Marital Foreplay and Sex

[Pitcharan]

The whole struggle is about discerning between Love and Lust and completely shunning and avoiding Lust driven actions. It is the main part of our salvation struggle and attains fruition when we ‘die to the flesh’.

*When King David was very old, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him. So his attendants said to him, “Let us look for a young virgin to serve the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm.”

Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The woman was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no sexual relations with her.* (1Kings 1:1-4)

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

@Marybeloved: I’ve read several of these articles and I just don’t get it. Would you be so kind as to summarize (as best as you can) the common objections to what West teaches?

Also, if you could explain the difference between what you call “Catholic modesty” and “prudishness,” it would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

 

[Marybeloved]

@Marybeloved: I’ve read several of these articles and I just don’t get it. Would you be so kind as to summarize (as best as you can) the common objections to what West teaches?

Also, if you could explain the difference between what you call “Catholic modesty” and “prudishness,” it would be much appreciated.

Thank you!

Hello, Veritas,

I found this thesis of Dawn Eden particularly helpful catholicnewsagency.com/DawnEdenThesis.pdf in making the real issue being criticzed about West and Others by these Theologians- Mind you, much of his work is good, but the parts that are not, being seemingly small have the potential to create much deeper problems than appears at first glance.

In summary, prudishness says that sex is bad, an evil we must tolerate, Catholic modesty says that the human person,his body and even sex is sacred, therefore is to be approached with a holy reverence and a holy fear of sacred things. As an illustration, some people like to say that looking at a naked woman and feeling no lust is what spiritual maturity means* (Like West himself)* that the need for clothes is only because of lust. That the need to look away from a scantily dressed woman represents spiritual immaturity in the person looking away.

Many theologians regard this as having nothing to do with John Paul II’s own teaching on human nakedness, but just West’s interpretation. Adam and Eve felt shame before each other (Husband and wife) after they sinned- That does not mean that any man could have been able to look at any woman’s nakedness were it not for sin. It just means that sin interfered with the love between a man and his wife. In other words, keeping our bodies covered is not only about shame of our bodies-It’s about keeping ourselves “our own” and open only to those whom we are to be “unconditionally open” to. That’s the language of nakedness- essentially its self-revelation to one to whom we are giving ourselves unconditionally too (Thus only man and wife). West reduces this by saying that maturity ought to enable us to regard what is not ours (a nakedness that is not our spouse’s) freely “without shame”. Modesty is not just about preventing sin and shame- It’s more like how God does not just open himself up to everybody and keeps his self-revelation only for those whom he wants to make sons. The language of nakedness says a lot and has deep meaning beyond the sin of Adam.

Concupiscence is another matter and subordinating the Spirit to the body instead of the opposite is another.

But I hope you read the critique and other presentations of JP II’s TOB that don’t necessarily take West’s approach.

Blessings!

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Interesting stuff. Somehow, I don’t feel moved one way or another. I see both of these points. I will have to read more, for sure. I’ll humbly admit though, that I’m begging for someone to dumb this stuff down even more. Because, for example, reading the .pdf you linked to, I find 25% of myself following it, and the other 75% totally lost!

Thank you very much though for sharing your take.

One question,

1. In summary, prudishness says that sex is bad, an evil we must tolerate, 2) Catholic modesty says that the human person,his body and even sex is sacred, therefore is to be approached with a holy reverence and a holy fear of sacred things. ** As an illustration, some people like to say that looking at a naked woman and feeling no lust is what spiritual maturity means* (Like West himself)*** that the need for clothes is only because of lust. That the need to look away from a scantily dressed woman represents spiritual immaturity in the person looking away.

I bolded one part and wrote “1)” and "2’ in front of others.

I just wanted to ask, what does the “illustration” pertain to? Are you saying that the bolded “illustration” represents view 1)?

 

[Marybeloved]

One question,
I bolded one part and wrote “1)” and "2’ in front of others.

I just wanted to ask, what does the “illustration” pertain to? Are you saying that the bolded “illustration” represents view 1)?

I wanted to illustrate to you just one example of what West and others see as "prudishness (“stuck-upness” about sex/repression) and is really only catholic wisdom on modesty, that is avoiding occasions of sin. The Saints often preferred death than risking this, and they are now in heaven. Yet, West tells us that we should allow ourselves to be in these situations, (Like engaged couples spending time alone in privacy against traditional Catholic Counsel, and other things normally considered near occasions of sin like deliberately looking at naked/badly dressed women which risk impure thoughts) if “we are spiritually mature”.

