sex?

[Sixtus]

whether or not they love or like each other at **any given time doesn’t alter **one whit their obligations to the third and most important party.

I feel I need to disagree with you.

If a man enters a loveless marriage, discovering on the morning after his wedding day that he has been conned. That his wife has ‘changed her mind’ and no longer wants children, that he is to be denied the pleasure of father-hood. That he then remains faithful in the next 30-years of marriage in which 29.9 % of them was in celibacy, in faithful union with God and true to his marriage vows, then I DO NOT think that God expects him to live that sort of life.

If you throw in for good measure the fact his wife never fed him, kept all the food locked away, ate good food herself and only bought him ‘passed sell by dates’, forbade him to have milk in his tea because ‘milk costs money and only she is allowed the milk’. Expects him to work at two jobs 15-hours a day 6 days a week for 30-years…no no no no no no no!

No, that is not the way fo our God. Scripture says ‘do not throw your pearls before swine’. He is to be commended for lasting that long.

The only reason he left was because he became ill and unable to work any longer to provide for her expensive needs, kicks him out! No No No No,

No that is not what God wants. Call me heretic. Call me whatever expletives you can think of but I will argue this one until the sun is cold enough to make icecream. NO NO NO!

No, there may be three people in this relationship but the primary one does not expect one person to give in and give in and give in etc etc.

What about the day someone says 'I have taken up this suncay collection every week for the past 15 years and I have never seen you put a penny in the plate, Not even once. You have two jobs so whats your excuse? He says ‘becuase my wife refuses to give me any money to support my pastors as she thinks it is a waste’!

Sorry, but no,

No, I do not most definitely not. I refuse to believe that God 'let it happen to punish him or expect him to spend the rest of his life in this unimaginable misery.

This story is actually absolutely true. It is 10 x worse than describe here. He left home penniless and jobless. 5 years later, he has got his life back, owns his own home and in love. I believe it is God sent

 

[ElizabethAnne]

I feel I need to disagree with you.

If a man enters a loveless marriage, discovering on the morning after his wedding day that he has been conned. That his wife has ‘changed her mind’ and no longer wants children, that he is to be denied the pleasure of father-hood. That he then remains faithful in the next 30-years of marriage in which 29.9 % of them was in celibacy, in faithful union with God and true to his marriage vows, then I DO NOT think that God expects him to live that sort of life.

If you throw in for good measure the fact his wife never fed him, kept all the food locked away, ate good food herself and only bought him ‘passed sell by dates’, forbade him to have milk in his tea because ‘milk costs money and only she is allowed the milk’. Expects him to work at two jobs 15-hours a day 6 days a week for 30-years…no no no no no no no!

No, that is not the way fo our God. Scripture says ‘do not throw your pearls before swine’. He is to be commended for lasting that long.

The only reason he left was because he became ill and unable to work any longer to provide for her expensive needs, kicks him out! No No No No,

No that is not what God wants. Call me heretic. Call me whatever expletives you can think of but I will argue this one until the sun is cold enough to make icecream. NO NO NO!

No, there may be three people in this relationship but the primary one does not expect one person to give in and give in and give in etc etc.

What about the day someone says 'I have taken up this suncay collection every week for the past 15 years and I have never seen you put a penny in the plate, Not even once. You have two jobs so whats your excuse? He says ‘becuase my wife refuses to give me any money to support my pastors as she thinks it is a waste’!

Sorry, but no,

No, I do not most definitely not. I refuse to believe that God 'let it happen to punish him or expect him to spend the rest of his life in this unimaginable misery.

This story is actually absolutely true. It is 10 x worse than describe here. He left home penniless and jobless. 5 years later, he has got his life back, owns his own home and in love. I believe it is God sent

None of these reasons, no matter how horrible, would ever justify adultery. Leaving an abusing marriage is another issue altogether. The Church doesn’t teach that it’s wrong, only that the parties may not seek remarriage unless and until they obtain an annulment.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Hmmm. I wonder if the Church would change its position if science can ever conclusively prove that homosexuality is genetic or biological in nature vs a social construct. At that point, it would seem to me that natural law would cover it under “the natural sex partner for a homosexual man is another homosexual man and for a homosexual woman another homosexual woman because of their biological makeup.” Interesting idea to ponder.

The Church does not teach that same sex attraction is a choice or a result of biology. It really doesn’t matter either way since homosexual acts are still disordered. Those who have same sex attraction are called to live chastely, like the rest of humanity. For them that would mean not engaging in sexual acts outside of marriage, not unlike priests and religious.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Other Eric,

I just wanted to tell you to “keep on keeping on.” Your posts are excellent, and I have really enjoyed reading them.

