Father catholics are against contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter spotty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yeah its “procreative and unitive” exactly, exactly. oral sex is not procreative and its not unitive. its a mockery of it.
its right there in the catechism. and i cant say it any better than pope paul vi and it seems it wouldnt matter if i could.
“Every action, which whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, OR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS NATURAL CONSEQUENCES, proposes, whether as an end or as a MEANS, to render procreation impossible is intinsically evil.”

i explained why earlier. it just doesnt fit into the design of sex. i mean everyone admits yeah it shouldnt end there or that would be an evil. but for what reason if the woman is on an infertile period anyway? because its not truly unitive either but just a mockery of it.

God bless
 
and in regard to the alcohol analogy. yeah sex is good the abuse of it is wrong. oral and anal sex is an abuse of it as ive try to show
 
40.png
spotty:
and in regard to the alcohol analogy. yeah sex is good the abuse of it is wrong. oral and anal sex is an abuse of it as ive try to show
Click to expand...
Unfortunately what you have tried to show is at odds with church teaching on the matter. There is nothing wrong with oral sex as foreplay if it ends with penetrative intercourse OR if it takes place after the male climaxes via intercourse in order to bring the woman to her own climax.
 
from what ive seen its certain priests who seem to be at odds with what the church teaches. but ive said all i think i can say.

but ill end with this. come on! how can you not see at least that anal sex is a mockery of intercourse. some one said its only wrong b/c of health reasons earlier. i dont know what you think that might entail and for the sake of modesty i dont think i should go into it on a public forum but hey if youre really bent on a health risk of it. private message me if you want with why its wrong for the sake of health. and ill let you know either why or how it could be just be as healthy as intercourse. bare in mind, it could be said that oral is unhealthy too. and for those that seem a little repulsed, yeah thats your conscience. it is sick and a mockery.
but i think the thing is that people dont want to admit to it because the same reasoning against anal would also apply to oral so they dont want to admit that theyre wrong or their priest is wrong. but hey if i am wrong. everyone i could be wrong. then i am wrong. i do not see how especially anal sex, but oral too, is not a mockery though. please tell me how.
i have given what pope paul vi says and i have given reason and logic in light of what the catholic teaches. how is this wrong.
the pope says its wrong right there
 
40.png
spotty:
i really love everyone and dont people to abuse each other or be abused.
Click to expand...
I have been married for 15 years. Of those 15 years the last 10 I have been practicing my Catholic faith. My husband and I use NFP because after the birth or our daughter I was advised, due to a deteriorating heart condition I have, another pregnancy would be fatal. We abstain during my fertile time and are intimate during my infertile time always ending in intercourse.

Foreplay as long as both parties are mutually comfortable with it is not abuse. Now we can’t touch our spouse unless we’re in the midst of intercourse? Pleasure can happen outside of the gential area so is that wrong too? This is rediculous. You obviously have issues with oral foreplay but it has not been condemned by the church and for good reasons. It’s part of a loving intimate relationship. Tenderness and giving in intimacy is unitive even if it doesn’t happen for both partners at the exact same time.

Doing something for my husband that is enjoyable to him makes me feel closer to him. There is no way I believe this is abusive in anyway. You obviously are speaking from a place where you have not experienced this type of intimacy in a loving marriage relationship. I give to my husband and he gives to me and that is unitive even before the physical union takes place.

We go to a parish where our priest is very orthodox and loyal to the magisterium. We have been instructed this oral foreplay is perfectly acceptable as long as it end in intercouse.

You need to realize there are many married people here with much more experience on this issue whom have shared years of intimacy with their spouses and whom know full well what sexual unity means. You can rant and rave and shake your fist at us, proclaiming your trying to save our souls but oral foreplay is perfectly ok with Catholic church teaching and you have no official church document condemning it because no such document exists.

You can have your opinion, you can refrain from such activity if you are not comfortable with it but you have no right to condemn those who chose oral forepaly as part of the marriage act. Until you are elected pope you have no authority to make any proclaimations on this matter.
 
40.png
spotty:
in response to your question about Jesus sinning. no he didnt sin. when an evil happens to any of us, youre right its not true to say that God participated in and evil act b/c he could have stopped it but didnt. and the problem of evil encompasses every evil but lets stick with the example of Jesus and judas. Jesus in your example being the spouse against contraception and judas being the spouse in favor.
it makes it confusing yeah. why? for the same reason that the problem of evil argument is confusing and seems to blurr things.

*** the short answer is that its not the same thing.***
Click to expand...
Spotty,

You are correct- Jesus did not sin. I would disagree with your conclusion.

Please bear with me here. Let us extend this analogy further.

Does Jesus unite himself with us in the Holy Eucharist? Is this not the most intimate union possible? Even more intimate than the union of a husband and wife? -Yes.

