Discuss: Married Sexuality

[baylee]

You have brought up the term most “theologically correct” in your post #195 and then take it even further and move the quote mark, changing the emphasis to “most theologically correct.” This appears to be your term, unless you are quoting someone else, but you did not cite anyone else’s post containing this term. This seems disingenuous since in criticizing someone, the use of quotes is often used to draw attention to something they wrote in order to refute it.

Violet81 stated in her OP:

*I believe my approach to this is most theologically accurate, so I want to know if someone has a different opinion from the theological point of view. *

 

[baylee]

If something is not specifically taught, but is consistent with truth and not contrary to truth, it is not wrong.

I am not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that daily marital relations are wrong.

Unfortunately, Humanae Vitae encourages self-denial and periodic continence and the CCC encourages just moderation WRT marital sex. So, it does appear that daily marital sex would be inconsistent with those values…and therefore wrong.

 

[monicatholic]

not the least bit disingenuous, just mis-stated, though my meaning remains: it is true that violet used the term “accurate” instead of “correct.”

so i’ll revise: violet asserted the goal of daily intercourse as “most theologically accurate.”

considering Church documents, i concluded her assertion is “wrong.”

but is sex every day wrong? …??.. i dont really care, nor is it my business whether or not any real life couple does, in fact, have sex every day. but if questioned, i would argue they may ***be missing ***the beautiful outcomes the Church assures will come from personal self restraint within the sacramental relationship of total self giving.

 

[baylee]

not the least bit disingenuous, just mis-stated, though my meaning remains: it is true that violet used the term “accurate” instead of “correct.”

so i’ll revise: violet asserted the goal of daily intercourse as “most theologically accurate.”

considering Church documents, i concluded her assertion is “wrong.”

but is sex every day wrong? …??.. i dont really care, nor is it my business whether or not any real life couple does, in fact, have sex every day. but if questioned, i would argue they may ***be missing ***the beautiful outcomes the Church assures will come from personal self restraint within the sacramental relationship of total self giving.

Um, yeah I don’t really care what any couple does, but I doubt the Church would say it was a good idea to have sex daily based on the various documents/quotes sited here in this thread. It doesn’t go as far as saying it is a sin, but it certainly doesn’t encourage it either.

 

[monicatholic]

but I doubt the Church would say it was a good idea to have sex daily based on the various documents/quotes sited here in this thread. It doesn’t go as far as saying it is a sin, but it certainly doesn’t encourage it either.

my personal interpretation would probably be along these lines, too, baylee. but i want to be careful to not fall into the same sort of error as violet-- that is, of attempting to elevate an idea which hasnt been taught by the Church.

 

[cviolette]

but is sex every day wrong? …??.. i dont really care, nor is it my business whether or not any real life couple does, in fact, have sex every day. but if questioned, i would argue they may ***be missing ***the beautiful outcomes the Church assures will come from personal self restraint within the sacramental relationship of total self giving.

Um, yeah I don’t really care what any couple does, but I doubt the Church would say it was a good idea to have sex daily based on the various documents/quotes sited here in this thread. It doesn’t go as far as saying it is a sin, but it certainly doesn’t encourage it either.

If couple wants to have sex every day, I can’t see that it would be a bad idea. You may still be practicing self restraint by not cheating on the spouse. I think it really depends on the couple.

 

[Consecrated]

The point of “living your vocation” (in this case, that of marriage) is to grow in virtue. If physical self-giving everyday will help the couple grow in virtue (generosity, selflessness, patience, humility), then it would be a good thing. I can think of many reasons, some already stated by the OP and others, why frequent marital contact would aid the couple’s growth in virtue. If the couple is at a point when mutually agreed upon “fasting” from the joy of intercourse would help the couple grow in virtue (material detachment, mortification, humility). There is of course a point also at which frequent indulgence in the marital act may distract the couple from the pursuit of virtue. At this point, the couple would be wise to step back and reassess. There is also a point at which abstinence would distract the couple from growth in virtue, at which point the couple would —wait for it ----- be wise to step back and reassess.

