A. Basic Moral Principles
The holy Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex outside of marriage is always gravely immoral. It is always a serious sin against God to have sex of any kind outside of marriage. However, some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.
To understand this point, we must review some of the basic principles of Catholic moral theology:
1. Certain kinds of acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.
An intrinsically disordered act is immoral because the act itself is fundamentally opposed to the goodness of God and of His will for us. Such acts can never be justified, even in exceptional circumstances, even with good intentions, even for a good purpose, because they are, in and of themselves, contrary to the goodness of God and contrary to the goodness of human persons, who are created in God's image.
Examples of intrinsically disordered acts include: lying, rape, murder, stealing, and blasphemy.
If you know that it is a lie, then you know that it is wrong. Once you know that it is a lie, you do not need know the circumstances of the lie, or the intention, or the end result; you know enough to be certain that it is wrong, simply because it is a lie. Lying is still wrong, even if it is done in order to make a more important truth known. Lying is still wrong, even if it is preceded by, combined with, or followed by several important true statements.
If you know that it is stealing, then you know that it is wrong. Once you know that it is stealing, you do not need to know the circumstances of the theft, or the intention, or the end result; you know enough to be certain that it is wrong, simply because it is theft. Stealing is still wrong, even if it is done in order to accomplish a greater good. Stealing is still wrong, even if it is preceded by, combined with, or followed by other virtuous acts.
Murder is always wrong:
“Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral…. The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end.” (Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57).
Therefore, certain kinds of acts are intrinsically disordered and always immoral, regardless of the circumstances, intention, or purpose.
2. Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.
Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.
These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
If you know that it is an unnatural sexual act, then you know that it is wrong. You do not need know the circumstances, or the intention, or the end result. You can be certain that it is wrong simply because it is an unnatural sexual act. Unnatural sexual acts are always wrong, even if done with a good intention or purpose. Each and every unnatural sexual act is always objectively gravely immoral, even if it is preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital sexual relations. These acts are immoral, even if such acts are between a man and a woman who are married to each another. Always means always. There are no exceptions.
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2352)
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.
3. Each sexual act must be considered individually and separately, and must be natural, marital, and open to life.
Unnatural sexual acts are immoral, not only because they are contrary to the natural law, but also because they are not open to life. Now in judging the morality of any sexual act, each act must be considered individually and separately. Some ethicists have tried to undermine or contradict the definitive teaching of the Church (that contraception is always immoral) by combining an act that is open to life with other sexual acts that are not open to life. But the Church has rejected such formulations, instead requiring each act to be evaluated on its own.
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Certainly, then, not only the openness to life of each act, but also the requirements that it be natural and marital, must be applied to each sexual act individually and separately. One cannot consider acts in combination, nor consider multiple acts as a set, when evaluating the morality of each act. Nor can one claim that more than one sexual act is to be considered a single act because sexual climax occurs only after the other sexual act or acts.
One cannot combine the crime of bank robbery with the good deed of giving alms to the poor in order to justify the former by the latter. Similarly, one cannot combine an act that is unnatural or non-marital or not open to life, with an act that is natural, marital, and open to life, in order to justify the former by the latter.
This basic principle of Catholic moral theology, that each act is to be judged individually as to its morality, holds true in every area of moral judgment, including sexuality. And yet many Catholic teachers, upholding this principle in other areas of morality, have nevertheless ignored and contradicted this principle when examining the morality of sexual acts within marriage. This deviation from the principles applied to every other area of morality is most likely due to the excessive influence of sinful secular society, which promotes unrestrained sexuality to the point of idolatry.
B. Common Heretical Teachings
Some theologians, priests, and lay leaders have claimed that unnatural sexual acts are moral in certain circumstances. This claim, in all of its various forms, is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. The Church has definitively taught that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose, and that each individual marital act must be open to life.
Let's examine some of these heretical claims.
1. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be used as foreplay or stimulation, as long as this is combined with, followed by, or completed with an act of natural marital relations.
