Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TLM08
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
baylee said:
But that is not the purpose of this portion of the Catechism nor is it the purpose of Humana Vitae. Both are focusing on artificial contraception…not what types of sexual conduct is appropriate and which ones are not. It is stating that any action before, during or after intercourse that renders procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception. That is why it is intrinsically evil. Intercourse effectively does not take place, and hence, the sexual contact is illicit. It is not open to the creation of human life.That is the entire point of Humanae Vitae. This is true even if there is no artificial means used, such as condoms or birth control pills.

Here is the relevant portion of the catechism, paragraph 2366:

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

If you don’t want to purchase or read the Popcak book, read this article:

beginningcatholic.com/christian-oral-sex.html
 
What if a wife has a full hysterectomy for medical reasons is her husband having sex with her casting his seed upon the ground?
 
mrpathetic said:
If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception. That is why it is intrinsically evil. Intercourse effectively does not take place, and hence, the sexual contact is illicit. It is not open to the creation of human life.That is the entire point of Humanae Vitae. This is true even if there is no artificial means used, such as condoms or birth control pills.

Here is the relevant portion of the catechism, paragraph 2366:

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

If you don’t want to purchase or read the Popcak book, read this article:

beginningcatholic.com/christian-oral-sex.html
Click to expand...
“If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception.”
Well not necessarily…if you are making love for a period of sometime some of the ejaculation may end up not only in the vagina but other places as well…this does not mean the couple was trying to avoid procreation just because some ejaculation took place outside the vagina at some point during the love making…
There are times where a married couple come together to please the other spouse in times of sexual need…and it does not mean the couple is not open to procreation…

I mean say a devout Catholic married couple had two kids and weren’t finacially viable to concieve another just yet…so being responsible adults and parents they choose to practice NFP…I mean that is knowing they are stopping procreation but for a responsible cause…is that evil…nope it isn’t…

"So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”
Okay there is a word or two in the above quote that isn’t in my book of the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
here is what mine says…
—So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”
Now in your quote of the Catechism you have the word ORDERED meaning-An Authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction
In my Catechism the word in that space is OPEN meaning-Willing to consider something (procreation of course in this matter)
…Huge differences in my book…now maybe that was just a typo on your part or maybe not…you should be a little careful one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence…

I think mrpathetic you need to open your mind and stop damning people to hell for there ejaculations…GOD IS LOVE…to know Love is to know God…God knows the heart of everyone…God knows the intention of every love making session…and to those married couples who enjoy making love and are open to children and maybe some ejaculations don’t happen inside the vagina I say SO WHAT…that doesn’t mean you are evil or against procreation in your marriage…

I believe Artificial contraception is evil…I love the Catholic Church and all of her teachings…I am a devout Catholic Married woman with two children…I am open to procreation…I have read every word of the Catechism that talks about marriage in every aspect as well as sexual sins…over and over…I still haven’t read anything that says I am going to be damned for pleasing my husband…I have actually read I should be fulfilling my husbands needs…and him my needs…why does that mean we are against procreation…well it doesn’t…we still welcome all children that God will bless us with…
 
"ronconte:
Faithful married Catholics who sincerely wish to avoid any objective mortal sins must take care not to listen to persons who justify and promote all manner of unnatural sexual acts within marriage, using numerous different excuses. For God who created man and women has never intended such acts to be used by anyone, for any purpose whatsoever. Or do you think that if Christ himself were asked whether a married couple can commit various unnatural sexual acts that he would give his approval? He did not permit a man to even look at a woman with lust in his heart. He did not permit divorce and remarriage (even though Moses permitted it). Neither Jesus or Mary, nor any faithful imitators of them, would condone unnatural sexual acts: not within marriage, not outside of marriage, not for any purpose or in any circumstances at all. For all unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.
Click to expand...
mrpathetic said:
I Agree. It may help, Ron, if you list out what are the unnatural acts. Believe it or not, some Catholics may believe that oral sex is natural.