God bless.

 

[Valke2]

okay i actually went out and asked abunch of people in the mall i live near about there opinions on sex.

You don’t get out much, do you?

 

[KarenNC]

But, the teaching is true regardless of acceptance. It does apply to all mankind. The proof, like all philosophical proofs, may be very accurate yet rejected for other reasons by folks.

I understand that you believe that to be true.

If they have repented they are free to marry. As an aside if they cannot have intercourse, like total impotence, they would not be able to marry.

Interesting. So the church would not allow a religious wedding for a couple in the case of impotence, regardless of circumstance? I had not realized that.

 

[KindredSoul]

I feel I need to disagree with you.

If a man enters a loveless marriage, discovering on the morning after his wedding day that he has been conned. That his wife has ‘changed her mind’ and no longer wants children, that he is to be denied the pleasure of father-hood. That he then remains faithful in the next 30-years of marriage in which 29.9 % of them was in celibacy, in faithful union with God and true to his marriage vows, then I DO NOT think that God expects him to live that sort of life.

If you throw in for good measure the fact his wife never fed him, kept all the food locked away, ate good food herself and only bought him ‘passed sell by dates’, forbade him to have milk in his tea because ‘milk costs money and only she is allowed the milk’. Expects him to work at two jobs 15-hours a day 6 days a week for 30-years…no no no no no no no!

No, that is not the way fo our God. Scripture says ‘do not throw your pearls before swine’. He is to be commended for lasting that long.

The only reason he left was because he became ill and unable to work any longer to provide for her expensive needs, kicks him out! No No No No,

No that is not what God wants. Call me heretic. Call me whatever expletives you can think of but I will argue this one until the sun is cold enough to make icecream. NO NO NO!

No, there may be three people in this relationship but the primary one does not expect one person to give in and give in and give in etc etc.

What about the day someone says 'I have taken up this suncay collection every week for the past 15 years and I have never seen you put a penny in the plate, Not even once. You have two jobs so whats your excuse? He says ‘becuase my wife refuses to give me any money to support my pastors as she thinks it is a waste’!

Sorry, but no,

No, I do not most definitely not. I refuse to believe that God 'let it happen to punish him or expect him to spend the rest of his life in this unimaginable misery.

This story is actually absolutely true. It is 10 x worse than describe here. He left home penniless and jobless. 5 years later, he has got his life back, owns his own home and in love. I believe it is God sent

I would think (though I could be mistaken) that the man is free to leave his abusive marriage if it’s that bad and abusive; but it’s certain that he can’t remarry unless he obtains an annulment. He is still technically considered married to the abusive wife, and he should actually want to break all ties with her if she’s that horrible a spouse–only an annulment, not a divorce, can truly do that (by definition, in fact).

This, by the way, shouldn’t be hard to do…it should be rather easy to prove that one party, the wife, obviously didn’t have the proper intention going into the marriage; that in itself could prove grounds for an annulment. It may mean revisiting some pain, but that revisit would be temporary, no matter how long, whereas the sin of adultery/lack-of-caring-to-commit-adultery would be lasting life-long otherwise, regardless of whether or not anyone chose to acknowledge that.

If your friend’s Catholic, he has the full ability (which is both a God-given gift and a responsibility) to turn to the Church’s teaching on this matter, as do you, myself, and all Catholics in making life’s ethical choices.

 

[fix]

But, the teaching is true regardless of acceptance. It does apply to all mankind. The proof, like all philosophical proofs, may be very accurate yet rejected for other reasons by folks.

I understand that you believe that to be true.

Well, objective truth exists whether I agree or not. 2+2=4 regardless of anyone’s opinion or incorrect belief. In the same way moral truth exists. As I said the proof of that truth may be accepted or rejected, yet the rejection does not make it untrue.

**

If they have repented they are free to marry. As an aside if they cannot have intercourse, like total impotence, they would not be able to marry.

**

Interesting. So the church would not allow a religious wedding for a couple in the case of impotence, regardless of circumstance? I had not realized that.

The couple must be able to engage in the act. If the man is permenantly impotent he cannot fulfill one of the requirements for marriage.

 

[KarenNC]

The couple must be able to engage in the act. If the man is permenantly impotent he cannot fulfill one of the requirements for marriage.

What would happen if such a couple sought a civil marriage, in terms of their relationship with the Catholic Church? For instance if an elderly couple chose to marry and the man was impotent, so they sought a civil marriage rather than cohabitate without any legal marriage? Would they be allowed the Eucharist, be able to be buried from the church, receive Last Rites, etc?

