T
- Status
C
Cimachol
Guest
No, it isn’t, because the act remains “ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” (CCC 2366). It does not involve any “action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (CCC 2370).
Because than you are talking about acts that are not “ordered per se to the procreation of human life” (CCC 2366).
It’s not so much that He punishes us, but that we reject His plan for us. We either respect or reject the Church’s authority to teach on moral issues, but as Jesus told the apostles, if we reject the Church, we reject Him, and if we reject Him, we reject the One who sent Him.
R
Rau
Guest
Can you identify this condition by name?
R
Rau
Guest
Difficulty comprehending. Never mind, a little research done and now I understand.
T
TruthSkr
Guest
You have done a good job explaining the Church’s position on this and I thank you for that. What I just do not understand is why it is considered such a serious, heinous sin that it is deserving of eternal loss of salvation. The punishment just does not appear to fit the crime, especially when I have not read a single reference to any other religion even considering it a sin at all. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth - this doesn’t even come close. It reminds me of the threat of going to hell for eating meat on Friday. The Church can’t just say “don’t do that”. It has to be eternal damnation. It really doesn’t make one feel happy to be Catholic. Maybe it isn’t God punishing us, as you said, but the message from the Catholic Church as I was taught is very clear - break our rules on what we say is mortal sin and you are forever doomed.
C
Cimachol
Guest
There is a key difference between the Church’s disciplinary teachings, which it has the authority to change, and moral teachings, which it has no authority to change. The act of sexual intercourse has always been considered sacred, and the Church cannot change that; she can only warn us about what may happen if we treat this gift as anything less than it was intended to be.
Incidentally, this issue was a huge struggling point for me at one point. I’m come to look at this question another way – why would I give up our eternal salvation just to have sex on my own terms? Do I love sex more than God?
T
TechieGuy
Guest
That presupposes a belief that the Church’s Teaching about the nature of sex is indeed what God decrees.
It sounds as if TruthSkr is struggling with the question of whether or not the ‘all sex must end with semen in the vagina’ really is something that God requires on pain of mortal sin.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
I think that if there is a medical condition that makes penetration too painful, then your not breaking the spirit of the law. That whole thing about finishing with just the tip in the vagina sounds too legalistic to me.
I also think that if your pastor doesn’t have the nerve to address your problem directly, instead of referring you to something that someone wrote and letting you figure it out for yourself, is your queue to figure it out for yourself. I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
C
Cimachol
Guest
Well, this is a Catholic forum. As a Catholic, I presuppose that. I’m sure there are many who would debate whether one ought to be Catholic, or whether the Church has any moral authority the way Jesus promised it would. But that’s a topic for another thread, I would think.
If all moral issues were easy to discern, we wouldn’t need the Church to guide us. This is one that seems to be difficult to discern, which is why I refer to the Catechism.
P
pensmama87
Guest
What God requires is an honest attempt at it.
If someone attempts but is not successful, there is no sin in that.
If the OP and his wife deliberately seek to exclude natural intercourse, that would not be OK.
T
TruthSkr
Guest
The other day I met with the doctor who did both of my surgeries and he gave me a new non-surgical treatment plan. It may take up to six months to see if it works, but at least there is hope. While driving to this appointment I listened to a CD that was given to me several years ago titled “Contraception – Why Not?” by Dr. Janet Smith. This is actually an excellent presentation on the Catholic Church’s position on sex, marriage, and birth control, one that is much easier to understand than the more complex writings of Humanae Vitae. Although I have questions about some of her assertions I feel it is the best explanation I have ever heard of the Church’s position on these very controversial subjects. The CD is so well done that I believe it is something every Catholic should listen to. This CD and many other works can be found online at www.janetesmith.org. I have spent a lot of time thinking about this subject and have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church’s greatest handicap is its persistent refusal to publicly teach the masses about its position on these controversial issues. I live in a very large parish and my pastor is a very highly respected man. And although I attend Mass every Sunday I have never heard a single homily or read a single article in our church’s weekly bulletin on any of these subjects. It’s as though the Church has simply given up in the face of resistance. Janet Smith said that before the advent of The Pill in the 1960’s about 67% of Catholics were in compliance with the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control. After the pill it dropped to a low of about 4%!, if I remember the numbers correctly. The culture we live in today cannot conceive of how anyone in their right mind could even think of living without birth control. But just 60 years ago most people had a completely different mind set. The problem here is that as long as the Church fails to address this issue in a public way Catholics around the world will believe that by ignoring the subject the Church is saying “we don’t really believe what we are telling you.” And some priests are actually telling their parishioners, “it’s a matter of conscience – do what you believe is right.” What is desperately needed is a conversation on the issue. Unfortunately, the only public place this conversation is taking place is here in this website. And how many Catholics even know about it? Yes, the traffic here is great, but if you ask anyone you know, they will likely tell you they never heard of it.
