Birth Control

[Scout]

This is a really difficult topic. I don’t necessarily think that sex is only for the purpose of having children. Why can’t you just be intimate with your spouse because it’s a great way of expressing your love, and it’s a fun way of doing it, too. What’s wrong with desiring your spouse? What’s wrong with finding your spouse sexually attractive?

My husband and I aren’t able to have any more children because my tubes have been tied (before I became a Catholic). Should we stop having sex? NO! Because they’re more to sex than just having children or not having children. If the marriage relationship is right, it’s a meeting the mind, spirit, and the body.

I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading everyone’s responses wrong.
I just don’t see what the big deal is.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[OhioBob]

Scout:

This is a really difficult topic. I don’t necessarily think that sex is only for the purpose of having children. Why can’t you just be intimate with your spouse because it’s a great way of expressing your love, and it’s a fun way of doing it, too. What’s wrong with desiring your spouse? What’s wrong with finding your spouse sexually attractive?

My husband and I aren’t able to have any more children because my tubes have been tied (before I became a Catholic). Should we stop having sex? NO! Because they’re more to sex than just having children or not having children. If the marriage relationship is right, it’s a meeting the mind, spirit, and the body.

I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading everyone’s responses wrong.
I just don’t see what the big deal is.

Scout :tiphat:

The original post on the thread was a rather simple question. The answers provided were also simple and reflected the teaching of the Church as presented in the Catechism and other documents.

Apparently some folks don’t like the answer, but they shouldn’t shoot the messengers.

 

[Scout]

So does that mean that everytime my husband and I have sex it’s a mortal sin because there is absolutely no chance of life resulting from it?

Scout

 

[SeekerJen]

Scout:

So does that mean that everytime my husband and I have sex it’s a mortal sin because there is absolutely no chance of life resulting from it?

Scout

No. The Church teaches that sex is to be used for both unitive and procreative purposes. Otherwise couples in which one or both spouses were infertile, or couples in which the wife has already gone through menopause, would have to live in celibacy for the rest of their married lives- which the Church does not teach. If sex were only for procreation, it would be a sin for couples to have sex during the wife’s non-fertile period as well, and the Church definitely does not teach that.

 

[renee1258]

No. But sex parts should go with sex parts. Plus your more likely to “make out” during love making if your lips aren’t on other body parts.

 

[Scout]

renee1258:

No. But sex parts should go with sex parts. Plus your more likely to “make out” during love making if your lips aren’t on other body parts.

What does that mean? :ehh:

Scout :tiphat:

 

[OhioBob]

Scout:

So does that mean that everytime my husband and I have sex it’s a mortal sin because there is absolutely no chance of life resulting from it?

Scout

In my opinion, no. As long as each act is “open to the possibility of life” (in terms of the mechanics). It seems no different than what happens as you get older. The wife and I used to practice NFP, but now that we are getting older, we don’t. Apparently the raw materials are old and there isn’t much chance of conception any more. Even so, each act is still open to life in the sense that nothing comes between husband and wife in each particular act.

Similarly, in your case, while there may be little if any chance of conception occuring, you are still open to life by not taking steps to separate the unitive purpose of sex in marriage with the procreateive purpose (such as that proposed by the original poster).

Wow, it’s hard to post on this type of topic in a way that won’t disturb the moderators.

I hope that wasn’t too convoluted. I see our situations as similar. Neither of us has much chance of conception through marital relations, yet by remaining open to life we are being true to the teachings of the Church. I don’t see any sin in that.

:tiphat:

 

[Vincent]

Scout:

Why can’t you just be intimate with your spouse because it’s a great way of expressing your love, and it’s a fun way of doing it, too. What’s wrong with desiring your spouse? What’s wrong with finding your spouse sexually attractive?

There’s nothing wrong with sexual intimacy. In fact, it’s good. God invented it. Sex expresses a total giving of spouses to each other. It’s an act of complete self-donation. And it’s one of the most beautiful gifts God has ever bestowed on us.

However, if spouses contracept, then they deliberately withhold an important part of themselves: their fertility. In effect, they say with their bodies, “I give myself totally to you.”

But in fact, they aren’t.

And so, the act of total self-giving becomes a lie. Lying with one’s body in the most powerful physical expression of love doesn’t sound very loving. It sounds more like “using” one’s spouse. No one want’s to be lied to. No one wants to be “used”. And in an act of love, it’s a pitiful thing.

 

[OhioBob]

renee1258:

No. But sex parts should go with sex parts. Plus your more likely to “make out” during love making if your lips aren’t on other body parts.

Whew! Is it getting hot in here, or is it just me? %between%

 

[SeekerJen]

renee1258:

No. But sex parts should go with sex parts. Plus your more likely to “make out” during love making if your lips aren’t on other body parts.

I’m pretty sure I know what this means, Scout, but I’ve always been taught (and have read in various Catholic sources) that the marriage bed is undefiled as long as both spouses are comfortable with foreplay/positions, etc., and as long as the husband finishes where he is supposed to. To put it a bit more concisely: as long as the lovemaking is open to life, how it gets to that point is up to the spouses and no one else.

 

[Scout]

SeekerJen:

I’m pretty sure I know what this means, Scout, but I’ve always been taught (and have read in various Catholic sources) that the marriage bed is undefiled as long as both spouses are comfortable with foreplay/positions, etc., and as long as the husband finishes where he is supposed to. To put it a bit more concisely: as long as the lovemaking is open to life, how it gets to that point is up to the spouses and no one else.

That’s what I was told by an apologist from Catholic Answers. So, to answer the original question for this thread, it would be a sin for the man to have sex without intercourse, but not a sin for the woman. It seems that the emphasis is on the man finishing where he’s supposed to, but it doesn’t matter how the woman finishes.

