be holy, and they impose on these people in the name of 'tradition' their own opinion. No saint is the magisterium, and their interpretation of actual magisterial statements (of dramatically various authority) is dubious.
"A HUSBANDS SEED BELONGS. ONE PLACE ONLY"
🕺🏼 "IN THE GARDEN"💃🏼
Silly false claim. Based on what scripture? That fact that it brings life? That cannot be the only logic here. Many reasons it may not enter the “garden”. All of which would be totally loving and acceptable.
@@CharlesHorning Maybe Onan's fate. Genesis 38:9-10
@@CharlesHorningMarriage should be open to life. The only way life can come about is through this act and completion here.
The Church has authority to make decisions on these topics, not everything is within scripture.
@@FreedomEagle1776What do you mean by completion, and sperm isn’t only found in a man’s semen, it’s also found in pre ejaculate fluid (albeit in a smaller number). By this logic every man is wasting his seed when he is sexually aroused
@@CharlesHorningSaint Thomas Aquinas wrote in his Summa Contra Gentiles: "Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. I mean a way in which generation is impossible in itself as is the case in every emission of the semen without the natural union of male and female: wherefore such sins are called 'sins against nature.' But if it is by accident that generation cannot follow from the emission of the semen, the act is not against nature on that account, nor is it sinful; the case of the woman being barren would be a case in point."[10]
You can live without intimacy. At 57 years old, I'm up to 25 years straight without any intimacy of any kind.
I don't recommend it.
I’ll be 50 next month. I’m married and my sex life has been dead since 2013…it’s been dead for 2/3 of the marriage. Zero intimacy. We’re living like roommates.
@@doritoreiss8089I’m sorry to hear that, tackle the root of the problem and fix it. Living like that isn’t fruitful in marriage
Did this happen slowly over time? I don’t think I would have gotten to that point, but as a woman, I certainly don't feel like I “need” intimacy in my marriage in the same way. My perspective changed completely after listening to Cameron Fradd’s “Sex Series” under her Among the Lilies Patreon. Would your spouse be interested in listening to something like that? Or you? It explained some things for me that I have never heard explained about women before. For example, studies show that the longer women go without (a completed marital act) the easier it is to not do it, and the weaker the physical sensation for the woman when she does. So a life of physical intimacy gets physically better for a woman with practice. That’s why a woman who has left it behind can’t be convinced of its efficacy after “just one more shot”. Sorry, this was a longer reply than I intended
Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori both taught that any act of anal or oral sex, even without completion, is a mortal sin. I don't see any reason why a Catholic should engage in such acts. Even though Aquinas and Ligiouri are not infallible, it seems quite risky to deviate from the traditional understanding here. If they are right and you are wrong, you are going to hell. On the other hand, what do you gain if it happens to not be a mortal sin? Very little. Seems quite clear that the risk ratio here means you should never engage in such actions.
I honestly don’t know why you’d want to anyway. It’s just weird and extreme. Sex is nice, but the obsession with making it as pleasurable as possible, to the point of needing to do things that are different/novel, or strange, is obviously disordered.
You could be right but not sure that's exactly how mortal sin works, is it? In the sense it's more it was there opinion it's a mortal sin. It's only binding if the Church declares it right? I could be wrong so I'm merely just questioning.
I struggle that it's not clear and with someone like mortal sin at stake it would be good if the church could actually declare one way or another otherwise you leave scrupulous people in a difficult place.
Oral isn’t the same as anal. Anal is a health risk and obvious misuse of the faculties. Should we not use or hands to touch our partners privates either? This thinking is when things start getting scrupulous.
I seem to be missing something? He doesn't explicitly encourage anal in this clip.
@@fujikokun why add salt and pepper when you don't need flavor to sustain you just food alone? Why have painting be a beautiful color if black and white get the job done? Why have wine at a wedding if the nuptials should be enough?
What a silly statement. “Only in the garden”. I’m sure he states is case in the book. But there a plenty of lovingly appropriate acts of sex that could involve the seed in other places than the garden. And there are reasons, a lot of reasons you may not do that. For example if the garden is closed for some reason. There a various reasons it would be. I’m not talking about the bathroom or what have you but without going into detail there are plenty not reasons.