No-one is more “spiritually mature” and has greater purity of heart than the saints, and NONE of them would risk any occasion of sin even at the height of their holiness. So one wonders where West got this wisdom that says we should look away when we are impure and then having become pure (like him at the present) we can then risk it and allow ourselves to be in situations that might risk sin so that we can “be free” to choose the good in that situation, to choose to love our partner there without lust (What he calls freedom). He says we should trust ourselves and not be afraid to be in those situations- The saints say the EXACT opposite. To Never trust yourself, and to always keep as far from occasions of sin as possible.

This is not “prudishness”. This is our faith telling us that we are fallen and live in a world where the Devil roars about seeking whom he may devour. To intentionally “risk it” is to fail in love of God, because a true love of God would never “risk” the possibility of sinning against him intentionally. Just like you would never risk being in a compromising situation with another man/woman (other than your spouse) just so you can be able to “choose the good”- Or so you can be able to say “No”. Why not just say “No” from the beginning by not allowing yourself to being that position to begin with? You are not a saint and even a saint would never knowingly “risk” occasions of sin. And this faith in our own purity is different than anything that has ever been taught in Our Church these 2,000 years. that’s why I compared it to the Reformers who imagined we are already totally redeemed. In catholic (and Christian) faith, we will get our new bodies that are entirely free of lust and other disordered impulses at the resurrection- Let’s not pretend we have them now. Not even the Saints do.

But this is just one of the examples of how his thinking departs from the catholic mind. Problem is he credits it to JPII and JPII never even hinted at such a world view.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I wanted to illustrate to you just one example of what West and others see as "prudishness (“stuck-upness” about sex/repression) and is really only catholic wisdom on modesty, that is avoiding occasions of sin.

Ohhhhh OK, now I see what you mean by that. Thanks.

The Saints often preferred death than risking this, and they are now in heaven. Yet, West tells us that we should allow ourselves to be in these situations, (Like engaged couples spending time alone in privacy against traditional Catholic Counsel, and other things normally considered near occasions of sin like deliberately looking at naked/badly dressed women which risk impure thoughts) if “we are spiritually mature”.

To the bolded part: I’ve never heard it said in those words. Sitting in a bed alone, half-naked (or even fully clothed for that matter) would be one thing, but engaged couples aren’t supposed to spend time alone in privacy?

Maybe you and I just have different personalities, but I couldn’t imagine having decided to marry my wife without ever having had totally private moments! I know that’s more along the lines of personal feelings than anything else, I just really can’t imagine it. There’s so much we simply wouldn’t have felt comfortable discussing if another could hear, or if someone could see one of us crying or something like that. I admire the PreCana people and all that but there’s just some stuff that I can’t imagine having disclosed to someone other than my (then) fiancee. Or, proposing to her, for example (I think she would have slapped me if I proposed while others were around, no joke…lol)

But perhaps you’re only talking about scenarios like “we’re alone in the house, lying on the bed”?

And another question, if you don’t mind (you are very patient.) Do West and the others disagree about what is valid foreplay?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon
Wow, that was very well thought and said. I really appreciate everything you said.

My pleasure Kate - I just listened and reflected back to you what I think you really already “know” deep down. I’ve added a few additional comments below.

1. As far as lust goes…I guess I don’t know how to define it. I didn’t really think a married couple could lust after each other…
2. The sinfulness of it makes me feel just terrible. I know I am very imperfect, and I have a long history of sexual mistakes- my first pregnancy was the result of a freshman college dorm. (He is now 6, I did choose life) … I don’t know why I find chastity so difficult.

OK lets unpack and repack a few things:
(a) Yes, married couples can lust after each other (it isn’t to be feared like leprosy though). If present it is surely something to mature through lovingly and patiently.
Lust goes against the virtue of temperance (wrt the sense of touch) failing by excess. You may be aware that we fail in virtue by either too much or too little. Virtue is always “the middle way.” The vice of “insensibility” is therefore the other extreme. It is more “normal” to fail (in this area) by excess because we are naturally (and rightly) drawn to pleasure - “insensibility” to our partners is therefore a little “unnatural.”

