Marital Sex and Catholic Teaching

[felra]

PalletBoy:

Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.

How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? Is it an implied sin because, since it is a **deviancy **from the design of God, it must be **against **God and is therefore sinful?

Or is it a “Paul won’t eat meat” sin?

I am curious PallettBoy, coming from a biblical reference for matters of faith and morality to guide your actions, how do you reconcile your justification for introducing artificial birth control barriers with the highlighted passages below? How does a husband and wife “become one flesh” when there is a barrier between their flesh/their procreative exchange? “Just as Christ loved the church”, does this suppose that Christ erected and imposed some form or artificial barrier between Him and the church to prevent the full life producing exchange as between the bride and groom? This all does not wash well with your defense of condom use from a biblical point of view. You comments please.

Ephesians 5: 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish.*** 29*** For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” ***32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. ***33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. (The New Revised Standard Version)

 

[Ignatius]

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.

The marriage act is a wonderful expression of love between a man and wife and is a real blessing as long as you don’t use any artificial means of contraception. There is no reason whatsoever to refrain from one of the greatest blessings bestowed on us by God.

 

[InstaurareSacra]

PalletBoy:

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?

A practical analogy between artificial contraception and NFP goes like this (see Janet Smith’s lecture on the subject of contraception):

Let’s say you’re having a big dinner party, and you’re trying to decide who you want to invite. You make your decision after careful deliberation and invite A, B and C, but not D. In due course, you send invitations to A, B and C, but not D. But what you do not do is send a note to D saying, ‘hey, we’re having a dinner party, but you’re not invited.’ of course, that would be offensive, among other things.

The scenario can be applied to artificial contraception and using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Using NFP to avoid pregnancy (for serious reasons) is like having sex and simply not extending an invitation to God (but leaving open the possibility God will show up anyway), whereas aritificial contraception is like having sex and sending God the note telling him ‘hey, we don’t want you here.’

It’s probably better to listen to Dr. Smith than my amateur rendition, but that’s the gist of it.

 

[fix]

InstaurareSacra:

A practical analogy between artificial contraception and NFP goes like this (see Janet Smith’s lecture on the subject of contraception):

Let’s say you’re having a big dinner party, and you’re trying to decide who you want to invite. You make your decision after careful deliberation and invite A, B and C, but not D. In due course, you send invitations to A, B and C, but not D. But what you do not do is send a note to D saying, ‘hey, we’re having a dinner party, but you’re not invited.’ of course, that would be offensive, among other things.

The scenario can be applied to artificial contraception and using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Using NFP to avoid pregnancy (for serious reasons) is like having sex and simply not extending an invitation to God (but leaving open the possibility God will show up anyway), whereas aritificial contraception is like having sex and sending God the note telling him ‘hey, we don’t want you here.’

It’s probably better to listen to Dr. Smith than my amateur rendition, but that’s the gist of it.

I think that is very helpful. Dr. Smith really can get her points across.

 

[gardenswithkids]

PalletBoy:

How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? Is it an implied sin because, since it is a **deviancy **from the design of God, it must be **against **God and is therefore sinful?

To put is bluntly, you seem to want to enjoy your wife’s reproductive parts, but you don’t want to have to give her your sperm. Maybe she doesn’t even want it. In any case, one or both of you are being used for sexual pleasure without sexual responsibility. You refuse to give yourself to her fully.That’s the sin.

“Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church.”

 

[demolitionman65]

I’m not a Christian just for fire-insurrance or as you put it “just to be morally safe”.

I offered this as a last ditch logical defense.

Let us accept (for arguments sake at this point) that condoms, blocking sperm, are different than NFP, which does not physically block sperm.

How does the blocking of sperm become a sin? Is it an implied sin because, since it is a **deviancy **from the design of God, it must be **against **God and is therefore sinful?

Has been adequately answered by others.

BTW Demo: “Pallet, you are being obstinate.”
Obstinate is Stubbornly adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action. Yes. When I believe I’ve studied something out and come to a final conclusion, without a valid rebuttel [sic] in contradiction to my thinking, why should I change my mind?

