Exploring What is Licit
Question
Fr. Blaise Berg’s answer on Dec. 12 in “Reconsidering our Sexual Practices in Light of JPII” was valuable but not, by itself, sufficient.
The questioner clearly makes a claim, and repeats it, that in a woman who is multiply-orgasmic, a first orgasm does not always completely satisfy the sexual impulse. I have found this to be so also: an orgasm achieved principally through clitoral stimulation is both less intense and less complete. Therefore, there is a basic claim here that defies the supposed standard that “By involving orgasm, that behavior constitutes a sexual act complete in itself, yet one that cannot unite the couple in one flesh”; since it does NOT provide complete sexual satisfaction, there remains a further urge to continue on. Hence, the conclusion offered under that standard, that a wife’s orgasm achieved separate from an immediate act of intercourse violates morality because it separates completion of sexual pleasure from union, simply fails – it does not follow logically because the supposed completion is not there.
Furthermore, the supposition that “By involving orgasm, that behavior constitutes a sexual act complete in itself” is stated but not supported. If this claim comes from the Bible, where? If it comes from experience, well, my experience and the above questioner seems to reject that experience supports it definitively. If it comes from philosophy, that seems most difficult to establish clearly. Here is why: based on JPII’s theology of the body, marriage (and the marriage bed) has a fundamental purpose which is seen by us as two-fold: union of the spouses, and begetting of children. If that is its proper end, then strictly speaking the act cannot be said to have completion without vaginal penetration with the male’s orgasm/ejaculation, since no physical union occurs and no begetting is possible without that. Therefore, everything that is done prior to that is technically incomplete, including (if that be the case) the wife’s orgasm. It may constitute a kind of completion of another sort, but it is not a formally complete marital sexual act.
If you want to suggest that it is a completed act on other grounds (and therefore a completed act in violation of the ends of sexuality), you then get into the problem that whatever grounds you suggest, the same basis will make ALL acts of sexual stimulation remote from intercourse completed separate from intercourse, and therefore immoral. Though, of course, this is opposed to what has been held by most teachers, who allow for sexual stimulation remote from intercourse.
Second problem: The last paragraph of Fr. Berg’s answer is simply opaque. It would appear, by what he is suggesting, that whatever is done which exceeds the bare minimum of pleasure necessary to achieve orgasm for both is done “solely for pleasure” and therefore immoral. I believe that such a standard is both totally impractical and not intended at all by you teachers. Question: in what sense does Fr. Berg take the situation so that he can comment by saying “the main intention of your spouse is merely to increase her and your pleasure?” I think that his implication is ridiculous. It looks like he would have it that not only must your foundational intention for the overall act to be mainly “for the spouse (and marital union) and for the children,” but also the immediate intention for each component part of the act as well. But that is impossible. You intend intermediate means because they lead either more readily, or more surely, or more completely, to the intended goal eventually, not because every intermediate step have the final goal as the immediate objective.
Fr. Berg must take into account that part of the end of union is emotional union, and that this proceeds at least in part from a response of gratefulness and delight at the willed and acted on effort by my spouse to PLEASE me. That is, pleasure is itself at the service of the giving of love. Therefore, a component part of the act whose main immediate result is simply an increase in pleasure adds to the rightful overall goal intended from the first – union. And since nothing in this furthering of pleasure impedes the end of children, it would seem licit.
Answer
Last Updated: July 24, 2013
Dear Tony,
We are fortunate at CANFP to have an excellent group of clergy on our executive and advisory board, to rely on for spiritual advice. They are quite educated and pastorally experienced on topics of this nature. They have generously responded to a series of questions on what is moral behavior in a marital sexual relationship, while at the same time exercising restraint on such an explicit topic, since it would be posted on the internet. Each has expressed a preference for discussing this issue on a personal, case by case basis, as it is more involved than providing a laundry list of what is and is not licit in a marriage relationship. Nonetheless, they have provided some guidelines to assist us all growing in our understanding of God’s design for married love. Further direction might best be pursued in individual spiritual direction with a trusted clergy.
