Husband and I not having sex because we don't want children.

  • Thread starter Thread starter dluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Your post embodies the secular confusion and redefinition of what “marriage” is these days.

And it is not an uncommon view.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, it’s a good question.
What does the Church offer to a hetero-sexual couple that wants to share love giving sex?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Nevertheless, it’s a good question.
What does the Church offer to a hetero-sexual couple that wants to share love giving sex?
Click to expand...
The same as it does for widowed or divorced people. If your NOT properly married then no sex at all. We don’t go to heaven on our feelings alone but on how we follow the will of God. God Bless, Memaw
 
Jaaanosik said:
Nevertheless, it’s a good question.
What does the Church offer to a hetero-sexual couple that wants to share love giving sex?
Click to expand...
HOw is that a good question?

Are you seriously asking what the Church offers someone!?
 
KendraDZ1902 said:
The way children are raised comes from home. If you don’t raise children to be “ill mannered brats” then they won’t be. 🤷 Not all children are ill mannered brats, no matter where you live.
Click to expand...
I agree; especially if the parents are if I may say so “holy”. But still there is no guarantee because society does influence our children. I went through hell trying to “save” my eldest. With determination and more importantly with great supplications and prayers she is on the road to healing. They were many factors involved and many were out of my control. But by the grace of God I fought and am still fighting to help bring salvation to our family. That is offering your life to God, not simply working in the Church.

It sounds like this couple love each other but are content to live celibate lives. I would suggest that they read the biography of St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents. They too lived this way until they got the call to have children. It takes courage to have children and love.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
HOw is that a good question?

Are you seriously asking what the Church offers someone!?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am serious.
The Church addresses moral issues, it offers explanations to moral topics.
If Anglicans did not speak about the contraception in the last century then maybe Casti Connubii would not exist at all. The Church offered its stand on the issue.

If an issue/problem arises then the Church offers its stand on the topic.
That’s how it works.

For example organ transplants were addressed only when the issue became real.

So procreative sex in marriage or no sex at all. Nothing in between.

Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Yes, I am serious.
The Church addresses moral issues, it offers explanations to moral topics.
If Anglicans did not speak about the contraception in the last century then maybe Casti Connubii would not exist at all. The Church offered its stand on the issue.

If an issue/problem arises then the Church offers its stand on the topic.
That’s how it works.

For example organ transplants were addressed only when the issue became real.

So procreative sex in marriage or no sex at all. Nothing in between.

Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
Click to expand...
I am not following your train of thought.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I am not following your train of thought.
Click to expand...
There are two parts in my response.
  1. The procreative sex in marriage or no sex at all is becoming a big moral issue. The Church might address it in more detail.
  2. Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
    If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
This second part is a real question what does the procreative mean in #1.
The #1 is big issue because #2 is not understood properly.
Better understanding of #2 leads to addressing #1 in a better way.
 
Jaaanosik said:
There are two parts in my response.
  1. The procreative sex in marriage or no sex at all is becoming a big moral issue. The Church might address it in more detail.
  2. Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
    If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
This second part is a real question what does the procreative mean in #1.
The #1 is big issue because #2 is not understood properly.
Better understanding of #2 leads to addressing #1 in a better way.
Click to expand...
I still am lost.🤷
What do you think the Church would address in more detail?
2) Can you tell me which Church fathers and which meaning of procreative you are referencing? Can you tell me the exact question you are posing?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I still am lost.🤷
What do you think the Church would address in more detail?
2) Can you tell me which Church fathers and which meaning of procreative you are referencing? Can you tell me the exact question you are posing?
Click to expand...
For example from here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

“If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman”

There is no space for unitive sex in this teaching. Therefore the question:
2. Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
 
If the church fathers knew about NFP would they have condemned it?
 
Jaaanosik said:
For example from here: catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization

“If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman”

There is no space for unitive sex in this teaching. Therefore the question:
2. Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
Click to expand...
Well I would say that the context needs to be taken into account.
  1. Doesn’t this predate the Church Fathers? Doesn’t it go back to the first command God gave mankind?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Well I would say that the context needs to be taken into account.
  1. Doesn’t this predate the Church Fathers? Doesn’t it go back to the first command God gave mankind?
Click to expand...
No it does not. The God’s command to procreate is different from having sex only when you want to procreate.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
What makes you think they did not know about NFP?

When do you think knowledge of a woman’s cycle was discovered?
Click to expand...
They did not know about the relationship between the ovum and the period because the discovery of ovum is not even 200 years old.

So the question stands:
*Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
*
 
Jaaanosik said:
They did not know about the relationship between the ovum and the period because the discovery of ovum is not even 200 years old.

So the question stands:
*Does anybody know why the Church’s fathers asked for the procreative sex?
If they knew about the sperm, ovum and its relationship to periods would they ask for sex only in the fertile periods?
*
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that prior to two hundred years ago no one knew about female cycles of fertility?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Are you suggesting that prior to two hundred years ago no one knew about female cycles of fertility?
Click to expand...
I am suggesting that prior to two hundred years ago no scientist knew about the relationship between the ovum and the female cycles of fertility.
Therefore no scientist knew the inner workings of the human conception.

How can someone define a procreative sex if one does not know how the conception works?
Can someone define correct model of the Universe if one thinks the Earth is in the center of it and everything spins around?
 
Jaaanosik said:
I am suggesting that prior to two hundred years ago no scientist knew about the relationship between the ovum and the female cycles of fertility.
Therefore no scientist knew the inner workings of the human conception.

How can someone define a procreative sex if one does not know how the conception works?
Can someone define correct model of the Universe if one thinks the Earth is in the center of it and everything spins around?
Click to expand...
This is a view of sex, science and history that I cannot accept. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for it. The Church has been aware of fertility and the times of it for as long as we have records for.

We must be careful not to be too elitist in our idea of knowledge and look down upon others.

Trust me, we are not as advanced as we like to think. Many women today have no clue about their cycles or any such knowledge of their own reproductive systems, they are put on birth control and sent on their way.

Are you saying that under the leadership of God and the Holy spirit that the Church has operated in ignorance and that because of our scientific discovery of a microscopic thing, sexuality, and it’s rules should be redefined. If so, congratulations, that is what the world has done!
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
**This is a view of sex, science and history that I cannot accept. Perhaps you could provide some evidence for it. The Church has been aware of fertility and the times of it for as long as we have records for. **

We must be careful not to be too elitist in our idea of knowledge and look down upon others.

Trust me, we are not as advanced as we like to think. Many women today have no clue about their cycles or any such knowledge of their own reproductive systems, they are put on birth control and sent on their way.

Are you saying that under the leadership of God and the Holy spirit that the Church has operated in ignorance and that because of our scientific discovery of a microscopic thing, sexuality, and it’s rules should be redefined. If so, congratulations, that is what the world has done!
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you can not take it.
It does not change the fact that the Church’s father’s understanding of procreation was not good enough.
The Church continues to go with it. The procreation understanding is very shaky in this light.

Here is a link about the ovum: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell
Check the history.
 
Jaaanosik said:
Fair enough if you can not take it.
It does not change the fact that the Church’s father’s understanding of procreation was not good enough.
The Church continues to go with it. The procreation understanding is very shaky in this light.

Here is a link about the ovum: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_cell
Check the history.
Click to expand...
Was it necessary to know about the ovum in order to observe that female fertility was a cyclical thing? I would not have thought so, though it can be difficult to put oneself in the position of people with a different knowledge base than ours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top