Contraception, nfp and free will

[Mark1234]

Hi everyone. I am a newly converted catholic with a few hang ups that I need to get out of the way so I can more fully embrace my faith. This is really the only thing that I struggle with right now in terms of my faith. I have a difficulty with marriage and sexuality which I was going to present in the form of a few analogies that I thought up that I can’t seem to get out of my head.

Suppose that you had two kids. You love both your kids and want to do everything that you can to make them happy. You can only typically go to one restaurant in a night, but one kid has a strong dislike for any food but american food, or maybe one kid has an allergy that restricts the restaurants they can go to. As a loving parent you want both of your kids to be happy, however, if you are not careful you might be tempted to let the needs of the kid with more restrictive tastes dictate the experience of the other kid with less restrictive needs. Over time they might get a sense that the more restricted kid is being overly catered to, or that more emphasis or care is being given to that kid.

In short (or maybe in long, I’m sorry Im not being more concise) the church dictates that both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex must be present in the sex act in spite of the fact that the unitive aspect of sex is more frequently in need in a relationship than the procreative, therefore catholic spirituality dictates that sex be limited (abstinence and nfp) to the needs of the more restricted need (procreation), thus overemphasizing or catering to the more restricted need.

It gets worse in that I find that naturally family planning seems unsound theologically because in my mind if you are avoiding procreation then it doesn’t matter if you avoid it by using technology (using contraception some sort) or by using selective abstinence. You are still avoiding procreation, but you are just doing it in a way that kind of cheats the system. However, because of this the only thing that I am left with is “only have sex when you fully intend to have kids” but I know that this would make for a very unhappy married life.

The reason I am so desperate to answer this is because this is really the biggest thing that is keeping me from getting married to my girlfriend. She takes it a step further however, she not only believes that NFP is theologically unsound, but has faith that God will allow God to plan your family appropriately regardless of your sexual behavior. In my mind, this seems to be a superstituous way of thinking about God. For example, if I did nothing to promote my house that is on sale in the market, but burried a St. Joseph statue in the yard and expect God to invtervene mysteriously on my behalf I might be dissapointed. In the same way, if I have sex whenever I want but want to be able to financially provide for my children, and expect God to make the biology work in spite of my actions, then I might also be disappointed. I am having trouble figuring out where God’s expectation of my utilization of my Free will and intellect ends and the intervention of his grace begins with respect to this.

Another analogy that comes to mind is the story I hear a lot about the naive man on the rooftop in the middle of the storm. A life boat comes along and offers to help but the man says “God will save me”. Another boat comes along, same story. A helicopter comes by, same story. The man dies and gets to heaven and asks god “Why didn’t you save me?” and he responds “I sent you two life boats and a helicopter what more could you need?” In my mind it still makes sense to substitute life boat for some means of contraception, and storm for “not wanting to have more kids than I can mentally manage or give attention to, or be able to financially provide for”. I don’t use this analogy as a way to compare having a large family to being in a flood, I want kids and recognize that value of having a large family, but I don’t want to be irresponsible. I look at my girlfriends sister who has this somewhat superstitious mentality about God and sexuality and now has 4 kids under preschool age and see that her situation is rapidly becoming financially and mentally unmanageable. They may be happy, but I am not so sure I would be very happy at all in the same situation. Also I don’t want to say that I don’t embrace contraceptive technology just because the technology is in some way unnatural, like Catholics are supposed to be some lesser form of Amish. Is a helicopter a bad thing by the nature of its existence or does it destroy the naturalness of experiencing natural disaster in the same way a condom or hormonal birth control destroys the authenticity of sexual union? Clearly its not the technology that is wrong, is it?

Does the fact that I can’t see myself being able to manage so many kids mean that I am unfaithful somehow? Does being catholic dogmatically mean that you have to be able to embrace having 8 or more kids? I also have issues with the fact that having sex only during infertile periods means that the woman is only having sex when her body is telling her that she does not want to, meaning that she probbably won’t be in the mood for sex during these times (if she is ovulating her hormones make her want sex). This seems more unnatural to me than anything else. Is it really true that this increases the rate of natural abortion as well? I saw some research supporting this. This is another reason I think Natural Family Planning doesn’t make sense, but like I said before, the alternative does not make much sense to me either.

 

[Mark1234]

I apologize for the length of my post, please help me to understand, I really want to fully embrace my faith and not have any hang ups! Thanks for taking the time to read my questions!