You mention that the clergy advice posted on our site seems inconsistent with what teachers of NFP are saying. So, as a teacher of NFP, I have chosen to respond to your question from a teacher’s perspective, and have asked one of our clergy to respond (below) from his perspective.
As a teacher of NFP, I teach that the underlying principle is that the sexual act is both unitive and procreative. In general, mutually pleasing acts which are part of a normal act of intercourse are permissible. Orgasm, male or female, is a component of sexual intercourse. It is inappropriate to seek orgasm apart from the act of intercourse.
It might help to put this behavior in a different context. Would you consider stimulation to orgasm appropriate activity for your teen daughter and her boyfriend? I would assume not. Why? Well, in the classes I teach adolescents, and in my own parenting, I explain that arousal activity is meant to prepare couples for intercourse, and if the intention is to abstain from intercourse, then logically one would also abstain from the acts which prepare for it.
In teaching NFP, this discussion is usually in the context of appropriate behavior during the fertile time, when the intention is to avoid a pregnancy. It is the habit of some couples to pursue all the physical pleasures of intercourse, avoiding only the act of intercourse. The couple may not “technically” be having intercourse, but like the “technical virgin” do everything but. As a teacher, I would not advise this for both practical and philosophical reasons. On a practical level, it is advisable to avoid all types of genital contact, including hand to genital contact, if it is one’s intention to avoid a pregnancy. Philosophically, it is a distortion of the meaning of the sexual act in marriage. The couple is stuck in the pursuit of the physical genital pleasure, and seeing sexuality only in its genital expression.
Analogies are dangerous, as the comparison is never adequate, but for whatever insight it provides, consider this. I have no doubt, if left to my own inclinations, I would exist on a diet of chocolate alone. Unchallenged, it is my natural tendency, or at least, a habit I easily fall into. I take great pleasure in it, and offered a green salad or a truffle, the choice is obvious, if I consider only what immediate pleasure and satisfaction I will derive from it. But having indulged the preference on more occasions then I care to admit, I know it is not a healthy appetite. I could mitigate one of the undesired effects, weight gain, by continuing to partake in my coveted truffles, savoring their every pleasure, but then spitting them out instead of swallowing. Of course not only would this not be very effective at avoiding the unwanted calories, it would be an incomplete pleasure, in the least, and, frankly, disordered. What true lover of truffles would enjoy one this way? Another way to address the problem is to discipline myself to develop a healthy appetite, benefiting from a diet rich in many foods. My body, mind, and spirit would flourish. And, the truffles, when enjoyed, would be appreciated in their unadulterated splendor!
Embracing a fuller, deeper understanding of sexuality, frees us from a narrow focus on genital pleasure, as we come to see the multidimensional nature of our sexuality, and the many ways we have to express it. We are released to give freely and completely to each other in the act of intercourse, when appropriate, without distraction of scrupulous concerns if this or that behavior is legitimate, or debasing it with contraception. When not intending intercourse, freed from the narrow focus on genital expression, we unleash the many other dimensions of our sexuality. This enables us to take pleasure in all our sexual senses, delighting in gifting ourselves to our spouse in affectionate, tender expressions of our love. To do so, we must distinguish between arousal touch and affirming, or affectionate touch. By reserving arousal touch for when appropriate in intercourse, we are forced, if you will, to exercise our other, too oft underused, sexual muscles. We stretch ourselves to express our love and affection in affirming ways, using all our sexual senses—physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual. This is one of the true benefits of periodic abstinence, that it compels us to challenge ourselves to be generous and creative in our attention and affection, employing other methods of intimacy and union that are not genital. Examples can include cuddling, kissing, affirming touch (as opposed to arousing touch)—a good back rub comes to mind—cuddling on the couch watching a movie, falling asleep in each others arms, stroking our beloved’s hair or face, long walks and talks, enjoying things of beauty together, such as music or a sunset, and intimate sharing of thoughts and feelings.