In marriage we are called to worship our partner with our bodies not our souls (ie for this life only and in a restricted fashion). That is, our final and complete good is God. No finite, created being can answer all our needs as our hearts are made for God in eternity. Marriage is for this life only and to love our partner above God (as opposed to “in God”) is disordered.

(b) A feeling of “terrible-ness” is understandable, but given your situation, seems way over the top. This suggests other (possibly unrelated) causes and mistaken assumptions are at work that may be worth praying/reflecting on.
For example, we Europeans seem more shamed wrt failings in this area than perhaps those of gluttony, drunkenness, hatred, violence. The shame doesn’t match the seriousness! Surely God sees things in a much more balanced way without fetish.
Also, such feeling can be partially due to anxiety/fear over “loss of control” or breaking the rules or being a “weak bastard.” Nothing to do with God…but much to do with hurt human pride. As we trust God’s love more we understand that he will grant us “perfection” in his time not ours. Our weaknesses/failings (we all have a unique set of them) may well be given us to keep us humble and knowing of our need for God.

(c) " I don’t know why I find chastity so difficult"
Such difficulties are not unusual or abnormal. The actual difficulties you mention, given the context and your maturing attitude/understanding, don’t ring any alarm bells for me. Take it in your stride, be vigilant and at peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

But perhaps you’re only talking about scenarios like “we’re alone in the house, lying on the bed”?

Exactly . Generally, situations where you would reasonably fear might end avail the occasion that would tempt you to do something you shouldn’t before marriage. West seems to think that there are certain persons who are so spiritually pure in this life, that they no longer need to avoid such- That is his own personal Wisdom, not JPII’s or any father or Doctor of the Church, or any saint or Pope for that matter.

And another question, if you don’t mind (you are very patient.) Do West and the others disagree about what is valid foreplay?

Yes, they do. There was a long debate about it here (an old thread of mine, now closed) which turned mean spirited- there are persons who cannot stand to hear that acts they may commit may be wrong. But these are Our true Greatest Authorities of our teaching and tradition in the Church: The Fathers and The Doctors of the Church, The Popes and the Saints of the Church.

Both St. Alphonse Liguori (father of modern moral theology, great Doctor of the Church) teaches that it is a mortal sin even if began at the back and ended properly, and St. Thomas Aquinas- One of Our Greatest if not the Greatest Doctor, (The Church named him Universal Doctor of the Church) says clearly that sexual acts involving unnatural vessels (organs) are not only completely wrong in themselves, But says that they are part of the category of the sexual sins against nature that are worse than adultery in the order of sins against chastity, because they are more directly offensive to God’s design in nature than Adultery, incest or Fornication which involves illegitimate but not unnatural copulation . (And yes, for him copulation does not necessarily involve climax, which he calls “pollution”) St. Augustine (Do I really need to establish his credentials to you?) says that when unnatural acts are performed within marriage, they are all the more worse (not less) because they desecrate a Holy sacrament. Those theologians who have attempted to defend West’s teaching in this regard (Like Jane Smith) have claimed that there is a so-called “tradition” for this in the Church but on being asked to point out that tradition in the Church and to name sources have been unable to, and even she admits that St. Liguori taught that it was a mortal sin. They have this rule: Everything is fine as long as it ends with climax in the woman, But the moral theologians who critique West have denounced that there is such a principle-:shrug:So where do they get it?

Now when you have some of the Church’s greatest teachers saying that certain things are not just wrong, but very very wrong and provided the principles from Our moral Law, and then have None among them contradicting the teaching, that represents a strong authority in the Catholic church of her faith and traditions that cannot just lightly be set aside as any ordinary opinion! How can you have West and others just assume that they know better? Because we live in the 20th or 21st Century? And then present it like it’s part of JPII’s teaching rather than their own? It’s really not fair to lay Catholics. That’s why he was criticized. Not because he does not have any good teachings but because of the impression that he’s speaking for JPII in everything he says in his books for many Catholics.

 

[rjm54]

(c) " I don’t know why I find chastity so difficult"
Such difficulties are not unusual or abnormal. The actual difficulties you mention, given the context and your maturing attitude/understanding, don’t ring any alarm bells for me. Take it in your stride, be vigilant and at peace.

I really appreciate Blue Horizon’s perspective. And this thread has been very helpful for me, since marital chastity is a continual struggle.