The OP has a point that it should not *simply *be the “mood” of either one or both that completely dictates the couple’s physical intimate life. The sacrament of marriage is too precious and yes, fragile, to leave such an important part of it to the whims of “mood”. There are many other things that must be considered. I think really we all agree with that. There are probably some couples that are better and more intuitive at aligning their intimate relationship to the proper practice of virtue, and so don’t realize the work that it may take another couple.

ETA There is no place in Church teachings that I have ever come across where frequency of intercourse is ever particularly addressed in terms of how many times a week is allowed. A couple is being “moderate” (the admonition in the CCC) if they are trying to match up their intimate life with the practice of virtue. End of story.

 

[violet81]

I don’t think there are very many couples who manage to have sex everyday even if they intend to. There is simply too much that would get in the way…such as illness, injury, UTI, Vaginitis, pregnancy nausea, extreme exhaustion, child birth recovery, travel, interruptions, lack of privacy, NFP, yadda yadda yadda.

Perhaps I can’t speak for every couple but I know that I have had no lack of opportunity to practice self-control.

 

[searching04]

violet, you fail to admit the strength of a proposal such as " most theologically correct" when promoting daily intercourse as a marital “goal” or “intent.” and you seem to demote to the category of “mood” all subjective reasons to avoid intercourse.

you have a bias. you asked for discussion. you seem unwilling to consider that your conclusions are extremist, instead concluding this discussion isn’t everyone’s ‘cup of tea.’

Because maybe there is nothing extremist? Have you even thought of that? Or just because somoene doesn’t take the view you do, they are extremist? I view people taking the position so far towards what *they *interpret as “theologically correct” as extreme. So are you?

it’s my cup of tea, violet. i love my generous husband and i love being generous with my generous husband. *** but I’ll only promote my subjective views based on experience and bias SO FAR as they coincide with Church teaching***.

Nothing she has proposed - and as her view, mind you - is theologically incorrect. If so, please state what it is and where. You may not agree, but it doesn’t make it incorrect.

i won’t propose my “most theologically correct” conclusions as such when there isn’t teaching to support it.

and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to ***not ***classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.”

Good for you. So her views and experience are invalid?

 

[searching04]

Unfortunately, Humanae Vitae encourages self-denial and periodic continence and the CCC encourages just moderation WRT marital sex. So, it does appear that daily marital sex would be inconsistent with those values…and therefore wrong.

ENCOURAGES, not DICTATES. Nowhere in any teaching does it say if a couple desires sex daily that it is wrong. The point is to not take each other or sex for granted, is it not? That is where abstaining and moderation comes in. But it is up to the couple to decide that, or the church - if you are exactly following teachings - would have prohibited it like it does other things.

Goes right back to the church trying to save us from ourselves. It can teach the reasons why moderation is good; it cannot make the decision on what is right for each couple. And that is where and why dissention, disagreement, and confusion comes in with Catholics and sex.

 

[searching04]

not the least bit disingenuous, just mis-stated, though my meaning remains: it is true that violet used the term “accurate” instead of “correct.”

so i’ll revise: violet asserted the goal of daily intercourse as “most theologically accurate.”

considering Church documents, i concluded her assertion is “wrong.”

but is sex every day wrong? …??.. i dont really care, nor is it my business whether or not any real life couple does, in fact, have sex every day. but if questioned, i would argue they may ***be missing ***the beautiful outcomes the Church assures will come from personal self restraint within the sacramental relationship of total self giving.

And this is why I’d argue church teachings on some things. Who is to say that a couple who engages in frequent and even daily sex, for whatever reasons, is in fact not totally giving of themselves? Everyone is different. With all my heart, I believe that making my wife feel as good as I possibly can while being intimate is, in fact, totally giving of myself to her. That’s me (and I would argue, it is true for most men). And nowhere is it stated or taught that it is contrary to church teachings. The ideal is stated; the spiritual goal is stated; frequent sex for a couple is not defined as not self-giving.

