Church teachings you find difficult to swallow (even for practicing Catholics)

[Zaista]

Perhaps the issue is with lust. I am by all means no expert on these topics, but I strongly feel that there must be a threshold somewhere in which the sexual act is taken beyond its scope and transformed into a lustful act…when you speak about pleasing, it is something I can of course understand and which must not be wrong…but I am afraid that somewhere there must be a limit when the pleasing becomes illicit…just like there are plenty of things in our life that feel good and are not necessarily wrong, but that after a point become wrong…

I went to look a bit into the sacrament of Matrimony here and I found:

Notice how it speaks of “morally regulated satisfaction”. Chastity IS valid even when sexual activity is present, for it is not the repression of the sex urge, but its balance through self-mastery.

When people question my judgement about waiting to have sex and not wanting to kiss again until my wedding day I always say to them, **“A man who has control over his sexuality will, in the end, be a much better lover than the man who lets his sexuality control him.” **

One of the main reasons I stopped masturbation was that I realized that it was a selfish act that was training me to be selfish mentally and physically. Masturbation is essentially saying, “learn to please yourself and seek your own pleasure first.”

I have a number of close female friends who sometimes confide in me. The story remains the same: He goes in, finishes and pulls out; leaving me unsatisfied and unhappy. I have a genuine fear of being one of those guys.

As I’m sure we all know, foreplay before the marital act is, more often than not, necessary for female lubrication to take place and often facilitates orgasms. Yes there are “super men” who can accomplished this through genital to genital stimulation only but those men are the exception and not the rule.

I believe in a God of smart design. The fact that most men will “finish” before a woman does suggest, to me, that legitimate sexual activity between married people can also involves other forms of stimulation besides genital to genital contact. If women were not meant to have orgasms then they would not be able to. If genital to genital stimulation was the only legitimate type of contact between married couples then men would have been able to “last longer”. Perhaps the best option would have been to design us in a way that men and woman can only achieve the big O together through G to G contact only, but he didn’t design us that way. Without getting too graphic, a lot of men will admit that the smell and taste of the fruit that they eat is “sweet”. It seems like we are programmed to practice and enjoy more than just G to G marital actions.

God puts desires in our hearts for a reason. My parish priest told me, never run from your sexual desires and never suppress it. Instead, thank God for them and ask him to give you the strength to control them instead of letting it control you. How we nurture and handle those desires will determine if our “practices” amount to love or lust.

I would be lying if I said I didn’t have an interest in participating in the act, when the time is right, with my beloved future bride. I guess you could call it a “fetish” although that word, I think, is just too strong. The other but even more important reason is that I also want her to experience the full joy of the marital act every time we engage in it. I could be wrong here but I don’t think that qualifies as lust.

sorry for the typos

 

[Pug]

The Trinity cannot be completely understood or “contained” by our human minds. It is and will remain a mystery.

However, think of the most perfect family, a perfect family, a perfect communion among several perfect persons. Total harmony and exchange of love. That is barely a glimpse of the Trinity but it’s something we can start contemplating in prayer,

Yes, I do think about the love and communion aspect, especially that we will share in the life of the blessed Trinity.

 

[R_C]

Yep…there it is. That’s the one I “find hard to swallow” (to use the OP’s words).

That’s sort of the point of being married…if one does not want to have an offspring, then they can be friends or live as brother and sister (in whichever moral way the Church allows it). But sexual intercourse would be immoral. And yes, chastity is very very hard to swallow, so to speak. It requires an apprenticeship in self-mastery, in order to become kings of our own bodies, and guardians of the temple of the Holy Spirit. And considering what Christ had to suffer for our sake, I think it becomes a very light burden indeed, no matter how hard I may ever feel it.

