sex?

[KindredSoul]

IN AN IDEAL WORLD IT IS!

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless marriage, seh is emotionally and mentally abused and feels dejected, unloved and uncared for. She is ill due to the consequences. She is also by nature very tactile.

She meets a man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life.

The two of them have been told by a canon lawyer they have good grounds to apply for an anulment of their respective marriages.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment.

Is it still wrong for them to mutually satisfy each other?

I guess the die-hard traditionalists would say yes.

That “yes” is not the die-hard traditionalist answer; that is the *Catholic Church’s *answer, that is the Biblical answer, and in short that is the Christian answer.

How anyone can logically choose to believe the warm fuzzy things taught by these sources (such as Heaven, eternal life, love your neighbor) and not the ethics that they as individuals deem too hard to live by is beyond me.

We may not live in an ideal world, but we are called to strive to be ideal people, even when the going gets tough.

 

[Hastrman]

That “yes” is not the die-hard traditionalist answer; that is the Catholic Church’s answer, that is the Biblical answer, and in short that is the Christian answer.

It is also the Buddhist answer, the Jewish answer, the better-sort-of-Muslim answer, the orthodox Confucian answer, and the Shintou answer.

Everyone in the whole situation is out of whack and needs serious counciling, is actually the Catholic answer. After all, forcing your husband to live in “enforced celibacy” is cruel. Abusing your wife is cruel (actually, of course, physical abuse would probably act as aversion therapy for an “extremely tactile” person, but I’m not the one coming up with these hypotheticals). And cheating, even on bad spouses, is wrong.

So basically they all need a swift boot to the head and some marriage counseling, possibly ending in annulment. But that doesn’t let people do “low impact aerobics,” so of course that’s not the best solution.

 

[reborn_pagan]

If you had come up to me I would have simply walked away. I no interest in talking about sex with teenager in the middle of the shopping mall. Personally I think you were looking for their reactions more than information. Kind of getting you kicks freaking out the “old” people.

well you might of been the people who do walk away, and personally, if i wanted to get reactions from “old” people i could do alot worse than just ask afew questions…

 

[kellie]

The simple answer is the OP lacks maturity.

This is a stunt he decided to play whilst out shopping to fill in time, and to add a shock value to his day and to others.

Not only that, but then he decides to post it on a Catholic forum, to add more shock value, and to stretch the pleasure he gets from doing things like this.

reborn_pagan, all I can say is you are searching for something. You are at that age.
It is why you chose wicca, it gives you what you think is freedom from rules.

You are rebelling. You are a teen. You will mature one day and realise how silly you were, and laugh about it.

But as much as you don’t want to hear this, asking strangers in a public place about sex is wrong.

You encroached upon their privacy as they went about their day.

How do you know you just didn’t approach a woman who had been raped once? Your so-called opinion collection may have stirred up all her pain again.

Sorry but you had to be told.

 

[KindredSoul]

It is also the Buddhist answer, the Jewish answer, the better-sort-of-Muslim answer, the orthodox Confucian answer, and the Shintou answer.

Everyone in the whole situation is out of whack and needs serious counciling, is actually the Catholic answer. After all, forcing your husband to live in “enforced celibacy” is cruel. Abusing your wife is cruel (actually, of course, physical abuse would probably act as aversion therapy for an “extremely tactile” person, but I’m not the one coming up with these hypotheticals). And cheating, even on bad spouses, is wrong.

So basically they all need a swift boot to the head and some marriage counseling, possibly ending in annulment. But that doesn’t let people do “low impact aerobics,” so of course that’s not the best solution.

I agree with you completely, actually: Pretty much every spouse involved in the situation Sixtus mentioned would be in the wrong somehow…I just addressed that one aspect because that was all that his final and ultimate question asked; and even though it’s true all those other religions would also give the same answer, it still remains at least one part of the Catholic answer as well, though there’s more to it, as you’ve pointed out.

As you said, cheating, even on bad spouses, is wrong.

 

[fix]

IN AN IDEAL WORLD IT IS!

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless marriage, seh is emotionally and mentally abused and feels dejected, unloved and uncared for. She is ill due to the consequences. She is also by nature very tactile.

She meets a man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life.

The two of them have been told by a canon lawyer they have good grounds to apply for an anulment of their respective marriages.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment.

Is it still wrong for them to mutually satisfy each other?