Scout :tiphat:

 

[TarAshly]

preyoflove:

Well this one is a good fight, a great fight, for it involves the means of procreation–first things first. Orgasm must always be a “proper inside job”–if you know what I mean by that–for two married persons. It has to be where God intended it should be.

Peace, so be it.

whoa whoa whoa hold on. science shows that over 70% of women cannot have an internal orgasm, so women in that percentil should never be allowed to enjoy such an experience! are you kidding me! that is one of the most SEXIST things i have ever heard. and if your a woman you must be amoung that lucky 30% but what about the rest of us!?

 

[SeekerJen]

TarAshly:

whoa whoa whoa hold on. science shows that over 70% of women cannot have an internal orgasm, so women in that percentil should never be allowed to enjoy such an experience! are you kidding me! that is one of the most SEXIST things i have ever heard. and if your a woman you must be amoung that lucky 30% but what about the rest of us!?

TarAshly,

Church teaching specifies that only the husband has to finish inside the wife- thus rendering the lovemaking open to life. The wife can finish in whatever way is possible for her, with her husband’s help (because like you said, it is difficult if not impossible for many women to finish through intercourse alone).

 

[TarAshly]

Scout:

This is a really difficult topic. I don’t necessarily think that sex is only for the purpose of having children. Why can’t you just be intimate with your spouse because it’s a great way of expressing your love, and it’s a fun way of doing it, too. What’s wrong with desiring your spouse? What’s wrong with finding your spouse sexually attractive?

My husband and I aren’t able to have any more children because my tubes have been tied (before I became a Catholic). Should we stop having sex? NO! Because they’re more to sex than just having children or not having children. If the marriage relationship is right, it’s a meeting the mind, spirit, and the body.

I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading everyone’s responses wrong.
I just don’t see what the big deal is.
Scout :tiphat:

:clapping: yea for you! your absolutely right! im in premarriage counseling right now and they told us that too. that sex is an expression of love between a man and his wife. yes NFP should be practiced, but if two married people love each other why not allow a happy sex life. i think Dr. Phil put it best when he said sex isnt a problem until it becomes one. By the way i LOVE the movie and the book to Kill a MockingBird! Scout! How Cute is that.

 

[TarAshly]

Vincent:

There’s nothing wrong with sexual intimacy. In fact, it’s good. God invented it. Sex expresses a total giving of spouses to each other. It’s an act of complete self-donation. And it’s one of the most beautiful gifts God has ever bestowed on us.

However, if spouses contracept, then they deliberately withhold an important part of themselves: their fertility. In effect, they say with their bodies, “I give myself totally to you.”

But in fact, they aren’t.

And so, the act of total self-giving becomes a lie. Lying with one’s body in the most powerful physical expression of love doesn’t sound very loving. It sounds more like “using” one’s spouse. No one want’s to be lied to. No one wants to be “used”. And in an act of love, it’s a pitiful thing.

However what if you dont see contraception as a “lie” or being used, but merely to hold off having children until you can support them financially and emotionally. i plan on using NFP after im married once we’re in a situation that an “oops” would be ok, but until we learn it well enough i dont know if im gonna stop using the pill. once we learn it and know what we’re doing i will absolutely stop the pill once my health issues are resolved. i’ve already begun to research Catholic OBGYNs and internal medicines doctors in my state so that they can find an alternative treatment for my situation, then once thats settled and we learn NFP, i use that. until then though i dont believe that every time my husband and i make love that he would be using me or lying to me. we’ll be newlyweds… its gonna happen!

 

[Vincent]

TarAshly:

1. Many people do bad things without being conscious of it. But It doesn’t make bad things good. We can still get sick if we drink a cup of poisoned orange juice in ignorance. We can still get hurt if we jump off a tall building in denial.

Whatever we think doesn’t undo the disorder that’s really happening: the fact that either one or both spouses are deliberately withholding the very thing they, by having sex, are to be giving to one another. The spouses might be in ignorance. They may even be in denial. But does it make it go away? No. It’s there.

1. The Pill doesn’t infallibly stop “The Oops”. NFP can be just as effective. Dr. Janet Smith cites a study in which couples in Calcutta using NFP had a 0**.**004 pregnancy rate.

So why not try it?

 

[wabrams]

Where in the Bible and/or CCC does it say you have to finish the job inside?

 

[Scout]

Vincent:

TarAshly:
Whatever we think doesn’t undo the disorder that’s really happening: the fact that either one or both spouses are deliberately withholding the very thing they, by having sex, are to be giving to one another. The spouses might be in ignorance. They may even be in denial.

Why is it the “very thing” we’re to be giving to one another? We’re supposed to be giving each other our minds, hearts and bodies-not just bodily fluids in order to create another child. If it was the “very thing” those who were sterile would have no purpose in having sex.

I’m not saying I agree with artificial birth control because I don’t. However, I think that this arguement is flawed.

Scout. :tiphat:

 

[mercygate]

Dismas2004:

“What about people who can’t have children - are they not allowed to get married or have sex?” I was stumped.

Can someone lead me through in baby steps through the arguement and give me as much evidence as possible. I think I’ll copy or send them the info!

Run right out and get Christopher West’s book, Good news about Sex and Marriage . . . All the answers in pithy Q&A format.

What was wrong with those two?

 

[OhioBob]

wabrams:

Where in the Bible and/or CCC does it say you have to finish the job inside?

From the CCC:

2366 …So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

2370 …“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.

While it doesn’t specifically use the words “finish the job inside”, I think you can make the extrapolation.