Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[Sair]

Temporary abstinence out of love for his wife. Same thing with temporary abstinence following childbirth.

Or temporary abstinence when the wife goes shopping, or the husband goes on a business trip, or while you’re eating dinner, or when you go to Mass.

You make it sound like sexual lust is an absolute constant between husband and wife. Not so, I would suggest. One would hope there is more to the marital union than simple physical desire. Obsession with sex is a psychological disorder rather than a natural state of being. Exercising abstinence is no trial when neither partner desires sex. And why must sexual union be open to childbirth in order to be considered ‘loving’? And why, for that matter, does church teaching seek to control private actions to such an extent, when they affect few, if any, but the couple in question?

 

[justwanttoknow]

I am not Catholic but I am dating a man who is very Catholic and one of the most wonderful and “good” men I have ever known. If we ended tomorrow I would still believe the same of him. I am protestant, and I am here because I want to learn more about what has made him the man that he has become (besides his parents). We have talked in length about this very subject (he has not had sex, I have a child so I can’t claim the virgin card and I am divorced due my husband’s affair).

God created sex for a married man and women. Why is it a sin to enjoy it? Logically, it does not make sense that sex is just for pro-creation. If he did not mean for us to enjoy sex with our spouses why would it be so wonderful? Sin has made sex dirty, sin has caused lust-not marriage.

If it were just for pro-creation- wouldn’t we be more like animals? They go into heat, do their business and move on. What kind of loving marriage would that be?

I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea. Anyone who could help with scipture showing me that sex for pleasure between and man and his wife is a sin would be greatly appreciated.

 

[eichenb2]

I am not Catholic but I am dating a man who is very Catholic and one of the most wonderful and “good” men I have ever known. If we ended tomorrow I would still believe the same of him. I am protestant, and I am here because I want to learn more about what has made him the man that he has become (besides his parents). We have talked in length about this very subject (he has not had sex, I have a child so I can’t claim the virgin card and I am divorced due my husband’s affair).

God created sex for a married man and women. Why is it a sin to enjoy it? Logically, it does not make sense that sex is just for pro-creation. If he did not mean for us to enjoy sex with our spouses why would it be so wonderful? Sin has made sex dirty, sin has caused lust-not marriage.

If it were just for pro-creation- wouldn’t we be more like animals? They go into heat, do their business and move on. What kind of loving marriage would that be?

I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea. Anyone who could help with scipture showing me that sex for pleasure between and man and his wife is a sin would be greatly appreciated.

I am with you! Great post!

 

[Marie_Duffy]

I
God created sex for a married man and women. Why is it a sin to enjoy it? Logically, it does not make sense that sex is just for pro-creation. If he did not mean for us to enjoy sex with our spouses why would it be so wonderful? Sin has made sex dirty, sin has caused lust-not marriage.

If it were just for pro-creation- wouldn’t we be more like animals? They go into heat, do their business and move on. What kind of loving marriage would that be?

I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea. Anyone who could help with scipture showing me that sex for pleasure between and man and his wife is a sin would be greatly appreciated.

Have I missed something? Anybody who says that it’s a sin to experience pleasure during marital sex has misunderstood someting pretty badly. The point is that lust is wrong, not desire. Lust is selfish. Given fallen human nature, lust can happen inside marriage as well as out.
Men and women are designed to be complementary, to raise their children together in a loving marriage. Obviously sex is part of that. But so is abstinence, some of the time.
Some people find this easier to accept than others. To me it makes sense.

 

[eichenb2]

Have I missed something? Anybody who says that it’s a sin to experience pleasure during marital sex has misunderstood someting pretty badly. The point is that lust is wrong, not desire. Lust is selfish. Given fallen human nature, lust can happen inside marriage as well as out.
Men and women are designed to be complementary, to raise their children together in a loving marriage. Obviously sex is part of that. But so is abstinence, some of the time.
Some people find this easier to accept than others. To me it makes sense.