I need to know the rules so I can get right up to that line
As regards all parts of the body being kissable - yes, I am desensitized but I have major concerns regarding this attitude that I don’t think are considered here. The unsanitary nature of this act is enough for common sense to say this is “filthy”. It’s where we pee from - urine, urinary tract. Bacteria grow here and it’s a risk… Yes bacteria grow in the mouth, so I can just revert back to the aspect that we’re talking about putting our mouths on the urinary tract… Yes, all parts of the body are holy and to be revered, but Christians do not consider this when we think of other persons holy parts being kissed and such by the person we are about the marry as “Oh its ok, I forgive this. After all their parts are holy, they just weren’t used in marriage!” Yeah, that was the bad part…not! In my 47 years I find nothing in our Christian and Catholic faith that really points to all parts of the body being kissable, except for the SS. JPII quote in Love and Responsibility (I believe?!?!?). Mostly, these acts are promoted not just through CORN… but peer pressure and acts outside of marriage. I don’t fault the innocent souls who think that the fundamental sex act is sufficient and that oral acts are repulsive not because the sexual organ is repulsive but because it is common sensically unsanitary. CORN and the culture of death love to revel in this unsanitary aspect, giving it the best reason to call it…dirty…
Your Germ theory is modernist nonsense. Traditionalists only adhere to the Miasma theory.
Which acts are considered marital? Obviously sex should be confined to those who are married. However, when you are courting a woman, is kissing or caressing also going too far?
Not Catholic, but very much a Bible believing Christian. The Catholic answer may differ a bit here. My general understanding is that anything that would be considered "sex" is to be reserved for marriage, including manual pleasure, oral pleasure and intercourse itself. The Bible says to "flee from sexual immorality" (reference not available off the dome). Sex before marriage falls into the category of sexual immorality. One reasonable interpretation suggests that if you are engaging in an act that causes you to contemplate "losing control" and engaging in a sexual act before marriage you should reconsider your future participation in that activity, and ideally stop what you're doing in that moment and take time to cool off. For some couples, the choice to not kiss at all before their wedding day is a reasonable option. I personally can't support that specific view with Scripture, but if that's what your relationship needs to avoid temptation, then that's an available answer.
Pope St John Paul the 2nd has a list of what is acceptable! I remember it says that hugging, and short kisses are okay. Making out is too intimate. Touching in certain places is too intimate
@yramagicman675 Thank you for that well thought out answer.
@alphacause any time!
Ask your priest
So well said
Can someone pls translate in actual words what they are trying to say?
Ejaculate where its possible to induce pregnancy only.
Yes, you can perform oral sex on your husband or your wife, but don't abuse it and don't do it to the point of having the man climax outside of where he's supposed to climax. The point of sex is to unite the couple and to procreate. So just because you're doing oral sex, it isn't inherently bad. Just do it in a respectful way that still honors your spouse, it shouldn't be abusive in nature. It should be giving in nature not taking in nature. You shouldn't be using your spouse's mouth as just a random hole that you're taking control of and using as a tool to get you to climax.
Does that explain it better? If you have more questions, I can answer that too.
Essentially, a man should only ejaculate inside the woman's vagina so that conception may occur. Trying to avoid or disrupt that process is going against God's design for us. The genitals have a specific and unique purpose. Eyes see, heart pumps blood, the stomach digests, and the genitals create new human beings during sex. Sex is not just a way we make new people, but THE single way we make new people. This is why Catholics hold it in such high regard. Hope that makes more sense!
A lot of the vague language has to do with the UA-cam censorship bots.
1. Intimacy does not just equal s3x, it can be other, less unitive forms of physical intimacy (hugs. snuggles, etc) and emotional intimacy.
2. A man should only release himself within a woman and a woman should only release herself within a man. Anything outside of that goes against Church teachings.
(I'm not an expert, so anyone with a better understanding can add on)
I wonder if the first guy was asking how much intimacy is “allowed” when using NFP.
What ?
