Sex between married couple a SIN?!

[fpt]

“conjugal rabbitism”?

I think I understand what a ‘whack-a-doodle’ is, but once again on this forum, I am left in no doubt that the USA and the England are two great nations divided by a common language

In last january, the Pope criticized the behaviours, the habits, the mentalities, the beliefs and the doctrines of some catholic couples about the procreation and of the manner of practicing the conjugal act.

Here the Pope used the word " rabbit ". We are not animals. The conjugal act has to be practiced,* in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation*. The Pope makes an analogy with this animal. This animal makes many babies, the coitus is very quick (maximum,1 seconde), the number of coitus is important, possible until 23 coitus per day, the female rabbit is a machine to babies, the pleasures of the female rabbit are low. He denounces the absolute natalism, the absolute pro-creationism, the theoretical providentialism , the quiverfullism, the " rabbitism ", no new word from my imagination, (the lack of quality of marital act, the conjugal act only for the husband, the male selfishness in the modus operandi of conjugal act, the refusal to give the sexual pleasures to the wife , and for the mind of the husband, the wife would be only a robot to babies.

For the catholicism, the quality of the conjugal act, the reciprocity, the mutuality, the bilaterality, the equality and the equity, during the session of the conjugal act with all corollaries, between husband and wife, are so important.

The husband has to be a conjugal lover and a conjugal beloved, during the session of the marital act. He has to be a true lover in his manner of making love with his wife. He has to be a good agent of love in favor of this wife. He has to be active and passive: the wife must be active during the conjugal act. Each one is passive and active, in function of moments. We are not catholic rabbits.

 

[fpt]

Corrections:

In last january, the Pope criticized the behaviours, the habits, the mentalities, the beliefs and the doctrines of some catholic couples about the procreation and of the manner of practicing the conjugal act.

Here the Pope used the word " rabbit ". We are not animals. The conjugal act has to be practiced,* in the human fashion, with sexual cooperation*. The Pope makes an analogy with this animal. This animal makes many babies, the coitus is very quick (maximum,1 seconde), the number of coitus is important, possible until 23 coitus per day, the female rabbit is a machine to babies, the pleasures of the female rabbit are low. He denounces the absolute natalism, the absolute pro-creationism, the theoretical providentialism , the quiverfullism, the " rabbitism ", * **a ***new word from my imagination, (the lack of quality of marital act, the conjugal act only for the husband, the male selfishness in the modus operandi of conjugal act, the refusal to give the sexual pleasures to the wife , and for the mind of the husband, the wife would be only a robot to babies.

For the catholicism, the quality of the conjugal act, the reciprocity, the mutuality, the bilaterality, the equality and the equity, during the session of the conjugal act with all corollaries, between husband and wife, are so important.

The husband has to be a conjugal lover and a conjugal beloved, during the session of the marital act. He has to be a true lover in his manner of making love with his wife. He has to be a good agent of love in favor of this wife. He has to be active and passive: the wife must be active during the conjugal act. Each one is passive and active, in function of moments. We are not catholic rabbits.

Pope Francis denounces the irresponsible procreation and the mentality of the race to the large family.

The fact of having a large family is not a moral duty of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not a end of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not a condition of the validity of marriage;
The race to the large family is not linked to the catholicism;

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I have not read this whole thread, but to sum up the Church’s position on sex, it must be between married heterosexual couples, and the act must be open to the possibility of procreation.

Anything else, including having sex just because it “feels good”, is a sin.

 

[fpt]

Other corrections

Corrections:

Pope Francis denounces the irresponsible procreation and the mentality of the race to the large family.

The fact of having a large family is not a moral duty of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not a moral obligation of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not **an **end of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not a condition of the validity of marriage;
The race to the large family is not linked to the catholicism;

Of course that the conjugal act can be practiced, quickly, if it is a mutual and reciprocal choice of the wife and her husband. There are moral and legitimate fantasies. The conjugal sex can be, morally speaking, creative, poetic, romantic, erotic, sensual, funny, hot, spiritual, sensible, masculine (virile) and feminine. The conjugal sexual routine can be dangerous, the will of avoiding conjugal sexual routine is moral and legitimate. " Song of Songs " is a beautiful source of inspiration.