To me, one of the problems is the semantics. Who is able to parse love from lust in the context of marriage. Just stop calling it lust and the problem goes away. The larger problem, in my mind, is that the CC forbids contraception (PRIOR TO CONCEPTION).

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not Catholic but I am dating a man who is very Catholic and one of the most wonderful and “good” men I have ever known. If we ended tomorrow I would still believe the same of him. I am protestant, and I am here because I want to learn more about what has made him the man that he has become (besides his parents). We have talked in length about this very subject (he has not had sex, I have a child so I can’t claim the virgin card and I am divorced due my husband’s affair).

God created sex for a married man and women. Why is it a sin to enjoy it? Logically, it does not make sense that sex is just for pro-creation. If he did not mean for us to enjoy sex with our spouses why would it be so wonderful? Sin has made sex dirty, sin has caused lust-not marriage.

If it were just for pro-creation- wouldn’t we be more like animals? They go into heat, do their business and move on. What kind of loving marriage would that be?

I just don’t understand the reasoning behind this idea. Anyone who could help with scipture showing me that sex for pleasure between and man and his wife is a sin would be greatly appreciated.

From the questions you have asked, I think you have a few misunderstandings about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding human sexuality.

Please…for your sake (and for his), go to Amazon.com and order Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West.

Read it…you will be VERY glad you did.

 

[TLM08]

To me, one of the problems is the semantics. Who is able to parse love from lust in the context of marriage. Just stop calling it lust and the problem goes away. The larger problem, in my mind, is that the CC forbids contraception (PRIOR TO CONCEPTION).

The problem is that the church tends to evolve extremely slowly, over hundreds of years things change. At one point, marriage itself was considered inferior to celibacy and sex was a necessary evil that was tolerated only in order to continue the propagation of the human race.

The fact that the church still will not allow in the year 2009 a godly dedicated and faithful husband of one wife and father of eight children (with a 30k/yr income) to wear a condom, or even withdraw from his wife, even at the risk of the wife’s health and certain financial destruction of the family is evidence that the church moves extremely slowly in these matters. The church doesn’t think in terms of months, years or even decades. She thinks in terms of centuries! After all, didn’t it take nearly 300 years for the Church to issue an apology for some of the abuses committed during the inquisition?

Unless this husband wants to commit a mortal sin and risk burning in Hell for eternity, or risk killing his wife with another pregnancy, he is forced to become celibate. He can’t even have sexual thoughts about his wife.

I do believe that the Church is doing the best she can to shepherd the flock, but this still begs the question: Does the fact that church authority itself is celibate have anything to do with the fact that there seems to be no sense of urgency to resolve these tough issues?

 

[eichenb2]

The problem is that the church tends to evolve extremely slowly, over hundreds of years things change. At one point, marriage itself was considered inferior to celibacy and sex was a necessary evil that was tolerated only in order to continue the propagation of the human race.

The fact that the church still will not allow in the year 2009 a godly dedicated and faithful husband of one wife and father of eight children (with a 30k/yr income) to wear a condom, or even withdraw from his wife, even at the risk of the wife’s health and certain financial destruction of the family is evidence that the church moves extremely slowly in these matters. The church doesn’t think in terms of months, years or even decades. She thinks in terms of centuries! After all, didn’t it take nearly 300 years for the Church to issue an apology for some of the abuses committed during the inquisition?

Unless this husband wants to commit a mortal sin and risk burning in Hell for eternity, or risk killing his wife with another pregnancy, he is forced to become celibate. He can’t even have sexual thoughts about his wife.

I do believe that the Church is doing the best she can to shepherd the flock, but this still begs the question: Does the fact that church authority itself is celibate have anything to do with the fact that there seems to be no sense of urgency to resolve these tough issues?

The answer is easy. Follow the Orthodox teachings on these issues.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The problem is that the church tends to evolve extremely slowly, over hundreds of years things change. At one point, marriage itself was considered inferior to celibacy and sex was a necessary evil that was tolerated only in order to continue the propagation of the human race.