Now, remember at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-23)

"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!””

Judas recieved Jesus in Holy Communion on the same night he betrayed our Lord. Judas, just after this, goes to bring the guards to the Mount of Olives. So, Judas was in the midst of the most intimate union possible, union with God Himself, and he totally disregarded this to betray Jesus. The union was desired by Jesus, remember, (Luke 22:15) “And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”” He did not leave Judas out- knowing he would betray him but moments later, the taste of the bread and wine still fresh in his mouth.

Spotty, when a contracepting spouse does this in the midst of the marital embrace, he is accepting an intimate union, freely given. He is accepting it, but then, in the same breath, betraying it. If Jesus desired to give himself to Judas, knowing he would sin- why not the faithful spouse?

The next question is- why then, DID Jesus give Himself to Judas? Did this not heap even more sin upon his betrayal? The answer is yes- (Luke 12:48) “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” Jesus gave Judas Holy Communion PRECISLY that he might have the grace to resist the temptation to betray Him. It was his last, great chance. He- in HIS FREE WILL chose to betray Jesus anyway, with a kiss- no accident, a sign of friendship and respect. He made a mockery of both the union, and the friendship.

Spotty, in giving myself over to my husband, I am offering a gift, freely given. What he does with that gift is determined by HIS FREE WILL. God Himself will not interfere with our free will. I am trying to obey the command of God “Be friuitful and multiply”- marriage, and the marital union are good, but any good thing can be abused, or misused. The gift is a grace, which is recieved properly, helps to sanctify us. To bring us to heaven! The same way that our union with Jesus in the Eucharist is a gift- freely given- and ment to help us to heaven. (Yet, how many people do we know are recieving Jesun in sin- even to the Satanists that take the Host for their evil rituals. Jesus does not prevent even those people from recieving Him.)

Finally, it says in Corinthians 7:12-15 “If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

God bless you.
 
40.png
Siena:
Spotty,

You are correct- Jesus did not sin. I would disagree with your conclusion.

Please bear with me here. Let us extend this analogy further.

Does Jesus unite himself with us in the Holy Eucharist? Is this not the most intimate union possible? Even more intimate than the union of a husband and wife? -Yes.

Now, remember at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-23)

"And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. “But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table. “For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!””

Judas recieved Jesus in Holy Communion on the same night he betrayed our Lord. Judas, just after this, goes to bring the guards to the Mount of Olives. So, Judas was in the midst of the most intimate union possible, union with God Himself, and he totally disregarded this to betray Jesus. The union was desired by Jesus, remember, (Luke 22:15) “And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer”” He did not leave Judas out- knowing he would betray him but moments later, the taste of the bread and wine still fresh in his mouth.

Spotty, when a contracepting spouse does this in the midst of the marital embrace, he is accepting an intimate union, freely given. He is accepting it, but then, in the same breath, betraying it. If Jesus desired to give himself to Judas, knowing he would sin- why not the faithful spouse?

The next question is- why then, DID Jesus give Himself to Judas? Did this not heap even more sin upon his betrayal? The answer is yes- (Luke 12:48) “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” Jesus gave Judas Holy Communion PRECISLY that he might have the grace to resist the temptation to betray Him. It was his last, great chance. He- in HIS FREE WILL chose to betray Jesus anyway, with a kiss- no accident, a sign of friendship and respect. He made a mockery of both the union, and the friendship.

Spotty, in giving myself over to my husband, I am offering a gift, freely given. What he does with that gift is determined by HIS FREE WILL. God Himself will not interfere with our free will. I am trying to obey the command of God “Be friuitful and multiply”- marriage, and the marital union are good, but any good thing can be abused, or misused. The gift is a grace, which is recieved properly, helps to sanctify us. To bring us to heaven! The same way that our union with Jesus in the Eucharist is a gift- freely given- and ment to help us to heaven. (Yet, how many people do we know are recieving Jesun in sin- even to the Satanists that take the Host for their evil rituals. Jesus does not prevent even those people from recieving Him.)

Finally, it says in Corinthians 7:12-15 “If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.”

God bless you.
Click to expand...
How completely beautiful is that.

Thank you Siena
And Praise and Thanksgiving to Jesus for giving us such a perfect example of Love.
 
40.png
spotty:
yeah its “procreative and unitive” exactly, exactly. oral sex is not procreative and its not unitive. its a mockery of it.
its right there in the catechism. and i cant say it any better than pope paul vi and it seems it wouldnt matter if i could.
“Every action, which whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, OR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS NATURAL CONSEQUENCES, proposes, whether as an end or as a MEANS, to render procreation impossible is intinsically evil.”

i explained why earlier. it just doesnt fit into the design of sex. i mean everyone admits yeah it shouldnt end there or that would be an evil. but for what reason if the woman is on an infertile period anyway? because its not truly unitive either but just a mockery of it.