Here are some further thoughts for encouragement, offered from the perspective of having converted to Catholicism and NFP five years into our marriage. For the first three years of marriage my wife was on the Pill with no complications, and then once we started NFP, we practiced mutual (and separate) masturbation regularly for two years before we converted to Catholicism. Despite the ongoing struggle with marital chastity in NFP (very similar to yours–where do we draw the line?) I wouldn’t want to go back, and here are the reasons why:

1. We are now struggling with chastity in precisely the right context, so the suffering has a meaning (more on this below). Many couples and individuals are not blessed to be in the right context for the struggle. They are still struggling with pornography (men especially), or with body-image issues and related eating disorders, to name two prominent examples. You can be thankful that any sins against chastity are happening within your marriage bed, not outside of it–and that you are therefore enabled to grow in chastity and the related virtues in the best possible context of mutual love and openness.
2. All of us for whom the main difficulty is the moderation of rightly placed erotic desire (see Blue Horizon’s excellent account of temperance above) have a great deal to be thankful for. Here are some things to thank God for during the abstinence periods: each partner desires sex; we are physically able to consummate those desires; we experience these physical desires and pleasures as love (rather than shame or aggression, etc.); we are capable of having children naturally; we are not living separately for long periods of time; our desires are naturally heterosexual.

I know at least one couple or individual who does not enjoy one of these blessings. In one, the wife is emotionally averse to sex. In another, the wife is emotionally willing, but physically incapable. In another, the husband has trouble expressing tenderness in sex. For many others, infertility makes all sex a frustration. For military friends, they must abstain for months, even years at a time while the husband is on duty. And for homosexual friends, they must struggle with chastity their whole lives, without marriage as an intuitive option.

1. As we struggle to practice marital chastity during NFP, our sufferings are given meaning. They can be offered up as prayers of gratitude, and as intercessions for those who are not similarly blessed, as acts of solidarity with the infertile, the unmarried, the homosexual. They can also be offered as penance for the “sins against chastity of my previous life” (plenty of those for most of us), and as intercessions for our children’s chastity in the future.
2. We are living in the first age in history in which disciplined, effective periodic abstinence can be a widespread viable option. We are perhaps the first generation–let’s call it the Creighton generation–who has the spiritual formation, education, self-discipline, and scientific knowledge to make NFP a viable means of spacing children. We are in that position because we live in the most privileged society human history has known, insulated from the many small sufferings that make up the average day of the vast majority of historical humanity.

I have come to think of the practice of NFP as one of the few opportunities in my life for meaningful suffering. From that perspective, I would be reluctant to give up the ascetical aspect of the abstinence periods. Likewise, I embrace the likelihood of a larger-than-average family, with all the trials and difficulties (as well as joys) that will entail.

 

[searching04]

I hope CAF wont delete this, but I wanted to share something I wrote the other night after hours of crying and praying for guidance. I have been finding other NFP couples online, and I wrote to them:

*Tonight I am writing you to offer my solidarity in NFP and Catholic family life. I recognize the taboo nature of real Catholic sex in the modern world and how deeply it effects all married couples. There are so few people that understand us…and there are so many people ready and willing to criticize us. From well meaning family, to the medical doctors, and cashiers…everyone has an unwanted opinion on the rules of Catholic sex.

There are few places to turn when we are struggling- Not our liberal Catholic friends, not our lapsed Catholic families, not our devout Protestant neighbors, or our shy and anxious priests. It seems our outlet for discussion is not a willing party, and our very release that is sex is not available to us. Our husbands and wives look away from our intimate advances and we are left alone in the dark of the night wondering why we suffer this at all.

How does anyone make this work?

I confide in you in each and every post, I am here, I am real, I am struggling too. I love NFP and I love my faith. I love my husband and I love my misunderstanding family and friends.** But that does not lessen the intensity of the virtue of chastity*** and it does not hold me through the pain. I am here and I offer my Solidarity to you. Through this site you will know that you are not facing this alone. You are one in many that persevere though the frustration. God will supply you with those graces, but you must first ask.

I offer you my solidarity. I know it is not easy, and I know you have struggled as I have. I will pray for you and your spouse, please pray for me and mine.

Beautifully said.

 

[silverdenali]

i say once you’re married anything goes. concentual of course.

but i’m me.

+1.

