I love to see the word “snarky” being repeated here. It warms my heart! There was a lot to digest so all I can do is ask is to observe my username and bear with me.
Quotes are partial to reduce size!
It is really quite simple. God gave the commandments to Moses, which includes the sixth commandment; Thou shall not commit adultery.
This is not strictly a Catholic teaching as it applies to all Christians and Jews.
Thank you for the scriptural basis, newprestonpete, I found my Bible study in Catholic schooling growing up to be woefully inadequate :-(. I have a deep respect for “thou shalt not commit adultery”. I’m more trying to understand “thou shalt not complete the sexual act in any other way than a procreative way”. I don’t yet have the depth to make that connection. I’m working on it
–
If you think you’re alone in this, you’re not.
Thank you for the dose of humility gardenswithkids- my intent was not to diminish the sacrifices of married people (thank you for all of your good work!), I just felt uncomfortable pretending to know the first thing about marriage and so related my question to my personal experience. I have never felt a particular vocational calling to marriage, so I don’t give it much thought. I had no delusions of being alone in this, I can reasonably assume this question has been asked millions of times. I just want to find the best answer.
–
First off welcome to CAF.
Thank you for the welcome, Usige!
I would like to better understand the first paragraph. Children are a natural outcome of sexual intercourse, it seems reasonable to conclude that this is the primary purpose. I would like to discern the reason we consider pleasure a secondary benefit versus a secondary purpose. In short I would like to see the reason we so firmly believe we know God’s will in this situation.
I like the bulimia example! It is some powerful perspective. It’s both apt and quite clever if flavor is a secondary benefit, and sustenance the primary purpose. And this is my mental failure here, I’m just trying to understand why enjoying flavor, aroma, without completing the culinary act so to speak is therefore wrong.
I don’t have much to say about NFP. I don’t really know enough. If as I suspect from reading this NFP is abstaining from sex when conception is more likely- yeah, that’s significantly different from sex when conception is not possible (or statistically insignificant) which is what I’m talking about.
The only reason I didn’t want reference to the Catechism or Theology of the Body etc… was that I have already encountered them. They very clearly explain where the Church is coming from. I try my utmost to observe Her teachings. I am not seeking to justify a non-Catholic lifestyle. I struggle to lead a fully Catholic lifestyle. I’m just searching for a satisfactory “why”. I doubt I will find it, but I am sort of relentlessly curious so I have to try. There are plenty of historical examples of things Catholics from the pope on down were wrong about, despite saying them in a convincing way at the time.
You referenced tradition, do you know somewhere I can look to see the origins of that tradition? I am always somewhat unsure about Hebrew Scripture references, because I feel that cherry-picking takes place pretty consistently. If I recall from my limited Old Testament study, there are several things considered quite sinful or quite acceptable from those writings that we no longer see that way. This is not trying to be argumentative, I’m just ignorant, was God upset with Onan’s refusal or the act of spilling the seed?
–
God gave us our bodies, right?
Hi, TheRealJuliane!
To think that I wrote my question in such a way that would make you feel that your pain or your sacrifice is diminished is most troubling to me and I wish I could rewrite it for you. It is precisely because of the struggles of good and holy people that I know, and of sinners like myself, that I want to find a clear why. I encourage you to consider that pain is somewhat subjective and that creating a competition between one and another is not necessarily useful. I appreciate your wisdom and experience, I just would like to understand how we arrive at our certainty of God’s will in this particular area.
–
Hi James!
I am relatively ignorant about fertility cycles. Am I to understand that sexual intercourse at certain times can’t reasonably be expected to result in a child? To reserve sex for these times would seem to me to be by definition purposefully precluding procreation. I don’t understand the use of artificial vs. natural in the argument. I assume God gave us the power of invention for a reason.
I’m probably sounding mean here but it is not my intent so please forgive me. I mean, we say that a pregnant couple can have sex because they are clearly open to life. However, they already had their sexual union that resulted in a child. This new particular union will not result in a child. I don’t see how continuing to have sex would not be disordered by this definition. The possibility for pro-creation is totally removed from the equation. Just like when a couple is infertile, or past menopause, or whatever. It seems like we’re saying that “the proper order of sex is for pro-creation, unless something out of the couple’s control is in the way, then we change our conditions from physical openness to life merely theoretical openness to life.” I don’t quite understand. It’s almost like depending on a miracle. But I’m getting sidetracked! Haha.