By natural, you mean sex acts that are open to life, and by unnatural, you mean sex acts that are not open to life - correct?

You may want to explain this in detail. I have read your works, but other folks in this forum probably have not.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ron believes in no foreplay at all, that the parties are just ready at the appropriate time.

Oh, and he writes about the ‘end times’ and claims that Hillary Clinton will be the President on April 9, 2009, and that World War III will start in 2010.

I’m sorry, but don’t take Ron seriously on any subject.
 
It is often claimed that any sexual act between a husband and wife is moral as long as at some point the husband ejaculates into his wife’s vagina. This idea is a gross misrepresentation of Catholic sexual ethics for several reasons.
  1. The act of natural marital relations open to life is not defined by, nor limited to, the male’s consummation of that act. Reducing the marital act to that one element of the act takes away the true and full meaning of the act, which includes the unitive meaning as an expression of true spiritual love between the husband and wife.
  2. If sexual relations were defined by the male’s consummation of the act, then one would have to conclude that no sexual relations occurred in the absence of that element of the act. But in many cases of rape, the male does not consummate the act. Yet it would be absurd to claim that no sexual relations has occurred in such a case.
  3. If sexual relations were defined by the male’s consummation of the act, then one would have to conclude that an unmarried couple had not committed the sin of pre-marital sex as long as that element was not present. Again, this is absurd.
  4. If sexual relations were defined by the male’s consummation of the act, then one would have to conclude that a man or woman had not lost their virginity, despite numerous sexual acts, as long as that element was not present. Again, absurd.
  5. The consummation of the sexual act is the end result, but it is not the entire act. But an act is not defined by whether or not the goal of the act is achieved. For example, if a man attempts to rob a bank in order to obtain the money, but he fails to obtain the money, he is still guilty of bank robbery.
  6. The end does not justify the means. The end of the male’s consummation of the marital act does not justify the means to achieve that end. Both the end and the means must be moral.
  7. All knowingly chosen acts fall under the moral law. It is never the case that one act justifies another act, or that, in a set of acts, only one act must be moral. Therefore, it cannot be said that the moral act of natural marital relations open to life justifies other sexual act.
  8. Each knowingly chosen act must be good, in and of itself, based on the three fonts of morality. Those three fonts pertain to the particular act in question. Never does one act take one or more of its fonts from another act.
  9. Certain sexual acts are intrinsically evil and therefore always immoral. Combining such immoral acts with a moral act of natural marital relations open to life does not make the intrinsically evil acts moral.
  10. Tradition, Scripture, and the Magisterium have NEVER taught that unnatural sexual acts (e.g. oral, anal, or manipulative sex) are moral within marriage.
  11. When an unnatural sexual act is not consummated, or is followed by consummation in the natural act, the moral object of the unnatural sexual act remains the same and so the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Such unnatural acts are not justified by the claim that they are a type of ‘foreplay’ because the moral object remains the same.
  12. A sexual act is unnatural if it is a type of sexual act not inherently capable of procreation. A sexual act is natural if it is the type of intercourse between a man and a woman that is inherently capable of procreation. If the man or woman is infertile, the act is still natural if that act would be capable of procreation in fertile individuals. Natural sexual intercourse is the type of sexual act which has served to propagate the human race since after its inception.
 