 

[fpt]

Catholic journalist John Zmirak sarcastically put it this way: “just close your eyes and focus on the procreation aspect…”

The legal statute and the legal condition of the female, and the social statute and the social condition of female were not so good, in the U-K in the victorian time and even just before. The inequality and the iniquity, via the english laws, were the rules. Sad time legally speaking. Each period has its errors, its bad laws and its bad mentalities. The work of intellectual purification has to be done by each one for himself or for herself. The systematic nostalgia of past can be dangerous.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Sure sex between married people is a sin–if they’re not married to each other.

I think you just won the Internet, as the lads are so fond of saying.

 

[pensmama87]

I have not read this whole thread, but to sum up the Church’s position on sex, it must be between married heterosexual couples, and the act must be open to the possibility of procreation.

Anything else, including having sex just because it “feels good”, is a sin.

These things are not mutually exclusive, though.

I’d argue that most of the time married couples’ primary motivation to have sex is because they feel like it. And that’s fine, as long as they aren’t messing with the way that it works to prevent having a baby should one result.

So no, what you are presenting is NOT Church teaching. The first paragraph is fine, but your last statement is not. Catholics are not puritanical about sex.

 

[fpt]

I have not read this whole thread, but to sum up the Church’s position on sex, it must be between married heterosexual couples, and the act must be open to the possibility of procreation.

Anything else, including having sex just because it “feels good”, is a sin.

The conjugal sex between husband and wife in the human fashion, with some sexual cooperation with opening to the life, for expressing the conjugal love (for implementing the conjugal love), or for making a baby, or for bonding the conjugal love, or for getting and giving sexual pleasures, or for avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence is moral. Those purposes are linked to the order of the marriage and of the conjugal act, those reasons can be cumulative or alternative.

The conjugal act between spouses, just because it feels good, is not a immoral.

 

[fpt]

I have not read this whole thread, but to sum up the Church’s position on sex, it must be between married heterosexual couples, and the act must be open to the possibility of procreation.

Anything else, including having sex just because it “feels good”, is a sin.

The conjugal sex between husband and wife in the human fashion, with some sexual cooperation, with opening to the life, for expressing the conjugal love (for implementing the conjugal love), or for making a baby, or for bonding the conjugal love, or for getting and giving sexual pleasures, or for avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence is moral. Those purposes are linked to the order of the marriage and of the conjugal act, those reasons can be cumulative or alternative.

The conjugal act between spouses, just because it feels good, is not immoral.

 

[Xantippe]

These things are not mutually exclusive, though.

I’d argue that most of the time married couples’ primary motivation to have sex is because they feel like it. And that’s fine, as long as they aren’t messing with the way that it works to prevent having a baby should one result.

So no, what you are presenting is NOT Church teaching. The first paragraph is fine, but your last statement is not. Catholics are not puritanical about sex.

I haven’t been keeping up with the thread, but I’ll jump in to add that the reason sex between married couples feels good is because it is good.

The pleasant physical sensations mirror the goodness of the procreative nature of the act.

 

[pensmama87]

I haven’t been keeping up with the thread, but I’ll jump in to add that the reason sex between married couples feels good is because it is good.

The pleasant physical sensations mirror the goodness of the procreative nature of the act.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I have not read this whole thread, but to sum up the Church’s position on sex, it must be between married heterosexual couples, and the act must be open to the possibility of procreation.

Anything else, including having sex just because it “feels good”, is a sin.

Expressing love for, and making love to, one’s spouse, “feels good.” I thought we had long established that the marital act does not need to be performed with the explicit intention to procreate. I don’t see the sin in making one’s spouse “feel good.”

 

[fpt]

The practice of the conjugal act between husband and wife, in the human fashion, with the mutual agreement of both, with some sexual cooperation, in respecting the rule of opening to the life, because only it feels good,* without explicit intention to procreate*, but** for expressing the conjugal love,** or for the bonding the conjugal love, or for avoiding the wrong effects of the concupiscence, *or *for getting and for receiving the sexual pleasures and the sexual orgasms of the marital act in couple, is totally natural, moral and catholic.