NFT = Non-Fungible Token
NFP = Non-Fungible Pokin'
Hahaha Natural Family Planning
There is a student at the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception(dominican university in DC) that has written a wonderful rebuke of Christopher West, i know he means well but some of his ideas have been explicitly condemned by the vatican in response to his books
Change your profile picture
@ no
When and where did the Vatican condemn/rebuke Christopher West’s book? I can find that anywhere. I’ve only found that some theologians disagree which is pretty normal for theologians to do
Where is the rebuke?
Nothing you say can be taken seriously with that pfp.
I’d like to know how much is permissible if you’re trying to abstain during fertile window (aka NFP), but still wish to be “intimate”. How far can he be intimate? Does a woman climaxing without the intent for her husband to equate to sin? And if so, is it mortal?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it?
@@Garlicbread62 yes. See if it’s more clear now.
@@annedemarie this is such a great question
@@annedemarie Okay I see what you mean. It’s a very good question. Instead of giving you an answer I’m not confident in, I will have to say I truly don’t know the answer to your question. With that said though, the assumption of NFP is that sexual relations are not happening during the ovulation period. If the man were to achieve orgasm, he needs to finish in the proper manner instead of the withdraw method which is of course contraceptive by nature. That’s something that should be avoided and can be painful for the man if he were to withhold ejaculation. As far as the women achieving orgasm, that doesn’t seem to be problematic unless the encounter basically turned into masterbation albeit with their spouse. It’s good to keep in mind that the end of all sexual encounters is ejaculation into the vagina. If that is purposefully avoided then it becomes a sort of masterbation-like contraception. I hope that is helpful.
@ I see. Not for him to climax no. Just pleasure between the couple who can’t have union. Can you please tell me your background? Are you a theologian?
There are different types of kisses...
So putting it plainly he said oral sex is fine. And I don't think that is ok since it is unhealthy. There are many types of bacteria in that area which is for sure not good if it enters the mouth. Could cause bacterial infection in the mouth.
Actually, the sharing of bacteria strengthens each other's gut biome.
Medically, the idea that poop is "dirty" and "diseased" went the way of the Dodo, and another's poop is being used to restore an unhealthy gut.
As it has been written and taught for ages, ALL sex outside the Holy bonds of Marriage between one man and one woman is an abomination before the Lord God Almighty. ALL sex within the bounds of Marriage is between the tender consent of both partners in the Marriage. Sexual fantasies and repulsion should be agreed upon before nuptials. Remember in Marriage both persons are one flesh in the eyes of God, so, what you want to do to the other or have done by the other, you are wanting done to yourself. I really wish those who abuse their spouses would Remember God is wondering why you would do such harm to yourself.
Sodomy is a sin
This is not a very clear answer.
Thank you both for the amazing work
george pell in the background?
thats pretty wild
@@daviddimovski9595 he’s a cool dude
I've heard fr Rippeger said something about oral sex being forbidden for a Catholic. Many people trust in his advice. Is he wrong? 🤔
@@thepentacostalchatholicconvert hes obviously speaking common sense
Fr. Rippeger is absolutely correct 💯.
Many will tell you "it's a sin" or "it's not a sin". The reality is the Church has no official moral judgment of the act and that's why important moral theologians are found supporting the whole spectrum of opinions in similar proportions. In cases like this, the faithful are free to act accordingly to what their conscience honestly tells them is the correct answer. That's why the Sacred Penitentiary said it's left to the consciences of the spouses to decide whether oral stimulation is or not licit.
So, what most people are doing is trying to impose the conclusion of their conscience to others. I have done my research and forged my own opinion, but even though I'm quite confident of it, it wouldn't be prudent to express it as if it is an official doctrine without letting others know the true state of the question.
Can you link the episode? I love Fr. Ripperger, as he is very traditional.
Oral sex is not the same as oral stimulation, which ends in vaginal penetration. Oral sex in and of itself with climax is sinful because you are essentially contracepting.
The word your looking for is consent
Consent as the end all, be all for morality is dumb and relativistic. (Sorry for using the same word twice at the end there :))
@kenu995 if objective morality can be agreed upon then I don't disagree but I was not trying to anyway
Genuine question here. Why do some catholic married couples decide to make vows of chastity while married (a Josephite marriage)? Like marriage is not difficult enough. It sounds like it's either a view that sex is wrong even in marriage, or that it's some sort of penance or mortification. But it that will hurt your marriage. God doesn't want you to purposefully hurt your marriage. Like a vow of silence would hurt your marriage too. Dont do it. The Church shouldn't encourage it. Yet plenty of married couples who vowed chastity have been canonised.