C
Cimachol
Guest
I started to get that from a priest when I was coming back into the Church myself years ago. I wanted to believe that there was a way that I could have my contraception and my Church, too. Yet, I felt it would by hypocritical for me to accept that the Church had the authority to consecrate bread and wine so that it would become the Body and Blood of Christ, yet reject its authority to say under what circumstances I ought to receive it. I prodded this priest a bit more to make sure he was really telling me that it was okay to continue using contraception and receive Communion. He finally erupted, “If you are looking for me to give you permission to use contraception and receive Communion, I have no authority to give you that!”
I will always be grateful that, as vague as this priest tried to be initially, he ultimately knew that there was a line between what he could say and what he could not say and had the integrity to admit it. At that moment I began, for the first time, honestly assessing whether I could truly accept the Church’s teachings or not. Obviously, I ultimately did.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I always read these posts with interest. My wife and I are in a similar situation. The scar tissue that grew after several c-sections has led to her being unable to have intercourse without severe pain–to the point that she is absolutely not interested in any sex at all.
We have only had intercourse about three times a year for over ten years now. It rots.
To try to shoehorn people into a single standard of behavior without regard to their individual characteristics is misguided; e.g. to tell a relatively young married couple that they cannot enjoy sexual contact with each other for the rest of their lives because they cannot have interciurse that is ordered toward procreation and that they must learn to accept involuntary chastity is hard to believe as somehow an edict ordained by God. More likely it’s a teaching rationalized to maintain an archaic (and probably never fully taken seriously prior to the past 40’years) moralizing.
We have only had intercourse about three times a year for over ten years now. It rots.
To try to shoehorn people into a single standard of behavior without regard to their individual characteristics is misguided; e.g. to tell a relatively young married couple that they cannot enjoy sexual contact with each other for the rest of their lives because they cannot have interciurse that is ordered toward procreation and that they must learn to accept involuntary chastity is hard to believe as somehow an edict ordained by God. More likely it’s a teaching rationalized to maintain an archaic (and probably never fully taken seriously prior to the past 40’years) moralizing.
R
Rau
Guest
If one takes that position as reasonable, then how does one extend the thinking to the case of - say - a husband whose young wife is permanently and severely disabled due to a medical event or an accident of some kind. What does one say to the husband? Must he accept involuntary chastity?
I
I_trust
Guest
Not only does Ron Conte not speak for the Church on this and other subjects, he is not what one usually describes as a “Theologian”. When he started calling himself a Theologian he was questioned about his credentials. At that point he admitted he only had an undergraduate degree in theology. To properly call oneself a theologian in the Catholic Church I will defer to EWTN on this subject…
O
on_the_hill
Guest
This is slightly off-topic. About 20 years ago my boss had a habit of introducing me as the “Expert on Everything.”
Thus, as a Theologian whose education consists of attending Sunday Mass and reading CAF, I concur with EWTN.
C
Cimachol
Guest
Unfortunately, tragedies sometimes occur, but once a valid marriage is contracted – including consummation – it’s permanent. (See Mark 10.) The inability to repeat the marital act does not invalidate it, nor does it give license to perform otherwise immoral sexual activity as a substitute.
R
Rau
Guest
Oh, sorry!Stop making sense. It messes up my self-righteous indignation.
- Status