Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[Jennifer_J]

That didn’t seem fair at all. That is clearly not what this person was saying.

I do apologize. I realized what that sounded like after I posted and walked away. It’s very difficult, though, when people assume that personal feelings trump centuries of Church teaching.

“I feel X, therefore the Church must be wrong!”

But, it was uncharitable of me and I do apologize for losing my temper…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Again, natural has nothing to do with it. The act does have a certain inherant order to it. NFP is not licit because it is ‘natural’. Part of the reason it is licit is part of Natural Law, but that has nothing to do with tree hugging, nature It has to do with the proper order of the act. It really isn’t even about “open to life” as Rico S said earlier. I think that term is confusing and doesn’t clarify anything. Sex should be “ordered to procreation” as well as unitive. Those 2 are so wrapped up together that it damages the sacramental nature of the act to separate them.

How is denying the unitive aspect while abstaining not as sinful as denying the procreative aspect during the act? I am not talking about the actual act now. I am talking about the abstaining part, which is one of the results of NFP.

The Church doesn’t force anyone to use NFP, it should only be used for grave/serious/just reasons. Is it difficult to deny yourself when you are most receptive? Yes! But just like the dieter who must deny their longing for chocolate for their health, sometimes abstinence must be used for our health (physical, emotional,) and wellbeing (taking care of family, $, etc).

I understand the sacrificial nature. And I agree that some degree of abstainance is good and healthy for the marriage. Otherwise sex is likely to become something just to take care of our appetites. I just disagree with the extent of abstainance required for those who have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for long durations of time.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I do apologize. I realized what that sounded like after I posted and walked away. It’s very difficult, though, when people assume that personal feelings trump centuries of Church teaching.

“I feel X, therefore the Church must be wrong!”

But, it was uncharitable of me and I do apologize for losing my temper…

I’m sure it was a quick reaction. I just want to maintain peace here

 

[Jennifer_J]

Because abstaining isn’t a sin, how could it be? I’m abstaining right now, is that sinful? Abstaining might only be a sin if the couple were refusing each other the act for less than just reasons, or for spite or some such reason. Once upon a time, couples’ only choice to avoid babies for just reasons was total abstinence…were they sinning? No, because they weren’t engaged in the act. Once the act is engaged in, then it is to be unitive and procreative. If you aren’t engaging in the act, then there is no unitive or procreative aspect to anything, there’s no act. Does that make sense? My head is starting to hurt

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Because abstaining isn’t a sin, how could it be? I’m abstaining right now, is that sinful? Abstaining might only be a sin if the couple were refusing each other the act for less than just reasons, or for spite or some such reason. Once upon a time, couples’ only choice to avoid babies for just reasons was total abstinence…were they sinning? No, because they weren’t engaged in the act. Once the act is engaged in, then it is to be unitive and procreative. If you aren’t engaging in the act, then there is no unitive or procreative aspect to anything, there’s no act. Does that make sense? My head is starting to hurt

Ha! My head is hurting - mostly b/c using the computer this much gives me a headache

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but first of all, the Franciscans here would disagree with this. They are pursuaded, and teach, that abstainance should be for grave reasons, and only temporary. They also teach, btw, that any intercourse without the procreative aspect available is sin. IOW, if you are pregnant, you should abstain. If you are infertile, you abstain. That knowing you are not capable of conceiving disorders the act b/c there is no openness to life. Both aspects must be present.

Anyway, I have heard from more than one priest (and not only Franciscan priests) that abstainance in marriage should only be temporary and for good reason, and that using NFP can be a sin when used for long periods of time to avoid pregnancy; that it is then no different than abc.

Regardless, I think NFP ultimately does more good than harm. We wouldn’t stop using it in preference to anything else. I can’t say for sure that we wouldn’t be supplementing it with condoms in the future though as it seems necessary to our relationship. Insisting otherwise has done nothing but built up walls between us and led to other sins - sins I fear are far graver than wanting to use a condom a few times a year for the sake of marrital unity.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Ha! My head is hurting - mostly b/c using the computer this much gives me a headache

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but first of all, the Franciscans here would disagree with this. They are pursuaded, and teach, that abstainance should be for grave reasons, and only temporary. They also teach, btw, that any intercourse without the procreative aspect available is sin. IOW, if you are pregnant, you should abstain. If you are infertile, you abstain. That knowing you are not capable of conceiving disorders the act b/c there is no openness to life. Both aspects must be present.

Anyway, I have heard from more than one priest (and not only Franciscan priests) that abstainance in marriage should only be temporary and for good reason, and that using NFP can be a sin when used for long periods of time to avoid pregnancy; that it is then no different than abc.

Regardless, I think NFP ultimately does more good than harm. We wouldn’t stop using it in preference to anything else. I can’t say for sure that we wouldn’t be supplementing it with condoms in the future though as it seems necessary to our relationship. Insisting otherwise has done nothing but built up walls between us and led to other sins - sins I fear are far graver than wanting to use a condom a few times a year for the sake of marrital unity.