This claim is false and heretical because it violates the teaching that each and every sexual act must be open to life. Unnatural sexual acts are not open to life (because they are not genital-to-genital intercourse). Thus it violates the principle that each act must be considered individually and separately as to its morality. Combining an intrinsically immoral act with an act that is moral does not make the immoral act good. This claim contradicts the principle that an intrinsically disordered act is always immoral, regardless of circumstance, intention, or purpose. The circumstance of following or combining an unnatural sexual act with a natural marital act does not change the fact that each and every intrinsically disordered act is always immoral.
The kinds of unnatural sexual acts which are disingenuously called 'foreplay' include oral sex, anal sex, and manual sex. These are sometimes referred to euphemistically as oral stimulation, anal stimulation, and manual stimulation. Their idea is that one stimulates the genitals of one's spouse, and then follows that act by an act of natural intercourse. They try to justify the former by the latter, by presenting them as if they were one act.
To the contrary, natural marital relations is genital-to-genital and open to life, whereas unnatural sexual acts are not genital-to-genital and not open to life, therefore these two are clearly not one act. Two acts, one of which is closed to life and the other of which is open to life cannot be considered as if they were one act. Also unnatural sexual acts are always gravely immoral, regardless of circumstance. The circumstance of following an immoral act with a moral act does not justify the former.
Furthermore, an immoral act which is partially completed is still immoral. Even if stimulation by an unnatural act is not completed with sexual climax, or is followed by climax within natural marital relations, the former unnatural act is still immoral because it is intrinsically disordered; it cannot be justified by being partial, nor by being combined with another act.
2. The claim that unnatural sexual acts (such as manual or oral stimulation) can be performed on the woman after natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax.
Here again, the attempt to claim that the two sexual acts are one act is not tenable. Moreover, in this case, the so-called stimulation is intended to result in sexual climax outside of natural marital relations. This act is clearly an act of unnatural sex. All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil. Unnatural sexual acts cannot be justified by a prior, subsequent, or concomitant act of natural marital relations, regardless of whether the sexual climax of the man or of the woman occurs before, during, or after natural marital relations.
3. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be performed on the woman before natural marital relations in order to bring her to climax prior to natural marital relations.
Again, the two sexual acts are clearly separate. The woman is intentionally brought to sexual climax by an unnatural sexual act. The fact that an act of natural marital relations occurs next does not make the former act moral because intrinsically immoral acts can never be justified.
Consider, as an example, what would happen if the former act were followed by an interruption, so that an act of natural marital relations did not occur afterward. The former act is no different in its nature, yet it is rightly condemned when it is solitary. And the condemned act is intrinsically evil. Therefore, the combining of an immoral act, which is certainly intrinsically immoral by itself, with an act that is moral, does not change the immorality of the former act.
4. The claim that only the man's climax is inherently related to procreation, so that the woman's climax can be achieved outside of natural marital relations without sin.
The idea that only the male climax is relevant to procreation is both false and irrelevant. For the Church teaches that “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11). Any act of bringing the woman to sexual climax outside of natural intercourse is a sexual act that is not open to life. Also, since this is accomplished with an unnatural sexual act and such acts are always gravely immoral, regardless of circumstance or intention, the act cannot be justified. Moreover, the woman's climax is not unrelated to procreation, since God created the human body so that a husband and wife would be able to share enjoyment while procreating.
Each of the above four claims are false and heretical.
C. Questions and Answers
1. Which kinds of sexual relations are allowed within marriage?
The only moral kind of sexual relations is natural marital intercourse open to life. The teaching of the Catholic Church permits no other type of sexual act, except natural (genital-to-genital) intercourse, which is open to life, which does not include any unnatural sexual acts, and which is within marriage. Sexual relations within marriage are a part of the Sacrament of Marriage, are even necessary to its validity, and therefore unnatural sexual acts within a Christian marriage are offenses against the Sacrament as well as offenses against the natural moral law. Do you really think that Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary would approve of unnatural sexual acts within the Sacrament of Marriage? Certainly not.