What is chastity while married? No sex?
@coconutdrums Yes. Some Catholic married couples choose to live in continence, refraining from sexual relations, to deepen their spiritual lives. For example Saint Cecilia and Saint Valerian or Blessed Luigi Quattrocchi and Blessed Maria Corsini.
This is a practice, known as a "Josephite marriage," it is a personal choice and not a requirement but the Church canonised some couples who chose that path.
Being faithful to your partner IS PART OF CHASTITY.
@@atgred I'm not talking about that, obv
@@atgred I'm talking about the Josephite marriages
As a woman, thank you for this response! And let me apologize on behalf of everyone who is boarding on scrupulosity so as to not be able to accept this or who are immature enough to intentionally misinterpret what you are saying.
My thoughts exactly
I feel like we missed the important question of penetration. With regards to stimulation and completion, all seems correct. However, I don't think there are objective limitations only on the completion. There must also be objective limits on the penetration. The just completion is obviously especially ained at procreation, but I also think that the just penetration honours in particular the unitive meaning.
Undoubtedly when one speaks of "oral sex" or "anal sex" one is talking about penetration. Such penetrations are always wrong, I think, independently of the completion.
@@94jpmcc They are. 100% correct. Sodomy is a sin
@@94jpmcc Based on what?
@@christopherneedham9584Sensum fidei or better still common sense I hope. I'm hypothesizing.
The bodily union, it seems to me, must be of the respective female and male organs. Otherwise, I think it's sodomy.
3:40. Bible verse please.... oh wait there is none.
Show me a bible verse where it says there must be a bible verse that says everything that is permissible should be said verbatim in a verse in the bible.
@davidgbemudu
"For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating[c] in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged,[d] if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers[e] and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."
This about sums it up. To you it is a sin, because that has been placed on you. I get that, but in reality, it is not a sin. Now I could see an argument for choosing not to reproduce as being a sin. But using NFP vs a condom is the same thing.
It is a "weak conscience" issue.
@davidgbemudu and the other thing, it isn't even about stating it verbatim, it's that it doesn't that or infer it at all. It's a made up startegety to grow by over producing babies. Mormons use this tactic as do Muslims. It's for geopolitical power, not for God.
First of all, this is a reach. Secondly, NFP and contraceptives are very different. The difference between NFP and contraception is that in NFP, you’re not doing anything to stop or change how your body works naturally. You’re simply paying attention to how God designed our bodies. It’s about working with the natural way your body functions. Contraceptives, on the other hand, are designed to block or stop that natural process. Contraceptives actively interfere with the natural order.
@@huntsman528 Genesis 38:9-10
That was a good answer, Christopher!
It wasn’t, he wasn’t speaking precisely or clearly, just speaking in metaphor
Please stop posting about this stuff and go talk to your priests.
Only correct answer
Yes, thank you! Also sex is not about achieving the maximal amount of pleasure within the act.
How come all these Catholic commentators will lecture you for hours about getting married, having children and shame you for not doing so, and yet never tell you where to find or how to even get somebody? It's counterintuitive.
I wish all educators were as insightful or good. Don't let a few spoil the whole faith.
Try searching "pints with aquinas dating", I found some videos
Except the vast majority of them do have videos on how to find a good spouse. Just take a few seconds to look it up specifically instead of just watching whatever is recommended to you.
Oral sex is never acceptable. It's a grave sin, even in marriage.
Whether you like it or not, oral stimulation (that is, not to the point of male orgasm outside of natural intercourse) is per se morally neutral. That's why as of today, the Sacred Penitentiary, when asked about this by some priests, has said the practice of oral stimulation is left to the deliberation of the spouses' consciences. There's no official doctrine on this topic and that's why various opinions have been coexisting for a while. A Catholic is free to follow what his conscience honestly tells himself about it. If yours tells you is bad, that's fine, but that's only binding for you.