 

[Sixtus]

…it should be rather easy to prove that one party, the wife, obviously didn’t have the proper intention going into the marriage; that in itself could prove grounds for an annulment. It may mean revisiting some pain, but that revisit would be temporary, no matter how long, whereas the sin of adultery/lack-of-caring-to-commit-adultery would be lasting life-long otherwise, regardless of whether or not anyone chose to acknowledge that.

If your friend’s Catholic, he has the full ability (which is both a God-given gift and a responsibility) to turn to the Church’s teaching on this matter, as do you, myself, and all Catholics in making life’s ethical choices.

He in fact left his wife after the first six years due to her adultery. She did not feel able to have sex with him but had no problems with having sex with other men.

She in fact wanted him out of her life then as she wanted to set up home with the man she was seeing at the time, After he left, her man with whom she was committing adultery did not want to know her. He had conned her into parting with his hard earnt money.

She realising she was on her own, went to his church and asked his pastor to help them become reconciled.The priest sent for him and suggested he went home to his wife. Being a good catholic, he did. Less than 3 months later, she was into another adulterous relationship.

She gave him the worst abuse I have ever heard. He is now totally deaf in the ear she used to shout into when she was abusing him. I had on occasions been to visit. From the outside, the sound of her shouting and screaming could be heard not just outside but at the end of the street. To think she is very self concious about others!!

After he went back, she systematically destroyed him, sapped all his confidence. He is the only PhD that I know who ended up working as a labourer in a factory. She even convinced him he was the worst driver on the road. She is a very nervous driver, reckons all drivers should be. If they are not, that is becuase they are bad drivers.

He used to go to work in the winter with his flimsy coat stuffed with newspapers to keep warm. It is the worst case of abuse I have ever heard.

He was never given any access to his bank account. He once went in and tried to draw money from his account and the bank called the police because he was behaving suspiciousy. He was nervous about what she would say if she found out. He needed the money to buy petrol to get home.

After 25 yaers of marriage, she conceded to giving him an allowance. She gave him 1 penny in every pound he earnt net! But it was not for him to spend on what he wanted. He was expected to save them all up and buy her a nice present!!

He is very disholusioned by any advice given by pastors. I actually do not blame him. He now refuse to listen. She is now in complete denial. Claims they were very happy but he had a nervous breakdown and was impossible to live with. I am not aware he had a breakdown.

But he is a very kind man. She has no friends. She is very lonely. He has been told by a canon lawyer he has good grounds for an anullment. But he now feels sorry for her. He still supports her. He says he is the only friend she has. He thinks a divorce would destroy her. He says as a Christian, he has a duty out of love for Christ, not to hurt her.

So, tell me please. Should he hurt her grieviously by seeking an annulment or have mercy on her and have an adulterous relationship?

Now I know you will say ‘he should remain chaste’. He hasn’t had sex for 30-years, I am not going to tell him ‘the church expects him to do any more penance’. I have told him that if he can reconcile it with his conscience then it is between him and God.

His parish priest has told him he is in an irregular relationship in the eyes of the church, but the church is not going to condemn him. It is things like that which reinforces my faith that he a life long good catholic, the church is still there for him.

 

[Hastrman]

Having an adulterous relationship will hurt him–if he abandons his honor (breaking his oath), he’ll have lost his last shred of manhood. Sinning rather than hurting somebody’s feelings is just plain stupid, and men aren’t supposed to make excuses. Let him take pride in the fact he’s keeping his end of the deal. Pride, after all, is the only thing humans actually have in *this *world.

If she’s that abusive, why does he care if the annulment hurts her? She sound like she needs a swift kick in the head anyway. Codependency is a disgusting thing in a woman; in a man it’s almost obscene.

 

[Hastrman]

So, tell me please. Should he hurt her grieviously by seeking an annulment or have mercy on her and have an adulterous relationship?

Personally, I think the annulment would be the merciful course, and more than she deserves. He’s being a co-dependent idiot, and his duty as a Christian is not to allow her to persist in sin. Someone’s duty as a Christian is to give her a sound beating, but I suppose one should leave that to another woman.

An adulterous affair would lower him to her level, and what can he say after that? He would no longer even have his pride, and that’s all a man really has, in this world.

 

[Sixtus]

if they cannot have intercourse, like total impotence, they would not be able to marry.

Interesting. So the church would not allow a religious wedding for a couple in the case of impotence, regardless of circumstance? I had not realized that.

That might be the views of some cranky theologian. But I doubt that is the view of Christ.