 

[davidv]

I apologize for the length of my post, please help me to understand, I really want to fully embrace my faith and not have any hang ups! Thanks for taking the time to read my questions!

Welcome to CAF.

Do you have a clear understanding of the fonts of morality?
From the CCC

**1750 **The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

Apply this to the case of abstaining.
The object = abstaining from sex, this is a moral course
The end or intention = ?
The circumstance = married, this is a moral circumstance,
Therefore abstaining is a moral course as long as the intention is moral

Apply this case to contracepted sex
Object = contracepted sex, immoral in all case since it separates the unitive and procreative aspects
The end or intention = avoid pregnacy, a moral intention in some case
Circumstance = married, a moral circumstance
Therefore contracepted sex is immoral based the intrinsically immoral nature of the object. No intention nor circumstance can redeem an immoral object.

 

[MidnightSun12]

It gets worse in that I find that naturally family planning seems unsound theologically because in my mind if you are avoiding procreation then it doesn’t matter if you avoid it by using technology (using contraception some sort) or by using selective abstinence. You are still avoiding procreation, but you are just doing it in a way that kind of cheats the system. However, because of this the only thing that I am left with is “only have sex when you fully intend to have kids” but I know that this would make for a very unhappy married life.

Welcome to CAF! I hope you find the answers you are looking for here!

It’s important to remember that the procreative purpose of the sexual act is not reproduction, rather, it is to be open to the possibility of life (two very different things). A couple who is naturally incapable of reproduction can still keep their sexual act open to the possibility of life because the factor that is preventing new life from occuring is unrelated to the act of having sex (whereas the contracepting couple has deliberately closed themselves to the possibility of new life by distorting their sexual act). This is why NFP can be morally permissable; because a woman’s natural infertile period will occur regardless of whether the sexual act is occuring (therefore, it’s not the sexual act that is being tampered with if a couple chooses to have sex during this time).

That said, the contraceptive mentality can still creep into NFP (which is why couples need to have a serious reason for using it). We can sin in our thoughts as well as our actions, and just because we aren’t actively using contraception doesn’t mean that we aren’t contracepting “at heart” by avoiding children for only selfish reasons.

As for having more kids then you can handle, remember: God never gives us more then we can handle. You can take that promise to the bank!!! I once knew a Catholic family who was raising 10 kids off of a single middle-class salary (stay-at-home mom) all the while Tithing 10% of their income to the Church. If you’re faithful, God won’t give you a great deal of excess in life (ie. a BMW), but He will most certainly give you the graces you need to succeed in whatever state He is calling you to.

God bless!

 

[Evania]

You aren’t cheating the system if you practice NFP. You are working with the system. Contracepting is cheating the system by engaging in sexual intercourse during the fertile time of a woman’s cycle. When you practice NFP, you are abstaining during the fertile part, (which is very short), and engaging in sexual intercourse during the infertile period. I want to point out that the Church doesn’t think that every act of intimacy should result in a pregnancy. The important thing is to be open to God’s creative power. If you have a discussion with your spouse and discern that there are valid reasons to postpone a pregnancy than you should abstain during the fertile period. As a woman though, I find it very empowering to not use contraceptives. In school they teach you that a woman can get pregnant at any time, and I can clearly see that “window”. It’s easier to p(name removed by moderator)oint feminine health issues and to see signs of a potential pregnancy, and sadly even a miscarriage with NFP.

 

[John_F_Kippley]

You are getting some good feedback. I suggest that you read at least Chapter 1 in Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach that you can download or purchase at www.nfpandmore.org. For more in-depth theology, I suggest you obtain and read my book Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality. This contains in more detail the covenant theology that Scott and Kimberly Hahn found helpful for accepting Catholic teaching on birth control when they were still Protestants. Also available at www.nfpandmore.org.

 

[zz912]

It gets worse in that I find that naturally family planning seems unsound theologically because in my mind if you are avoiding procreation then it doesn’t matter if you avoid it by using technology (using contraception some sort) or by using selective abstinence. You are still avoiding procreation, but you are just doing it in a way that kind of cheats the system. However, because of this the only thing that I am left with is “only have sex when you fully intend to have kids” but I know that this would make for a very unhappy married life.

Think this logic out just a bit. You can have a very moral objective, and obtain this objective in wildly different ways, and those ways can be wildly different morally. I want to make enough money to feed my family (very good thing). I can work very hard legally and make that money (good), or I can steal the money (bad). Two different methods to solve the good objective, but one is sinful, and one is not.