2. Is genital stimulation permissible before or after natural intercourse?
No. Stimulation of the genitals by any means other than natural marital intercourse is immoral. Stimulation of the genitals orally, anally, manually, or with objects or devices is immoral, even if such an act precedes, prepares for, accompanies, or follows an act of natural marital intercourse open to life.
3. Is producing sexual climax in one's wife permissible before or after natural intercourse?
No. Producing a sexual climax in the husband or wife, by any means other than acts of natural marital intercourse open to life, is immoral.
4. Is it true that sexual acts within marriage are moral as long as it is mutually agreeable to both partners?
No. The Church teaches that certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, even within marriage, even if both the husband and wife are comfortable with, and agreeable to, the acts.
5. Are unnatural sexual acts, such as oral, anal, or manual stimulation, permissible so long as the activity is within the overall context of an act of marital relations?
No. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to its morality. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral, and are inherently not open to life. One cannot group together and justify a series of sexual acts, even if some of these acts are only partial and are completed with sexual climax in an act of natural marital relations. Such immoral acts are not justified by being combined with one or more acts of natural marital relations.
6. Can the sin of an unnatural sexual act, or of a non-marital sexual act, or of a sexual act not open to life, ever be an objective venial sin, rather than an objective mortal sin?
No. Sexual acts are always a serious matter, so that the sin of an immoral sexual act is always objectively grave. An individual who is unaware of which acts are immoral might not be guilty of an actual mortal sin, but the sin is always an objectively serious sin.
“Now according to Christian tradition and the Church's teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.” (Persona Humana, X).
7. Since the wife's sexual climax is not specifically directed to the generation of life, may she climax before, during, or after intercourse, so long as the climax can be considered to be part of an act of marital relations?
The sexual climax of both husband and wife are each inherently and directly related to procreation (the generation of new life). The wife's climax is not morally separate from natural marital relations. She may achieve sexual climax due to natural marital relations only. She may not achieve, nor attempt to achieve, sexual climax through any unnatural sexual act, neither before, during, or after natural marital relations.
8. Is oral, anal, or manual stimulation permissible as an act of foreplay, if it is completed with sexual climax during an act of natural marital relations open to life?
No. Each sexual act must be considered separately as to its morality. These sexual acts are unnatural, and not open to life, and intrinsically disordered, therefore they can never be justified, even if they are not completed with sexual climax, or even if they are completed with sexual climax during natural marital relations, regardless of whether they precede, coincide with, or follow an act of natural marital relations open to life.
If an act is intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral when completed by itself, then it must still be intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral even when it is only partial or is combined with an act which is moral. The morality of the latter act does not change the morality of the former act. This applies regardless of whether the acts concern sexuality or some other area of morality.
You have heard the expression:
Two wrongs don't make a right. But I tell you that half an evil deed does not make for a good deed, not even if you combine that half an evil deed with something good. When an act is intrinsically evil, it cannot become moral by being only done partially, nor can it become moral by combining that act, partial or whole, with an act which is good.
Using unnatural sexual acts as foreplay prior to natural marital relations is sinful and offensive to God because natural marital relations is a part of the holy Sacrament of Marriage, whereas unnatural acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. One can never do evil that good may come from it. Nor can one do evil partially, as if this would be in the service of good.
9. Which acts are permissible between a husband and wife as foreplay preceding natural marital relations?
Expressions of physical affection (such as kissing, hugging, caressing), even if intended to arouse, are permissible between husband and wife as acts of foreplay preceding natural marital relations, only if such acts do not involve unnatural sexual acts (oral sex or stimulation, anal sex or stimulation, manual sex or stimulation, use of objects or devices for sex or stimulation). Unnatural sexual acts are never justified, even if used only to stimulate or to arouse prior to natural marital relations.