I hold to my charge. You are not describing obstinacy. You are describing use of reason. I see in you as being presented logical arguments for the difference between ABC and NFP, failing to rebut these arguments, and then claiming we are not addressing your issues. This is not reason. This is obstinacy.

 

[NFPfamily]

Here’s some more biblical points supporting our point. scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

You remind me of Pilate in the movie The Passion of the Christ. He asks his wife at one point "What is Truth? And she responds something like "If you won’t hear it, no one can tell you." Your attitude about NFP is common, but it’s a copout. You need to quit debating in this manner and spend some time actually reading and listening to the materials we’ve provided to hash it out on your own. You are in defense mode and resistent to God’s teaching. Your hard heart is keeping you from experiencing the grace to discern right from wrong. If you think you have to prove everything and make sure everything makes logical sense, you are saying that your judgement is infallible to you. We are only human and need to have faith in the Lord that what God created for us in our fertility cycles is His blessed gift of family planning. It seems you are only arguing condoms (not hormonal based BC). I am jumping out on a limb here to guess that that’s because you are using condoms. The ironic thing is condoms have a higher error rate than using sympto-thermal NFP!!! You made this point earlier: *If NFP were used, there is still a considerable chance over a lifetime of sex that pregnancy can occur. *The same statement is even more true with using condoms. Another point, the term “birth control” is synonomous with “family planning” not contraceptives.

The use of NFP goes FAR beyond avoiding or achieving pregnancy. It is marriage building. The cycles allow the couple to experience a rebirth, or “honeymoon” phase each month that you can’t experience with ABC. This is also excellent for building mutual respect within the marriage- it’s great to set limits and build that sexual tension up until the next phase- it’s been proven that people who practice NFP have as much or MORE sex than people who don’t. Nobody is ever used JUST for pleasure, so it doesn’t get taken for granted. Anyway, I feel like I’m spinning my wheels with you, but I will pray that you come to understand God’s plan for family planning and you will experiences the graces that come with it. Also, I think you should get the book titled Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception by Sam & Bethany Torode. It is available at ccli.org and I think it would talk to you in words you make accept more readily than from us die-hard Catholics ! The very point that you have come to this forum searching out this answer says in the least that you are looking to be convinced, so that’s a start. I wish you luck and again encourage you to avoid debating the issue so much and look into some of these resources.

 

[mlchance]

PalletBoy:

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

No, sin is not intrinsic to human nature. Christ Jesus had a fully human nature, and yet never sinned. Adam and Eve were created with full human natures unmarred by sin. Sin is a deliberate offense against human nature.

PalletBoy:

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.

Christ Jesus gave the Church the authority to speak authoritatively on matters pertaining to faith and morals. The Church has spoken authoritatively, consistently about artificial birth control since the 1st century A.D. Now: Where do you get your authority to say otherwise?

What’s more, Onan was not killed for violating levitical law. First point: Levitical law did not exist when Onan did. Second point: The punishment under levitical law for failing to provide children to a deceased brother was not death; the punishment was public humilitation.

Onan was killed for separating the unitive and procreative facets of the conjugal act.

Finally, as a self-professed devotee of logic, it must be noted that you’re consistently ignoring the fact that all of your objections have been logically refuted.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[K777angel]

PalletBoy:

Felra, you miss the point!

Where does scripture say, imply, or infer that artificial birth control is wrong, but non-artificial birth control is acceptable?

I think the most important thing to establish here is “authority” - and the rest, including artificial birth (conception) control issues and where to find the answers will follow.

We must remember that the church came FIRST - and from her came the bible. Not the other way around.
Scripture itself says, “The pillar and foundation of TRUTH is the church.”
Jesus said, “He who hears you (Peter), hears ME.”

So, to ask where “scripture” teaches about this or that (in this instance the use of contraceptives) is not going to be the proper and complete source of the answer you need. You must look to Christ’s church, whom He himself established to sheperd his flock in His place on earth.
It is the church and the scriptures together - with the church properly interpreting the scriptures - that teach us, lead us and guide us. Either alone is incomplete.