The fact that the church still will not allow in the year 2009 a godly dedicated and faithful husband of one wife and father of eight children (with a 30k/yr income) to wear a condom, or even withdraw from his wife, even at the risk of the wife’s health and certain financial destruction of the family is evidence that the church moves extremely slowly in these matters. The church doesn’t think in terms of months, years or even decades. She thinks in terms of centuries! After all, didn’t it take nearly 300 years for the Church to issue an apology for some of the abuses committed during the inquisition?

Unless this husband wants to commit a mortal sin and risk burning in Hell for eternity, or risk killing his wife with another pregnancy, he is forced to become celibate. He can’t even have sexual thoughts about his wife.

I do believe that the Church is doing the best she can to shepherd the flock, but this still begs the question: Does the fact that church authority itself is celibate have anything to do with the fact that there seems to be no sense of urgency to resolve these tough issues?

Contraception interferes with the sacramental nature of the marital embrace. It separates the unitive from the procreative. It damages that union. For just/serious/valid reasons we have the recourse to complete abstinence or to periodic abstinence via NFP. Why use a method of controlling births that is illicit (contraception) when licit means are available? There are various forms of NFP, there should be one that works for nearly any women.

You might want to check out Pope Benedicts writings about Love and the difference between eros and agape
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
It’s beautiful and gets to the heart of true Love and lust.

Also, here’s an article about the meaning of procreation:
lifeissues.net/writers/cat/cat_03conjugalact.html

 

[TLM08]

Contraception interferes with the sacramental nature of the marital embrace. It separates the unitive from the procreative. It damages that union. For just/serious/valid reasons we have the recourse to complete abstinence or to periodic abstinence via NFP. Why use a method of controlling births that is illicit (contraception) when licit means are available? There are various forms of NFP, there should be one that works for nearly any women.

You might want to check out Pope Benedicts writings about Love and the difference between eros and agape
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
It’s beautiful and gets to the heart of true Love and lust.

Also, here’s an article about the meaning of procreation:
lifeissues.net/writers/cat/cat_03conjugalact.html

By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality. NFP is not much different than withdrawl. The difference is that with NFP, the egg is being kept away from the sperm.

It seems to me that a wife’s death that could result from a high risk pregnancy would not only damage the union, but end it.

 

[Jennifer_J]

By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality. NFP is not much different than withdrawl. The difference is that with NFP, the egg is being kept away from the sperm.

It seems to me that a wife’s death that could result from a high risk pregnancy would not only damage the union, but end it.

No, NFP doesn’t interfere with the ACT itself. A woman is naturally given these periods of infertility. There is NO sin in using this natural infertility for sex. The Church has not proscribed that a couple MUST have sex at a certain time. It is NOT a sin to abstain. It is NOT a sin to have sex whenever you and your spouse want as long as the act is unaltered. NFP is simply knowledge, with that knowledge you can either choose to engage in the act or not, but the ACT ITSELF is intact as God created it. This is the reason that infertile couples may have sex, why pregant women may have sex and why women in menopause may have sex (all with their spouse, of course ). Having the knowledge of infertility is not a sin. Having sex anytime within marriage is not a sin. Of course the use of NFP should be for serious/just/right reasons. Use of NFP without those reasons would be a sin of selfishness and not the sin of contraception…NFP allows the act to be open to procreation, even if procreation isn’t possible, because procreation doesn’t mean FERTILITY.

 

[eichenb2]

No, NFP doesn’t interfere with the ACT itself. A woman is naturally given these periods of infertility. There is NO sin in using this natural infertility for sex. The Church has not proscribed that a couple MUST have sex at a certain time. It is NOT a sin to abstain. It is NOT a sin to have sex whenever you and your spouse want as long as the act is unaltered. NFP is simply knowledge, with that knowledge you can either choose to engage in the act or not, but the ACT ITSELF is intact as God created it. This is the reason that infertile couples may have sex, why pregant women may have sex and why women in menopause may have sex (all with their spouse, of course ). Having the knowledge of infertility is not a sin. Having sex anytime within marriage is not a sin. Of course the use of NFP should be for serious/just/right reasons. Use of NFP without those reasons would be a sin of selfishness and not the sin of contraception…NFP allows the act to be open to procreation, even if procreation isn’t possible, because procreation doesn’t mean FERTILITY.

