Question About Sexual Relations

[phantom]

Remember, I can no longer call myself a Catholic because I do not agree with the Church 100%. So, I cannot consider the OP a fellow Catholic, a fellow Christian would be a more accurate statement.

I may regret this, but I am new to the board and I would like to know why you can no longer call yourself a Catholic?

 

[dulcissima]

Aquinas repeatedly said that the primary end of the conjugal act was the begetting of children. The secondary end of the same was the morally regulated control of the sex urge.

Aquinas writes at *Summa Theologica *II-II, 153, 2, in the response: "

Also at *Summa Theologica * II-II 154, ad 6:

Finally, Aquinas sees the marital act as one remedy for concupiscence and can keep men from the sins of fornication and/or pollution when he writes at Summa Theologica

Exactly. The primary purpose of marriage is the begetting of children. The current teaching incorporates the unitive aspect of the conjugal act. This teaching might be suspect as Ludwig Ott points out in his work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Sounds like a development of doctrine to me, no?

I have a question. What exactly are you implying by your “development of doctrine” assertion?

 

[ExMotuAquinas]

I have a question. What exactly are you implying by your “development of doctrine” assertion?

It’s a slight change in the teaching, or at least a change in the focus of a teaching. For example, I consider JP II’s theology of the body to be an innovation in theology, something new, because it enhanced the more traditional teachings on human nature with insight from the 20th century schools of philosophy known as phenomenolgy and personalism. I’m fairly sure that the idea of the “nuptial meaning of the body” began with the late Pope.

Something like what Fix mentioned above, but not quite the same. It is different to say that a married couple engages in the conjugal act because they want to grow closer together (the unitive aspect) and possible procreate than it is to say that a couple engages in the conjugal act so they won’t sin in some other way (as a remedy of concupiscence).

The change in terminology of Paul VI reflects a more positive view of human nature while the more traditional language leaves the door open that there might be instances where a married couple could actually be sinning by engaging in the conjugal act if they are motivated by lust.

 

[gogogirl]

I may regret this, but I am new to the board and I would like to know why you can no longer call yourself a Catholic?

It has been stated on these boards that you cannot call yourself Catholic if you do not agree with all of the teachings of the church. I offended quite a few people in another thread because I openly disagreed with the teachings of the church and went against the teachings of the church. I am knowledgeable of the teachings of the Church, I just have a difficult time agreeing with and following every single teaching. I will participate in these boards and have discussions but I will not claim to be a Catholic so as not to offend any of my fellow posters.

 

[setter]

This is revisionist history. I never suggested that, I noted that both were mentioned, but that the emphasis was heavily towards the procreative. I don’t have the time to give a lengthy exegesis on the thought of Aquinas at the level needed to make you understand my point, but Aquinas did seem to indicate that the conjugal act engaged in for non-procreative, “recreational/unitive” purposes bordered on being venially sinful. This was the attitude taken in EVERY manual of moral theology used in seminaries prior to the Second Vatican Council. I am aware that you can quote the catechism well, can you quote anyone else in the history of theology, or is that too hard for you?

Yes there is. Do some research on the history of this issue. Talk to a few orthodox theologians with Ph.D.'s and you will find out what I’m right on this.

I note that you interchangeably shift from “empasis in doctrine” to “change in doctrine”, and equally defend both. Which is it? You attempt to make your case by alluding to folks with degrees, but not actual Church teaching (ex., the CCC) …why is this? When questioned by dulcissima:

Originally Posted by **dulcissima **
I have a question. What exactly are you implying by your “development of doctrine” assertion?

…this is your response:

Originally Posted by ExMotuAquinas
It’s a slight change in the teaching, or at least a change in the focus of a teaching.

I note that you cloak you argument in shifting nuanced ambiguity and supposed learnedness, while those who accept the plaintive truth as proposed by the Church (CCC) and missing the “development of doctrine”.

Since you seem to not make up your mind whether there is a doctrinal change or “change in focus” is at hand, I offer this refresher in the definition of doctrine:

**DOCTRINE. **Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

I’m glad that you can quote the Catechism published in the 1990’s. Have you read any theology written before the Council? Do you know the history of theology? Do you have a Master’s degree in Catholic Philosophy or Theology, or even an undergraduate degree in the same? Or are you just someone who prides himself in spouting off the catechism and trying to put other people in what you view as their proper place?

There is more to the Church than simply what the Catechism states. We have 2000 years of tradition and we have scripture to back us up as well. Please be more systematic and thorough in your studies.

I always gets suspicious when one refutes the CCC as a reliable and understandable source of the basics of the Catholic faith and morals; and correlates that one must be degreed in order to grasp and enjoy the full range of moral options the Catholic faith. Am I getting close yet?

BTW – You have an insulting style of posting that is much akin to another poster on this thread. I remind you of St. Paul’s admonishment in 1 Cor. 13: 1-13, lest you become nothing but a noisy gong.

 

[dulcissima]

It’s a slight change in the teaching, or at least a change in the focus of a teaching. For example, I consider JP II’s theology of the body to be an innovation in theology, something new, because it enhanced the more traditional teachings on human nature with insight from the 20th century schools of philosophy known as phenomenolgy and personalism. I’m fairly sure that the idea of the “nuptial meaning of the body” began with the late Pope.

Something like what Fix mentioned above, but not quite the same. It is different to say that a married couple engages in the conjugal act because they want to grow closer together (the unitive aspect) and possible procreate than it is to say that a couple engages in the conjugal act so they won’t sin in some other way (as a remedy of concupiscence).

The change in terminology of Paul VI reflects a more positive view of human nature while the more traditional language leaves the door open that there might be instances where a married couple could actually be sinning by engaging in the conjugal act if they are motivated by lust.

A development in understanding, I would agree. I don’t see though that there is any disagreement in the teachings John Paul II, Paul VI, or Aquinas. I don’t believe that the more innovative or “developed” teachings are any more open to lust in in the marital act than earlier teachings. Rather I believe they seek to teach that the mutual pleasure given from one spouse to the other is altogether different than lust. By respecting, and not frustrating, the procreative potential of each and every act spouses honor not only each other but also the very God who gave them this gift.

 

[setter]

Aquinas repeatedly said that the primary end of the conjugal act was the begetting of children. The secondary end of the same was the morally regulated control of the sex urge.

Aquinas writes at *Summa Theologica *II-II, 153, 2, in the response: "

Also at *Summa Theologica * II-II 154, ad 6:

Finally, Aquinas sees the marital act as one remedy for concupiscence and can keep men from the sins of fornication and/or pollution when he writes at Summa Theologica

Exactly. The primary purpose of marriage is the begetting of children. The current teaching incorporates the unitive aspect of the conjugal act. This teaching might be suspect as Ludwig Ott points out in his work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

Sounds like a development of doctrine to me, no?

Different emphasis in the truth taught by the Church is not evidence of change in doctrine. Really, this does not required a degree(s) to understand this. Maybe back to the basics first before attempting to walk too fast on one’s self-inflated conjecture:

DOCTRINE. Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[setter]

A development in understanding, I would agree. I don’t see though that there is any disagreement in the teachings John Paul II, Paul VI, or Aquinas. I don’t believe that the more innovative or “developed” teachings are any more open to lust in in the marital act than earlier teachings. Rather I believe they seek to teach that the mutual pleasure given from one spouse to the other is altogether different than lust. By respecting, and not frustrating, the procreative potential of each and every act spouses honor not only each other but also the very God who gave them this gift.

Exactly, and as this orthodox and well cited paper cautions the same:

(excerpt)

To exclude the procreative possibility is not only to invite lust and power, he writes, but to abandon that world of love in which God is the supreme master.

As a person, one lives, not by lust, but by love. Love, which is the promotion of the good of another, proceeds from the wholeness of the loving person. True love between spouses is a synthesis of two wholes, two persons in one flesh. Lust is fragmentary. It is a synthesis between fragments, between appetite and that part of the other that arouses the appetite. Lust aims at the disintegration of personality, a direction that is essentially meaningless. Lust is also chained to necessity, whereas love is always given in an atmosphere of freedom. Contraception prevents love from being truly whole. Because of its fragmentary propensities, it is highly compatible with lust.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Morality2.html

 

[setter]

It has been stated on these boards that you cannot call yourself Catholic if you do not agree with all of the teachings of the church. I offended quite a few people in another thread because I openly disagreed with the teachings of the church and went against the teachings of the church. I am knowledgeable of the teachings of the Church, I just have a difficult time agreeing with and following every single teaching. I will participate in these boards and have discussions but I will not claim to be a Catholic so as not to offend any of my fellow posters.

This is a distortion (I know, I was there). 1) One should seriously reevaluate what it means to identify one self as a Catholic, *not if *they find disagreement or lack of understanding with Church teaching; *but if they *publically reject and openly dissent (opinion and/or behavior choice) from Church teaching in matters of faith and morals; 2) I know of anyone who was offended by your personal opinion and expressed preference of what your wish Church teaching would say.

Please spare us a childish pity pot …it is more becoming (and honest) to be an adult and takes responsibility for one’s choices, rather than blaming others for the choices one makes.

 

[gogogirl]

This is a distortion (I know, I was there). 1) One should seriously reevaluate what it means to identify one self as a Catholic, *not if *they find disagreement or lack of understanding with Church teaching; *but if they *publically reject and openly dissent (opinion and/or behavior choice) from Church teaching in matters of faith and morals; 2) I know of anyone who was offended by your personal opinion and expressed preference of what your wish Church teaching would say.

Please spare us a childish pity pot …it is more becoming (and honest) to be an adult and takes responsibility for one’s choices, rather than blaming others for the choices one makes.

Pity pot??? I have made my choices and have accepted them. I am simply stating that I choose to refrain from calling myself Catholic. How is that a problem? I know the church teachings and I don’t expect anybody to change them for me. You are reading way too much into my posts. I just want to be sure that nobody mistakes me for a Catholic. Period. End of discussion!

 

[dulcissima]

Pity pot??? I have made my choices and have accepted them. I am simply stating that I choose to refrain from calling myself Catholic. How is that a problem? I know the church teachings and I don’t expect anybody to change them for me. You are reading way too much into my posts. I just want to be sure that nobody mistakes me for a Catholic. Period. End of discussion!

You might be struggling, but you ARE a Catholic. Don’t ever forget that. God’s grace and mercy are totally there for you, all that you need to do is to accept them.

I just want to say sorry for anything stupid I’ve ever said around here. I’m struggling too and not always as patient and charitable as I should be. I know even posting this right now might be another stupid move on my part, but I just want you to know that there are many times that you have inspired and encouraged others around here. Don’t shut out that hopeful and faithful side of yourself because you never know who you can help.

 

[setter]

The words procreative and unitive are big stumbling blocks for me because I can argue against them. I tend to have difficulty swallowing the notion that sex can only be unitive if the man deposits in one place and one place only. I find it difficult to see how anything else is considered disordered and evil. I have read the documents and seen the arguments but they just do not sit well with me.

To say that everything must be procreative implies to me that you can only have sex if you are trying to conceive/procreate. My understanding is that at one time the church stated that the only reason to have sex was to procreate. At one time, the church didn’t recognize the unitive aspects of sex. As a result of this, I think some of the language tends to be a bit confusing. At least that is the way a nun explained it to me once.

I tend to have a better time understanding the teachings of the church if you just leave those words out. There are some things that I find very unitive but I cannot do because the church has stated that anything other than what is prescribed by them is sinful, ie. semen can only be deposited in the vagina. It does not matter whether you are fertile or not. The big stipulation is that you cannot put anything into your body or on your body that will deliberately interfere with procreation. You must leave your body and all sexual organs in a natural state with regards to fertility. You cannot alter your body so as to deliberately interfere with procreation and render yourself infertile. If you are already infertile (born that way, unknowingly had yourself “fixed”, menopause, etc.) and are unable to conceive, it doesn’t matter. The sex act must be completed with semen being deposited into the vagina and no where else.

You may want to try using (not replacing with) the words “fertility”, “potential”, “capacity”, “co-creative”, “totality”, “giving”,“unity”, “creative decision”, faithfulness", “indissolubility”, “fecundity” …

**1643 **“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.” (CCC)

Contraceptive intercourse is a lie on a deeply personal level because, on the one hand, intercourse symbolizes the total giving of the partners to each other, whereas contraception, on the other hand, is their willful negation of each other’s procreative potential.

catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/11-12-98/Morality2.html

“At the origin of every human person there is a creative act of God… *t follows that the procreative capacity, inscribed in human sexuality, is—in its deepest truth—a cooperation with God’s creative power. It also follows that men and women are not the arbiters, are not the masters of this same capacity, called as they are, in it and through it, to be participants in God’s creative decision. When, therefore, through contraception, married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God: the power to decide, in a final analysis, the coming into existence of a human person. They assume the qualification not of being cooperators in God’s creative power, but the ultimate depositories of the source of human life…[C]ontraception is…so profoundly unlawful as never to be, for any reason, justified. To think or to say the contrary is equal to maintaining that in human life situations may arise in which it is lawful not to recognize God as God.” ((John Paul II)

“According to the criterion of this truth, which should be expressed in the language of the body, the conjugal act signifies not only love, but also potential fecundity. Therefore it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate significance by artificial means. In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other… Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.” (John Paul II)

omsoul.com/pamphlet153.Why-Is-Contraception-Immoral.html*

 

[gogogirl]

**1643 **“Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility…” (CCC)

This is exactly what I have a problem with. It states that conjugal love must be open to fertility.

If you are deliberately timing your relations so that they are during an infertile time, then you are not open to fertility. I have quoted the Handbook of Moral Theology as to why NFP/rythm method is allowed but this does not satisfy me because NFP is used with the notion that you can delay pregnancy for extended periods of time (for grave reasons of course). The procreative aspects have been removed from the conjugal act. The rythm method was very inexact whereas NFP methods are a science that have come to be as deliberate and effective at preventing pregnancy as the artificial means are.

Based on my readings, the proper thing to do would be to abstain completely because I feel that timing your relations for infertile times goes directly against what you have quoted from the Catechism. I know I am wrong in my interpretation because I have read about it and have seen it in numerous places. I personally find it to be contradictory. This is my own opinion.

Contraceptive intercourse is a lie on a deeply personal level because, on the one hand, intercourse symbolizes the total giving of the partners to each other, whereas contraception, on the other hand, is their willful negation of each other’s procreative potential.

While NFP is not contraceptive, it is deliberately using nature to avoid the natural consequences of sex which is procreation. My husband and I have practiced NFP in the past in order to avoid pregnancy and there was not a total giving of self on either of our parts because we were timing our relations so that they did not coincide with the times of fertility. When we abandoned NFP and began having conjugal relations without regard to fertility, I felt like I was truly giving myself to my husband and God. I know that what I state is not what the church teaches. I don’t want anybody to think that I am in any way, shape, or form trying to change or reinterpret church teachings. I am only trying to explain my own personal experiences so that it is better understood why I have a problem with the teachings of the church on this matter.

“…When, therefore, through contraception, married couples remove from the exercise of their conjugal sexuality its potential procreative capacity, they claim a power which belongs solely to God: the power to decide, in a final analysis, the coming into existence of a human person…” ((John Paul II)

I fail to see how NFP is considered cooperating with God’s plan. I have seen the teachings and writings that state that it is in line with God’s plan because you are not altering anybody or anything. You are working with nature rather than against it. Based on my readings, I feel that NFP is deliberately frustrating the marital act.

“…Therefore it cannot be deprived of its full and adequate significance by artificial means. In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other… Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.” (John Paul II)

See, even John Paul II states that it is not licit to separate the unitive and procreative aspects. I can see the loop hole in the language being that he states that in cannot be artificially deprived of its procreative capacity. I just fail to see the distinction between artificial and “natural” means of deliberately depriving the marital act of its procreative capacity.

 

[Julianna]

This is exactly what I have a problem with. It states that conjugal love must be open to fertility.

If you are deliberately timing your relations so that they are during an infertile time, then you are not open to fertility. I have quoted the Handbook of Moral Theology as to why NFP/rythm method is allowed but this does not satisfy me because NFP is used with the notion that you can delay pregnancy for extended periods of time (for grave reasons of course). The procreative aspects have been removed from the conjugal act. The rythm method was very inexact whereas NFP methods are a science that have come to be as deliberate and effective at preventing pregnancy as the artificial means are.

Based on my readings, the proper thing to do would be to abstain completely because I feel that timing your relations for infertile times goes directly against what you have quoted from the Catechism. I know I am wrong in my interpretation because I have read about it and have seen it in numerous places. I personally find it to be contradictory. This is my own opinion.

While NFP is not contraceptive, it is deliberately using nature to avoid the natural consequences of sex which is procreation. My husband and I have practiced NFP in the past in order to avoid pregnancy and there was not a total giving of self on either of our parts because we were timing our relations so that they did not coincide with the times of fertility. When we abandoned NFP and began having conjugal relations without regard to fertility, I felt like I was truly giving myself to my husband and God. I know that what I state is not what the church teaches. I don’t want anybody to think that I am in any way, shape, or form trying to change or reinterpret church teachings. I am only trying to explain my own personal experiences so that it is better understood why I have a problem with the teachings of the church on this matter.

I fail to see how NFP is considered cooperating with God’s plan. I have seen the teachings and writings that state that it is in line with God’s plan because you are not altering anybody or anything. You are working with nature rather than against it. Based on my readings, I feel that NFP is deliberately frustrating the marital act.

See, even John Paul II states that it is not licit to separate the unitive and procreative aspects. I can see the loop hole in the language being that he states that in cannot be artificially deprived of its procreative capacity. I just fail to see the distinction between artificial and “natural” means of deliberately depriving the marital act of its procreative capacity.

You know, in your early posting, I thought you might be off your beam. But as I read further. I get what you are trying to say. Let me take a stab at it. Having sex using NFP goes against the openess to creating children which is what the church commands.

IMHO…and I will be slammed without cessation for this… but Vatican Roulette was not my thing or my husbands. There is something to be said for spontenaity. And taking your temperature and calendar watching kind of kills the spirit. We are in a covenant marriage…despite what some of you all may throw at me. We have been married 25 yrs and have 2 great kids. I had a hysterectomy in 91 and actually was thankful that I had it, I was in bad pain and had fibroids. It is so hard to tell two people who love and are commited to each other, what positions they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom without feeling tremendous guilt. A loving marriage is just that…and personal.

When you said, that one must go to confession immediately and confess if semen is deposited outside te vagina. Geez louise, I was thinking, “man that confessional is going to be stampeded every Saturday, maybe they should put up a number system and call people in by number”.

Now it’s time to get real…I am speaking for most AMERICANS…in this CENTURY
Reality, people, reality, is…my marriage, my business. The OP had a legitimate question…and he probably now feels like donning sack cloth and rolling in ashes. I think for the sake of these boards…to stop discussing marital sex all together, it just incites the trad rads who want women to pop kids out like a pez dispenser every 9 months. Anyone volunteer to pay some of the bills that come from having a herd of kids nowadays? What, no takers? Yeah I thought so.

Ok…do your worst. I am at your mercy.

 

[AkronPonderer]

Julianna:

Are there any other dimensions to your life where God has no business other than your marriage?

 

[gogogirl]

You know, in your early posting, I thought you might be off your beam. But as I read further. I get what you are trying to say. Let me take a stab at it. Having sex using NFP goes against the openess to creating children which is what the church commands.

Yes, that is exactly my point.

IMHO…and I will be slammed without cessation for this… but Vatican Roulette was not my thing or my husbands. There is something to be said for spontenaity. And taking your temperature and calendar watching kind of kills the spirit. We are in a covenant marriage…despite what some of you all may throw at me. We have been married 25 yrs and have 2 great kids. I had a hysterectomy in 91 and actually was thankful that I had it, I was in bad pain and had fibroids. It is so hard to tell two people who love and are commited to each other, what positions they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom without feeling tremendous guilt. A loving marriage is just that…and personal.

Yes, you totally get where I am coming from. In another thread, I was trying to state the very same thing that you have stated. At the end of the day, it is between me and my husband and God.

When you said, that one must go to confession immediately and confess if semen is deposited outside te vagina. Geez louise, I was thinking, “man that confessional is going to be stampeded every Saturday, maybe they should put up a number system and call people in by number”.

I don’t happen to agree with it but that is what the church officially teaches. Of course, if you don’t know it is a sin then you don’t have to confess it. I found an older book that really goes into detail about the sin of onanism and it implies that neither the man or woman can have an orgasm outside of regular intercourse. I don’t happen to agree with it but that is the way it was explained in an old book on Catholic moral theology. Personally speaking, I feel that there is too much emphasis on where semen is deposited but that is another story from another thread.

Now it’s time to get real…I am speaking for most AMERICANS…in this CENTURY
Reality, people, reality, is…my marriage, my business. The OP had a legitimate question…and he probably now feels like donning sack cloth and rolling in ashes. I think for the sake of these boards…to stop discussing marital sex all together, it just incites the trad rads who want women to pop kids out like a pez dispenser every 9 months. Anyone volunteer to pay some of the bills that come from having a herd of kids nowadays? What, no takers? Yeah I thought so.

I apologize for the harshness that I used in my original response but at the end of the day, that is basically what the church teaches. I did not want to get into a big argument or debate. I simply wanted to state what I knew in the simplest way possible.

I have to completely agree with you on this. I know you probably don’t think so based on my posts but I have been reprimanded for posting my opinions so now I try to only post what the church teaches and try to make it very clear as to what my opinions are.

I personally find the teachings on marital sexuality to be somewhat contradictory as well as repressive. My husband and I have decided to keep the church out of our bedroom. We recognize that this could be mortally sinful but we are well aware of our actions and are willing to accept the consequences. I am going to stop there because there are some other things that my husband and I have been discussing because we tend to agree that we do not want to be popping kids out until I reach menopause. We don’t have the time, energy, or money for such an undertaking.

Ok…do your worst. I am at your mercy.

The only thing you will get from me is a big hug!!!

 

[Julianna]

Julianna:

Are there any other dimensions to your life where God has no business other than your marriage?

Let the games begin. I’m not in the “guilt trip” arena. So that won’t work on me.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hello:

I was wondering if someone could answer a question for me. I have come to understand that ejaculating while not in intercourse is considered sinful. This is because the purpose of the act is to possibly create new life.

However, what if the man in question is infertile? Considering that his sperm can’t fertilize anyway, would that person still be committing a sin if ejaculating outside of normal intercourse?

You know, in your early posting, I thought you might be off your beam. But as I read further. I get what you are trying to say. Let me take a stab at it. Having sex using NFP goes against the openess to creating children which is what the church commands.

IMHO…and I will be slammed without cessation for this… but Vatican Roulette was not my thing or my husbands. There is something to be said for spontenaity. And taking your temperature and calendar watching kind of kills the spirit. We are in a covenant marriage…despite what some of you all may throw at me. We have been married 25 yrs and have 2 great kids. I had a hysterectomy in 91 and actually was thankful that I had it, I was in bad pain and had fibroids. ** It is so hard to tell two people who love and are commited to each other, what positions they can and can’t do in the privacy of their own bedroom without feeling tremendous guilt. A loving marriage is just that…and personal.**
When you said, that one must go to confession immediately and confess if semen is deposited outside te vagina. Geez louise, I was thinking, “man that confessional is going to be stampeded every Saturday, maybe they should put up a number system and call people in by number”.

Now it’s time to get real…I am speaking for most AMERICANS…in this CENTURY
***Reality, people, reality, is…my marriage, my business. *** The OP had a legitimate question…and he probably now feels like donning sack cloth and rolling in ashes. I think for the sake of these boards…to stop discussing marital sex all together, it just incites the trad rads who want women to pop kids out like a pez dispenser every 9 months. Anyone volunteer to pay some of the bills that come from having a herd of kids nowadays? What, no takers? Yeah I thought so.

Ok…do your worst. I am at your mercy.

Hi Julianna
It seems to me you just affirmed the original post. Neither you nor he is going to follow the Church teaching, which defines these issues for you. I am glad you have a happy marriage and wish you the very best, this is not about you. It is about do you, can you, really follow such teachings particularly the super hair splitting concerning -what is NFP accomplishing?- and how does that fit into other church teachings concerning the matter at hand. Please do not feel any Guilt Trip from us we did not make the rules and we are not asking you if you followed the rules. Our concern is understand proper teaching of the church

 

[Julianna]

Yes, that is exactly my point.

1. Yes, you totally get where I am coming from. In another thread, I was trying to state the very same thing that you have stated. At the end of the day, it is between me and my husband and God.
2. I don’t happen to agree with it but that is what the church officially teaches. Of course, if you don’t know it is a sin then you don’t have to confess it. I found an older book that really goes into detail about the sin of onanism and it implies that neither the man or woman can have an orgasm outside of regular intercourse. I don’t happen to agree with it but that is the way it was explained in an old book on Catholic moral theology. Personally speaking, I feel that there is too much emphasis on where semen is deposited but that is another story from another thread.
3. I apologize for the harshness that I used in my original response but at the end of the day, that is basically what the church teaches. I did not want to get into a big argument or debate. I simply wanted to state what I knew in the simplest way possible.
4. I have to completely agree with you on this. I know you probably don’t think so based on my posts but I have been reprimanded for posting my opinions so now I try to only post what the church teaches and try to make it very clear as to what my opinions are.
5. I personally find the teachings on marital sexuality to be somewhat contradictory as well as repressive. My husband and I have decided to keep the church out of our bedroom. We recognize that this could be mortally sinful but we are well aware of our actions and are willing to accept the consequences. I am going to stop there because there are some other things that my husband and I have been discussing because we tend to agree that we do not want to be popping kids out until I reach menopause. We don’t have the time, energy, or money for such an undertaking.
6. The only thing you will get from me is a big hug!!!

1. That is my point, I don’t need the trad rads in my bedroom. I know God is there…geez louise (see previous slam) I am in a covenant marriage and I will not be “guilted” into thinking otherwise by any mortal man/woman.
2. Read again, the doctrine teachings of the church and then look for Jesus’ quotes…on the subject at hand. Check out the New Testament. Actually the first time I read about the onanism was when I was at the Baptist church with my grandmother. Didn’t learn about it in all my years of catechism, go figure. I will need a refresh, and read it again, but I believe it was in the OT. The “old book on Catholic moral theology” was probably penned by a human being. Jesus isn’t about control, guilt, repression, read what He said.
3. I understand, after reading through the thread. Does everyone who votes Republican or Democrat believe everything that party platform stands for? Doubtful. Because human beings put their two cents in.
4. You sound riddled with guilt, for asking a question or posting your thoughts. There are a few folks on here who do ask questions, and do express their opinions and then “slam!” here it comes. It’s not so much when you are accused of “sin”…it’s the guilt that pulls you under. It’s not necessary or welcome if you are spirited filled.
5. That is your business to take up with your husband and God. Yes, it is contradictory and sometimes it takes guts to say so. Repressive…if you let it. Remember these folks pull their pants up one leg at a time just like you.
6. Anytime.

 

[Julianna]

Hi Julianna
It seems to me you just affirmed the original post. Neither you nor he is going to follow the Church teaching, which defines these issues for you. I am glad you have a happy marriage and wish you the very best, this is not about you. It is about do you, can you, really follow such teachings particularly the super hair splitting concerning -what is NFP accomplishing?- and how does that fit into other church teachings concerning the matter at hand. Please do not feel any Guilt Trip from us we did not make the rules and we are not asking you if you followed the rules. Our concern is understand proper teaching of the church

what is NFP accomplishing…? well, quite simply, you and your spouse can have sex…without the possibility of getting pregnant…but the possibility of getting pregnant is high. I understand gogogirl’s concern is that “does it go against church teaching about being open to creation, if you purposely “plan” (calendar, temperature, et al) to have sex when the woman is least fertile?”… yeah, it does. But it is OK according to church teaching. Come again?? I will go further to ask, how is that different than popping a pill or a condom? Bottom line, is you are not open to creation. Gogogirl has a valid point.

The OP is asking if it’s ok to deposit semen outside the woman, even if he is (or may be) not fertile. You all said, yeah, it’s a sin. So now this guy, or his friend, want to crawl in hole somewhere and cower in guilt. Not sure Jesus had that in mind when you read the scripture. Paul does talk alot about these matters. But then again, Paul…was a human being…unless I missed something. To understand the proper teaching of the church you would have to be sitting at the table with whoever wrote all this church doctrine down, because it seems to me, that the doctrine is thicker than the Bible itself. I don’t look, never have as the catholic church of “don’t do this, it’s a sin, don’t do that it’s a sin”…I have always had a positive view of the catholic church and I say that I am catholic. proudly!.. You want to tell me I’m not catholic and have me kicked out? Make sure that rock is good and heavy, I have a low tolerance of pain.

Most human beings realize that they are not perfect…it wouldn’t matter if they read church doctrine forwards and backwards and followed it to the letter…perfection would still be a distant star. Human beings are falliable creations…we rise and fall on the tide of emotion, intellectual thought and our current culture. I disagree with some of the doctrines…not all and some of the folks like the OP and gogogirl have legitimate questions, thoughts and concerns about the church teachings. You answered the OP according to what the church teaches…now it’s up to him and his friend to decide. And as a “dare to think for myself” individual…I added my opinion, and stated that it was my opinion…right up front. Can I follow church doctrine on this matter, no I cannot. Am I a horrible person, a mad sinner…not for you all to decide now is it? As for following the rules…never was a “letter of law” type…more “the spirit of the law”.

Shouldn’t a christian faith such as our have mercy and compassion, and reasoning skills…especially on the hair splitting issues…before we whip out thousands of years of words on paper and beat someone over the head with it?