Do I have this right?

[Ella]

I’ve been thinking about a way to express my pov and here goes:

God gave man the Sabbath, as a day of rest. By the time Jesus walked the Earth, the Pharisees had succeeded in making the Sabbath a burden instead. If someone picked up their child to set in their lap, that was ‘work’ on the Sabbath and they were sinning.

God gave man the Sabbath as a gift, and a remarkable one at that - to rest one day of the week, and instead man turned it into a chore -

Now, God gave man sex, as a way of procreating and also as a way of expressing joy between married couples.
But some of you are trying to make sex a burden instead. If a man and a woman are together, and the man does not ejaculate in his wife’s vagina, that is somehow a sin?

God gave man sex as a gift, and a remarkable one at that - AFAIK no other female mammal has orgasms - and instead man turned it into a chore -

 

[Lucky7]

I’ve been thinking about a way to express my pov and here goes:

God gave man the Sabbath, as a day of rest. By the time Jesus walked the Earth, the Pharisees had succeeded in making the Sabbath a burden instead. If someone picked up their child to set in their lap, that was ‘work’ on the Sabbath and they were sinning.

God gave man the Sabbath as a gift, and a remarkable one at that - to rest one day of the week, and instead man turned it into a chore -

Now, God gave man sex, as a way of procreating and also as a way of expressing joy between married couples.
But some of you are trying to make sex a burden instead. If a man and a woman are together, and the man does not ejaculate in his wife’s vagina, that is somehow a sin?

God gave man sex as a gift, and a remarkable one at that - AFAIK no other female mammal has orgasms - and instead man turned it into a chore -

Wow…I was just reading the Bible yesterday (as part of my Lenten practice) and this is EXACTLY what came to me when I read about the Pharisees and the Sabbath. The Church comes off as legalistic regarding married sex as the Pharisees once did about the Sabbath.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Wow…I was just reading the Bible yesterday (as part of my Lenten practice) and this is EXACTLY what came to me when I read about the Pharisees and the Sabbath. The Church comes off as legalistic regarding married sex as the Pharisees once did about the Sabbath.

But you still have an obligation on the Sabbath, don’t you? And it’s not anything goes on Sunday, is it, really??? Oh, we may think our shopping is needed, or doing housework just has to be done, but is that really okay?

The Church isn’t being legalistic when it outlines down basic moral rules set forth by God. The Church is trying to get us to heaven. The sexual act works in a particular way for it to bring forth life. Is it legalistic for the Church to say sex is for married people? Is it legalistic to say that the Eucharist has to be celebrated a certain way? The Church safeguards those things that are sacred. SEX IS SACRED.

 

[Lucky7]

The sexual act works in a particular way for it to bring forth life.

The focus is really on the procreative, isn’t it?

 

[Lucky7]

But you still have an obligation on the Sabbath, don’t you? And it’s not anything goes on Sunday, is it, really??? Oh, we may think our shopping is needed, or doing housework just has to be done, but is that really okay?

The Church isn’t being legalistic when it outlines down basic moral rules set forth by God. The Church is trying to get us to heaven. The sexual act works in a particular way for it to bring forth life. Is it legalistic for the Church to say sex is for married people? Is it legalistic to say that the Eucharist has to be celebrated a certain way? The Church safeguards those things that are sacred. SEX IS SACRED.

It is legalistic to direct what specific actions should and shouldn’t take place between two married people who love each other and wish to show their love for each other. It is legalistic to force a man to make sure he ejaculates in one place …and one place only… every single time.

 

[Ella]

It is legalistic to direct what specific actions should and shouldn’t take place between two married people who love each other and wish to show their love for each other. It is legalistic to force a man to make sure he ejaculates in one place …and one place only… every single time.

Bingo!

 

[Jennifer_J]

The sexual act works in a particular way for it to bring forth life.

The focus is really on the procreative, isn’t it?

That’s what sex is for. Bonding and babies. Both together. Can’t be separated because that’s what the act is for. To separate the act is to destroy the sacramental nature of the act. Just like trying to make the Eucharist out of lemonade and cookies or having a female priest. I assume that’s legalistic, too?

 

[Spirithound]

The focus is really on the procreative, isn’t it?

It does seem so, doesn’t it? But think, if you’re engaging in sexual relations with another person, it’s unitive. The pleasurable aspect depends upon…dunno, skill? But at any rate, thinking logically, there’s nothing more pleasurable about ejaculating outside of the woman’s vagina than inside, is there?

That leaves the procreative aspect. All three are important, but this is the aspect that’s under attack today.

It is legalistic to direct what specific actions should and shouldn’t take place between two married people who love each other and wish to show their love for each other. It is legalistic to force a man to make sure he ejaculates in one place …and one place only… every single time.

Nobody said ejaculation needs to take place every single time.

 

[Lucky7]

Nobody said ejaculation needs to take place every single time.

I’m sorry…you’re right…instead, the Church forces a man to either ejaculate in the vagina or not at all. Awesome choice.

 

[Lucky7]

That’s what sex is for. Bonding and babies. Both together. Can’t be separated because that’s what the act is for. To separate the act is to destroy the sacramental nature of the act. Just like trying to make the Eucharist out of lemonade and cookies or having a female priest. I assume that’s legalistic, too?