 

[twoangels]

I know that people disagree on a lot. But I have never seen anywhere where St. Thomas is said to be wrong or has had his teaching repudiated in his masterpiece (Summa).

I don’t understand where you think I’m arguing at all that we are to deny anything St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.

Given his authority in Catholic theology and understanding, I would raise my eyebrow at any modern writer who claimed to understand the natural Law better, and would ask what argumentation they used to say St. Thomas was wrong on this teaching.

I do think JPII adds to our understanding of human sexuality. I do think that human sexuality is very difficult to understand. It is mysterious and I do not think the Church even pretends to hold a complete understanding of human sexuality. I certainly think it is more than the urge to engage in sex and the procreative aspect. For instance, I do believe giving birth and nursing an infant are sexual acts, though not erotic acts. I’m not refuting Aqunias’ nor the Church’s moral principals. I’m saying that JPII has advanced our understanding of God’s design of human sexuality. His work helps us to contemplate it.

Christopher West claims to be presenting the teaching of JPII to millions of lay Catholics. Where others feel he departs from it, they must say so and for the benefit of the millions who look to him as an authority on catholic sexual morality, and theologians are best suited to do this given their knowledge of Catholic teaching, past and present. Since these critiques are directed at his works, I don’t really see how the fact that many began after the interview diminishes them in any way.

Here is what I saw. A number of theologians who’d never been exposed to Christopher West either saw the 20/20 episode or heard about it. They became fearful about what was happening in the Church and crticized it. Then less qualified people who were more exposed to Christopher West hopped on the band wagon and began critiquing West.

Honestly, West is ok. I’m not that impressed by Him anymore. I’m glad he introduced me to the Theology of the Body, but that first exposure occured 10 years ago and now I look at his work and am like “eh.”

They are not just criticizing what he said in the interview but what he says in his books too. :shrug:Yes, but whose developments are we talking about? JPII’s or West’s? Theological developments do not break with the past but there’s an underlying notion behind West (per these experts) that seriously departs from tradition and is no-where found in JPII’s own works, which diminishes the effects of concupiscence in human nature and sees sex as the end of love rather than the opposite and gives it an overwhelming importance in human life beyond its place in the traditional teaching. It assumes almost like Protestants that human nature is already redeemed in Christ and does not suffer from concupiscence and the need for asceticism and other-self restraints and equates catholic modesty with prudishness.

My first exposure to West was nothing like what you describe. I was raised in a very prudish family that was Catholic. I confused prudishness for Catholic modesty. I was not a part of West’s typical audience. I could not relate to the secular culture’s view of human sexuality. West’s “Crash Course to the Theology of the Body” though helped me get a first glimpse into seeing that sex was beautiful. It wasn’t like insects where I’d look at them and think “God what were you thinking? This is disgusting!”

I think West believes that many people confuse prudishness for Catholic modesty. At times though, West has spoken about sex in a profane manner, but it is a balancig act.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Exactly . Generally, situations where you would reasonably fear might end avail the occasion that would tempt you to do something you shouldn’t before marriage. West seems to think that there are certain persons who are so spiritually pure in this life, that they no longer need to avoid such- That is his own personal Wisdom, not JPII’s or any father or Doctor of the Church, or any saint or Pope for that matter.
Yes, they do. There was a long debate about it here (an old thread of mine, now closed) which turned mean spirited- there are persons who cannot stand to hear that acts they may commit may be wrong. But these are Our true Greatest Authorities of our teaching and tradition in the Church: The Fathers and The Doctors of the Church, The Popes and the Saints of the Church.

I don’t understand particularly which acts are unnatural and also what is the meaning of unnatural?

Let’s take french kissing as an example, or even just “regular” kissing (on the lips). How do we determine whether or not that is “unnatural”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

1. We are now struggling with chastity in precisely the right context, so the suffering has a meaning (more on this below). Many couples and individuals are not blessed to be in the right context for the struggle. They are still struggling with pornography (men especially), or with body-image issues and related eating disorders, to name two prominent examples. You can be thankful that any sins against chastity are happening within your marriage bed, not outside of it–and that you are therefore enabled to grow in chastity and the related virtues in the best possible context of mutual love and openness.

RJM
A truly wonderful insight. Thankyou for sharing this.

 

[Marybeloved]

I don’t understand particularly which acts are unnatural and also what is the meaning of unnatural?