Replies to some objections above:
  1. The field of eschatology is generally speculative, so a Catholic should expect to find a number of points in any book on eschatology with which he would disagree. But the field of moral theology is not generally speculative. So one cannot claim that a supposed error in eschatology disqualifies everything the same person said on moral theology.
  2. Ad hominem arguments are not valid. Any theological argument on any topic stands on its own, regardless of various claims about the man (or his other writings, or his credentials, or which school he attended, etc.)
  3. Good intentions are not sufficient to make an act moral. The act itself with its moral object must also be good. And in the totality of the circumstances, the good must outweigh the bad. The moral object of unnatural sexual acts is inherently evil.
  4. The end does not justify the means. So the end of pleasing one’s spouse does not justify the means used to do so.
  5. “What if a wife has a full hysterectomy for medical reasons is her husband having sex with her casting his seed upon the ground?”
    No, because the type of act, natural marital relations, is natural, not unnatural. And God is capable of causing the infertile to become fertile (as He did with Sarah and Abraham, and also with Zechariah and Elizabeth).
  6. Licit foreplay is morally permissible. But licit foreplay does not include any type of unnatural sexual act.
  7. Each and every sexual act must be open to life. Unnatural sexual acts are not open to life, and so they are each and all immoral. A set of sexual acts cannot be justified if only one of the sexual acts is open to life and the other acts are not. Neither can it be said that the unnatural sexual act is open to life if it is followed, accompanied, or preceded by an act of natural relations, because the moral object of the unnatural act is unchanged. The two acts, one unnatural and the other natural, each have their own moral object.
 
LovesTheFather said:
“If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception.”
Well not necessarily…if you are making love for a period of sometime some of the ejaculation may end up not only in the vagina but other places as well…this does not mean the couple was trying to avoid procreation just because some ejaculation took place outside the vagina at some point during the love making…
There are times where a married couple come together to please the other spouse in times of sexual need…and it does not mean the couple is not open to procreation…

I mean say a devout Catholic married couple had two kids and weren’t finacially viable to concieve another just yet…so being responsible adults and parents they choose to practice NFP…I mean that is knowing they are stopping procreation but for a responsible cause…is that evil…nope it isn’t…

"So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”
Okay there is a word or two in the above quote that isn’t in my book of the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
here is what mine says…
—So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”
Now in your quote of the Catechism you have the word ORDERED meaning-An Authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction
In my Catechism the word in that space is OPEN meaning-Willing to consider something (procreation of course in this matter)
…Huge differences in my book…now maybe that was just a typo on your part or maybe not…you should be a little careful one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence…

I think mrpathetic you need to open your mind and stop damning people to hell for there ejaculations…GOD IS LOVE…to know Love is to know God…God knows the heart of everyone…God knows the intention of every love making session…and to those married couples who enjoy making love and are open to children and maybe some ejaculations don’t happen inside the vagina I say SO WHAT…that doesn’t mean you are evil or against procreation in your marriage…

I believe Artificial contraception is evil…I love the Catholic Church and all of her teachings…I am a devout Catholic Married woman with two children…I am open to procreation…I have read every word of the Catechism that talks about marriage in every aspect as well as sexual sins…over and over…I still haven’t read anything that says I am going to be damned for pleasing my husband…I have actually read I should be fulfilling my husbands needs…and him my needs…why does that mean we are against procreation…well it doesn’t…we still welcome all children that God will bless us with…

My Catechism is written the same way yours is written. I would also add that the “marriage act” is referring to intercourse. In the same section of Humana Vitae that this paragraph refers to it states:

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse.

I still say that the purpose of Humana Vitae is not to instruct on appropriate vs inappropriate sexual acts…it is instructing the Faithful about the inappropriate and appropriate regulation of births …in fact this is the title of it: “On Regulation of Births”.
Click to expand...
 
LovesTheFather said:
…if you are making love for a period of sometime some of the ejaculation may end up not only in the vagina but other places as well…this does not mean the couple was trying to avoid procreation just because some ejaculation took place outside the vagina at some point during the love making…

…so being responsible adults and parents they choose to practice NFP
Click to expand...
Pretty sure nobody here is objecting to NFP or ejaculate ending up “not inside the vagina” due to further love-making.
…ORDERED meaning-An Authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction
Click to expand...
“Ordered”, as in “in order to…”

My CCC says “ordered”. Revised Edition, 1999.
 
baylee said:
My Catechism is written the same way yours is written. I would also add that the “marriage act” is referring to intercourse. In the same section of Humana Vitae that this paragraph refers to it states:

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse.