God bless
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can prove that oral foreplay has spilling of the seed as it’s automatic natural consequence (like the use of condoms has an automatic natural consequence of preventing the seed from going where it should). And I think more than a few married people here have told you (probably from experience) that it’s quite possible and perfectly “natural” to partake in it without going “too far”. Sure, it’s possible to have oral stimulation with the intention of taking it too far, and that intention is sinful, but it’s very possible to have oral stimulation quite WITHOUT that intention, and with no danger of “spilling” even accidentally happening.

And insofar as it is part of the complete act of intimacy, it IS unitive. So there! 😉
 
Spotty-

In my haste yesterday afternoon, I forgot 1 vital point about your analogy of the martyr not committing suicide by allowing themselves to be martyred.

What I forgot is this question- does the potential martyr commit a sin by PERMITTING THIER EXOCUTIONER TO COMMIT MURDER? Would it be more charitable to walk away?
There is in the case of 1 spouse contracepting the PRINCIPAL OF DOUBLE-EFFECT. This is the PROPORTIONATLY GRAVE REASON that was one of the sections in my post #121.

I have 2 choices- To allow him to sin by contracepting, or to allow him to sin by divorcing me. In this case, the action with the best good, and least evil consequences is to allow the contrception, while working for his conversion.
Double-Effect: The principle of double effect involves five criteria: 1) Appeal to the principle of double effect is justified only if there is no alternative to the action in question. This principle can be applied only in real dilemmas, such as this case.
  1. The action in question must be good in its object (the first of three “sources” of the human action), or at least neutral.
  2. The evil consequence must not be intended. Here, one is considering the intention (the second “source” of the human action) of the action. The person in a moral dilemma would prefer that there is no evil consequence at all, but can do nothing about the fact that such a risk exists, as in this case.
  3. The good consequence must not be the effect of the evil consequence. Here, one is considering the circumstances (the third “source” of the human action) of the action.
  4. The good consequence must be proportionate to the evil consequence.
 
Spotty-

One last thing- I promise! 😉

When you refer to Pope Paul the 6th’s Humanae Vite as your scource for not allowing for foreplay, I want you to note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2370 quotes the same line you use. This line is given as reference that all types of contraception are intrinsically evil. It mentions NOTHING about physical actions within intercourse. NOTHING.
40.png
Siena:
What about manual (hand) stimilation prior to intercourse?
Click to expand...
40.png
spotty:
uh yeah masterbation is wrong.
Click to expand...
(-I hate to break this to you- but after you have been married for a while, it does become nesessary (most of the time) for SOME type of stimulation for the husband to be able to perform his “duty”. -Imagine a 50 or 60 year old man being “good to go” at the drop of a hat. It physiologically dosn’t happen.)
 
Jesus suffered for judas’ betrayal as He suffers from all of our betrayals. Jesus is God and it is a different thing. it is a straw man argument. there is a difference between God and men but more importantly there is a difference between these two situations.
do you know why there was such a debate about allowing pro choice public officials to recieve communion? do you know why the church teaches that if you are in a state of mortal sin, then are not to come to communion? why would they teach that if communion where good to recieve in order to obtain the grace to overcome maybe the mortal of sin of which you are guilty. He did it b/c that is why he came into the world not to condemn the world but save it which was accomplished through his passion. judas’ reception of the eucharist was part of his passion.

this union of God and man which you speak of is shown perfectly in mary. mary’s submission. submission is not consent. there is a difference. if for GRAVE reasons the woman must be submitted to the lust of her husband, then that is horrible that she must suffer like that. but this is not “to each his own” this is a suffering, something she doesnt want to do, something that hurts.

and as to the quote from st paul, the thing like i said there is no union. the faithful spouse is not participating in something good if she is forced for grave reasons to participate in contraceptive sex; she is not united with her husband.
and if it were a faithful man the same would be true.
and it goes both ways. if there are grave reasons why you should not have sex with your spouse, then you shouldnt. for instance, if a the child would be murdered by the spouse if conceived then you should abstain. nothing justifies murder of the innocent for the sake of anything not money, education, lust, not even love.Love and the murder of the innocent are incompatible, its a contradiction. abstinence however, is not murder. there will be no holy children if they are all murdered.

however if there is a union which is what st paul is talking about an actual union, and the man is lustful in his heart as to why he is participating in it, but the woman is not. their union is a good thing. this is how a man can abuse the act but a woman not. the fact is that it is an actual unitive act now which is supposed to be good.
so when you see it that way, then that to will fit into the Jesus v. judas analogy. the eucharistic celebration in itself as it ought to be carried out is a good thing just as the congugal act as it ought to be carried out is a good thing. however, one member can abuse that while the other not.
 
siena
so yeah the act must in itself be good. and the martyr thing ive said why it not the same consent and submission are not the same.

that is excactly what the catechism is talking about. every action which would lead through its natural consequences wether it is merely just an anticipation of those consequences (doesnt end there) or not that would render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.

every action which whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.
that is what oral and anl sex is.
 
and im sorry masterbation is not necessary even if youre older. youre wrong.
if hes to old, then hes to old. so people who think they have to look at porn to get stimulated or some other perversity b/c its not the same. hey youre thats how the body works. its part of Gods design.
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
You are bearing this cross in an amazing way. My heart and respect go out to you!