From all the reading and study I’ve done, I wonder where the Franciscians in your area came up with these restrictions? It’s not something I’ve heard espoused by the Magesterium (via the Catechism and other writings).

God bless

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

From all the reading and study I’ve done, I wonder where the Franciscians in your area came up with these restrictions? It’s not something I’ve heard espoused by the Magesterium (via the Catechism and other writings).

God bless

Yes, they definately are pursuaded that the procreative element must be functioning.

Perhaps all those years of direction with them has colored my understanding of this. If they aren’t teaching the orthodox teaching then I better re-learn my stuff. I am certain I’ve heard their position elsewhere though. These teachings are not exclusive of them. And like I said, I’ve had other priests tell me that NFP can be the same as abc when used except temporarily and for grave reasons. And they will probably disagree as to what constitues a grave reason as well.

 

[fix]

I think that I have stated clearly that I know what the CC teaches. I, and others, disagree with this teaching. We have been articulating exactly what our issues are. What is so hard to understand about that?

Well, if one equates contraception with NFP they are not stating Church teaching accurately.

The sin of contraception involves altering the sexual act. Not engaging in sex can be a sin but it is not the sin of contraception.

 

[fix]

This dead horse has been beat enough! I do not agree with the CC teachings on this and, apparently, so do others.

Yes, I understand people disagree. My point is that disagreement should be on what She actually teaches not what some claim She teaches.

Look at this one statement from this thread as example:

Just like NFP, wearing a condom does not close the door to the possibility of life either due to a 5 to 10% failure rate.

This type of reasoning misses the point. Being oriented towards life is not about a certain percenatge of likely conception.

Both persons may be sterile and still have an act oriented toward life.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

from this site:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4728793

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

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

This very clearly states that if sex deliberately excludes procreation, it is sinful. It is NOT only about having sex that is totally unaltered. The arguments put forth here are completely valid imo.

 

[andiwillmovethe]

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

Well, I’m new to all of this, but I believe it was God who does not agree with coitus interruptus and its the RCC who upholds His judgment.

Does anyone remeber Onan? Genesis 38. 9-10
(Note: While I’m no historian, I believe the punishment at that time for not giving a deceased brother’s wife children was public humiliation. The death Onan was sentenced to was for contraception, including coitus withdrawl.)

In Him,
Mira

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Well, I’m new to all of this, but I believe it was God who does not agree with coitus interruptus and its the RCC who upholds His judgment.

Does anyone remeber Onan? Genesis 38. 9-10
(Note: While I’m no historian, I believe the punishment at that time for not giving a deceased brother’s wife children was public humiliation. The death Onan was sentenced to was for contraception, including coitus withdrawl.)

In Him,
Mira

That’s correct. I was actually just reading that on this site also - next paragraph from the one I cited in fact. I was wondering when it would come up again.

Question is, would it have been just as sinful if Onan had never slept with her at all, or only done so when they couldn’t bear a child (had they the knowledge…)

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Oh, and welcome aboard

 

[Jennifer_J]

from this site:
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4728793
This very clearly states that if sex deliberately excludes procreation, it is sinful. It is NOT only about having sex that is totally unaltered. The arguments put forth here are completely valid imo.

But sex in the naturally nonfertile time would not be deliberately frustrating the act. The act would just be naturally infertile. I don’t think that knowing it’s infertile suddenly makes it a sin. Women in menopause know they are infertile and it’s not sinful to have sex. Sex during pregnancy is not a sin in any publication I’ve ever read.

Just a quick question about your Franciscans…what do they state about people who are infertile for no apparent reason (or menopause)? Are they allowed to be married? Because, to be logically consistant they would have to disallow that marriage. That’s why I think the use of naturally infertile times and during pregnancy or during menopause is licit and taught licit by the Church. The the loss of fertility is not under the couples control. It seems inconsistant to say you can’t be abstinent for long periods of time and then say you can’t have sex if you are pregnant or are in menopause.

 

[JC_in_Dallas]

The last comment is more than a bit extreme, their choice but extreme. We do teach natural family planning.
While we must be open to the creation of life we are reminded that sexuality in marriage is for the creation of life and the “good of the couple”. I am glad to see that we are seperating grave matter and mortal sin. They are not necessarily the same are they. There is the well formed conscience and intent to act based on that formation part.
It is good that you are seeking direction. I would suggest you seek the advice of a competent moral authority with whom you can share all of the details of your situation. Then take it to prayer. After all if it is temporary then it will come to an end and normal relations can continue.