Same with the difference between NFP and contraception. You can have a good objective (desire to temporarily avoid pregnancy b/c of serious reasons), and achieve this objective in wildly different ways. Using NFP is moral, while contraception is sinful.

There is nothing wrong with trying to be responsible and spacing the birth of children, but how you achieve that can be moral, or it could be sinful. And I think you phrase it slightly wrong about “fully intending to have kids”. A better phrasing would be that you fully intend to be responsible for any possible outcome (good and bad) that may occur from exercising the God-given gift of sex. (And children are a good outcome. Our kids are the best blessings in our lives.)

 

[JReducation]

It gets worse in that I find that naturally family planning seems unsound theologically because in my mind if you are avoiding procreation then it doesn’t matter if you avoid it by using technology (using contraception some sort) or by using selective abstinence. You are still avoiding procreation, but you are just doing it in a way that kind of cheats the system. However, because of this the only thing that I am left with is “only have sex when you fully intend to have kids” but I know that this would make for a very unhappy married life.

The reason I am so desperate to answer this is because this is really the biggest thing that is keeping me from getting married to my girlfriend. She takes it a step further however, she not only believes that NFP is theologically unsound,

Let me begin with your girlfriend. What she believes is irrelevant. The Church is not interested in what she believes nor does what she believe make it so. What is so is what the Church believes. The Church believes that cooperation with God’s law is always moral.

God created every law, including those that govern reproduction. Here is your answer to the first paragraph. Here is why NFP is theologically very sound.

God created reproductive law which says that if you have intercourse during fertile days, you’re more than likely to conceive and if you have intercourse during not fertile days, you will not conceive. Nowhere did God create a law that says that a married couple must have intercourse at any time. This choice is left to our free will. To say that God imposes on us when to have intercourse, is theologically unsound. God does not interfere in human freedom, nor does God create laws that are obstacles to human freedom. Therefore, there is no law that says that one has to have intercourse on this day, because the woman is fertile.

There is another law. God does say that there are two objectives in marriage: unitive and procreation. Therefore, God does not intend for married people to abstain from intercourse during fertile periods as a matter of routine. In other words, NFP is not Catholic Birth Control. Just the opposite. The last letter “P” stands for planning, not contraception. It’s NFP not NFC. God has nothing against planning when you’re going to have your children.

If one uses the method to avoid pregnancy altogether, because one decides that one simply does not want more children, then one is abusing the natural law. The law exists for us to work with it, not to abuse it.

Think of the laws of physics. God makes those laws known to us so that we can use them for the good of humanity. He did not make them known to us so that we can find new and creative ways to blow ourselves to kingdom come. He wants us to use the laws for our good, not for evil.

Using NFP when it is not necessary is evil, because it’s not planning. It’s avoidance. It’s creating an obstacle to one of the proper ends of marriage.

NFP is morally justifiable; therefore, it is theologically sound as long as we remember what the P stands for.

 

[Philthy]

In short … the church dictates that both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex must be present in the sex act in spite of the fact that the unitive aspect of sex is more frequently in need in a relationship than the procreative,

A little bit of apples and oranges here as sexual intimacy is not the only source of unity in a marriage whereas it is the only source of procreation. In short, there are other ways to satisfy the need for unity but no other way to satisfy procreation.

therefore catholic spirituality dictates that sex be limited (abstinence and nfp) to the needs of the more restricted need (procreation), thus overemphasizing or catering to the more restricted need.

Again, there are other ways of satisfying the less restrictive need. Your perceived imbalance would be valid only if sex were the only means of satisfying both.

It gets worse in that I find that naturally family planning seems unsound theologically because in my mind if you are avoiding procreation then it doesn’t matter if you avoid it by using technology (using contraception some sort) or by using selective abstinence. You are still avoiding procreation, but you are just doing it in a way that kind of cheats the system.

NFP is not cheating the system at all. It is faithfully acting* within the system* that God created. God created periods of time that a woman would naturally be infertile and NFP simply uses those times. But you are correct that if you have no legitimate reason for avoiding procreation then it is sinful to use NFP toward such an end. You are mistaken, however, that “it doesn’t matter” whether one uses NFP or ABC.

However, because of this the only thing that I am left with is “only have sex when you fully intend to have kids”

Not true.

but I know that this would make for a very unhappy married life.