Thank you for your very clear explanation of the Church’s position.
*Quick edit- I’ll leave my original thoughts in there, but I scrolled down to a later post where someone else discussed basically some of my concerns with you. The “openness to life” thing confuses me. I mean… you can be open to life all you want when you’re infertile but you’re not going to conceive short of a miracle. My computer has about the same chance of making my printer conceive. It just strikes me as inconsistent but this is a reaction not a carefully considered response.
–
Thank you, ExCatholicGuy, I’m glad you’re here to contribute! I am just looking for the truth, and I admire that you are too. I sincerely hope we both find it. Trying to understand is plain exhausting.
–
All I have to do is accept that God knows best and obey.
Hello Tietjen! Your response made me smile because I was reminded of my favorite author of all time, Chesterton. At the conclusion of Orthodoxy he says:
“I give one instance out of a hundred; I have not myself any instinctive
kinship with that enthusiasm for physical virginity, which has
certainly been a note of historic Christianity. But when I look
not at myself but at the world, I perceive that this enthusiasm
is not only a note of Christianity, but a note of Paganism, a note
of high human nature in many spheres. The Greeks felt virginity
when they carved Artemis, the Romans when they robed the vestals,
the worst and wildest of the great Elizabethan playwrights clung to
the literal purity of a woman as to the central pillar of the world.
Above all, the modern world (even while mocking sexual innocence)
has flung itself into a generous idolatry of sexual innocence–
the great modern worship of children. For any man who loves children
will agree that their peculiar beauty is hurt by a hint of physical sex.
With all this human experience, allied with the Christian authority,
I simply conclude that I am wrong, and the church right; or rather
that I am defective, while the church is universal. It takes
all sorts to make a church; she does not ask me to be celibate.
But the fact that I have no appreciation of the celibates,
I accept like the fact that I have no ear for music. The best
human experience is against me, as it is on the subject of Bach.
Celibacy is one flower in my father’s garden, of which I have
not been told the sweet or terrible name. But I may be told it
any day.”
No author touches my heart in the same way. I’m just being a bit presumptious and asking anyway where he was content to listen. Mostly because I want to move on to more interesting things.
Take heart though, the last thing in the world I want to be is a cafeteria Catholic. Nothing makes less sense. How could something be selectively divine? Intuitively, even atheism makes more sense than pseudo-Catholicism.
Just to quickly clarify- I mentioned earlier my reluctance to be given the CCC quotes is that I’ve already read them, not that I discount them. I feel I’m just too dumb (thus the username) to see the why in those passages.
–
The marital act is a prayer, a liturgy, a sign of unity between the duality of humanity (male and female at the Image of God, a symbol of link between the couple and the Holy Trinity, the image of Holy Trinity). Between wife and husband, it is also a right and a duty, and an obligation and a debt.
The ends of marital act are the love (from love to love and for improving love).
You’re a poet! That was a beautiful description of married love. I admit I too was a little off-put by the affirmative nature of the first response. Ahh- location: France. Small wonder
Your summary later in the thread was the next thing that seemed to be directed at me. I was not aware of the specific conditions that a married couple were mindful of. Thanks again!
–
To all: If we can’t keep our attitudes Christ like, at least try to keep it like the sailors he hung out with. There’s nothing like dismissiveness and pretention to make someone want to give up.
Most days he stays willingly, but, well you know, life gets hard. It takes a bit of extra incentive sometimes to stay with a hormonally challenged spouse whose gained extra weight from pregnancy and who may get a bit grumpy from lack of sleep…Okay, I said enough. I don’t want to talk you out of finding a lovely bride one day. :flowers:
The fact that you say, “I share your questions” demonstrates that despite the fact that you are a “thinking” person, you have not come up with satisfactory answers. All you “know” is that 2000 years of scholars and Church doctors, clergy, and otherwise, pale in the knowledge that you would need in order to be convinced. Instead, you have “frustrations” and leave the Church because in your experience (how old are you?) you have concluded that those who have come before you cannot possibly know better than you.