With that truth then, we look to see just what is God’s teaching on the use of contraceptives? We learn that it is illicit to use contraceptives in the sexual union. Perhaps if it was more clearly understood WHY it is illicit - then you could accept it more. There are deep and profound theological reasons why and nothing more beautifully and fully explains it than the teachings on “Theology of the Body.” Which has been the constant teaching on marital sex in all of christianity.
The marital act was designed by God to mirror the selfless life giving love of the Holy Trinity. The love of God the Father and God the Son and from that perfect love flows the Holy Spirit (he “proceeds” from the Father and the Son.)
God/Christ (the bridegroom) held NOTHING back in giving himself completely to God - for us.
The husband can hold nothing back from his wife and the wife can hold nothing back from her husband when they come together to renew their wedding vows in the nuptial union.
To hold part of themselves back (contracepting) is to lie with their bodies to each other. THAT is the sin. That not only ends up being selfISH instead of selfGIVING - but then cannot be “open to life.” It ceases to imitate the Trinity.
NFP is not an ARTIFICIAL means of avoiding a new life.

It is the engagement of the marital act - the two bodies becoming one - that is intended by God to reflect the life-giving love of the Trinity. Therefore, to choose NOT to “become one” at any given time for whatever reason - does not find a couple in the nuptial arrangement and therefore not a question of being “life-giving” or “open to life” mirroring the Trinity. There is no “union.”

So it is the interference during the marital act itself (contracepting) that is at issue.

I hope that made some sense. Christopher West does a MUCH better job than I ever could. Have you read any of “Theology of the Body”?
Blessings!

 

[Scotty_PGH]

K777angel:

I think the most important thing to establish here is “authority” - and the rest, including artificial birth (conception) control issues and where to find the answers will follow.

Thank you for this wonderful post. I don’t think it’s possible to explain this issue any more clearly or succinctly than you did.

And, yes, at the heart of this and all similar discussions is the issue of Authority. It is very difficult for some non-Catholics to accept the Authority of the Church if they have previously had no regard for the concept. For me personally, it was the issue of Authority that led me to the Catholic Church. I just knew in my heart and in my logical mind that Christ must have intended for his Church to be one, with a visible earthly head, interpreting Scripture rightly and spreading the Gospel to the world.

And once I was guided to the actual Scripture with an open mind and heart, it became unquestionably obvious that this was indeed true and that the earthly Church does exist! Christ said “on this Rock I will build my Church.” Even if you (incorrectly) deny that Peter was that Rock, the fact is Christ intended to build His Church! He then says “and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Christ promises that this Church will never cease to exist. At Pentecost, Christ gave the Holy Spirit to His Apostles. He then said “I am with you always.”

If you logically connect the dots, it becomes impossible to deny the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ does exist, in earthly form, never to perish, and always guided by the Holy Spirit.

It was to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son. And there is but one Church that can rightly claim to be Apostolic (with a direct lineage to the Apostles)! It is to those Apostles, their successors and their teachings, guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ, that we turn to for answers on troublesome issues.

The issue debated in this thread is a perfect example of how difficult it can be to accept the Church’s Authority on such matters. If someone is not inclined to recognize that Authority, this is just one issue he will bring up, providing what he believes to be Scriptural evidence to the contrary, to support the argument of “well the Church is wrong on this, so how can it be the one true Church?” Other examples of such topics that will surprise none of you are the Inquisition, scandalous popes of the past, extra-biblical teachings about Mary, changing the Second Commandment, Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Please remember to pray daily for the conversion of souls. I pray earnestly for my non-Catholic family and friends with almost every prayer I say. I love these people dearly and I so want them to experience the completeness one feels as a member of Christ’s Church, and the unbridled joy and the many graces that are available to us in the Sacraments.