I still say that the purpose of Humana Vitae is not to instruct on appropriate vs inappropriate sexual acts…it is instructing the Faithful about the inappropriate and appropriate regulation of births …in fact this is the title of it: “On Regulation of Births”.
Click to expand...
But non-vaginal intercourse has the effect of “regulating births”, and, we contend, inappropriately.
 
LovesTheFather said:
“If a married couple engage in sex, and ejaculation takes place outside of the vagina, that is contraception.”
Well not necessarily…if you are making love for a period of sometime some of the ejaculation may end up not only in the vagina but other places as well…this does not mean the couple was trying to avoid procreation just because some ejaculation took place outside the vagina at some point during the love making…
There are times where a married couple come together to please the other spouse in times of sexual need…and it does not mean the couple is not open to procreation…

I mean say a devout Catholic married couple had two kids and weren’t finacially viable to concieve another just yet…so being responsible adults and parents they choose to practice NFP…I mean that is knowing they are stopping procreation but for a responsible cause…is that evil…nope it isn’t…

"So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.”
Okay there is a word or two in the above quote that isn’t in my book of the Catechism of the Catholic Church…
here is what mine says…
—So the Church, which is “on the side of life” teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”
Now in your quote of the Catechism you have the word ORDERED meaning-An Authoritative indication to be obeyed; a command or direction
In my Catechism the word in that space is OPEN meaning-Willing to consider something (procreation of course in this matter)
…Huge differences in my book…now maybe that was just a typo on your part or maybe not…you should be a little careful one word can change the meaning of an entire sentence…

I think mrpathetic you need to open your mind and stop damning people to hell for there ejaculations…GOD IS LOVE…to know Love is to know God…God knows the heart of everyone…God knows the intention of every love making session…and to those married couples who enjoy making love and are open to children and maybe some ejaculations don’t happen inside the vagina I say SO WHAT…that doesn’t mean you are evil or against procreation in your marriage…

I believe Artificial contraception is evil…I love the Catholic Church and all of her teachings…I am a devout Catholic Married woman with two children…I am open to procreation…I have read every word of the Catechism that talks about marriage in every aspect as well as sexual sins…over and over…I still haven’t read anything that says I am going to be damned for pleasing my husband…I have actually read I should be fulfilling my husbands needs…and him my needs…why does that mean we are against procreation…well it doesn’t…we still welcome all children that God will bless us with…

I am using the exact quote from the online catechism published by the US Catholic Council of Bishops, specifically the portions on the 6th commandment.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

And yes, it uses ordered, not open. I have not changed or altered anything. See for yourself.

I am not calling anyone evil, or condemning them to hell, Baylee. I am saying that there are deep, fundamental disagreements on this subject, based on different interpretations of the Catechism. If this debate has pointed this out, then clearly, our Church has not made this point very clear in the Catechism.

I tend towards a strict, conservative interpretation of the Catechism, because quite frankly, I am not playing games with my soul. I personally would rather remain celibate for the next 40 years, than violate God’s plan for sexuality, and risk my own soul in the process.

The Catechism should state specifically what sex acts within the marriage bed are licit, and which are illicit. It is simply too vague on this point. And quite frankly, too much is at stake.
Click to expand...
 
p.s., When I said 40 years of celibacy in my last post, that was no exaggeration.

My wife has stated that she will never have sex with me, again. She has stated this to me repeatedly and emphatically. It just isn’t going to happen.

She views sex as utterly pointless at this point in her life, now that she has had her hysterectomy. She has no sexual desires, since she has no ovaries, and her body produces no sex hormones. And she refuses to start the HRT treatments that she could have started, after her operation.

We have been sexless for 16 years. I am a middle-aged man, with perhaps 30-40 years left on my lifespan. This is how many years of sexlessness I am facing, unless I die prematurely. **So I have prepared my mind, body, and soul for decades of continence. **

I will not engage in masturbation, nor will I commit adultery, nor will I divorce or remarry. I refuse to lose my immortal soul, to simply engage in some cheap sexual gratification.