@Zaista: I understand your point, but I do not necessarily agree with the fact that if we can experience something, then it must be allowed or legitimate. As far as I know, we can also get hysterical, or depressed, and yet I don’t think anyone should ever be greatly disturbed. The marital act should be, I hope, a source of peace and joy, to which the spouses go in reflection of the Holy Trinity, in the bond of love that makes them one being and ordinarily is oriented towards the generation of a new life (from which “genitrix” → “mater” → “matrimony”). I do not see marriage as something that should make us long for more and more and more sexual pleasure, either towards us or towards our spouse…for just as lust is bad for us, it is bad for us to provoke it onto a loved one. I will be honest with you: I do not know and do not care to know about how many times a woman can reach a climax and all those details. If I were married, I would simply try to be joyful with my bride, with no other concern than to give myself fully to her - not to “please” her or anything of the sort - just to be fully hers, and to receive and welcome her as fully mine.

 

[Ignatius]

They are all difficult. That doesn’t mean we should give up. St. Paul tells us we must persevere to the end.
I work every day to be more and more faithful to Christ and His Church in every way.

 

[Lightsway]

I’m not practicing

Two Problems hard for me to swallow are:

         Monogenism.   No evidence for it, all empirical evidence points against it.  I understand its importance to Original Sin and everything that derives from it. This always sort of reminds me of the Mormon's reality problem with the Great Indian Society being a Lost Tribe of Israel.

If I could change it, would I? probably not. That would require changing an entire religion’s theology and I’m not up to that.

Positive Predetermination. I have a hard time, only seeing a positive side. God only wanting a few absolutely, which is His right, always seemed still negative to me. The rest of us are just not worthy of the overflowing Grace. I also understand that we do not deserve heaven, but being generous with the grace would be nice. Also it seems to superficial erode free will. Does it? Probably not but again I would not change it.

The how I act stuff doesn’t bother me.

Its the how we understand God and how things work, that bother me. Things like the above is what make me agnostic. I can’t know God or Truth in this realm. It is not self evident, to me. Yes I understand according to Jesus, I am basically dammed. Yet how do I know he is telling the true? As I say “A Pontius Pilate high five may occur at the end of my life.”

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not practicing

Two Problems hard for me to swallow are:

         Monogenism.   No evidence for it, all empirical evidence points against it.  I understand its importance to Original Sin and everything that derives from it. This always sort of reminds me of the Mormon's reality problem with the Great Indian Society being a Lost Tribe of Israel.

If I could change it, would I? probably not. That would require changing an entire religion’s theology and I’m not up to that.

Positive Predetermination. I have a hard time, only seeing a positive side. God only wanting a few absolutely, which is His right, always seemed still negative to me. The rest of us are just not worthy of the overflowing Grace. I also understand that we do not deserve heaven, but being generous with the grace would be nice. Also it seems to superficial erode free will. Does it? Probably not but again I would not change it.

The how I act stuff doesn’t bother me.

Its the how we understand God and how things work, that bother me. Things like the above is what make me agnostic. I can’t know God or Truth in this realm. It is not self evident, to me. Yes I understand according to Jesus, I am basically dammed. Yet how do I know he is telling the true? As I say “A Pontius Pilate high five may occur at the end of my life.”

What is a “Pontius Pilate high five”?

(I thought it was St. Dismas, the good thief, who stole Heaven right under Jesus’ nose, at the moment of death?

 

[Lightsway]

What is a “Pontius Pilate high five”?

(I thought it was St. Dismas, the good thief, who stole Heaven right under Jesus’ nose, at the moment of death?

Its a Joke. Pontius Pilate was famous for asking Jesus “What is truth?” The same problem I have. When it comes to God I can not honestly tell what is truth. So at the end of my life, if there is an afterlife I will probably see Pontius Pilate and I will give him a high five as a brother in arms.

 

[round2]

Just a few minutes ago, in another thread I was reading, a poster was sharing the story of his marriage to a woman who didn’t want children. Someone responded that “the Church teaches that the main reason for marriage is to reproduce and raise children. Someone who doesn’t want children should not get married.”

I disagree with this teaching. In my opinion (and it’s just my opinion) if two people don’t want children but want to enjoy a lifetime of sharing love and companionship, they are still candidates for marriage.

I have to wonder what the church’s reaction would be to a couple that married and then found out that they were able to have children. Should they then refrain from sexual relations? Should they even stay marriend?