 

[searching04]

my personal interpretation would probably be along these lines, too, baylee. but i want to be careful to not fall into the same sort of error as violet-- that is, of attempting to elevate an idea which hasnt been taught by the Church.

“but i want to be careful to not fall into the same sort of error as violet”

You’re just all sorts of judgmental as can be, aren’t you? Or you’re just reading into things what you want? She stated her views, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and asked for other comments and views. She never elevated squat, nor is what she presented against any teachings. It may not be the ideals and goals stated in CCC, etc., but the point is it is not against teachings or in error - huge difference.

 

[searching04]

The point of “living your vocation” (in this case, that of marriage) is to grow in virtue. If physical self-giving everyday will help the couple grow in virtue (generosity, selflessness, patience, humility), then it would be a good thing. I can think of many reasons, some already stated by the OP and others, why frequent marital contact would aid the couple’s growth in virtue. If the couple is at a point when mutually agreed upon “fasting” from the joy of intercourse would help the couple grow in virtue (material detachment, mortification, humility). There is of course a point also at which frequent indulgence in the marital act may distract the couple from the pursuit of virtue. At this point, the couple would be wise to step back and reassess. There is also a point at which abstinence would distract the couple from growth in virtue, at which point the couple would —wait for it ----- be wise to step back and reassess.

The OP has a point that it should not *simply *be the “mood” of either one or both that completely dictates the couple’s physical intimate life. The sacrament of marriage is too precious and yes, fragile, to leave such an important part of it to the whims of “mood”. There are many other things that must be considered. I think really we all agree with that. There are probably some couples that are better and more intuitive at aligning their intimate relationship to the proper practice of virtue, and so don’t realize the work that it may take another couple.

ETA There is no place in Church teachings that I have ever come across where frequency of intercourse is ever particularly addressed in terms of how many times a week is allowed. A couple is being “moderate” (the admonition in the CCC) if they are trying to match up their intimate life with the practice of virtue. End of story.

Beautifully said!!!

 

[monicatholic]

She stated her views, thoughts, feelings, experiences, and asked for other comments and views.

she posited her views (daily intercourse should be the goal of married life) as ***most theologically accurate. *** and she asked for discussion. considering how often the documents of the Church articulate the value and beauty of self restraint, and considering i was not excluded from the discussion, i say she’s NOT most theologically accurate. i say she interpreted research (dubious) and scripture ***without ***recourse to the most relevant teaching docs of the Church (CCC and Humanae Vitae) and came up with a view beyond what the church teaches. fbyond = extreme. (for a while i was using a Latin prefix ‘super’, which is my preference over extreme. but no one seemed to get my point-- that her interpretation was OVER , BEYOND what the Church herself teaches. and that is never necessary. the Church teaches enough.)

so, what part of your disagreement is making you uber-reactive? maybe this made you mad: ***and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to not classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.” ***

total self giving AND self-restraint are directed by the Church. that’s not either/or. it’s AND.

 

[searching04]

she posited her views (daily intercourse should be the goal of married life) as ***most theologically accurate. *** and she asked for discussion. considering how often the documents of the Church articulate the value and beauty of self restraint,

Value and beauty, which they are, are the goals; dictates, they are not. The issue becomes interpretation of that and where that fits within a marriage.

and considering i was not excluded from the discussion, i say she’s NOT most theologically accurate. i say she interpreted research (dubious) and scripture ***without ***recourse to the most relevant teaching docs of the Church (CCC and Humanae Vitae) and came up with a view beyond what the church teaches. fbyond = extreme.

