Newlyweds struggling with sexual issue

[ryecroft]

I think a high majority catholics are just lying to themselves when they say they have a serious reason for using NFP. They want to have a sex life but aren’t willing to welcome children then complain when they have to live with the consequences. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I’m not trying to pick on this couple it just seems sad that all these people want to avoid kids to the point of making themselves suffer.

So it almost sounds (to Me) like you’re saying it’s better for couples to give in to sexual desires and get pregnant with children they may not be ready for emotionally, physically or monetarily - rather than go through a 12 days or two weeks (or about there - less for some) of abstinance a month. To me that sounds extremely irresponsible. And just because you get married doesn’t mean you have to be ready to have children. While it may work for some, it doesn’t work for all - and later on after a 1st child you may find you’re not ready for a second. I don’t think it’s right to assume that a “high majority” of Catholics are lying (to themselves or each other or God or whatever) when they say they have a “serious reason for using NFP” - the Church didn’t specify for a reason - because each couple is different and they wanted each couple to ‘prayerfully’’ decide what was best for each of them. I don’t feel you’re comment is fair - there are plenty out there with good reasons - if the Church was going to be specific regarding reasons that were not good enough, they’ve never had problems making out rules before - and they could have put more rules into play since - they haven’t.
God Bless
Rye

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

See, but even if Science was perfect, and studies made would reach perfect conclusions (regarding imperfect humans), human sexuality is so much more than its biological/physiological aspects.

Guess I’m missing your point.

I am saying that we cannot just consider the biological/physiological aspect of sex, there is much more to it (supernatural/spiritual aspect).

 

[kbachler]

I am saying that we cannot just consider the biological/physiological aspect of sex, there is much more to it (supernatural/spiritual aspect).

I agree. But the point is that at least some of the spiritual side is tied directly to s understanding the physiology. And it turns out that significant portions of our past understanding were not correct.

If one believes that our physiology is from God, then there are very important parts of the physiology and its impact on the brain that have very little to do with procreation and are arguably more important than procreation. This is not information that mankind has had until the last few years, and it certainly calls into question past concepts of the primary roles of sex.

Certainly, the impact on the brain works to SUPPORT procreation/family - but procreation is not the primary result - the unitive aspect is.

In a sense, just as God first made Eve for Adam (and arguably vice versa) and secondarily to “be fruitful and multiply” it looks as though the actual aspects of sex may work in the same order.