@@chemx1998 I'm really going to need a source on that since the traditional moral theology of the Catholic Church, in her vast number of saints, Doctors of the Church, moral handbooks etc have had the consistent view that it is contrary to the thelogy of the body and morally illicit.
@@chemx1998no it is not. you are a modernist. Saint Thomas and many Saint Alphonsus both say it is an act of sodomy and mortally sinful.
@@csongorarpad4670 I found in "Fundamental marriage counseling, a catholic view point " by John Cavanagh that says," during this period of physical stimulus it should be assured that any act which is acceptable to both spouses is morally permissible, provided the act ends with the deposition of semen inside the vault of the vagina ". It published in 1957, I have 1959 edition. It has imprimatur
@@batemanwave Stop putting words in St. Thomas's writings that he never actually said. Many repeat that Thomas condemns oral stimulation without reaching the point of pollution but that is simply false. Saint Thomas speaks specifically of the sin or vice "against nature" and explains that it is called so because it goes against the natural end of the sexual act (procreation) and that is precisely its malice. Oral stimulation without pollution or imminent danger of pollution does not frustrate the natural purpose of the act.
Furthermore, Saint Thomas divides 4 types of sin against nature in his answer in Summa Theologica, II-II, 154, a.11. (1. Pollution without copulation, 2. Bestiality, 3. Sodomy, 4. Unnatural copulation). Oral stimulation would fall under the fourth category. However, in the following article 12, reply to objection 4, he says:
"Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Gn. 37:2, “He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime,” says that “they copulated with cattle.” After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the “vas” than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances."
So, if the slightest sin among those qualified as "against nature" (pollution without copulation), already implies frustration of generation, It makes no sense to say that Saint Thomas is condemning oral stimulation without pollution in this passage, since objectively this practice does not frustrate the natural end of the act. How could we admit that pollution without copulation is the least of such sins and yet say that oral stimulation is against nature? It makes no sense. It is not surprising that several moral theologians, including Dominicans following the doctrine of Saint Thomas (as Merkelbach), said that incomplete acts (that is, without emission of semen) are not in themselves for or against nature, but rather beyond nature (praeter natura). The moral qualification of whether they are good or bad will be given by how they are used in the act and the circumstances that accompany them. Therefore, following what other moral theologians say (such as Vermeersch, Archbishop Antonio Lanza or his companion, Cardinal Pietro Palazzini), such incomplete acts can be made honest properly ordered towards the purposes of marriage (fostering conjugal love, quieting of concupiscence, better preparing for procreation).
Well, now as for St. Alphonsus: the first thing we must appreciate is that in his work he cites authors for and against such a practice being a mortal sin. Even some authors that he cites, in turn cite others. This is the case of Tomás Sánchez, who himself believes that it is not a mortal sin, but rather an incomplete tact that, between spouses, at most it would be venial. Sánchez in turn cites Navarro (Martín Azpilcueta), who says that such an act is like any other exciting touch between spouses (which, again and as I said about incomplete acts, it leads us to look for its goodness or evil, not in itself, but in the motives and circumstances why it is done). By the way, Sánchez also cites Ovando, who says that it is lawful as preparation for the marital act. What I mean by all this is that this has been a disputed issue for centuries. I am not a modernist in the slightest and the position that oral stimulation is not per se sinful has been around for many centuries, held by respected moralists in the Church.
Furthermore, when interpreting St. Alphonsus, it is crucial to know about his moral system. The mere fact that he cites both sides and leans in favor of one himself indicates that it is his opinion. However, St. Alphonsus's own moral system tells us that we should pay attention to the arguments and not to which theologian says them. Let us do the same with this case. In fact, there were already moralists who did so, such as Antonio Ballerini. Ballerini comments on the passage in which St. Alphonsus thinks that oral stimulation is a mortal sin. St. Alphonsus' arguments are twofold. First, that such an act carries with it the imminent danger of pollution. Second, that it appears (in Latin, "videtur") to be a new kind of lust. The answer to the first argument, not only by Ballerini, but also by many others (Cappello, Berardi, Tanquerey, Regatillo, Génicot, etc.) is that reality proves to us that such an act is not always and not for everyone an proximate danger of pollution, so the first argument does not apply at all to such cases. The second argument, says Ballerini, is not such, but is an impression incapable of being sustained as an argumentative value, hence St. Alphonsus uses "videtur" (it seems). This is also clear from what I said earlier in my commentary on St. Thomas. It is not a new kind of lust because it is an incomplete act that per se does not frustrate any of the ends of the conjugal act.