 

[NFPfamily]

Scotty PGH:

The issue debated in this thread is a perfect example of how difficult it can be to accept the Church’s Authority on such matters. If someone is not inclined to recognize that Authority, this is just one issue he will bring up, providing what he believes to be Scriptural evidence to the contrary, to support the argument of “well the Church is wrong on this, so how can it be the one true Church?” Other examples of such topics that will surprise none of you are the Inquisition, scandalous popes of the past, extra-biblical teachings about Mary, changing the Second Commandment, Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Please remember to pray daily for the conversion of souls. I pray earnestly for my non-Catholic family and friends with almost every prayer I say. I love these people dearly and I so want them to experience the completeness one feels as a member of Christ’s Church, and the unbridled joy and the many graces that are available to us in the Sacraments.

Wow! Great post!

 

[K777angel]

Scotty - Thank you very much for your kind words.
I think you hit a big truth on the head directly when you said that it was when you had an “open” heart and mind that you were able to see that the fullness of God’s truth lies in HIS church - the Catholic Church. That is what is necessary: to have an open mind and heart willing let God take you to places you may not want to go or think you are heading. He will never steer you wrong and if you truly have an open mind and heart you WILL land “home” in His church.

All faiths have “some” truth - but that/those truths found in other faiths are always going to be found in the Catholic Church. There is not some “other” truth outside of it that she does not possess. But the FULLNESS of truth as God has revealed to his people is found only in His church.

You are so eloquent in your post on the logic in seeing where the one true church is. There can be only ONE “true” church - and we know there IS a church Christ established because he said so himself and also said it is “THE” pillar and foundation of truth."
Only one church has remained constant, consistent and established - the Catholic Church. Yes, the human beings in it are imperfect and make mistakes - but the church herself and the deposit of faith is PERFECT. Because God himself is at the helm.

So any question of faith and morals that come up is ultimately going to fall back on the bigger question: authority. Until that is established and your will assents to it - anything goes. And does.

Bless you!

 

[cynic]

For us non catholics (protestants), it appears this way:

ABC is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. NFP is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. The INTENT/GOAL is the same, to have sex without that particular act resulting in children. For lust/pleasure (what else could it be for). What the starter of this topic is getting at I think is that these appear morrally the same. Either they are both ok in marriage or both wrong. NFP is not open t life since sex outside ferille periods is not open to life. For catholic teaching to be consistent then all sex that is not done with procreation as the primary purpose must be considered sin.

(as a aside: since lust is condemned as sin, how do you have sex without lust??)

 

[fix]

cynic:

For us non catholics (protestants), it appears this way:

ABC is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. NFP is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. The INTENT/GOAL is the same, to have sex without that particular act resulting in children. For lust/pleasure (what else could it be for). What the starter of this topic is getting at I think is that these appear morrally the same. Either they are both ok in marriage or both wrong. NFP is not open t life since sex outside ferille periods is not open to life. For catholic teaching to be consistent then all sex that is not done with procreation as the primary purpose must be considered sin.

(as a aside: since lust is condemned as sin, how do you have sex without lust??)

please see post 58.

 

[Little_Star]

Sometimes, you must abstain from marital relations even if you don’t really want to. With ABC, you never really have to abstain.

 

[martino]

cynic:

For us non catholics (protestants), it appears this way:

ABC is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. NFP is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. The INTENT/GOAL is the same, to have sex without that particular act resulting in children. For lust/pleasure (what else could it be for). What the starter of this topic is getting at I think is that these appear morrally the same. Either they are both ok in marriage or both wrong. NFP is not open t life since sex outside ferille periods is not open to life. For catholic teaching to be consistent then all sex that is not done with procreation as the primary purpose must be considered sin.

(as a aside: since lust is condemned as sin, how do you have sex without lust??)

You completely miss the point; the Church does not teach that couples can never attempt to avoid pregnancy. You are right, in both examples you gave both couples are having sex and at the same time avoiding pregnancy, that however is not the issue.