And if my wife ever gave me the proposition of oral sex, but not vaginal sex, I would have to say no. (Quite frankly, I will never receive this proposition, but if I ever did receive it, I would turn it down.)

I believe so deeply in the Church’s teachings, that I am willing to go to these lengths, to obey them. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.
 
mrpathetic said:
p.s., When I said 40 years of celibacy in my last post, that was no exaggeration.

My wife has stated that she will never have sex with me, again. She has stated this to me repeatedly and emphatically. It just isn’t going to happen.

She views sex as utterly pointless at this point in her life, now that she has had her hysterectomy. She has no sexual desires, since she has no ovaries, and her body produces no sex hormones. And she refuses to start the HRT treatments that she could have started, after her operation.

We have been sexless for 16 years. I am a middle-aged man, with perhaps 30-40 years left on my lifespan. This is how many years of sexlessness I am facing, unless I die prematurely. **So I have prepared my mind, body, and soul for decades of continence. **

I will not engage in masturbation, nor will I commit adultery, nor will I divorce or remarry. I refuse to lose my immortal soul, to simply engage in some cheap sexual gratification.

And if my wife ever gave me the proposition of oral sex, but not vaginal sex, I would have to say no. (Quite frankly, I will never receive this proposition, but if I ever did receive it, I would turn it down.)

I believe so deeply in the Church’s teachings, that I am willing to go to these lengths, to obey them. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Click to expand...
WEll, I applaud You Mr. Pathetic, I wish I could put my money where my mouth is, I fail all the time,
 
Methodi said:
WEll, I applaud You Mr. Pathetic, I wish I could put my money where my mouth is, I fail all the time,
Click to expand...
I did not claim to be perfect. I am a sinner, like everyone else in this thread. I have gone to confession several times this year.

Instead of perfection, I have principles. And chief among these is this: I put God first. I put Him before my wife, family, sex life, career - anything else.

What I found was this: once I gave up on my sex life, I grew closer to the Lord. I let the Lord fill a big, gigantic hole in my life, where sexuality once stood. My relationship to the Lord has never been better.

Does part of me still want to have a sex life? Yes, of course. I am still human, and still a man. I still have a sex drive, and I still have urges, once in a great while.

But I have consciously discerned that this is not what the Lord wants for me now. He wants me to guide my wife and family to holiness. And sorry, a sex life will not help in that indeavor; in fact, it will probably hinder it.
 
Spirithound said:
But non-vaginal intercourse has the effect of “regulating births”, and, we contend, inappropriately.
Click to expand...
Yes…“we contend”…not Humana Vitae. It is not talking about the effect of acts other than intercourse. It is talking about couples who intend on regulating births while having sexual intercourse.…those who use NFP…good…those who use artificial means…bad.
 
mrpathetic said:
I did not claim to be perfect. I am a sinner, like everyone else in this thread. I have gone to confession several times this year.

Instead of perfection, I have principles. And chief among these is this: I put God first. I put Him before my wife, family, sex life, career - anything else.

What I found was this: once I gave up on my sex life, I grew closer to the Lord. I let the Lord fill a big, gigantic hole in my life, where sexuality once stood. My relationship to the Lord has never been better.

Does part of me still want to have a sex life? Yes, of course. I am still human, and still a man. I still have a sex drive, and I still have urges, once in a great while.

But I have consciously discerned that this is not what the Lord wants for me now. He wants me to guide my wife and family to holiness. And sorry, a sex life will not help in that indeavor; in fact, it will probably hinder it.
Click to expand...
I have good intentions, but they usually fail, I think every persons relationship with God is different
 
baylee said:
Yes…“we contend”…not Humana Vitae. It is not talking about the effect of acts other than intercourse. It is talking about couples who intend on regulating births while having sexual intercourse.…those who use NFP…good…those who use artificial means…bad.
Click to expand...
Baylee, would it be a sin to use a condom during anal intercourse?
 
mrpathetic said:
p.s., When I said 40 years of celibacy in my last post, that was no exaggeration.