Despite all of this fancy rhetoric, a couple engaging in intercourse with knowledge of NFP is doing it SPEFICALLY for the purpose of not conceiving. This is the same as Coitus Interruptus or use of profilactics. This intention is what is the issue and it is the same in both. Leaving doctrine aside, if you don’t get this RATIONALLY…u really are a TRUE BELIEVER

 

[eichenb2]

By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality. NFP is not much different than withdrawl. The difference is that with NFP, the egg is being kept away from the sperm.

It seems to me that a wife’s death that could result from a high risk pregnancy would not only damage the union, but end it.

Totally AGREE!

 

[Jennifer_J]

The intention is irrelevant, because the intention to “control births” is not a sin. It’s not sinful to want to delay or space children (hence abstinence is NOT a sin), it’s the means of acheiving that end that is sinful. Contraception of all forms is directly against conception. NFP is not a direct or indirect attack against conception, it’s the knowlege of fertility. It does not affect fertility in any way.

So stop accusing me of rhetoric, because that’s NOT the case at all. It’s the clear teaching of the Church…

 

[eichenb2]

The intention is irrelevant, because the intention to “control births” is not a sin. It’s not sinful to want to delay or space children (hence abstinence is NOT a sin), it’s the means of acheiving that end that is sinful. Contraception of all forms is directly against conception. NFP is not a direct or indirect attack against conception, it’s the knowlege of fertility. It does not affect fertility in any way.

So stop accusing me of rhetoric, because that’s NOT the case at all. It’s the clear teaching of the Church…

And…you believe it BECAUSE it is a “clear teaching of the Church”. I may have been born in the day…but it wasn’t yesterday! God gave us our brains to use them. For me, rationally, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with using contraception before conception. By the way, the vast majority of Christians agree, as do the overwhelming majority of Theists. Does make it right? No, of course not. But I am willing to entertain the idea that I am wrong. Are you REALLY willing to think outside the CC box?

 

[fix]

By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality. NFP is not much different than withdrawl. The difference is that with NFP, the egg is being kept away from the sperm.

It seems to me that a wife’s death that could result from a high risk pregnancy would not only damage the union, but end it.

This is silly. Not having sex is not separating the two aspects of the act.

 

[fix]

Are you REALLY willing to think outside the CC box?

The Church speaks as Christ. Which box outside Christ is true?

 

[eichenb2]

The Church speaks as Christ. Which box outside Christ is true?

So…the other Christians church are just wrong???
Let me act a question…have the CC ever been wrong, on anything?

 

[fix]

So…the other Christians church are just wrong???

If they contradict this teaching, yes they are wrong on this issue.

Let me act a question…have the CC ever been wrong, on anything?

Never on a teaching regarding faith or morals.

 

[eichenb2]

This is silly. Not having sex is not separating the two aspects of the act.

It is not silly or semantics. It is level-headed reasoning.

1. To kill a fetus after conception is murder. We agree there, right?
2. Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred, being intended primarily by the Author of life to perpetuate His creative act and to beget children of God; its secondary ends are mutual society and help, and a lawful remedy for concupiscence.
   Do we agree here?
3. Current Catholic teaching is that NO conjugal act can separate the two. Right?
4. If you say NFP is not separating the two purposes they you are not being rational and reasonable. With NFP, the couple is PURPOSELY abstaining or indulging based on your intention to create live or not. This reminds me of the story of some fisherman who wanted to observe the Sabbath and not fish on Saturday. They put the nets out on Friday and gathered the fish on Friday. But, they weren’t fishing. The use of Prophylaxis are used, also, with the intention of procreating or not.
   You can hit me all day with the view that the Catholic Church teaches X or Y doctrine. What you CANNOT say is that the prohibition of Prophylaxis and permission of NFP is logical consistent.