Since the Church teaches that for serious reasons couples not only can but have a responsibility to either space or limit children; what is at issue is how they go about it; there are licit means and their are illicit means. ABC is an illicit means of avoiding pregnancy because it separates the 2 fundamental aspects of the sex act, which are unitive (what you call lust!) and procreative. What the Church teaches is that you cannot have one with out the other. So couples who abstain are not contradicting this moral principle because they are actually giving themselves freely each and every time the unite.

 

[felra]

cynic:

For us non catholics (protestants), it appears this way:

ABC is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for non procreative recreational reasons. NFP is used so that a couple may indulge in sex for** non procreative recreational** reasons. The INTENT/GOAL is the same, to have sex without that particular act resulting in children. For lust/pleasure (what else could it be for). What the starter of this topic is getting at I think is that these appear morrally the same.** Either they are both ok in marriage or both wrong**. NFP is not open t life since sex outside ferille periods is not open to life. For catholic teaching to be consistent then all sex that is not done with procreation as the primary purpose must be considered sin.

(as a aside: since lust is condemned as sin, how do you have sex without lust??)

In addition to reading the highlighted text in post #58, you present a superficial and false dichotomy understanding to the meaning and purpose of marital sexual union.

NFP does not introduce any artificial barriers to openness to life. Rather NFP respects and honors God’s design of fertility and marital love (this is a profound difference worth reflecting upon). Otherwise sexual union in marriage becomes more a recreational pastime, disjointed and segregated from the full purpose and meaning of marital sexual union.

Marital sexual union (“recreational” in your terms) is not just another pastime “recreational” activity that couples “indulge” in (.i.e, mutual object pleasure); in this superficial understanding/meaning, a couple can achieve the same “non-procreative recreational” function as if when playing tennis, dining out, or watching a play together (really, think about it). Rather it is a union of bodies and a total self-giving as an expression of their sacred covenantal vows.

The “INTENT/GOAL” is not the same. One is making a rationalizational for a sneaky big lie, the other is living and residing in the Truth. This is how NFP couples “have sex without lust” (i.e., not using each other in an object sense of ultimately self-pleasure/recreation).

This may be one of those, until you cross over, trust in God enough to entrust the entirity of your sexuality to Him, and try it (NFP), that you will never quite understand or appreciate the profound difference. This applies equally to Catholic and non-Catholic Christians as well.

 

[rec]

Speaking of “lusting,” I asked a priest (in a classroom, not a confessional) if it was a sin to lust in my mind for my wife, to which he said no. I mentioned that to a friend who is biblically, catechetically, apologetic-oriented, and he said that was incoirrect. Any thoughts?

 

[True_Knight]

rec:

Speaking of “lusting,” I asked a priest (in a classroom, not a confessional) if it was a sin to lust in my mind for my wife, to which he said no. I mentioned that to a friend who is biblically, catechetically, apologetic-oriented, and he said that was incoirrect. Any thoughts?

Lust is a disordered aspect of Love. Lust is NEVER, ok! Even if a priest says it’s Ok. Lust is not God’s design for our lives and for holy matrimony. Lust makes the person we are lusting over an object of our own selfish desires.

St. Francis de Sales said this…
“Love is to will the Greater Good of another.”

This is exactly opposite of what Lust is!

I have an article written on this very subject…
trueknights.org/whatisporn.html

God Bless,

 

[gardenswithkids]

cynic:

The INTENT/GOAL is the same, to have sex without that particular act resulting in children. For lust/pleasure (what else could it be for). …(as a aside: since lust is condemned as sin, how do you have sex without lust??)

What a great question you ask! It completely illustrates the difference between the world’s way of thinking about marital relationships and the Christian way. The physical union between a husband and wife represents the spiritual reality of marriage that the two become one.

Marital relations unite the husband and wife in a loving bond. Love and lust are completely different. With contraceptions, people use each other for physical pleasure and put chemical, physical or surgical obsticles in the way to prevent them from truly uniting as one. (For some reason I’m picturing the scene from an old comedy movie with Leslie Neilson and Pricilla Presley completely covered giant latex rubbers.) People can still use each other as objects without contraception, but the fear of an unplanned pregnancy often keeps people’s lust in check.