Do you really know that or are you simply afraid of it?

The reason I am so desperate to answer this is because this is really the biggest thing that is keeping me from getting married to my girlfriend. She takes it a step further however, she not only believes that NFP is theologically unsound, but has faith that God will allow God to plan your family appropriately regardless of your sexual behavior

Yeah, sure. I’m sure she exhibits this faithful abandon to God with all aspects of her life, right? Probably not. She’s attempting to justify her behavior and deny her duty to use her free will responsibly by saying “what happens is what God wants to happen”.

. In my mind, this seems to be a superstituous way of thinking about God.

Its that and a little worse…

I am having trouble figuring out where God’s expectation of my utilization of my Free will and intellect ends and the intervention of his grace begins with respect to this.

Join the club! The “lines in the sand” that the Church gives us are precisely for this reason - it’s sometimes difficult to know and in those situations the Church provides us with needed reference points. Example? When the Church tells us ABC is always a sin.

Is a helicopter a bad thing by the nature of its existence or does it destroy the naturalness of experiencing natural disaster in the same way a condom or hormonal birth control destroys the authenticity of sexual union? Clearly its not the technology that is wrong, is it?

Apples and oranges again: natural disasters are, well, disasters. They are a consequence of the fall. The helicopter - in that particular situation - is a means of restoring the original order that was meant to exist.

Does the fact that I can’t see myself being able to manage so many kids mean that I am unfaithful somehow?

Not necessarily, but you have to be very careful to understand your motives.

 

[Jeanne1184]

The following article is a stunner. I found it this evening and am still reeling.

therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm

Seems to me that the only reason to have sex would be for the purpose of procreaton and it would need to be a sacrifice on the part of each participant to engage in the sex act which would necessarily awaken the beast of sexual desire - which would then need to be re-contained. If this was the case, then homosexuality wouldn’t be a problem - they would live as brothers, not as sex partners since procreation is impossible. It wouldn’t be a matter of males&females indulging in base desires while denying that urge in men who are naturally or uinnaturally not fond of women. The animal instinct squelched in all - and the Holy Spirit has a chance to emerge.

If people were rigorously honest about why they are marrying, I doubt ‘having children’ would be first on the list. If motives were really taken into account, having children is a very selfish/egotistical act in itself - unless, of course, the Holy Spirit tapped a woman for having a ‘Child of Promise’ like Sarah. The Christ-like motive would be to adopt those children already here and suffering.

Some Excerpts: (And one personal observation/comment in (( )) brackets.)

They sin still more grievoulsy when they kill the children who are already conceived or born, and when by taking impious drugs to prevent conception they condemn in themselves the nature which God wanted to be fruitful. Let them not doubt that they have committed as many murders as the number of the children they might have begotten Sermon 51, 4; CC 103, 229).

.” Why, even unreasoning beasts know enough not to mate at certain times. To indulge in intercourse without intending children is to outrage nature, whom should take as our instructor (Paedagogues, 2, 10; 95, 3, GCS, 12, 214).

There are those who when they have intercourse deliberately prevent having children. They indulge in pleasure not for the sake of offspring but to satisfy their passion. To such an extent has the devil deceived these wretched people that they betray the work of God by perverting it to their own deceits.

However, if he does not control himself, let him enter into lawful wedlock, so that he may not beget children in disgrace or avoid having offspring by a more degraded form of intercourse. There are some lawfully wedded couples who resort to this last, for intercourse, even with one’s lawfully wedded spouse, can take place in an unlawful and shameful manner, whenever the conception of offspring is avoided.

Therefore, those to whom God is unwilling to give children should not try to have them by means of magical herbs or signs or evil charms.

**Those women whom God wants to bear children should take care of all that are conceived, or give them to someone else to rear. **

He returns to the idea that if children are that hard to rear, then give someone else a chance to adopt them; but do not prevent conception under any circumstances.

Indeed, she will be held guilty of as many murders as the number of those she might have conceived or borne, and unless suitable penance saves her she will be condemned to eternal death in hell. If a woman does not want to bear children she should enter upon a pious agreement with her husband, for only the abstinence of a Christian woman is chastity (Sermon 1, 12; CC 103, 9).

Now, with what kind of conscience does she desire slaves to be born of her servants, when she herself refuses to bear children who might become Christians? (Sermon 44, 2; CC 103, 196).