10. Do the teachings of Pope John Paul II, in his lecture series called the Theology of the Body, permit unnatural sexual acts as foreplay or as a component of natural marital relations?
No. There are no such statements or teachings in that lecture series, nor in any other talk or writings by Pope John Paul II, neither in his role as Pope, nor in any expressions of his personal theological opinions. Some misguided theologians and lay teachers have been using that lecture series as an excuse for their own false teachings, just as some persons have been using the documents of Vatican II as an excuse for certain false teachings which are actually nowhere to be found within the documents of Vatican II.
11. Why do so many theologians, priests, and lay teachers say that unnatural sexual acts are moral as foreplay or are moral if combined with natural marital relations?
They have been influenced in this faulty understanding by sinful secular society, which lacks insight on sexual moral values. The claim that unnatural sexual acts are not intrinsically evil is a heresy against the Catholic faith. The claim that unnatural sexual acts can be justified as foreplay or by being combined with a prior, concomitant, or subsequent act of natural marital relations is a heresy against the Catholic faith. The claim that the morality of sexual acts can be considered as a group, so that an act which would be immoral by itself becomes moral by combination with other acts, is a heresy against the Catholic faith. Any theologian, priest, or lay leader who publicly teaches these false claims is a notorious heretic. Any individual Catholic who believes such a teaching is a heretic also.
12. Is this teaching on sexual sins within marriage the definitive teaching of the Church, or is it merely a theological opinion?
It is the definitive teaching of the Church.
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)
Unnatural sexual acts are contrary to the precepts of the natural law. Unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically not open to life. Each and every sexual act must be natural, marital, and open to life.
“The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.”
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Whenever the Church has always taught that something is intrinsically evil, such a teaching on morals necessarily falls under the infallible universal Magisterium. Any idea which contradicts or nullifies an infallible teaching on faith or morals is an heretical idea. The faithful are required to believe and follow all teachings that are definitive and irreformable. Unnatural sexual acts are inherently unfruitful. Since each and every sexual (marital) act must be moral on its own merits, an unnatural sexual act cannot be said to be fruitful by combination with an act of natural marital relations which is open to life.
“…the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty…. All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship.” (Persona Humana, IX)
Unnatural sexual acts are outside of normal conjugal relations. Such acts are non-procreative and so they contradict the finality of the marital act. Unnatural sexual acts are a deliberate exercise of sexuality, even if the sexual climax itself occurs within natural marital relations. Such acts outside of normal conjugal relations are intrinsically evil and therefore cannot be justified in any way, under any circumstances.
“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the 'creativity' of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 67)
There is no legitimate exception or justification for any act that is intrinsically evil. One cannot justify an intrinsically evil act by saying that it is completed with a moral act. Unnatural sexual acts are contrary to “the precepts of the natural law.” One cannot justify unnatural sexual acts by saying that these are combined with a moral act of natural marital relation, nor by saying that the unnatural sexual act is mere foreplay completed by a moral act of natural marital relation. For each and every marital act must be natural and open to life; sexual acts cannot be grouped together in order to justify an act which by itself is intrinsically evil. Concerning intrinsically evil acts, “the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.” All married couples must refrain, at all times and in every circumstance, from every kind of unnatural sexual act.
“With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: 'Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) - in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man' ” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 80; quoting Humanae Vitae, n. 14)
Although the above quote specifically mentions contraceptive practices, all unnatural sexual acts are included in the phrase “intrinsically evil acts” and all such unnatural acts are certainly not open to life. One may never do evil, including unnatural sexual acts within marriage, because such acts by their very nature contradict the moral order.
“If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain 'irremediably' evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person. 'As for acts which are themselves sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Saint Augustine writes, like theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?'. Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act 'subjectively' good or defensible as a choice.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 81)
The circumstance of completing an unnatural sexual act with an act of natural marital relations does not justify the former act, for the former act is intrinsically evil. The intention to be charitable and loving to one's spouse does not justify achieving sexual climax by any means other than an act of natural marital relations.