The guy I spoke of above, told me he is unable to achieve sexual fulfillment due to so many years of abstenance. I remember him before he married, at university he was a horny little person. But to be fair he was very handsome and used to get lots of propositions from the girls.

If he ever got an anullment, I doubt he would be able to have ‘normal’ sex, but I would strongly advise him to seek marriage.

In the case of anyone who is impotent and thinking of marriage, go and talk to the local parish priest.

No disrespects to anyone who has contributed to this thread and I do not intend this to be taken personally but self-righteous, pompous arrogant non-compassionate, flogging of the letter of the law was not the way of Christ. In ALL His teaching,there was a message of love.

I do not think that He expects His children to be denied a loving companionship. His church is conspicous by diversity

 

[Hastrman]

No disrespects to anyone who has contributed to this thread and I do not intend this to be taken personally but self-righteous, pompous arrogant non-compassionate, flogging of the letter of the law was not the way of Christ. In ALL His teaching,there was a message of love.

No disrespect, and I don’t intend this to be taken personally, but CLEAR YOUR MIND OF CANT. I dare you to express yourself without one sentence of this execrable journalese gibberish. It’s always “hard-core die-hard right wing” or "self-righteous, pompous arrogant non-compassionate, flogging of the letter of the law ". Are you even capable of expressing one thought in your own words?

Anyway, there are philosophies in this world where it is an act of compassion to cut a man down before he can sin. Frankly, the compassion of the Life-Giving Sword is a lot more real than this “compassion” that would let your “friend” harm his own soul rather than not get laid.

That’s what we’re talking about here: having a little sex. I have two aunts in their 40s who are virgins, they’re not dying. So his wife’s abusive. Sort of. That’s the worst case of abuse you’ve ever seen? Where in Paradise do you live? A friend of mine has scars from his stepfather’s beltbuckle…heated red hot and pressed into his flesh when he was 12. He’s seen his mother raped. And he’s not feeling sorry for himself and trying to rip off (mortal) sins because he thinks he can get away with it–and he’s an atheist, too. What’s your friend’s excuse?

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

And an infertile couple will never be procreative.

fix:

They may never conceive, but their marital embrace is still open to life by being unaltered.

And so for homosexuals.

Montalban:

Ah, the end of the argument. The church has spoken, that’s it. No need to go on about ‘natural law’ arguments then.

fix:

Natural law is interpreted by the Church. God is the creator and He speaks through His Church. What is your authority?

God.

Montalban:

I believe we get the answer of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ from God.

fix:

OK, so how do you know your private interpretation is true when it contradicts other’s interpretation?

OK, so how do you know that my interpretation is private?

Montalban:

As noted I disagree with homosexuality. However the ‘reason’ given by you is flawed; natural law. It is the application in a highly sinuous manner what is ‘right’ by what is ‘natural’.
Same as abortion; which I’ll deal with only, to point to the demerits of the natural-law argument. Abortion is seen as wrong (which I agree with). It’s seen wrong by Catholics due to the application of ‘natural law’ principles. That is, if it weren’t for a human act, that baby would naturally develop and grow, and be born. Therefore, by intervening in what is natural, and upsetting that, one is committing a sin. By implication - which is never dealt with properly by Catholics - is by the same ‘measure’ one could rule that ANY medical intervention is wrong. A person who gets sick should then naturally be allowed to either get better or die as per nature.

fix:

I am sorry but that is not what the Church teaches. The natural law argument is really about the natural moral law. It involves the end that God desires for use. It is based on the 10 commandments.

No, this is what the church teaches. If it interferes with nature (because nature has been established by God), it’s wrong.

fix:

Abortion is wrong because it violates the prohibition against murder.

I agree that there are multiple arguments against abortion. Catholics apply natural law to it too.

Montalban:

Now we have the same issue over homosexuality. An attempt to apply rules that aren’t made universal.
Rule: A non-procreative couple is wrong. Homosexuals can’t procreate. Therefore homosexuality is wrong.

fix:

No, a couple that frustrates the act in anyway is non procreative. Unintentional sterility does not frustrate the act. Homosexual acts violate the design and end ordained by God. They are wrong because they violate the natural moral law. Yes, they are unnatural by biologic understanding too, but the Church talks about moral issues.

I’ve already gone over this, one can have a couple that intentionally does not have children. They are therefore ‘frustrating’ the act. It’s the very reason the RC Church is against contraception because the ‘natural outcome of sex is children’

Montalban:

Infertile couples can’t procreate either. Application of the rule waivered due to matter of ‘choice’. Their ability or not to procreate is beyond their choice.

fix:

This is misunderstanding the theological understanding of the marital act, not simply a medical issue. The act is designed to be unitive and procreative that is open to the transmission of life. A moral distinction.