((For me, the above speaks to the crux of the matter - the idea was to demand children at all costs in order to build up the Catholic numbers for increased power. I think it has little to do with Holiness, per se. If Holiness were the object, the emphasis would be on celibacy to obtain conscious contact with the Holy Spirit and for the Holy Spirit to find a dwelling place in the Nose - male and female. This is possible even in marriage if they live as brother and sister and only ‘sacrifice the sexuial act’ to have Holy Spirit-directed offspring.))

If you have done so, or consented to this, or taught it, you must do penance for ten years on legal ferial days. Legislation in former days excommunicated such persons from the Church till the end of their lives.
As often as a woman prevented conception, she was guilty of that many homicides.

If any woman has fornicated and has killed the infant who was born of her; or if she has tried to commit abortion and then slain what she conceived; or if she contrives to make sure she does not conceive, either in adultery or in legitimate intercourse—regarding such women the earlier canons decreed that they should not receive communion even at death. However, we mercifully judge that both such women and their accomplices in these crimes shall do penance for ten years. (Second Council of Braga, Canon 77; Mansi IX, 858).

The difference between taking drugs “for the sake of chastity” and for contraceptive purposes is that in the first case a person takes drugs in order to stifle the natural rise of passion; in the second case, the purpose is to avoid having offspring.

He who drinks a potion for the sake of chastity shall do penance for two years.
He who does this in order not to have children shall do penance for twelve years (Poenitentiale Vigilanum, num. 79-80; PL 129, 1123ff.).

 

[zz912]

If people were rigorously honest about why they are marrying, I doubt ‘having children’ would be first on the list. If motives were really taken into account, having children is a very selfish/egotistical act in itself - unless, of course, the Holy Spirit tapped a woman for having a ‘Child of Promise’ like Sarah. The Christ-like motive would be to adopt those children already here and suffering.

???

While some people may be selfish and egotistical about having children, the vast majority of people aren’t so. In fact, children have a funny way of forcing you to relinquish your selfish desires and ego. There’s simply no ego involved when cleaning up throw up at 3AM and trying to soothe your child back to sleep.

 

[Evania]

???

While some people may be selfish and egotistical about having children, the vast majority of people aren’t so. In fact, children have a funny way of forcing you to relinquish your selfish desires and ego. There’s simply no ego involved when cleaning up throw up at 3AM and trying to soothe your child back to sleep.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Hi Mark,

As Catholics, we believe that it is immoral to take a natural instrument created by God and use it for unnatural purposes. If you were a watchmaker that created a watch, you would say that it is good if it tells the correct time. If it does not tell the correct time as it was designed to do, you would say that it is bad. Just as God created everything good, they only remain good if we do not pervert their intended design and purpose. If procreation is consciously blocked, we are perverting what is natural and good. We are perverting what our reproductive organs were designed to do. Procreation which should be done only within the sacramental confines of matrimony is reduced through contraception from being unitive, covenantal and life-giving, to that of a selfish and destructive act. It is a hallmark of the Culture of Death. The innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. The homosexual act is also a contraceptive act, because it among other things, it is done purely for a perverse pleasure, that is disconnected from its natural purpose.

Married couples should not refuse each other except by agreement, naturally- NFP:
credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-nt-book-i-corinthians-i-cor-chapter-7/53/7/5

Onan is slain by God for practicing contraception:
credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-ot-book-genesis-gen-chapter-38/1/38/10

The Lord God commands us to be fruitful and multiply (Priests do this according to the spiritual dimension through baptism):
credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-ot-book-genesis-gen-chapter-1/1/1/28

Sexual acts without being open to life are sinful:
credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-nt-book-romans-rom-chapter-1/52/1/26

“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”… “To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.”
St. Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children (A.D. 191)

“Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!”
St. Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation of All Heresies (A.D. ~215)

 

[1love]

I very strongly recommend that you listen to Janet Smith’s talk, Contraception: Why Not? Many of your concerns will probably be addressed in her talk. She does discuss the difference between using NFP and using contraception.

 

[Mark1234]

Onan is slain by God for practicing contraception:
credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-ot-book-genesis-gen-chapter-38/1/38/10

*"Because of its divine *

This has always bothered me. Doesn’t it seem like in context that God had slain Onan here because of his disobedience, not necessarily because he was contracepting?

 

[MidnightSun12]

This has always bothered me. Doesn’t it seem like in context that God had slain Onan here because of his disobedience, not necessarily because he was contracepting?