As a piece of unsolicited advice from one of the 25,000 “strangers,” here goes:

When I give talks on NFP and hear from those that “The Church does not belong in our bedroom,” I usually say this: The Church doesn’t want to be in your bedroom. But, The Church has a responsibility to help you have a properly formed conscience when you walk into your bedroom.

Unsolicited :twocents: and maybe you have already said it but I thought I would share anyway.

Bless you and your husband in your journey.
Click to expand...
Ok, I’m married to a Protestant. For a while there I thought he would convert to the Catholic faith. But after I told him that oral sex is wrong, masterbation (can I use that word here?) is wrong, ABC is wrong, he is digging in his heels. He doesn’t want to follow these rules and says the same thing - the Church should not be in the bedroom, and he won’t join any religion with so many rules and regulations. So now what can I do? What if my non Catholic husband wants oral sex??( I know that there is a certain amount of selfishness here in one person getting gratification, but I really don’t mind as I’m usually dead tired and want to go to sleep asap.) I don’t want a divorce over these issues.
 
40.png
spotty:
and im sorry masterbation is not necessary even if youre older. youre wrong.
if hes to old, then hes to old. so people who think they have to look at porn to get stimulated or some other perversity b/c its not the same. hey youre thats how the body works. its part of Gods design.
Click to expand...
I think the poster may have been referring to MUTUAL masturbation.
 
40.png
spotty:
and im sorry masterbation is not necessary even if youre older. youre wrong.
if hes to old, then hes to old. so people who think they have to look at porn to get stimulated or some other perversity b/c its not the same. hey youre thats how the body works. its part of Gods design.
Click to expand...
Um, I’m sorry but it’s not masterbation if it is done within the marriage act, and it is certainly not masterbation if his wife stimulates him herself.
 
spotty,

since you are an expert on sex, why don’t you tell us the only acts that are exceptable. Because the way you are talking, you seem to think sex is like putting together a computer desk: “Insert part A into Part B.” “No tools required”
 
40.png
Celeste88:
Ok, I’m married to a Protestant. For a while there I thought he would convert to the Catholic faith. But after I told him that oral sex is wrong, masterbation (can I use that word here?) is wrong, ABC is wrong, he is digging in his heels. He doesn’t want to follow these rules and says the same thing - the Church should not be in the bedroom, and he won’t join any religion with so many rules and regulations. So now what can I do? What if my non Catholic husband wants oral sex??( I know that there is a certain amount of selfishness here in one person getting gratification, but I really don’t mind as I’m usually dead tired and want to go to sleep asap.) I don’t want a divorce over these issues.
Click to expand...
Since these are very serious issues that only an true expert should help you with, the best thing you can do is talk to an orthodox priest. You have my prayers that you can find one. Another thing you can do is talk to an orthodox Catholic family psychologist… you can probably contact your priest or your diocesan office for a list of good ones near you. And have hope! Your perseverance for the good of your marriage may well help your husband to heaven!

That said, I’m fairly certain the marriage debt does NOT require you to give your husband oral sex to climax. In fact, you shouldn’t (not to climax). If he asks for it, you can, despite your tiredness, offer yourself to him in the proper unitive way (which may include oral forplay if there is no danger of him spilling his seed). And pray for him! Offer him to the care of Mother Mary. I will pray for you, too.
 
40.png
wabrams:
spotty,

since you are an expert on sex, why don’t you tell us the only acts that are exceptable. Because the way you are talking, you seem to think sex is like putting together a computer desk: “Insert part A into Part B.” “No tools required”
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl:

Or “all use of tools a sin.” 😃

Seriously, though, spotty. I’m tempted to be amused at your ideas, but at the same time, if this is the way you really think, you must have a really hard time with scrupulosity. And that’s no walk in the park. In fact, it’s very serious and an important tool of the devil to get you to overlook other things in your life that really do need changing.

In your OP you asked “Am I wrong?” Have you considered that the answer to this question is possibly “YES”? I don’t say this b/c I’m trying to be oh-so-smart and aren’t-I-great-I-have-it-all-figured-out, but b/c I I believe the Church Herself is consistently teaching something different from what you’re saying. And to follow the Church’s teaching is to be joy-filled!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top