Let’s take french kissing as an example, or even just “regular” kissing (on the lips). How do we determine whether or not that is “unnatural”?

Read for yourself what these Doctors think and make your own mind up. I won’t be embroiled in a repeat of the “spill” debate here, and it appears that this is your ultimate intent, no offense. You can start here: fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas-homo.asp

 

[fpt]

I am a young devout Catholic, wife, and mother. We have been practicing NFP for about a year and I have found myself very frustrated with the teachings on this. And I would like to see some original documents (not Christopher West- TOB, I want originals)

During phase 2 we enjoy foreplay that can last for days before phase 3 hits and we can have full marital relations. I cannot find any official Church teaching that states all foreplay must end in vaginal intercourse immediately following. Humanae Vitae 14 refers to preventing pregnancy, but NFP, by it’s very nature is avoiding pregnancy not preventing it. It is not onanism because there is no penetration, and he does not climax.

The forums are unclear as well. One priest says that oral sex should be avoided, another says it is perfectly fine. I see nothing wrong with oral in the original documents, JPII doesn’t discuss it in TOB, and the Code of Canon Law states “unitive” before “procreation” (that is a change from the 1917 version). Please, anyone, show me where it states that a couple commits a sin by having foreplay (even foreplay to the extent of female orgasm) without vaginal intercourse.

It seems TOB gives an ideal for sex, but how can marital sex that is less than ideal be sinful?

When wife and husband are okay for no marital act (complete intercourse) during fertile times of wife, because they use the methods of rythms for avoiding baby or spacing pregnancies for serious reasons or grave motives, they have the right to give physical affection between them. Wife can give physical tenderness to her husband, husband can give physical tenderness to his wife.

During these continence periods, they are spouses, they are not brother and sister: marital intimacy without sex is possible and totally okay, they need to find their creative abstinence. The marital intimacy without sex is morally okay, of course. Per se, there is no moral problem. They can caress each one with moderation, I mean in avoiding the orgasms.

For instance:

a kiss on mouth, a french kiss, a kiss on the forehead, a kiss on the hands, a kiss on shoulders, a kiss on the nose, a kiss in neck, a kiss on ears, a kiss on eyes, a kiss on feet, a kiss on chest, a kiss on breasts, a kiss on nipples, a kiss on the back.

The rubs on the top part of the body of each one;
The caresses on the top part of the body of each one;
Wife and husband can sleep together in the same bed very closely, even totally naked.
Massages between spouses for improving the bonding of love: sensual massage is not sexual massage.
They can speak very freely how to improve their sexual life: their desires, their wishes. It is a good moment for having a nice conversation about this topic and next days after to try.

If there is an accident from husband without intention (ejaculation outside), it is not a mortal sin or venial sin, per se, because the couple is trying to understand the reaction of their bodies and it is an accident.

By principle, we have not to see the sin (venial or mortal sin) everywhere. Scrupulism is a very bad thought. During these periods of time, to be far away to one to the other in the physical sense is not a solution.

Natural erection of husband does not automatically mean to keep going for having sexual intercourse;
Exitation of wife does not means moral obligation to keep going completly, even after sensual massage.

To be prudish, to be scrupulous, to be sad, to be flipped (full of stress) because of the fear of the sin. No no and no? Be careful, okay, but not like a nun, a monk, a single, a fiancé, a fiancée.

 

[fpt]

In the marriage, the first rule is Love. Thus “conjugal charity” is the key before " conjugal chastity ", even if " conjugal chastity " is an element of conjugal charity.

The concept of " marital charity " (conjugal charity) is the best.

 

[igor1980]

I can’t understand why is so important to interfere in other people’s private acts.

How can anyone tell a couple with 4, 5 or more kids that they are not open to life if they engage in non-vaginal sex?

 

[Nate13]

I can’t understand why is so important to interfere in other people’s private acts.

How can anyone tell a couple with 4, 5 or more kids that they are not open to life if they engage in non-vaginal sex?

From Humane Vitae:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

Faithfulness to God’s Design

1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

In other words marital rape and contracepting are equally repugnant to the dignity of man and woman.

 

[igor1980]

Yes, I know what Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubi, and other Church’s documents says.

But try to ask a priest. I couldn’t find one that says the same. Even a bishop told me that ABC would be ok in certain circumstances.

Are lay catholic required to accept things that even priests don’t?