I hope this has clarified the issue somewhat. St. Thomas did not condemn such a thing and this can be seen in the articles of the Summa Theologica I mentioned (11 and 12). St. Alphonsus does think it is mortal, but he himself presents it as a probability that seems more certain to him, not as something irrefutable. That is why even some of his great admirers have not held this opinion. It is not disrespectful to honestly analyze his arguments, in fact I find it quite the opposite. In fact, even in the documents of the Church where it is said that one can follow the opinions of St. Alphonsus without fear of error, it is also said that this should not be to the detriment of other approved authors by the Church. That is to say, the opinions of Saint Alphonsus are not the only ones that can be followed if they clash with the opinions of also approved authors who say something different.
The Catholic hyper fixation on what sex acts are allowed in the privacy of a married couple’s bedroom is unhealthy to say the least.
I’ll turn it around. GOD’s hyper fixation on the sex act in what is allowed or not is what we have to look for to making the sex act as healthy as possible. Those who love God and want to do His will is what makes us make this valid questions AND claims. The Church is here to make this possible through communicating to the married couple what will take them to a fuller and happier marriage.
@@atgred Yes I understand that but I find that in practice Catholics get too in the weeds about it and end up having an unhealthy relationship with sex which affects their marriage. Unless you’re doing something depraved whatever you are doing with your spouse is fine, we don’t need to fixate on it.
@@patriciag6030The fixation comes because married couples have real concerns about it. I know my wife and I have had this questions and have looked into what the Church wants to teach us. But on the contrary, we have come out more knowledgeable of what God wants from us. And we sure enjoy ourselves more knowing very well what God wants.
@@atgred I’m glad that you and your wife have found happiness in your sex life. I also believe that many young couples would find more happiness in being left to follow the sexual urges of their bodies that God has gifted us to find what works for them privately instead of obsessing over what is allowed and not allowed. If you love and respect your spouse and you both love God, the sex will be loving and beautiful and will come naturally to you both.
Its based on their overly abstract theory of “ethics” where its arbitrary rules derived from what they think things were “meant for”. Of course this is not real, pragmatic ethics based in the real world, concerning itself with how things harm or help people.
What a silly statement. “Only in the garden”. I’m sure he states his case in the book. But there are plenty of lovingly appropriate acts of sex that could involve the seed other than in the garden. And there are reasons, a lot of reasons you may not do that. For example if the garden is closed for some reason. There a various reasons it would be. I’m not talking about the bathroom or what have you but without going into detail there are plenty not reasons.
Okay, basic scenario; you are in the shower with your wife. You are having sex using only your hands. There is no reason to expect this to go in the garden. Unless you are saying there is some kind of abstinence that must happen outside of vaginal intercourse.
Song of Solomon would say otherwise. Btw. Or at least seem to imply that.
If you're only using your hands it isn't sex, any more than sodomy is.
What the hell is having sex using only your hands ? you actually mean masturbation which is forbidden.
If you're not Catholic, that's one thing, but if you are, you don't get to call catholic moral teachings "silly", it's your obligation to obey.
That's not sex dude. You can do it for foreplay, but your seed is for cooperating with God in the creation a new, immortal human soul and body, which can't be done on your shower floor.
Please read what the Church teaches about sex. It is gravely sinful for a man to deliberately ejaculate anywhere else than inside the vagina of his wife.
You are unwittingly promoting mortal sin. Please, I beg you to read what the Church teaches
I'll tell you what: none of these guys business
In an actual pragmatic ethical framework based in the real world, yes… but they’re clearly not going off of that lol. They just have these rules for the sake of rules essentially
St. Alphonsus Liguori and ALL of the traditional moral theologians forbid oral sex. Just an FYI. God bless~
Which other traditional moral theologians?