My wife has stated that she will never have sex with me, again. She has stated this to me repeatedly and emphatically. It just isn’t going to happen.

She views sex as utterly pointless at this point in her life, now that she has had her hysterectomy. She has no sexual desires, since she has no ovaries, and her body produces no sex hormones. And she refuses to start the HRT treatments that she could have started, after her operation.

We have been sexless for 16 years. I am a middle-aged man, with perhaps 30-40 years left on my lifespan. This is how many years of sexlessness I am facing, unless I die prematurely. **So I have prepared my mind, body, and soul for decades of continence. **

I will not engage in masturbation, nor will I commit adultery, nor will I divorce or remarry. I refuse to lose my immortal soul, to simply engage in some cheap sexual gratification.

And if my wife ever gave me the proposition of oral sex, but not vaginal sex, I would have to say no. (Quite frankly, I will never receive this proposition, but if I ever did receive it, I would turn it down.)

I believe so deeply in the Church’s teachings, that I am willing to go to these lengths, to obey them. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Click to expand...
“My wife has stated that she will never have sex with me, again. She has stated this to me repeatedly and emphatically. It just isn’t going to happen.
She views sex as utterly pointless at this point in her life, now that she has had her hysterectomy. She has no sexual desires, since she has no ovaries, and her body produces no sex hormones. And she refuses to start the HRT treatments that she could have started, after her operation.”

This is very sad. It is her job as a wife to have sex with her husband and your job as a husband to have sex with your wife…

:1 Corinthians 7:5
“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 self-control.”

Now you stated it was her decision to stop having sex because she doesn’t get the urge anymore…and you just accept this and carry on…?
I think “in the mood or not” it is the duty of husband a wives to take care of eachother…this I feel is very selfish on her part…
for it says in the quote above “mutual consent”…“devote yourselves to prayer.”…“then come together again”…to avoid temptation…

I really believe you need love making in a marriage the union of coming together being one body one spirit…
And I think if you have been sexless for sixteen years you have forgotten the importance of that unity…
 
LovesTheFather said:
“My wife has stated that she will never have sex with me, again. She has stated this to me repeatedly and emphatically. It just isn’t going to happen.
She views sex as utterly pointless at this point in her life, now that she has had her hysterectomy. She has no sexual desires, since she has no ovaries, and her body produces no sex hormones. And she refuses to start the HRT treatments that she could have started, after her operation.”

This is very sad. It is her job as a wife to have sex with her husband and your job as a husband to have sex with your wife…

:1 Corinthians 7:5
“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 self-control.”

Now you stated it was her decision to stop having sex because she doesn’t get the urge anymore…and you just accept this and carry on…?
I think “in the mood or not” it is the duty of husband a wives to take care of eachother…this I feel is very selfish on her part…
for it says in the quote above “mutual consent”…“devote yourselves to prayer.”…“then come together again”…to avoid temptation…

I really believe you need love making in a marriage the union of coming together being one body one spirit…
And I think if you have been sexless for sixteen years you have forgotten the importance of that unity…
Click to expand...
I have covered this in detail in other threads. Yes, it is selfish, but that is the not the larger problem. The real problem is that my wife has abandoned Christianity, and now calls herself an agnostic. Hence, I cannot use any scriptural or faith-based arguments, to address this issue with my wife. That too is pointless at this point, because she lends no credence to the scriptures.

The real problem is that my wife needs to be led back to faith. That has to be fixed first. The way that I intend to do this, is by setting the proper example to her. I plan on being the ideal Christian, by exemplifying charity, obedience, self-sacrifice, and prayer.

If I can do this, then hopefully at some point, I can draw he back to Christianity. This may take years - or it may not happen at all. But I must do what I can. This is necessary, to fulfill my vocation as a husband.

I must first endeavor to save my wife’s soul, before I can save our sex life. The first priority has to be worked on first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top