Actually, in other places in scripture it is made very clear that the punishment for disobeying God (ie. refusing to take your brother’s wife in marriage after he dies) in Jewish law is not death. There’s even a ritual where the brother and the woman have to go to the city gates and the woman spits at the brother to release him from his obligation…

Also, if spilling his seed before climax was irrelevant to the sin committed against God and Onan could have sinned just as easily by not having sex (ie. using NFP), then why would scripture even mention the part about the seed being deliberately spilled?

It’s obvious that “not having sex” is not a sin. Therefore, NFP in itself is not a sin because a couple is merely choosing to “not have sex”. Distorting the sexual act for the purpose of pleasure, however, is a completely different story.

 

[John_F_Kippley]

The Onan account: Three people–Onan, his father, and his younger brother-- violated the Levirate Law, but only Onan was slain by God. That’s because only Onan went through the motions of the obligatory act intended to give children to his brother’s widow but defrauded the act by his contraceptive behavior. Further Deuteronomy 25:5ff spells out the punishment for violating the Levirate. An embarrassment but not injurious. For more detail, see nfpandmore.org/2006_SIN_OF_ONAN.pdf .

 

[Mark1234]

I am afraid that my faith is waining and I just can’t see myself being catholic anymore. Catholic relationships are just too difficult. Not even thinking about married life, dating is so hard when you cannot show any type of affection for the person that you care about. I have burnt through so many relationships now and it always happens the same way. We fall deeply for each other based upon good principles, it gains momentum, then we start to foul up physically. We try to seperate ourselves from each other to be more pure, and go back and forth like this until the relationship just breaks down. The desire to seek holiness in this way has killed so many relationships for me already.

Mens bodies are so coursed with testosterone that what little bit of self control he can muster, it is all dashed when put into the context of a relationship with someone he finds very attractive. For me, I do not think I will every be able to successfully nurture a relationship to the point of marriage with these types of constant struggles. And then when marriage happen, from discussions I have had with others practicing NFP, I can see myself immediately being thrown into a very difficult situation, or a continuation of the situation where absitnence is a huge part of even the married relationship. I have found from talking to married couples that have too many children on here and that also use NFP that the sad truth is that long periods of abstinence are just an inevietable part of married life in the catholic church.

And I am not talking about an inordinate amount of sexual desire, just a moderate amount of sexual desire. Mens bodies force them to have this desire through hormones. Why would God place us in such a torturous position that our bodies make us desire something that is off limits for the majority of our lives?? Is this just over zealous ascetisism passed down from gnosticism playing itself out in the life of the church?

It’s too hard, its too much of a challenge for the man to just spend his whole life being mostly absitent. I know you are going to say “look at priests they do it” but not all of us are called to be priests, and relationships for everyone else just seem to suck. I just can’t do it, I can’t do it anymore. My body tortures me every day and its making me age and feel stress beyond what I can sustain.

 

[Mark1234]

And I know what you are going to say in response to my first statement that “you can’t show any affection”. You are going to say that there are other, maybe better ways to show affection. While this may be true, kissing and holding hands are a physical visceral way of show affection that someone speaks to us in a very particular way. If you never kissed someone then its unlikely the chemistry will ever exist for the relationship to lead to marriage. Yet in all the books I have read, they suggest you should not ask how “far can you go” but how far “can’t” you go. The logical answer to this is a purely platonic relationship before marriage. Just from my experience I have found that (with the amount of testosterone in my body at least) even kissing can lead to impurity. So really the only solution to have this “perfectly holy” relationship is to be platonic before marriage, but this will in fact never lead to marriage! Its an impossible situation, I might as well reconcile myself to the fact that I will never get married if I stay in the church. How can a relationship last if the physical chemistry cannot be nutured in even small ways??

And I know what you will say after that is probbably, “Why don’t you just marry them then” and my answer to that is precicesly these unresolved questions I have about having too many children and marriage and how to do deal with that and have a married life that is not almost totally devoid of sexual expression and yet is still financially responsible in some way (its right to not want to raise your family in poverty right? Or is that somehow sinful, again I think ascetisism is over emphasized in the mindset of most people I talk to about this in the church)

It just can’t stack up in my mind, how are relationships in the church supposed to work???

 

[Evania]

What do you consider to be “too long” when it comes to abstinence in marriage? I’m just seeking to understand your perception.