Marital Sex and Catholic Teaching

[PalletBoy]

(I posted this in Ask an Appologist I think, but that might have been the wrong forum?)
I have a friend who I’ve been discussing Catholicism with (he is a recent convert). I grew up with a Baptist-type background, so much of this is very new to me and I’m quite open, however, I’m confused at certain points.

We were discussing sex inside marriage as we both have children.

I understand that the Catholic belief is that contraception (in any form) is wrong. (catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp) and “The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful”

Again from that same link: “Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife.”

So is the prognosis that you cannot have sex unless it is with the intent to procreate?

I’ve read that the way around the “no contraception” rule is to have sex during the “infertile” times in the woman’s cycle to promote Natural Family Planning. Isn’t this an indirect (or direct!) method of birth control? You are intentionally trying to avoid impregnation, which is defined as “contraception”.

If “contraception” is defined as “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], 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” then isn’t deliberately avoiding sex until you know your wife is least likely to get pregnant just another form of contraception? In this case, you are trying NOT to get pregnant by avoiding those times when your spouse is likely to get pregnant.

How is this then any different than contraception via a condom, the pill, etc, if you’re open to the life that would result from failed contraceptive devices?

Lying by omission is still lying. Sex with the intent to not-impregnate is still contraceptive in design. I’m confused and it seems to be splitting hairs, especially when I read Song of Solomon and the text is talking about the glories of the physical (marital) relationship, which, as far as I can read in the text of “climbing and grabbing the fruit”, is not intended to produce Solomon Jr, but instead intended to derive pleasure from the physical martial relationship.

I really appreciate your time and knowledge.

 

[Timidity]

It is a tough concept to wrap one’s head around, but I’ll try my best to explain it. No doubt others will explain it better.

And when the Apologists get around to answering it, their answer will be solid.

Pretty much it all boils down to a matter of intent.

No, the Catholic Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation. If that were the case then infertile people would never be able to have sex!

But proceation is an aspect of sex. As such, people who participate in this gift from God should do so in such a way as to be open to the possibility of life.

The main difference between contraception and NFP (natural family planning) is one of intent. Both methods try to avoid the creation of a new life, but the intent of contraception is to do so while engaging in sex. NFP, on the other hand, avoids making babies by avoiding sex.

In other words, Catholics believe that it is a sin to engage in sex while being opposed to its natural outcome. This is exactly what contraception does. This is not what NFP does, because you avoid sex on the days that the natural outcome would occur.

Also, I would like to point out (even though it usually creates arguments here), that the Church only allows a couple to use NFP for serious reasons.

 

[felra]

Timidity:

It is a tough concept to wrap one’s head around, but I’ll try my best to explain it. No doubt others will explain it better.

And when the Apologists get around to answering it, their answer will be solid.

Pretty much it all boils down to a matter of intent.

No, the Catholic Church does not teach that sex is only for procreation. If that were the case then infertile people would never be able to have sex!

But proceation is an aspect of sex. As such, people who participate in this gift from God should do so in such a way as to be open to the possibility of life.

The main difference between contraception and NFP (natural family planning) is one of intent. Both methods try to avoid the creation of a new life, but the intent of contraception is to do so while engaging in sex. NFP, on the other hand, avoids making babies by avoiding sex.

In other words, Catholics believe that it is a sin to engage in sex while being opposed to its natural outcome. This is exactly what contraception does. This is not what NFP does, because you avoid sex on the days that the natural outcome would occur.

Also, I would like to point out (even though it usually creates arguments here), that the Church only allows a couple to use NFP for serious reasons.

Actually it is the method and sometimes depending on the intent that the Church has the problem with.

The Church only allows a couple to use NFP to limit pregnancy for serious reasons.

The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2399)

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

In using NFP there is no direct sin. Abstaining from sex itself is not a sin. However, there can still be sin of intent… if a couple is opposed to getting pregnant for reasons that are not grave/serious, then they are said to have a “contraceptive mentality” which is a sin as much as physical contraception.

Also, when a couple is using NFP, they are forced to examine their motives for avoiding pregnancy every month and make a choice whether or not to try to become pregnant. It is very common with contracepting couples to completely seperate the act of sex from procreation.

A very good book on the subject is called “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. It puts things in a very easy to understand way and was the number one book that helped me to understand the Church’s position on the issue and subsequently stop using contraception.

Malia

 

[mercygate]

Although NFP can be used with contraceptive intent, it is not in itself CONTRA-ceptive. It does not thwart, distort, or in any other way interfere with a natural human act of intercourse.

NFP *is *birth control. The subtitle of *Humanae Vitae *includes the words: “regulation of human birth.” That said, the “serious reasons” for which NFP is allowed include physical, psychological, and financial considerations. In other words, the Church acknowledges that at different times, for different people, it may be necessary not to produce a child every time it is possible to do so. It’s really not all that complicated nor is it unliveable.

