G
Good_Daughter
Guest
It is possible for a couple to have serious reason to avoid pregnancy for that long.
- Status
N
newbetx
Guest
I would claim that the Church DOES NOT have a say in when we have sex. It puts forth the guidelines that normal couples should include sex for the good of the family. However it is left to us to determine, by prayerful means, when to do it. Guidelines are given in the CCC about prudent, yet unselfish, choices about the number of children a couple has. However, it recognizes that sex is a gift and as such needs to be treated accordingly. Each couple have their own issues to deal with. Income, health, both physical and mental, etc. We are given the freedom to decide if we wish to try for children. And in some cases, not trying might end up with one, anyway. If that becomes the case, the couple is expected to love and respect the result anyway.
A couple may decide that they don’t want a child of their own for some reason and choose to adopt or become foster parents. That’s OK too. However, ABC is still not an acceptable way to accomplish even this noble situation.
Even gifts can be taken back by God. The gift of speech, sight, etc. Sexuality is no different. I know a couple that attempted to have sex but it was too painful for the woman so they elected to be chaste and adopt instead. Contributing to the raising of children is an expected duty of a married couple. Even if the children are not biologically theirs. It’s part of the vocation. That is where the similarity between married couples and single people or priests exists. All are called to “raise children” spiritually.
Does that make sense?
T
TLM08
Guest
I believe God wants us to have one wife, (or husband)…and enjoy to the maximum all of the incredible pleasures that come with sex. In exchange, he wants us to raise up a few babies along the way, teaching them all about loving God, neighbor and country. I really don’t think he had all of these crazy legalistic sex rules in mind when he created woman to keep Adam company.
I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that God is all that upset over a few condoms… But I sincerely believe his iron fist will crush those who are murdering his babies in the abortion mills, abusers of children and the elderly, those not helping the poor, thrill killers, those guilty of genocide, white collar criminals who steal billions of dollars and wife beaters.
I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that God is all that upset over a few condoms… But I sincerely believe his iron fist will crush those who are murdering his babies in the abortion mills, abusers of children and the elderly, those not helping the poor, thrill killers, those guilty of genocide, white collar criminals who steal billions of dollars and wife beaters.
N
newbetx
Guest
Well, we’ll all be judged as we’ll be judged. If you only want to pay for the $29 version, your choice, but for most of us, we recognize the need to pay the full $30 price. There *may *be discounts to heaven, but from what I’ve seen, I doubt it. Suffering seems to be part of the deal.I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that God is all that upset over a few condoms…
We know you don’t think so. However, at least some of us understand the reasoning behind the rules and we do the best we can to try to pass that information along. You are free to believe what you want and act accordingly. Salvation isn’t up to us here at CAF.
I, for one, think that Eve was a very special woman for Adam and as my wife is my “Eve,” I want to treat her just as Adam was expected to treat Eve. There were no condoms back then. I also believe God gave us all we need to enjoy our sexuality and respect our spouse. Would it make a difference to you if it were a condom tree instead of an apple tree? There really is such a thing as “forbidden fruit.”
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
I believe God wants us to have one wife, (or husband)…and enjoy to the maximum all of the incredible pleasures that come with sex. In exchange, he wants us to raise up a few babies along the way, teaching them all about loving God, neighbor and country. I really don’t think he had all of these crazy legalistic sex rules in mind when he created woman to keep Adam company.
I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that God is all that upset over a few condoms… But I sincerely believe his iron fist will crush those who are murdering his babies in the abortion mills, abusers of children and the elderly, those not helping the poor, thrill killers, those guilty of genocide, white collar criminals who steal billions of dollars and wife beaters.
How is it crazy leaglistic sex, when one is doing it the way it was intended to be done? What’s crazy are those who think adding to or taking away from the act somehow can improve on perfection…
H
Highwayhound
Guest
I really enjoy Jennifer J’s signature section - all her children and husband and the kicker:
What’s your superpower?
“I make milk!”
Having read lots of comic books growing up this just tickles my funny bone.
Ok, carry on folks. I am enjoying the debate.
What’s your superpower?
“I make milk!”
Having read lots of comic books growing up this just tickles my funny bone.
Ok, carry on folks. I am enjoying the debate.
P
peary
Guest
Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.
Most Protestant sex talk involves the use of contraception and the back-up of abortion if that fails (except for evangelicals). I fail to even understand how this is “so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.” Sheesh…
The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.
These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.
What exactly are all “the laws” that Catholics must follow? Please clarify your statement.
During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.
It was not (and is not) a matter of choking off all non-reproductive sexuality out of existence. It was (and is) a matter of chastity.
I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?
Maybe you need to rethink your position on the entire subject of chastity and celibacy as it relates to spirituality. Even Christ was celibate.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Good Daughter:
I typed up a lengthy post yesterday morning, was distracted by other duties and lost my post into cyberspace. Sad…b/c it was a good one. I doubt this one will be as well put together.
), is that okay? No!!! It is called structuring and it is illegal.
Is it ok ot have sex during fertile times? Sure!! Is it ok to to have sex during infetile times? Sure! Is it ok to avoid having sex to prevent pregnancies? Sure! Is it ok to monitor fertiliy to avoid those fertile days, but enjoy those days in which we aren’t pregnant? Hmmm. it seems to me like we are violating the whole spirit of the “rejection of fertility” in this scenario, even if each specific act is not condemned by the church. I am sure my analogy will get blasted, but hopefully you can see my point.
I’ll have to think about this some more. I know you are saying that, “I don’t want to actively reject you fertility by contracepting, I respect you too much. So instead, I will put it in here and wait for the right time to use it.” I can see that point of view.
–Rico
I typed up a lengthy post yesterday morning, was distracted by other duties and lost my post into cyberspace. Sad…b/c it was a good one. I doubt this one will be as well put together.
Awesome. I have 4 and I am now actually happy that NFP failed us so miserably. While our life was chaotic for a while, my youngest is 4 and we are doing ok now. Larger families (and I know most here don’t consider mine large) are great! I think they give us a better perspective on life.
Let us say I have $20K in a foreign bank account and want to transfer that money to an account here in the US. Is legal to transfer the entire amount at one time? Absolutely. However, i do know there are some possible consequense to transferring this amount of cash at once. The transaction will likely get flagged and will likely be scrutinized…certainly more so than say a 2K transfer, which will be utterly ignored. Is it ok to simply transer $2K from the account. Absolutely…nothing wrong with that and it certainly won’t set off any triggers. Can I set up a 10 weekly transfers of 2K to get that money to the US? I am willing to delay getting my entire amount over here in order to not set off any flags from the US gov. (afterall, who wanst the US gov, IRS, etc to look more closely into our financial affairs
), is that okay? No!!! It is called structuring and it is illegal.Is it ok ot have sex during fertile times? Sure!! Is it ok to to have sex during infetile times? Sure! Is it ok to avoid having sex to prevent pregnancies? Sure! Is it ok to monitor fertiliy to avoid those fertile days, but enjoy those days in which we aren’t pregnant? Hmmm. it seems to me like we are violating the whole spirit of the “rejection of fertility” in this scenario, even if each specific act is not condemned by the church. I am sure my analogy will get blasted, but hopefully you can see my point.
I literally lol’ed at this analogy. My wife and I have had this discussion and my point has always been, “why even have this stuff if we aren’t going to use it! If we break it out only on X-mas and Thanksgiving it is hardly worth the cost or the storage space.”
I’ll have to think about this some more. I know you are saying that, “I don’t want to actively reject you fertility by contracepting, I respect you too much. So instead, I will put it in here and wait for the right time to use it.” I can see that point of view.
It is nice when someone actually takes the time to read what I write. I have enjoyed these conversations as well.
–Rico
R
Rico_S
Guest
I know that TLM’s stuff can be frustrating and a bit inflammatory, but he isn’t making the above claim. He isn’t saying that adding or taking away from the act makes it better, he is saying that he disagrees that adding or taking away from the act is necessarily evil/wrong. There is a difference.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
okay, let me reword:
It’s illogical to think that taking away a fundamental essence of the act (it’s procreative nature) doesn’t change the act in a detrimental way.
N
newbetx
Guest
Exactly. It devalues the act. It has to, because it potentially (not always) makes the act less serious because consequence is removed.
So someone would say… “It won’t adversely affect me!” It likely already did.
People tend to think this is all bi-polar. It is not. While some may not be cursed by selfishness of the contraceptive act, they won’t be blessed by the fullness of love that can be available through the act, either.
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
I knew a Protestant in college who was super puritanical about pre-marital contact (no kissing, etc.) but believed once you got married it was essentially a free-for-all–as long as it was just you and your wife, no matter sexual perversions or depravities you two could come up with, it was a-ok as long as both consented.
I found that hardly “balanced.”
I just wanted to address this issue briefly. This thread is largely about contraception, but I think that the Protestants in question in these quotes were talking about more than that. I believe they are saying that the standard should be abstinence, purity, and chastity outside of marriage, but that in a holy, faithful, Christian marriage, a husband and wife are free of the old restrictions. In my experience, most Protestants don’t obsess over where a husband and wife are allowed to touch each other, or what position their bodies are permitted to be in at any given time.
There is a perception held by many Protestants that the Catholic Church is a bit ashamed of the fact of sex. Legends abound of “old, celibate men” telling their parishioners that they ought not to enjoy sex. I’ve even heard it alleged that Catholics believe that sexual pleasure is a consequence of the Fall.
Whether true or not, these stories are strange to your average Evangelical Protestant, who believes that when “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good,” sex was one of those things He saw. This same Evangelical has no problem taking Song of Solomon literally (while still acknowledging a secondary meaning), and he is very thankful to God that he and his spouse can enjoy their sexual relationship. This individual likely finds the Catholic insistence on Mary’s perpetual virginity to be a strange thing, as if the Catholics believe Mary would be less holy if she had been intimate with her husband.
In any case, I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that most Catholic couples throughout the past two thousand years, even those who may have had a particularly anti-sex priest, very much enjoyed sex within their marriages anyway.
Just my thoughts.
God bless!
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I think most of us have done that. I always figure there was some great “cosmic” reason for my post not going through. Still, it’s frustrating.
Thank you, I needed to hear that. I don’t do pregnancy very well, so I take all the positive comments I can get!
So maybe the whole is more sinful than the sum of its parts?Let us say I have $20K in a foreign bank account and want to transfer that money to an account here in the US. Is legal to transfer the entire amount at one time? Absolutely. However, i do know there are some possible consequense to transferring this amount of cash at once. The transaction will likely get flagged and will likely be scrutinized…certainly more so than say a 2K transfer, which will be utterly ignored. Is it ok to simply transer $2K from the account. Absolutely…nothing wrong with that and it certainly won’t set off any triggers. Can I set up a 10 weekly transfers of 2K to get that money to the US? I am willing to delay getting my entire amount over here in order to not set off any flags from the US gov. (afterall, who wanst the US gov, IRS, etc to look more closely into our financial affairs
Is it ok ot have sex during fertile times? Sure!! Is it ok to to have sex during infetile times? Sure! Is it ok to avoid having sex to prevent pregnancies? Sure! Is it ok to monitor fertiliy to avoid those fertile days, but enjoy those days in which we aren’t pregnant? Hmmm. it seems to me like we are violating the whole spirit of the “rejection of fertility” in this scenario, even if each specific act is not condemned by the church. I am sure my analogy will get blasted, but hopefully you can see my point.
I think I get your analogy. I probably disagree with it at some point, but I’m not sure where exactly, which tells me I have more thinking to do.
That is funny. We’ve had those conversations too!!I literally lol’ed at this analogy. My wife and I have had this discussion and my point has always been, “why even have this stuff if we aren’t going to use it! If we break it out only on X-mas and Thanksgiving it is hardly worth the cost or the storage space.”
It does seem like there is a difference between withholding fertility and rejecting fertility. Maybe that’s the essential difference between NFP and ABC?
I try to be what I call, “cautiously open-minded” and I think I see you doing the same. It seems to make for good dialogue, especially between people who don’t always see eye-to-eye.
R
Rico_S
Guest
But the fundamental essence of the marital embrace is 2 part–procreative and unitive. And while, yes, the church teaches that the 2 are inseparable, it is far from “illogical” to think that removing the procreative does not necessarily destroy the unitive aspect.
There was a poster called pyro alchemist who posted in the Family section about how is wife of some 30 years (this is a guess, but I think they were in their 50’s or 60s) can no longer engage in normal intercouse due to some issues upon which he did not elaborate fully. He indicated that their sexual intimacy was pretty much limited to what most would consider foreplay type activities and was frustrated at the church’s teachings regarding their options. Complete abstinence was their only option according to church teaching and many posters relished in relaying that info and took some pride in condemning those of us who disagree as simply lust filled sex maniacs who think sex is everything.
It is really sad, imo. Can they live a happy life without any sexual relationship…sure. It isn’t like either would die…or that if sexual relationship was no longer an option at all their marriage would be worthless. But would their relationship benefit from the unitive aspect of a sexual relationship as man and wife even if it is not procreative…not the ideal? Well, I am quite certain you will say no…as you pretty much have to in order to defend the church position, but I think it is quite illogical to say “no.”
R
Rico_S
Guest
I think those who are practicing NFP to avoid, or those who are infertile through no fault of their own, or those who are post menopausal may take issue with that statement.
J
Jennifer_J
Guest
Let’s think of other sacraments and sacramentals…
We know that the Eucharist can only be made of bread and wine–those elements must be present for the Eucharist to be valid and licit–to become the Body and Blood of Jesus.
We know that a priest must be male for a valid ordination.
We know that Holy Water must be Water and not lemonade or blood or spit.
We know that only a man and a woman can be married (secular society notwithstanding) because their purpose is not only to be helpmates, but to procreate.
These are just a few examples that I can think of. Because intercourse is a renewal of the marriage covenant, to alter the act is to make it invalid or illicit. We’re not talking about how it makes us feel or even if a child could result because the contraceptive failed, but that the altering of the act has changed the act in a way that was not intended. When we try to separate the act, then we do the act harm.
I read the thread you refer to. I agree there were some who were a bit harsh. There were others, though, who spoke the truth with love (and then those who just want to stir the pot to get that nasty response!). The OP was is a difficult spot and my heart goes out to him. And you’re right, I would say that the teachings of the Church should be followed, even when it’s hard and doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem fair. When we start saying, this is true, this is true and this is true, but you can ignore it for this exception, and this exception and this exception…what good is the truth, then? I am in no way dismissing this couple’s pain and struggling. I hope that they consult a good and holy priest (and even a doctor) to help them.
I have to go assist a crying baby right now…
We know that the Eucharist can only be made of bread and wine–those elements must be present for the Eucharist to be valid and licit–to become the Body and Blood of Jesus.
We know that a priest must be male for a valid ordination.
We know that Holy Water must be Water and not lemonade or blood or spit.
We know that only a man and a woman can be married (secular society notwithstanding) because their purpose is not only to be helpmates, but to procreate.
These are just a few examples that I can think of. Because intercourse is a renewal of the marriage covenant, to alter the act is to make it invalid or illicit. We’re not talking about how it makes us feel or even if a child could result because the contraceptive failed, but that the altering of the act has changed the act in a way that was not intended. When we try to separate the act, then we do the act harm.
I read the thread you refer to. I agree there were some who were a bit harsh. There were others, though, who spoke the truth with love (and then those who just want to stir the pot to get that nasty response!). The OP was is a difficult spot and my heart goes out to him. And you’re right, I would say that the teachings of the Church should be followed, even when it’s hard and doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem fair. When we start saying, this is true, this is true and this is true, but you can ignore it for this exception, and this exception and this exception…what good is the truth, then? I am in no way dismissing this couple’s pain and struggling. I hope that they consult a good and holy priest (and even a doctor) to help them.
I have to go assist a crying baby right now…
M
mlchance
Guest
That’s a keen insight that merits deeper study.
The bottom line here is that the arguments pro- and con- hinge on first principles, axioms that are asserted as reasonable in order to get the argument started. If one doesn’t accept those first principles, the argument fails from the get-go. This, however, is not necessarily indicative of a flaw in those first principles.
Notice how often people who discuss the Church’s teaching on sexuality say things like, “I don’t see…”
Since when is the truth limited by what could very well be defects in the observer’s vision? I’m reminded of my last couple of years in the Army when my eye-sight slightly worsened. I walked around for weeks wondering why the world was out of focus. I’d complain at movie theaters. Finally, it dawned on me: The problem isn’t the movie; the problem is me. Corrective lenses fixed the out-of-focus problems.
Likewise, the Church’s first principles are like corrective lenses. Grant that they are true, and everything else comes into focus.
Finally, back to your keen insight above. Consider this, please. Sexual intercourse is, among other things, a form of communication. The Church tells us that this communication means something very specific by the very nature of the act itself. Removing the act from its proper context (marriage) distorts that meaning. Introducing to the act a rejection of fertility (artificial birth control) distorts that meaning.
During sex intercourse, I tell my wife by the marital act that I love her, that I will cherish her no matter what, and that everything I have is hers. In return, she tells me that she loves me, she will cherish me not matter what, and that she accepts all I have to give her. This is the intrinsic meaning of the sex act.
Sexual activity outside marriage makes that intrinsic meaning into a lie. Artificial birth control makes that intrinsic meaning into a lie.
In the former case, I say, “I love you, but only so far. My plans don’t include the sacramental life of marriage.” In the latter case, I say, “I love you, but only so far. I deny you my unconditional acceptance. I deny you all that I have to offer.”
I cannot prove this first principle of the intrinsic meaning of sexual intercourse is true. Likewise, no one can prove it’s false. But it can be demonstrated that it is reasonable, and, therefore, one is perfectly reasonable for accepting it as true.
– Mark L. Chance.
N
newbetx
Guest
Actually, the only ones that take issue with that, in the context it was stated, are those trying to justify ABC or other contraceptive acts.
Lets face it. Waiting for menopause so one can “do it all the time without consequence” is nothing different than contraceptive mentality. Eventually, if nature doesn’t take it’s toll on ability or frequency, one of the couple may start to feel used. One needs to feel loved. The key to the periodic abstenance is the demonstration of the sacrafice one will make for one’s mate or family. It is in sacrafice that love is demonstrated and the parallel drawn to Christ on the cross.
I’m not claiming that complete abstainence is better than periodic. Although that may be necessary for various reasons. The key concept to argue isn’t about using ABC to avoid conception as much as are you willing to suffer for your spouse? Does your spouse recognize this as a sacrafice? Or the need? The key element about the Catholic rules is the role of sacrafice. People think of Sex on demand as a right, instead of a gift to be properly used and to be kept demonstratively valuable. It certainly is a matter of perspective and where that perspective may lead a person.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Good Daughter:
I forgot to address this. I think it is pretty clear that women go through periods where they are fertile…able to conceive… and periods where they are infertile. Sure there is likely fuzzy areas where women transition from one to another where I would grant that fertility is present, but at a lower level, or at least less then optimal, but I think to present fertility as continually present, and only the “level” changes seems quite a stretch. However, I do see the benefit of looking at it like this, b/c it makes NFP becomes a more justifiable proposition.
BTW, I just bounced this off of my wife to make sure I wasn’t being obtuse…and she agreed with me.
–Rico
R
Rico_S
Guest
Basically, the church contains the fullness of the truth. It is right b/c the church says it is right and that should be enough.
I can’t really argue with that, so I won’t. Just know that this will be a very ineffective tactic to bring those who are outside of the church or in disagreement with the church into full communion with the church…and that is ok, I guess.
I wonder what the conversation of the couple practicing NFP looks like:
I tell my wife that I want to show her through the marital act that I love her, that I will cherish her no matter what and that everything that I have is hers…except… I don’t really want her to get pregnant so I don’t really want to accept her fertility. So I propose we wait until she cannot get pregnant and her gift of fertility is no longer present. Then we can engage in the act as God intended…except we don’t have to deal with the whole fertility part.
My wife tells me in return that she too wants to express her love through the conjugal act to show that she loves me, that she will cherish me no matter what, and that everything she has is mine…except her fertility…she doesn’t really want to get pregnant so she is unwilling offer her fertility during the marital act. So she proposes we wait until she no longer has the the gift of her fertility to offer me. Then we can engage in the total self giving the the marital act as God intended without worrying about the possibility of the transmission of life and her fertility.
Hmmmm.
–Rico
- Status