I don’t have an issue with conjugal sex being about being open to having children…I do have an issue with conjugal sex being the only sex a married couple can share in. There is only one way to confect the Eucharist…there is only one way to create children…there isn’t only one way to have sex and enjoy and love your spouse.

 

[Ella]

I don’t have an issue with conjugal sex being about being open to having children…I do have an issue with conjugal sex being the only sex a married couple can share in. There is only one way to confect the Eucharist…there is only one way to create children…there isn’t only one way to have sex and enjoy and love your spouse.

I agree. And, if the Church were to make a statement that, “In Marriage, all consensual sexual activity between a husband and wife is permitted, as long as their marriage is open to life” it would surprise many people, including most Catholics I know, that this was ever in question in the first place.

 

[Spirithound]

I don’t have an issue with conjugal sex being about being open to having children…I do have an issue with conjugal sex being the only sex a married couple can share in. There is only one way to confect the Eucharist…there is only one way to create children…there isn’t only one way to have sex and enjoy and love your spouse.

I agree. And, if the Church were to make a statement that, “In Marriage, all consensual sexual activity between a husband and wife is permitted, as long as their marriage is open to life” it would surprise many people, including most Catholics I know, that this was ever in question in the first place.

Wait wait, hold on now Ella, you and Lucky are saying different things here. See what I’ve highlighted in your post? This implies that ejaculation occurs inside the vagina. No other sexual act is open to life. And if your sexual act is open to life, your marriage is open to life, and vice versa. So, what you said above is exactly what the Church would say.

BTW, Lucky, “conjugal” means “between married people”. I think your post is gonna throw some ppl for a loop…

 

[Ella]

Wait wait, hold on now Ella, you and Lucky are saying different things here. See what I’ve highlighted in your post? This implies that ejaculation occurs inside the vagina. No other sexual act is open to life. And if your sexual act is open to life, your marriage is open to life, and vice versa. So, what you said above is exactly what the Church would say.

BTW, Lucky, “conjugal” means “between married people”. I think your post is gonna throw some ppl for a loop…

Open to life - Just as a couple can abstain from sex during fertile times and remain open to life, I believe that a couple can have sex that includes ejaculation elsewhere than the vagina and remain open to life.
If a couple NEVER had sex where ejaculation occured in the vagina then yes I would see that as sinful.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I don’t have an issue with conjugal sex being about being open to having children…I do have an issue with conjugal sex being the only sex a married couple can share in. There is only one way to confect the Eucharist…there is only one way to create children…there isn’t only one way to have sex and enjoy and love your spouse.

The Church allows anything a couple would like to do prior to ejaculation—so your arguing about nothing. As long as the husband finishes in the proper spot, do all the other stuff you want. I think you all just want to argue for arguments sake…to say the Church is wrong, instead of examining WHY she might be right…

 

[Ella]

The Church allows anything a couple would like to do prior to ejaculation—so your arguing about nothing. As long as the husband finishes in the proper spot, do all the other stuff you want. I think you all just want to argue for arguments sake…to say the Church is wrong, instead of examining WHY she might be right…

No, I’m not arguing just to argue - I really do think it’s strange that, as Lucky7 posted, “the Church forces a man to either ejaculate in the vagina or not at all” without serious sinning. And yes I think that is a Pharisaic position.

 

[Lucky7]

Open to life - Just as a couple can abstain from sex during fertile times and remain open to life, I believe that a couple can have sex that includes ejaculation elsewhere than the vagina and remain open to life.
If a couple NEVER had sex where ejaculation occured in the vagina then yes I would see that as sinful.

And a Bingo right back at ya Ella …and I would add that it would be wrong if the ejaculation happened elsewhere with the intent to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Ella]

It’s scary how accurate the Monty Python song is:

Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate…

 

[Lucky7]

No, I’m not arguing just to argue - I really do think it’s strange that, as Lucky7 posted, “the Church forces a man to either ejaculate in the vagina or not at all” without serious sinning. And yes I think that is a Pharisaic position.

I am not arguing to argue either…or to make trouble here. I am not a Catholic (and I believe Ella is the same way from how she worded her OP) that has issues with much of what the Church teaches. In fact, this is the only thing I have ever questioned since converting years ago (of course, I converted as a single person, so this married stuff probably didn’t make a dent). I suspect that, like myself, Ella is not all that happy with the fact that she disagrees with Church teaching.

 

[Ella]

I am not arguing to argue either…or to make trouble here. I am not a Catholic (and I believe Ella is the same way from how she worded her OP) that has issues with much of what the Church teaches. In fact, this is the only thing I have ever questioned since converting years ago (of course, I converted as a single person, so this married stuff probably didn’t make a dent). I suspect that, like myself, Ella is not all that happy with the fact that she disagrees with Church teaching.

No I am not happy about it but I am not going to lie and say it makes sense to me either. I think it is a ridiculous extrapolation from what should be a simple teaching - be open to life - but good grief the way it is interpreted now, a poor man in the marriage bed with his wife! has to go confess if he ejaculates anywhere but in one specific place in the entire universe- may even be damned to hell for it - it’s, well, I think ridiculous covers it.

 

[Methodi]

I don’t know if it’s unique to catholicism, but the Bible is stunningly silent when it comes to sex rules for married couples.

The Bible says that the marriage bed should be undefiled, figure that one out