We were Protestants when we married, and thought contraception was our holy religious obligation as responsible adults. But shortly after the wedding, intuiting the “wrongness” of people in a real marriage putting barriers or chemicals between themselves in this most intimate act – we gave it up. Our marriage changed for the better from that moment . . .

 

[NFPfamily]

Using artificial birth control is attempting to “override” God’s design. He is the Creator of all things and for us to interfere with that is trying to say that what He would create is wrong, or inconvenient is just ridiculous. We should always be open to God’s gifts. Using ABC is taking the matter into your own hands. NFP is allowing God’s design of the woman’s fertility cycle to take its course, and as stated before, the intent of using the method is what is different. If you are post-poning children for a reason, that reason must be reached with both spouses through prayer and being open to accepting children if that’s what is God’s will. All methods of birth control have error rates- the difference is that couples who use ABC call it a failure of the method, or an oops. Couples using NFP think of it as a blessing, God’s will, and refer to it as a surprise pregnancy. Also to be noted is that NFP has an effectiveness equal to or better than any form of ABC.

 

[demolitionman65]

So is the prognosis that you cannot have sex unless it is with the intent to procreate?

Incorrect.

Sex has three purposes: Procreative, unitive and pleasure. NFP, among other attributes, allows the married couple to still say “yes” to the will of God in terms of children. ABC deliberately separates the procreative component from the sexual act. NFP still has a built-in “yes” to the procreative component.

So, in addition, your quote suggests that couples have sex ONLY to have children, which is patently false. Sex is designed to meet all three of the above purposes every time the couple couples, so to speak.

 

[PalletBoy]

Using artificial birth control is attempting to “override” God’s design.

I guess I’m not seeing it that way. We are to be stewards of everything God has given us, correct? How many children could be born in the lifetime of a couple like myself who were married at 22 years of age if we didn’t use some method of birth control? (condoms or NFP)

I really find it hypocritical (hesitate to use that word) saying that a condom overrides God’s designs but waiting to have relations until your wife cannot get pregnant doesn’t. They are both methods of birth control.

According to this line of thinking, if it’s God’s design to kill you by cancer, isn’t it “overriding” God’s plan when you seek medical help?

Or, if your child was born with a deformed heart, is it God’s plan and do you sin by getting your infant help?

The obvious answer is no!

If we are judged by intent, as stated above, how then are we judged when we merely want to take part in the marital relationship (something I’ve waited until I was married to do!) but think it would be poor judgement to create 20 children when I lack financial resources to care for that many? etc

Again, I point to Solomon. He really seemed to be enjoying himself and talked much about the pleasure of touching his wife and of their copulations, not about how much fun it was to try to create life. See where I’m confused?

It isn’t making sense.

 

[mlchance]

PalletBoy:

I really find it hypocritical (hesitate to use that word) saying that a condom overrides God’s designs but waiting to have relations until your wife cannot get pregnant doesn’t. They are both methods of birth control.

True, but one is a lie and the other isn’t. Sexual intercourse is a form of communication; hence the term sexual intercourse. During the marital act, our bodies are used to express a truth intrinsic to human nature. That is to say, “I love you, and I give all of myself to you.” Or, “I love you, and I accept all that you have to give me.”

A condom (or any other form of artificial birth control) turns this act of intercourse into a lie. The body’s statement becomes, “I love you, but this part of me you cannot have.” Or, “I love you, but I refuse to accept all of that love.”

Furthermore, artificial birth control is a rejection of God’s sovereignty. God creates lifes. He privileges the married couple to assist in that creation in accordance with his will. Artificial birth control tells God, “You are our Lord, but only within the parameters we set.”

We express our humanity through our bodies, and because of this, we cannot do whatever we want with our bodies.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[demolitionman65]

Thank you, Mark. You took the words right out of my mouth.

See my previous posts on the Unitive, Procreative and Pleasure components of sex. When one is using ABC, one is saying that the Procreative element is now removed from the marital act. This is disordered. In NFP, even if intercourse is during the woman’s infertile period, the couple is still open to the procreative component: A “yes” to God.

And I know from experience: A couple can be quite rigorous in enforcing NFP, and yet that “yes” to God can result in a wholly unplanned blessing.

 

[NFPfamily]

PalletBoy:

I guess I’m not seeing it that way. We are to be stewards of everything God has given us, correct? How many children could be born in the lifetime of a couple like myself who were married at 22 years of age if we didn’t use some method of birth control? (condoms or NFP)

I really find it hypocritical (hesitate to use that word) saying that a condom overrides God’s designs but waiting to have relations until your wife cannot get pregnant doesn’t. They are both methods of birth control.

According to this line of thinking, if it’s God’s design to kill you by cancer, isn’t it “overriding” God’s plan when you seek medical help?