Nope, you weren’t excluded; no one was. Your opinion, which is valid as anyon else’s, is different from hers. How do you know she did not have recourse to church documents? Because it differs from your interpretations and application in your life? Her view is not beyond church teachings, is it? Frequency is not restricted; moderation is encouraged, not dictated. “Consecrated” made a perfect post prior to this; please refer to that.

(for a while i was using a Latin prefix ‘super’, which is my preference over extreme. but no one seemed to get my point-- that her interpretation was OVER , BEYOND what the Church herself teaches. and that is never necessary. the Church teaches enough.)

Again, the church does not teach or dictate or restrict frequency.

so, what part of your disagreement is making you uber-reactive? maybe this made you mad: ***and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to not classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.” ***

Only “uber-reactive” to you being condescending or judgmental in saying someone is in error when there was none, or giving “cautionary notes”. It is how you do or do not phrase things.

total self giving AND self-restraint are directed by the Church. that’s not either/or. it’s AND.

Again, you decide in your marriage how that works. You can interpret, and it is interpretation, what “self-giving” and 'self-restraint" are for yourself and how they apply within your marriage. The church does not define either one or in any way dictate frequency. And they are not directed; they are given as the spiritual goals to attain, to shoot for, to aspire to in our daily struggles of sexuality and marriage, and they are struggles for some of us. And once again, I refer to the beautiful post by “Consecrated”.

 

[C_S_P_B]

she posited her views (daily intercourse should be the goal of married life) as ***most theologically accurate. ***and she asked for discussion. considering how often the documents of the Church articulate the value and beauty of self restraint, and considering i was not excluded from the discussion, i say she’s NOT most theologically accurate. i say she interpreted research (dubious) and scripture ***without ***recourse to the most relevant teaching docs of the Church (CCC and Humanae Vitae) and came up with a view beyond what the church teaches. fbyond = extreme. (for a while i was using a Latin prefix ‘super’, which is my preference over extreme. but no one seemed to get my point-- that her interpretation was OVER , BEYOND what the Church herself teaches. and that is never necessary. the Church teaches enough.)

so, what part of your disagreement is making you uber-reactive? maybe this made you mad: ***and on a personal note which might serve as a cautionary note: i sure as heck will be careful to not classify my husband’s “needs” as the unstoppable, oversexed compulsions codified as ‘average’ by recent “research.” ***

total self giving AND self-restraint are directed by the Church. that’s not either/or. it’s AND.

Bottom line it seems to me that violet81 was not preaching or dictating but rather encouraging.

monicatholic does seem to be preaching, which brings to mind 1Tim2:12 “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Is violet81 trying to do this or is monicatholic? Or maybe this doesn’t apply in general and only applies to women speaking in church. How about Ephesians 5:24 "As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands."

Maybe you ladies should do as Mary in Luke 2:19* “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.”* Hmm…prayer and contemplation…FIAT(let it be done unto me)…self-giving…humility…open minded…generous. I know what traits I value in women. I could go down to the hardware store and buy a cheaper doormat, if that is what I wanted.

Since I am called to sacrifice, even giving my life as in Ephesians 5:25 “*Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” *this becomes much easier when a man is married to a treasure rather than a millstone.

As a man I also believe in Matthew 13:46 "on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it." A man willing to give EVERYTHING for a treasure is something to contemplate, but I fear the feminist mentality will focus only on the aspect of buying which implies possession and control. I don’t care! I would be proud for such a fine woman to “belong” to me and would be willing even die for such a privilege.

I know that female excrement is just as odiferous as that from males, for we are all fallen. I’ll aspire to fulfill my destiny for the sake of a good woman, and I expect a worthy woman will strive to fulfill hers.

I also know that I like sweet things, so do flies. The old adage “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” seems to work with men too! I suppose some women would consider the application of this adage to this situation as “OVER and BEYOND what the Church herself teaches”” and therefore wrong. To each their own!

Maybe we should just figure out what the minimum requirements are to live as the Church teaches.

 

[searching04]

Bottom line it seems to me that violet81 was not preaching or dictating but encouraging.

monicatholic does seem to be preaching, which brings to mind 1Tim2:12 “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Is violet81 trying to do this or is monicatholic? Or maybe this doesn’t apply in general and only applies to women speaking in church. How about Ephesians 5:24 "As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands."

Maybe you ladies should do as Mary in Luke 2:19* “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart.”* Hmm…prayer and contemplation…FIAT(let it be done unto me)…self-giving…humility…open minded…generous. I know what traits I value in women. I could go down to the hardware store and buy a cheaper doormat, if that is what I wanted.

Since I am called to sacrifice, even giving my life as in Ephesians 5:25 “*Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,” *this becomes much easier when a man is married to a treasure rather than a millstone.

As a man I also believe in Matthew 13:46 "on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it." A man willing to give EVERYTHING for a treasure is something to contemplate, but I fear the feminist mentality will focus only on the aspect of buying which implies possession and control. I don’t care! I would be proud for such a fine woman to “belong” to me and would be willing even die for such a privilege.

I know that female excrement is just as odiferous as that from males, for we are all fallen. I’ll aspire to fulfill my destiny for the sake of a good woman, and I expect a worthy woman will strive to fulfill hers.

I also know that I like sweet things, so do flies. The old adage “You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” seems to work with men too! I suppose some women would consider the application of this adage to this situation as “OVER and BEYOND what the Church herself teaches”” and therefore wrong. To each their own!

Maybe we should just figure out what the minimum requirements are to live as the Church teaches.

Blunt, are we ?

 

[monicatholic]

Nope, you weren’t excluded; no one was. Your opinion, which is valid as anyon else’s, is different from hers. How do you know she did not have recourse to church documents? Because it differs from your interpretations and application in your life? Her view is not beyond church teachings, is it? Frequency is not restricted; moderation is encouraged, not dictated. “Consecrated” made a perfect post prior to this; please refer to that.

her view, as she posited it was “most theologically accurate.”

i disagree that her view is most theologically accurate. if violet had recourse to church documents, then she might like to point to them.

as for preaching, where have i asserted my position was most theologically accurate? i didnt. in fact, i replied that what might be my OWN inferences (that perhaps daily intercourse is NOT advised) are irrelevant and may even be eroneous. so, nowhere did i assert daily intercourse is “wrong.”

so CSPB, as a response you toss a lot of Scriptural salvos and vinegar and inuendo of feminist mentality? feminism? really? me? yikes, man. just yikes.

 

[searching04]

her view, as she posited it was “most theologically accurate.”

i disagree that her view is most theologically accurate. if violet had recourse to church documents, then she might like to point to them.

as for preaching, where have i asserted my position was most theologically accurate? i didnt. in fact, i replied that what might be my OWN inferences (that perhaps daily intercourse is NOT advised) are irrelevant and may even be eroneous. so, nowhere did i assert daily intercourse is “wrong.”

You said she was “in error” and went “beyond church teachings”/was extreme because of what Humanae Vitae and CCC say. As such, you are declaring you are more “theologically accurate” or at least, it comes across as such. Problem is that you are not. Both documents talk of/propose moderation, etc and the spritual benefits/reasons for it; they do not dicate frequency or lack thereof.

so CSPB, as a response you toss a lot of Scriptural salvos and vinegar and inuendo of feminist mentality? feminism? really? me? yikes, man. just yikes.

This is all devolving, away from the point of the original post.

 

[violet81]

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over this giant can of worms I opened.

Post after post after post on these boards seems to reflect a lot of very dissatisfied men and women. It seems to me that an intention for daily relations could solve a lot of the problems I have seen. St Paul seems to be saying we should be constantly ready to render the marriage debt Doing it by default prevents either spouse from feeling like a beggar.

Moderation looks different to different people. I personally think abstinence during Lent and every Friday is a good idea.