These ends or those intentions are catholic.

 

[fpt]

We are catholic, we are not the other christians touched and polluted by the heresies of the marriage and of the conjugal act.

WE ARE CATHOLIC

 

[fpt]

The doctrinal refusal of being a conjugal lover in favor of the other during the session of the marital act via a direct act of will is totally immoral. Each spouse has the moral obligation of means of being the best conjugal lover in favor of the other. Each spouse is the agent, the actor and the human being who has to participate to the good realization of the conjugal act, in the erotic, sensual and sexual way.

 

[fpt]

A list of conjugal rights

Her moral right to require to him to take normal medical treatments for solving his erectile dysfunctions;
his moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
his moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
his moral right to require to her to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
her moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
his moral right to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
her moral right to require to him to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
the moral right for her to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to undress herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to denude herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be undressed by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be denuded by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to undress himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to denude himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be undressed by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be denuded by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to force herself for pleasing her husband and for satisfying her husband;
the moral right for him to force himself for pleasing his wife and for satisfying his wife;
the moral right for her to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to request the marital act to her husband, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to request the marital act to his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to have the conjugal request coming from her husband for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to have the conjugal request coming from his wife for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male sexual pleasures, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male orgasm, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to help her husband to reach his sexual appeasement via her sexual caresses and her caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to help his wife to reach her sexual appeasement via his sexual caresses and his caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach female several orgasms, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to be a multi-orgasmic woman, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to stay present near her husband after the session of the conjugal act;
the moral right for him to stay present near his wife after the session of the conjugal act;

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I haven’t been keeping up with the thread, but I’ll jump in to add that the reason sex between married couples feels good is because it is good.

The pleasant physical sensations mirror the goodness of the procreative nature of the act.

But the purpose of the act is for procreation and the act must always be open to the possibility of procreation. The fact that it just happens to feels good is a side benefit (for lack of a better term.)

My point is that when people put the “feels good” aspect ahead of the procreative aspect then you start to have a morality issues.

 

[underacloud]

My point is that when people put the “feels good” aspect ahead of the procreative aspect then you start to have a morality issues.

You will have to clarify what you mean. At the moment, this comment is vague and seems to imply things that may be at odds with Church teaching.

PS procreation is not the only purpose of the act. God has designed sex so that it has value, in the context of marriage, even when procreation is not intended or even possible.

 

[EasterJoy]

where on earth?

A list of conjugal rights

Her moral right to require to him to take normal medical treatments for solving his erectile dysfunctions;
his moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
his moral obligation to take normal medical treatments for solving his own erectile dysfunctions;
his moral right to require to her to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
her moral right to take normal medical treatments for solving her own female sexual troubles;
his moral right to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
her moral right to require to him to take viagra pills for solving his male impotence, if no negative effect on him;
the moral right for her to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the male nudity of her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to see / to look at / to stare, totally, the female nudity of his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be seen / to be looked at / to be stared totally naked by his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to undress herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to denude herself in front of him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be undressed by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to be denuded by him for him, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to undress himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to denude himself in front of her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be undressed by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to be denuded by her for her, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to force herself for pleasing her husband and for satisfying her husband;
the moral right for him to force himself for pleasing his wife and for satisfying his wife;
the moral right for her to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to create a conjugal erotism with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for her to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with her husband, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to desire and to want to have conjugal sex with his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to request the marital act to her husband, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to request the marital act to his wife, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to have the conjugal request coming from her husband for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to have the conjugal request coming from his wife for the conjugal sex, in the love and in the tenderness;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male sexual pleasures, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the male orgasm, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to help her husband to reach his sexual appeasement via her sexual caresses and her caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for him to help his wife to reach her sexual appeasement via his sexual caresses and his caresses, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach female several orgasms, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to be a multi-orgasmic woman, during a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the normal sexual satisfaction, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to expect to reach the sexual appeasement, after a session of the marital act, in the love and in the tenderness ;
the moral right for her to stay present near her husband after the session of the conjugal act;
the moral right for him to stay present near his wife after the session of the conjugal act;

 

[fpt]

where on earth?

What do you want to mean? What is the meaning of this writing? Could you explain to me this short sentence?