We often have been conditioned to express our sexuality very one dimensionally. Retraining our sexual “appetite” to be multi-dimensional begins with re-orienting how we view it, and may require discipline, and practice. It can be a struggle to change established patterns of thinking and behavior, but a struggle that will yield many benefits, not least among them a spouse who feels treasured and appreciated on all levels.
Now if you will excuse me, I think there is a truffle with my name on it left over from Santa’s recent visit…..
Sheila St. John
CLERGY RESPONSE:
Dear Tony:
I believe the confusion here is that the word “complete” is being used in two different senses. In terms of the morality of actions, an action is “complete” when it is fulfills its intended purpose. Intercourse is “complete” when it takes place in the context of mutually self-giving married love respecting the inseparable two-fold purpose of unity in love and openness to life. Orgasm by its nature and purpose is designed by the Creator to take place in the context of intercourse and its two-fold purpose.
This is quite different from “completely satisfying the sexual impulse.” Sexual addicts, for example, may repeatedly seek the pleasure of orgasm in any possible context or manner, but any sense of “complete satisfaction” is so temporary as to be followed soon by a desire to repeat that sensation. Our will should govern our impulses and see that they are satisfied in accord with what reason and faith tell us to be in accord with their wholesome purpose. Since our human nature is tainted by original sin, our impulses can also be subject to lust and selfishness. In trusting and humble submission to our God, our consciences must discern when this is so and obediently reject any disordered satisfaction of these impulses. This may be difficult to achieve due to contrary habits, weakness of will, or simply being accustomed to society’s contrary mentality that pleasure exists as an end in itself and that impulses exist solely to be completely satisfied.
You might quarrel with Father’s phrasing, but it’s intent is clear, as described above. The grounding for this comes from Scripture and from the Natural Law, as the Church has reflected upon these during the centuries, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised it by Jesus. It can be found summarized in The Catechism of the Catholic Church articles 2331-2400 and 1601-1666, with all their accompanying footnotes referring to Scripture and official Church teachings.
Truly “Natural” Family Planning is in accord with God’s plan and purpose written into nature. Of course, it is possible for NFP teachers to simply teach the avoidance of pregnancy without using chemicals or barriers, but without clearly transmitting the underlying values. It is possible for couples to abandon contraception, but still retain a contraceptive mentality. This is the case if stimulation to orgasm is part of a couple’s behavior during the fertile time. Such is not truly “natural” since it is performing an action created for the unity of the couple through intercourse and for openness to life, while excluding both of these goals.
Acts of affectionate expression that do not lead to intercourse or orgasm are not immoral. There is nothing disordered about them. They are perfectly in accord with the marital commitment for husband and wife to share their entire lives with each other. During times of abstinence, couples learn to what level of physical stimulation they may express affection and love without leading to orgasm, and what stimulation they must avoid.
I hope this clarifies the issue some and explains a little better why we say that stimulation to orgasm apart from intercourse is not “natural” or moral. We are very well aware that these issues are not easily grasped and appropriated in our times, but we believe the problem is not with our principles, but with society’s mistaken mentality that is bringing about so many moral ills as a result of rejecting this fundamental foundation. In such a society consciences must be formed with effort, in prayer, Christian study and reflection, spiritual direction, and at the foot of the cross. Even then, individual couples may have a long-term struggle at achieving mutual self-mastery and living according to the dictates of a well-formed conscience. The experience of growth through these efforts, however, will far outweigh the sacrifices, as they eventually experience greater closeness to God and to each other, and a greater personal freedom and peace of soul.
In Christ,
Fr. Larry Toschi, O.S.J.
Pastor, St. Joachim’s Church, Madera, CA
Answered By:
