Reasons for sexual relations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vatican2_Worker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Vatican2_Worker

Guest
Yes, I am one of those American Catholics who has been influenced by the North American Council on the Cnfraternity of Christian Doctrine as well as North American Bishops into a decidedly different stance on Birth Control.

It seems to be the only issue that keeps me from full communion with Rome. I am wondering how the church reaches the supposition that procreation is the only reason for sex. I have read that pleasure is a gift given in sex by God, but is defiled by non-lifegiving sex. I am wondering where this statement comes from. It seems that sex is a God-given gift for married partners to share intimacy as well.

Some may say “Well if fertility is being withheld the partners are not giving of themselves wholly,” but a gift may be given even if it is not utilized. What I mean is that the ability to procreate is present as well as the openness to always consider it so why is deciding not to procreate considered witholding oneself.

As a person conceived while my parents were practicing NFP I know it is not always reliable (especially with the knowledge that sperm live twice as long as we previously thought 3 days previously, 7 days today). Therefore, I would contend that when parents have a good reason not to conceive (like being unable to provide for them) it would be a greater sin to bring in to this world a child that has a high probability of hardship and death than to prevent conception

.
 
I suggest you read JPII’s Theology of the Body. A guy by the name of Christopher West explains it very well. Check out the articles on this site:

christopherwest.com/
 
The Church does not teach that the only purpose of marital intercourse is procreation. It teaches that the dual purpose of marital intercourse is unity of the spouses and procreation and that these two elements cannot be separated.

How the Church reaches its conclusions are two-fold, the revelation of God through Scripture and Tradition and the light of reason.

I would suggest a couple of resources for you:

Life Giving Love by Kimberly Hahn
Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West
Humanae Vitae, encyclical of Pope Paul VI

And, there are numerous booklets and resources available at www.omsoul.com, please obtain their tape of Janet Smith’s talk “Contraception Why Not?”
 
Sex is for procreation and the good of the spouses. I’ve never heard one was more important than the other. —KCT
 
Thank guys, i’ll check these out and see what I find.
 
Also I was wondering, does the sin of artifical contraception apply to surgical procedures like ahving the “tubes tied”? As well, if a woman’s health is endangered by another pregnancy is surgical sterilization permissable??
 
Vatican2 Worker:
Also I was wondering, does the sin of artifical contraception apply to surgical procedures like ahving the “tubes tied”? As well, if a woman’s health is endangered by another pregnancy is surgical sterilization permissable??
Click to expand...
No. Abstinence is always an option.
 
Vatican2 Worker:
Also I was wondering, does the sin of artifical contraception apply to surgical procedures like ahving the “tubes tied”? As well, if a woman’s health is endangered by another pregnancy is surgical sterilization permissable??
Click to expand...
Sterilization is contraception. Contraception is any action before, during, or after the marital act that attempts to render it sterile.
 
Vatican2 Worker:
It seems to be the only issue that keeps me from full communion with Rome.
Click to expand...
Nope. You seem to have problems with the doctrine of the infalliblility of the Magisterium, too.
 
I have no problems with the doctrine of infallability as I do not defy the magesterium. I do not practice any emans of artifical contraception, I am simply wondeirng why the church believes as it does. I’m not sure, but I don’t think its a sin to work to have your opinions heard. I conuldn’t testify to that though. I was just never aware that it was a sin to try and instigate change in the church.
 
You are on the right track if you are trying to learn why the Church believes as it does. You will likely discover that the Church does not teach what you think it does. For example the depth and meaning of the marital union is much greater than the world’s view.

Having an opinion is good. The desire to instigate change within the Church is also good. The Church is not static. In order to instigate change and to know that the changes you advocate are the right ones, it is first necessary to learn what the Church teaches and why the Church teaches it. Only then can you be an effective agent for change.

If you have time to listen to CDs, check out www.nakedwithoutshame.com They have a set of 10 CDs by Christopher West that explain the Theology of the Body. (Cost is only $3.90 plus S&H) Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body will continue to gain recognition and the lives changed by this body of work will grow dramatically.

Usually the influence of a great thinker only grows upon their death. I expect the same to happen in this case. God blessed JPII greatly to be able to explain the Gospel in the terms needed in today’s world.
 
Well, my wife and I am currently struggling with this issue. We recognize that there are two halves of the marital sexual act - the procreative and the unitive. What the problem now is that the procreative is no longer possible due to being post-menopausal. That is also causing the unitive aspect to be difficuilt due to sexual intercourse being extremely painful. Artificial lubrication has not helped. The (non-Catholic) gynecologist suggests using other “forms” of sexual ikntimacy. While we know that both the unitive and procreative aspects are supposed to be present, once the procreative is not possible, does that mean the unitive is not either?
 
I just saw the “sex after 50” thread & guess that’s probably where I should have gone with my posting!
 
40.png
rec:
…The (non-Catholic) gynecologist suggests using other “forms” of sexual ikntimacy. While we know that both the unitive and procreative aspects are supposed to be present, once the procreative is not possible, does that mean the unitive is not either?
Click to expand...
clearly not

but it of course begs the question that once the procreative part is no longer possible should there be any objection to the “other forms” your doctor spoke about?
 
I don’t know - which is why I posted!? I used to have a priest for a spiritual director with whom I would have had this conversation, but he recently passed away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top