Or, if your child was born with a deformed heart, is it God’s plan and do you sin by getting your infant help?

The obvious answer is no!

If we are judged by intent, as stated above, how then are we judged when we merely want to take part in the marital relationship (something I’ve waited until I was married to do!) but think it would be poor judgement to create 20 children when I lack financial resources to care for that many? etc

Again, I point to Solomon. He really seemed to be enjoying himself and talked much about the pleasure of touching his wife and of their copulations, not about how much fun it was to try to create life. See where I’m confused?

It isn’t making sense.

Every point you were trying to make I looked back and could find an answer in my original post. Again, God’s most wonderous power is being the Creator- something we shouldn’t dapple with. Using condoms is taking matters into your own hands- it is not natural so to speak. You are putting a barrier between your God given gift of fertility. In contraception, it is the ONLY time that Dr.'s will actually prescribe a pill to make a perfectly functioning part of the body try to malfunction. It mutuates us. By using aritificial means, you are holding back a part of you (taking away one of three meanings for sex). Using NFP to space your babies is not intrinsically evil. You can morally choose not to have sex during some times, after all, we aren’t slaves to sex (at least we shouldn’t be…contraception can lead to that). The line of thinking should never be not to have children for selfish reasons. I feel like I’m being redundant from my previous post. For further information, I strongly suggest you get a copy of Dr. Janet Smith’s Contraception: Why Not? and listen to it with an open mind. Her CD answers all of the questions you are asking and more. Also, do a search for MANY previous posts referring to the same content on these forums. You’ll find a wealth of information. Hope this helps!

 

[jlw]

Read:

Love and Responsibility by Pope John Paul II

Good News about Sex and Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions About Catholic Teaching by Christopher West
Real Love: Answers to Your Questions on Dating, Marriage and the Real Meaning of Sex by Mary Beth Bonacci

As a convert, sex was the last BIG hurdle for me before leaping into the fullness of faith found in the Catholic Church. Those three books (actually in descending order) CHANGED MY LIFE.

 

[felra]

PalletBoy:

I really find it hypocritical (hesitate to use that word) saying that a condom overrides God’s designs but waiting to have relations until your wife cannot get pregnant doesn’t. They are both methods of birth control.

According to this line of thinking, if it’s God’s design to kill you by cancer, isn’t it “overriding” God’s plan when you seek medical help?

Or, if your child was born with a deformed heart, is it God’s plan and do you sin by getting your infant help?

The obvious answer is no!

It isn’t making sense.

Put another way, NFP seeks to honor and cooperate with God’s design. Articifial birth control seeks to disregard and usurp God’s sovereignty of design.

Whereas cancer and deformity of heart is a pathology and defect, our fertility and procreative capacity is an awesome gift that God has entrusted to man to be used in the sanctity of marriage as co-creators with God in bringing etrnal life into existance.

 

[Scotty_PGH]

Perhaps someone could specifically address the Song of Solomon issue Palletboy raises? His argument seems to be that the Bible apparently condones recreational sex, given the content of that passage. And while we don’t know whether or not the author of that passage is “open to life,” it sure doesn’t seem to be his priority. The pleasure of sex is.

 

[mercygate]

Scotty PGH:

Perhaps someone could specifically address the Song of Solomon issue Palletboy raises? His argument seems to be that the Bible apparently condones recreational sex, given the content of that passage. And while we don’t know whether or not the author of that passage is “open to life,” it sure doesn’t seem to be his priority. The pleasure of sex is.

This is a hymn to married love. The assumption must be that they are “open to life.” Nothing wrong with the pleasure of sex – God made us that way.

 

[PalletBoy]

I **hate **to harp on a singular point, but this fails all tests of logic and I spent all night thinking about it before I replied. I refuse to be hard-headed, but I also cannot accept something that fails logic or fails that which is Biblical.

Example:

During the marital act, our bodies are used to express a truth intrinsic to human nature.

Sin is also intrinsic to human nature. We must deviate from human nature to follow Christ.

In 1 Corinthians I read

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of selfcontrol.

That speaks directly to the aspects of the loving act of sex. My wife’s body belongs to me and mine to her. If you want to take a litteral reading of this, we are **commanded **to engage in lovemaking.

This from SoS

Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.

Obviously, God intended for us to enjoy sex, and frequently as 1 Corinthians would say. Neither I nor you are disputing this, correct?

However, we must temper everything with what else is scriptural! We are called many, many times to be good stewards of everything under our supervision. That means money, family, job, church, etc. If I were poor and could not afford to feed multiple children, it would be in direct conflict with scripture to continue to have children. If NFP were used, there is still a considerable chance over a lifetime of sex that pregnancy can occur.

‘Wait! You’re talking about thwarting God’s blessing!’ No I’m not! Not at all! I am and always will be so very happy when and if my wife becomes pregnant again.