“The relationship between faith and morality shines forth with all its brilliance in the unconditional respect due to the insistent demands of the personal dignity of every man, demands protected by those moral norms which prohibit without exception actions which are intrinsically evil.” (Veritatis Splendor, n. 90)
Pope John Paul II's lecture series on the Theology of the Body is sometimes used in an attempt to justify unnatural sexual acts in certain circumstances or by means of certain exceptions. But the above quotes from an Encyclical Letter by the same Pope are clear and authoritative. Also, the lecture series never stated that unnatural sexual acts could be used morally within marriage in any context; rather, that false idea is a misinterpretation of the Pope's words in his lecture series. As stated repeatedly by the same Pope in Veritatis Splendor, there are no exceptions, circumstances, or intentions which can make any intrinsically evil act moral, and this includes sexual acts which are inherently not open to life.
13. Does the Sacrament of Marriage make all sexual acts within marriage permissible?
Certainly not. Saint Augustine of Hippo, in his moral treatise 'On the Good of Marriage,' writes on the subject of sexual intercourse within marriage:
“…nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men…. by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 11).
The expression 'that use which is against nature' refers to unnatural sexual acts, such as oral sex, anal sex, or manual sex. Saint Augustine condemns such acts unequivocally. He even states that such unnatural sexual acts are even more damnable (i.e. even more serious mortal sins) when these take place within marriage. For God is even more offended by a sexual mortal sin that takes place within the Sacrament of Marriage, since this offense is not only against nature, but also against a Holy Sacrament. “So then, of all to whom much has been given, much will be required. And of those to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be asked.” (Lk 12:48).
“For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife…. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” (Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, section 12).
In this passage, Saint Augustine first compares natural sexual relations within marriage, done out of impure desires, to the same natural sexual acts outside of marriage. He teaches that having natural sexual relations within marriage, when done to satisfy a somewhat impure desire, is pardonable, i.e. a venial sin, but that natural sexual relations outside of marriage is damnable, i.e. a mortal sin. Then Saint Augustine goes on to consider 'that which is against nature,' i.e. unnatural sexual acts. He condemns such unnatural sexual acts as 'execrable' (utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent). Therefore these acts are among the worst of the sexual mortal sins. He also teaches that unnatural sexual acts within marriage, far from being permitted because they take place within marriage, are even worse, calling them 'even more execrable,' than the same unnatural sexual acts outside of marriage. Again, this is because the sin is not only against nature, but against a Holy Sacrament instituted by Christ himself for the sake of our salvation.
Therefore, unnatural sexual acts do not become permissible when these take place within marriage. Instead, unnatural sexual acts are made even more sinful when these take place within marriage because they offend against both nature and a Sacrament.
D. Summary of Definitive Catholic Teaching
1. Any and all unnatural sexual acts, even if used as foreplay or as stimulation with the sexual act completed in natural marital relations, or even if used after natural marital relations to bring the woman to climax, or even if preceded by, combined with, or followed by an act of natural marital relations, are nevertheless intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
2. Any and all natural sexual acts outside of marriage are intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
3. Any and all sexual acts, whether natural or unnatural, whether within marriage or outside of marriage, which are not open to life, are intrinsically disordered and always objectively gravely immoral.
4. Each and every sexual act, in order to be free from objective mortal sin, must be natural and marital and open to life.
5. Each sexual act must be considered individually and separately from any and all other sexual acts, as to whether or not it is natural, marital, and open to life.
In order to be moral, each sexual act must be natural, marital, and open to life. When considering whether or not an act is natural, marital, and open to life, each sexual act must be considered by itself. One cannot combine together several sexual acts, only some of which are open to life, and then justify one act by combination with another act. One cannot precede, combine, or follow an act of natural marital relations with a sexual act that is unnatural or not open to life, and then justify the one by the other.
More on marital chastity in my book:
The Catholic Marriage Bed
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
November 10, 2006
last updated on January 8, 2007