@@mrscharmlessSaint Thomas Aquinas
@@batemanwave Yes, I know both of them, but I’m wondering which other ones. He/she said all traditional moral theologians but as far as I can tell, it’s mainly those two.
The only limit is scandal with regards to children or others. This is why privacy is necessary - e.g. one's own house.
Scandal isn't the only limit. It isn't okay to do anything sexually just because children aren't exposed. Sex should always be open to life and bond the spouses in love
@nicholasm2469 Murder is never acceptable and neither is contraception, but I am presupposing morality.
And eventually, the woman will become barren and thus only one of those things will apply (to unite in love).
I promise that I'm not trying to be "that guy", but why does your guest say "the catechism says", instead of "the Bible says"?
Because the Bible doesn’t go in detail on sexual ethics. Can you find a passage in Scripture which lays out a whole Christian sexual ethic?
Short answer, because he's Catholic (we go by the teachings handed down by the Church that Christ founded, not by the protestant ethic of Sola Scriptura, this is just what we believe and you're free to believe differently).
@Seanain_O_hEarchai So the Catholic Catechism is the Talmud of the 21st century?
It has to do with the catholic understanding of the Bible in that the Bible wasn't written to clearly display every thing there is to know but to lay the foundation of the law of grace and the Redemption. Old testament is about prefigurement and New is about fulfillment. Everything else the bible simply generalized events and morality in human history according to the catholic understanding. All things are not explicit but are said to be at least implied in some way.
The Bible is "These are the words that were said/written", the Catechism is "this is what all of that means and how they apply to the Church."
I'm retired at 47, went from Grass to Grace. This video here reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, honest wife, $75k biweekly and a good daughter full of love ❤️
I'm highly inspired.
Please spill some sugar about the bi-weekly stuff you mentioned.
All thanks to Anna Kathleen Sanford
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
Whoa 😲 I know her too!
Miss Anna Kathleen Sanford is an incredible person who has brought immense inspiration and positivity into my life.
Without a doubt! I'd hear of people who started with little experience and still got to remarkable heights, all because of Anna Kathleen Sanford's guidance.
A wife can divorce her husband at any time - and take his house, money, children. If the husband objects, he goes to prison. Jesus would not have recognized such an arrangement to be marriage.
This is a fault with our legal system. The Church and the state have different definitions and rules for marriage. According to the Church, and scripture of course, two men or two women can never be married. It's not because it is forbidden, it is simply not what marriage is. Likewise, marriage is not soluble by divorce except by which God allows.
So what exactly is the solution here? In my opinion, a spouse that pursues a legal divorce contrary to the teaching of the church, cannot remain in good standing with the church. Separation or reconciliation are viable options, divorce is not.
@moustacheman7130 That is true, but Catholic marriages are within modern civil law, and so not marriages at all. Wife can disobey and divorce - and destroy the man - meaning he is concubine, not husband.
@@fantasia55 Unsure whatyou're objecting to? Some women are sinners, is that the comment/objection?
The sacrament of marriage can be abused, just like all the sacraments can be abused.
Just because a civil divorce has occurred, a Church marriage remains inviolable unless an annulment can be determined.
Without an annulment, neither spouse is permitted to remarry or fornicate. These are mortal sins.
@@moustacheman7130 I would change the legal system personally.
Catholic marriage doesn’t permit divorce though right?
I don’t personally believe in divorce myself and only believe in separation if there is abuse or infidelity. I think Catholic women should get in the habit of sighing prenups (even if they aren’t bulletproof) just to show we are taking it 100% seriously.
I do also want to add divorce is often a process that can take years and the reason women are given 50% is due to women originally being stay at home mothers. With little to no work experience it can be very difficult for a stay at home mom to ever recover financially. I do understand that’s not the case in today’s courts and should be changed.
See, this gives Protestants more ammo.
Only in the same way that any other affirmation of church teaching does.
Catholics are not puritans, we do not believe the human body is inherently evil. Sex and pleasure are not evil either, but they can be misused in lustful ways. But it is only the lust that is evil. The lust is evil because it abuses and disorders things that are gifts from God. Puritan protestant standards would have us throwing out the baby with the bathwater
John Piper teaches the same thing
Read Aquinas
Fire away.
@@spidernymph8964 Okay. I like that reply.