However, I’m also a **steward **of my wife’s emotions because we are of one flesh. If she cannot emotionally handle more children, then the **stress of a birth control method like NFP would create *friction *instead of love! **As we are commanded to give ourselves continually to one-another, then the NFP becomes less desirable because of the higher percentage of possible pregnancy.

‘But if God wants you to get pregnant you will in NFP, but you won’t with ABC, that’s interupting the natural process’

Saying NFP is an acceptable form of birth control while using a condom is not completely fails logic, especially if you consider the words of Christ. ‘But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart’

By the same token, if Christ’s logic were applied to the topic of Pregnancy he could have said ‘But I tell you that anyone who waits to have sex until the woman is most likely to be infertile has already commited sin in his heart for not wanting my designed, natural method.’ **if indeed contraceptive behavior is wrong!

**The problem with the Catholic argument, as I see it, is one of the ‘attitude of the heart’. Why are you waiting to have sex until there is a reduced chance of pregnancy? Because you do not want to get pregnant but still want (are commanded to?) to copulate.

Why are some using condoms? Because you do not want to get pregnant but still want (are commanded to?) to copulate.

I want to be very clear on where my confusion stems from:

Put another way, NFP seeks to honor and cooperate with God’s design. Articifial birth control seeks to disregard and usurp God’s sovereignty of design.

How is there any real difference? You are not ‘cooperating’ with God’s design, **you are, in your heart, trying not to become pregnant.

Christ spoke many times and used many parables to show the attitude of the heart was paramount.
**Example: ‘Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.’

The only logical and biblical conclusion is that ABC (like a condom) is permissible.

Now, if Christ were to say or even infer that birth-control was wrong, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Or better yet, if Onan was put to death for the mere act of spilling his sperm **instead **of for violation of levitical law, then it would be very clear that birth control is wrong.

 

[felra]

PalletBoy:

I **hate **to harp on a singular point, but this fails all tests of logic and I spent all night thinking about it before I replied. I refuse to be hard-headed, but I also cannot accept something that fails logic or fails that which is Biblical.

However, we must temper everything with what else is scriptural! We are called many, many times to be good stewards of everything under our supervision. That means money, family, job, church, etc. If I were poor and could not afford to feed multiple children, it would be in direct conflict with scripture to continue to have children. If NFP were used, there is still a considerable chance over a lifetime of sex that pregnancy can occur.

‘Wait! You’re talking about thwarting God’s blessing!’ No I’m not! Not at all! I am and always will be so very happy when and if my wife becomes pregnant again.

‘But if God wants you to get pregnant you will in NFP, but you won’t with ABC, that’s interupting the natural process’

Why are some using condoms? Because you do not want to get pregnant but still want (are commanded to?) to copulate.

I want to be very clear on where my confusion stems from:

How is there any real difference? You are not ‘cooperating’ with God’s design, **you are, in your heart, trying not to become pregnant. **

Christ spoke many times and used many parables to show the attitude of the heart was paramount.
Example: ‘Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.’

The only logical and biblical conclusion is that ABC (like a condom) is permissible.
.

Have you ever consider why God gave women natural periods of fertility and infertility if not to limit and space births? NFP is not a form of birth control (it can be abused by intent to function as a form of birth control).

 

[fix]

Every time I read these threads that attempt to find a away around Christ’s teaching prohibiting ABC I can’t help but think we want to reject the authority of the Church. Why is this one topic so hard to accept for so many? I would guess there are many reasons, but the chief reason must be that to accept all that His Church teaches would mean we all must change the way we lead our lives. So few want that.

 

[PalletBoy]

NFP is not a form of birth control (it can be abused by intent to function as a form of birth control).

From Mercygate above:

NFP *is *birth control. The subtitle of *Humanae Vitae *includes the words: “regulation of human birth.”

So, we have established that NFP** is** birth control, which brings us back again to my point about it being an attitude of the heart.

The only reason anyone would practice NFP is exactly to regulate human birth, that is, Birth Control.

And Fix:

Christ’s teachings against ABC

Where? Reference please? If Christ (as I stated above) actually did teach against ABC, then there would be no discussion.

 

[felra]

PalletBoy:

From Mercygate above:

So, we have established that NFP** is** birth control, which brings us back again to my point about it being an attitude of the heart.

The only reason anyone would practice NFP is exactly to regulate human birth, that is, Birth Control.

And Fix:

Where? Reference please? If Christ (as I stated above) actually did teach against ABC, then there would be no discussion.

Okay, birth control in the ARTIFICIAL Birth Control (ABC) sense. Here, click on this web page for a reading of Humanae Vitae “On the Regulation of Birth”: .

Click on this for an excellent talk by Dr. Janet Smith regarding the contraindicators for ABC: .