 

[JC_in_Dallas]

I am new to this and this post is moving at ligh speed. The extreme comment was directed at a life of celibacy because of the medical issues and miscarriage.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

But sex in the naturally nonfertile time would not be deliberately frustrating the act. The act would just be naturally infertile. I don’t think that knowing it’s infertile suddenly makes it a sin. Women in menopause know they are infertile and it’s not sinful to have sex. Sex during pregnancy is not a sin in any publication I’ve ever read.

Just a quick question about your Franciscans…what do they state about people who are infertile for no apparent reason (or menopause)? Are they allowed to be married? Because, to be logically consistant they would have to disallow that marriage. That’s why I think the use of naturally infertile times and during pregnancy or during menopause is licit and taught licit by the Church. The the loss of fertility is not under the couples control. It seems inconsistant to say you can’t be abstinent for long periods of time and then say you can’t have sex if you are pregnant or are in menopause.

First of all, I don’t know what they would say about an infertile couple. Using their reasoning, I would guess they’d object to it. But I don’t know what they teach. I’ve only gathered what I know from the direction I have gotten from them over the years. I haven’t received direction from them in probably 4 or 5 years now. In fact, one of the last times I went there was when I was told we had to abstain during my pregnancy. Here I was pregnant and being told we would not be being open to life by having sex while I couldn’t possible get pregnant (b/c I already was pregnant!).

Another of their teachings was to be temperant during climax (whatever that means) - iow, don’t enjoy it too much (?). I can’t remember exactly how that was worded, but the way he explained it was basically that it is best to exercise self-control in the midst of the pleasure so it is not enjoyed for the sensory experience. Kind of akin to trying not to enjoy the taste of the foods we eat as we’re eating them I guess…

An interesting thing is that my mother yesterday told me that the CC used to allow an annulment if one of the couple couldn’t conceive. It sounds to me like this possibly is based on an old teaching that procreation is a must in marriage (?). I really don’t know.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

But sex in the naturally nonfertile time would not be deliberately frustrating the act. The act would just be naturally infertile. I don’t think that knowing it’s infertile suddenly makes it a sin. Women in menopause know they are infertile and it’s not sinful to have sex. Sex during pregnancy is not a sin in any publication I’ve ever read.

Jennifer, what do you think about my question about Onan? Would it have been a sin if Onan had just avoided sleeping with her?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer, what do you think about my question about Onan? Would it have been a sin if Onan had just avoided sleeping with her?

You know, I’m not sure because I’m not sure what the Jewish teaching was. I know the man had to marry the wife of the brother, but beyond that, I’m really not sure. I’ll do some reading and get back to you…

edited to add:
catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704chap.asp
It sounds to me that had he refused to have relations he would not have been killed, but because he went through the motions and then withdrew, thus not completing he act, he was punished with death.

 

[AngelaBarbara]

I have submitted to the church on and off for over 10 years (mostly on). For most of those years I totally submitted to this teaching. My husband was against it but had no choice but to go along with it. There weren’t many times that I questioned it b/c I was resolved to submit regardless of my understanding. There have been times, as I’ve said, where I’ve struggled with it and have given in (to contraception). There have been times when I’ve been resentful of this teaching. There have been times when I’ve been resentful of using contraception.

Now, I left the church for the most part about 3 years ago (over doctrinal issues. Became a “sola scripturist”), and it was then that I really opened up to realizing that the teaching never made complete sense to me and I was only submitting b/c I felt I had no choice. I still feel this way for the most part, and I’m voicing my frustration here.

I reconciled with the church only a month ago, and this has been a big issue between us, b/c I admit I don’t agree with the exclusive use of NFP in all circumstances. We have both been faithful to the church since I’ve reconciled, but I have to admit that it is just one of the major issues I am dealing with since my reconciliation.

I think ultimately the CC has a good case for being what it claims, but sometimes I think it has gone too far with its definitions and boundaries. I don’t know if I will be able to continue trying to submit to things like this that I don’t agree with, or if I’ll end up a cafeteria-Catholic or if I’ll go to another church. Things like this certainly do challenge my faith. My faith is an absolute mess right now. It’s only by the grace of God that I can face each day - not just b/c of this issue, but b/c there are so many things I cannot reconcile about the church, Scripture, experience, prayer, you name it…

One day at a time, right?

Hi Pilgrim,
I’m in the process of joining the church, and the birth control issue has been a hard one for me, too. I just stopped taking the Pill (after 13 years) and am feeling much happier…I had no idea that the generally stressed and cranky feeling I felt every day might be connected until I became interested in the Church and started reading about the side effects. Somehow, those side effect issues never were discussed with the doctor when it was prescribed. So I just spent a good deal of my adult life being unhappy…and for what? Anyway, I’m now using NFP, with the help of this little computer ladycomp.com/ which is pretty nifty. Hearing this onemoresoul.com/ (see the audio, “Contraception: Why Not” in the upper left) made me rethink all of the reasons why I was contracepting.

It’s a hard decision to stop contracepting. Faith is not easy. You are in my prayers.