Several Questions...

[distracted]

I

However, I would say that it this kind of thing, having problems with different dogma and teachings, would crop up with any sect of Christianity.

doubts and questions will hound you all your life… your faith can come and go depending on various factors… :hypno:

but with me, there was less and less of that - ( until i got to the point of almost never doubting… ) when i began to go to daily Mass… whenever i can… We humans are so weak and need to hear the word of God every day in order to stay close to Him… or we just get weaker… and more open to the devil. Also, and probably most importantly (?), i began to spend a lot of time with Jesus @ the Blessed Sacrament…

Is there a Church that is open in the day-time in your area where you could go and be with Him?

It is best to commit to at least 45 min. to an hour… Obviously, the longer one stays, the better…

 

[distracted]

Pretty much to follow the teachings of the Church and let God deal with it.

Nice to hear of an orthodox priest!!

 

[JCismywingman]

The difference is intent. If the married couple is using foreplay/mutal masturbation as a precursor to the real event and the man accidentally orgasms it isn’t a sin. Also, if a man is able they can continue later. A woman’s orgasm doesn’t affect the reproduction (other then a women is more fertile when sexually excited) or end the session like it can in the man’s case. So it doesn’t matter if a woman has an orgasm before, during, or after actual intercourse as long as the intent is to have intercourse.

That was enlightening, so it’s based on intent whilst doing the actual act. So just to be really really picky, if a couple didn’t use contraception and were engaging in the actual act where reproduction is possible, but were secretly hoping that they wouldn’t get pregnant, would that be wrong?

This is just me being real irritating with the questions, so you could ignore if you want…

 

[mercygate]

That was enlightening, so it’s based on intent whilst doing the actual act. So just to be really really picky, if a couple didn’t use contraception and were engaging in the actual act where reproduction is possible, but were secretly hoping that they wouldn’t get pregnant, would that be wrong?

This is just me being real irritating with the questions, so you could ignore if you want…

In life, outside the Church, we use the “reasonable person” standard. I say that if the Church is williing to allow a couple to discern for themselves what constitutes “serious” reasons for not being able to accept a child AT THIS TIME, then a reasonable person would NOT EVEN ASK this question.

 

[Marauder]

That was enlightening, so it’s based on intent whilst doing the actual act. So just to be really really picky, if a couple didn’t use contraception and were engaging in the actual act where reproduction is possible, but were secretly hoping that they wouldn’t get pregnant, would that be wrong?

This is similar to the ideals of NFP. A married couple that has valid reasons for avoiding pregnancy (i.e. spacing, health reasons, mental reasons) can use NFP to avoid pregnancy. NFP teaches you to recognize the signs of fertility and to avoid sexual relations during fertile times and near fertile times. You can validly have sex without contraception during times that the woman is not fertile (which would be similar to hoping you would not get pregnant)

NFP when using the proper method and done correctly has a 99% effective rate. Of course there is always the chance you could still get pregnant but any time you have sex you have to be open to the possability of that, whether you use contraception (which is less then 99% effective and against church teaching) or not.

 

[JCismywingman]

In life, outside the Church, we use the “reasonable person” standard. I say that if the Church is williing to allow a couple to discern for themselves what constitutes “serious” reasons for not being able to accept a child AT THIS TIME, then a reasonable person would NOT EVEN ASK this question.

what is reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. take for example a couple who says they cannot afford to have a child at this time due to not having sufficient money for house & car loans but can splurge yearly on expensive holidays and say a child is a lifelong commitment. this is perfectly reasonable to them.

 

[mercygate]

what is reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. take for example a couple who says they cannot afford to have a child at this time due to not having sufficient money for house & car loans but can splurge yearly on expensive holidays and say a child is a lifelong commitment. this is perfectly reasonable to them.

The “reasonable person” standard presumes consensus of agreement. In this case, the standard of consensus would be the consensus of Catholic thought througout history.

 

[Marauder]

what is reasonable to one may not be reasonable to another. take for example a couple who says they cannot afford to have a child at this time due to not having sufficient money for house & car loans but can splurge yearly on expensive holidays and say a child is a lifelong commitment. this is perfectly reasonable to them.

Since you were probably typing this while I was answering your previous question and my answer got pushed to the previous page, you may want to look at post #45. It should answer this question.