How exactly does it sacrifice a relationship to not have sex? I am utterly confused, because it seems such a crucial element of every couple’s life. I know what it is like to be around a woman (a girl really, but I’ll just say woman) and be in a completely fulfilling relationship with her, to be insanely happy around her, to be dedicated to her, with no sex at all, not even the thought of it. It’s called friendship. True, it could even be a childish crush. But the fact is, one can be close to someone in a very special way with no sexual acts at all. I suppose I see it as, if your entire relationship is somehow based on or around this one act, it can’t be very stable. It’d be sort of like liking a friend only for their money; it may work for awhile, but in the end it’ll fall apart.
Good Lord, where do I even start??? A friend? Really? She is MY WIFE, not only my friend. You have no idea what you’re even talking about to think that my realtionship is based only on sex.
Many couples are happy without any sex. Older couples or couples for whom it would be dangerous (due to a heart condition or something) or painful for one or more members of the marriage to have sex simply do without it. Some couples choose to live in a chaste marriage, after the model of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. I can’t understand how sex must be so fundamentally crucial.
Your last sentence. Therein lies the problem. It isn’t just sex, as so many here think it is. It is sexual intimacy with your God-given spouse. HUGE difference.
I’m not saying to never have sex ever, because it truly is an act of intimacy which is open to you two, and you can partake in as you think is good for you. But it isn’t like bread and water, it’s cake and brandy - nice in it’s way, but not necessary for the life of your relationship.
I also was curious, where did you find the teachings which said that sex must be made for child-making only? Litterally all my views on sex came directly from the Church, because they just make sense to me. But I have never seen anything like that, and I studied (and still study) my faith extensively since I converted.
Read the rules. Everything has to end in intercourse only.
It is true, children are emphasized because they are the obvious and natural gifts of having sex. In fact, Pope Pius VI stated that despite the fact that contraception is wrong, he was not denying the importance of family planning and planned parenthood. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae he said that a contraceptive act is had in any act of coition which is intended precisely to act against the procreative good, to prevent it from being realized. “Every act that intends to impede procreation must be repudiated … whether it is done in anticipation of marital intercourse, or during it, or while it is having its natural consequences.” Basically, it’s bad to choose to have intercourse, which is known to be essentially related to the procreation of human life, and just becaue one doesn’t want to allow life to blossom, to perform a “contraceptive act.” It’s wrong because it’s against the great human good of procreation, to treat it as if having children were an evil action, not a good one.
However, contraception or contraceptive intercourse is not identical in meaning to birth control or family planning. There are other ways to avoid birth than by contraceptive intercourse, by good means (NFP) or bad means (abortion). The issue with contraceptive intercourse is that it is aimed directly at stopping the life of a potential human being. It is a rejection of the “life-giving meaning of intercourse”, and “the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value … Procreative good is of its nature always a good, but this doesn’t mean that in every case it’s wise or right to promote the procreative good … real good can be intermingled with serious evils and harms.” the authors of this quote (Rev. Ronald Lawler, O.F.M. Cap. Joseph Boyle, Jr. and William E. May in their book Catholic Sexual Ethics) explain that while a greater good may come of using questionable means, that does not in any way validate the means (contraception) or make them good. Besides this, advocacy of contraception often leads to advocacy of abortion.
Read the books, read the teachings, still disagree wholeheartedly. Couples should indeed be given the leeway to decide when and if they are ready, able, capable of supporting more children WITHOUT giving up sexual intimacy, whether that is intercourse or not. Doesn’t mean couples forego intercourse or having kids all together.But the church does not allow couples to make that decision.
Of course, there is your objection that the Church, by its teaching, shows marriage to be solely about having children. But the fact is that if life is a basic good, we should never act directly against the unitive good of marriage, in the sense that, like other finite goods, it imposes an absoloute obligation. In short, procreation is a basic human good, and while ulterior purposes can be had for procreation and having children, these reasons do not exhaust their reasons for having children.
As for your statements on sex without intercourse, it seems to me to either be or be on the verge of masturbation. Could you please explain this so that it is clearly shown not to be so (without being overtly vulgar), or else explain why you believe it not to apply in your specific case? Thank you.