An infertile couple is not “open to the transmission of life”. A couple that chooses not to have children is not “open to the transmission of life”. A person who enters a life of celibacy is not “open to the transmission of life”

Montalban:

A couple that choose not to have children must therefore be wrong. No, wait, we’ll bring in another exemption for them.

fix:

If they have serious reasons and use a morally licit means then they have not violated the natural moral law.

How so, when they’re not ‘open to the transmission of life’?

Montalban:

A priest chooses to be celibate, no wait, will bring in another exemption. In effect the application of the rule goes to applying it to what you already have determined to be wrong. That is why it is flawed.

fix:

How is not having sex violating the principle that the sex act must not be altered?

Because such people are choosing a lifestyle not ‘open to the transmission of life’

You keep coming up with universals and then making holes in them

 

[Sixtus]

We know that a marriage has to be consumated for it to be a valid marriage.

But I am also aware that God ordained it marriage is a sacred institution for the benefit of them both and the procreation of children.

We simply do not nor cannot know the extent or duration of impotency. What we can be sure of is that an intending couple would be wise to go and discuss it with either their PP or a canon lawyer for there is the teachings of Christ.

 

[Montalban]

We know that a marriage has to be consumated for it to be a valid marriage.

But I am also aware that God ordained it marriage is a sacred institution for the benefit of them both and the procreation of children.

I thought nuns were considered ‘brides of Christ’! If this is so, how’s the marriage consumated for it to be valid? (this of course depends on whether they are actually *married *to Christ as they become nuns)

 

[Other_Eric]

So are you saying here that your arguments are based on your own interpretation and not necessarily that of the Catholic Church or that the information provided in the library of this forum does not represent the authentic teachings of the Catholic Church?

What I am saying is that it would be foolish of me to resort to encyclicals, church councils, scripture or any other form of apologetic writing as an authority when neither you nor Mr. Montalban accept the authority in the first place. Therefore, I am attempting to make a philosophical argument on my own authority that draws from the teachings of the Church. It may very well be that I happen to agree with everything that has been written in Catholic.com’s libraries but since I have not introduced any of those articles myself and have substituted my own arguments, I see no need to defend the argument of another in preference to defending my own.

 

[KarenNC]

What I am saying is that it would be foolish of me to resort to encyclicals, church councils, scripture or any other form of apologetic writing as an authority when neither you nor Mr. Montalban accept the authority in the first place.

Then why are we having this conversation? It appears to me that your entire argument is based on the fact that your God says that sex is only valid and valuable between a married man and woman, and then only for the purposes of procreation.

I am not a Christian. I am not even a monotheist. Why should I then accept “my God says…” as any more authoritative for me than an argument based on Catholic writings?

 

[shirleytowers]

I don’t know how old you are, but your post seems to indicate you might be in high school.

You don’t go out in public and ask strangers about sex or their tax returns or anything considered private in our culture.

The idea that sex is dirty has something to do with our American Puritan / Calvinist heritage. And something to do with the VIctorian Era…in that time you didn’t even show your ankle.

In the Old Testament espcially, the sexual relationship between a man and his wife is an allegory for the relationship between God and man. So there is lots of talk about harlotry, which means not being faithful to God, really.

That sex is dirty is not a Catholic viewpoint.

That certain kinds of sexual activity is sinful or that sex outside of marriage is sinful, those are Catholic viewpoints.

That sexual activity is purely for pleasure ignores the resposiblity that goes with sex–like begetting children–and denies the spiritual nature and psychological impact of the sex act. Because sex isn’t just like getting your neck rubbed at the mall. It is a profound bonding experience between the man and woman, has deep psychological effects, and can lead to conception. It is an act to be approached with a certain revererence and with caring. It entails obligations to the other person. It creates responsiblities.

To ensure the woman and children are protected and provided for, most societies formally recognize the pair bond and place taboos on sexual activity outside. Otherwise, the man may leave to sow his seed hither and yon, leaving mother and child to fate. And the man may not be raising his own children. This situation leads to much conflict and suffering.

In addition, to effectively raise successful and well adjusted children, it takes two parents. Big job, raising kids. Hence marriage, which also ensures that the children have parents to care for them and are not wandering around and starving or being picked off by the hyenas. Marriage is constructed differently in different societies, depending on the circumstances of the people.

Marriage is an ancient institution, and not one that Christians invented. Sex outside of marriage has taboos of one kind of another.

The version with one woman and one man, for life, no divorce, probably is the most natural one, given the birth ratio of 51%:49% girl:boy births.