I guess the die-hard traditionalists would say yes., I would say good luck to them

I guess God is a traditionalist then. To claim so-called mutual satisfaction is morally good regardless of circumstances is to deny the moral law exists.

Why would you think the circumstances allow for such behavior?

 

[rayne89]

I heard no mention of old people and they live in today’s society, I think they would be unshockable at this point

When your 15 anyone over 25 is old . My mom is almost 80 and if a kid came up and asked her that she’d be shocked (and probably tell him off being disrespectful.) Honestly I would be rather stunned myself that someone would have the gall to think they have the right to ask personal questions regarding intimacy of complete strangers.

 

[rayne89]

well you might of been the people who do walk away, and personally, if i wanted to get reactions from “old” people i could do alot worse than just ask afew questions…

Reborn I used to be 15 too and you’re not fooling me. I’m sure you found it quite amusing to see people squirm.

 

[Vigis]

okay i actually went out and asked abunch of people in the mall i live near about there opinions on sex. and some said it was dirty and wanted to scold me for even asking such a thing, others who are obviously christians said that it is very wrong to have sex.

But there were a handfull who said something along the lines of “sex is pleasurable and is a gift from God, but just dont abuse it”

whats your opinion?

Sex is supposed to be an act in a marriage (between a man and a woman) of intimacy and of hopes of producing offspring. If either is taken out (within a marriage) of sex then it is sinful. God speed.

 

[reborn_pagan]

Reborn I used to be 15 too and you’re not fooling me. I’m sure you found it quite amusing to see people squirm.

hun. two 15 year olds, or two people for that matter arn’t the same don’t think im trying to fool you…its against my code to decieve and i dont get a kick out of watching people squirm…well only when i tickle them

 

[rayne100]

When your 15 anyone over 25 is old quote]

I take offense to that !

 

[kittychorus]

That those with opposite-sex attractions are prone not to live up to the standards of marriage in no way justifies the debasement of the sacrament by two individuals with same-sex attractions. Neither is resiliency of the practice of such an evil an appropriate defense.

Moreover, you must dispense with this puerile notion that marriage is a mere “celebration of love.” Marriage is much more. Legally, it is the codification of a relationship that bears the responsibility for begetting and raising the next generation. Spiritually, it is the bond of two souls in a lifelong commitment of complimentary service and self-sacrifice.

Same-sex unions, by their very nature, deny the fruitfulness of the sexual act and spurn sexual complementarity in favor of an insular, sterile arrangement. Spiritually, it is a vainglorious lifestyle that seeks to turn the imagery of seeking and loving the other into loving that which is a proxy for oneself.

I do not at this point agree with you, but I wanted to thank you for stating this so well. I have been back and forth with my father on this subject (we have friendly debates all the time) and he has never been able to clearly state why he opposes homosexuality. You have given me something to think on, so thanks!

 

[Montalban]

That those with opposite-sex attractions are prone not to live up to the standards of marriage in no way justifies the debasement of the sacrament by two individuals with same-sex attractions. Neither is resiliency of the practice of such an evil an appropriate defense.

Moreover, you must dispense with this puerile notion that marriage is a mere “celebration of love.” Marriage is much more. Legally, it is the codification of a relationship that bears the responsibility for begetting and raising the next generation. Spiritually, it is the bond of two souls in a lifelong commitment of complimentary service and self-sacrifice.

Same-sex unions, by their very nature, deny the fruitfulness of the sexual act and spurn sexual complementarity in favor of an insular, sterile arrangement. Spiritually, it is a vainglorious lifestyle that seeks to turn the imagery of seeking and loving the other into loving that which is a proxy for oneself.

The application of principals of the “Natural Law” philosophy is a common Catholic argument. It however leaves out in the cold ALL unions of couples who are unable to have children (including where a man and woman are infertile).

 

[fix]

The application of principals of the “Natural Law” philosophy is a common Catholic argument. It however leaves out in the cold ALL unions of couples who are unable to have children (including where a man and woman are infertile).

Why do you think that? Such couples are objectively procreative even if subjectively they are sterile.

 

[Montalban]

Why do you think that? Such couples are objectively procreative even if subjectively they are sterile.

They can’t ever procreate.

One could argue that humans are, in general ‘objectively procreative’ and therefore homosexuals, who are ‘subjectively procreative’ are covered by being within the realm of humanity, per se.

All I see is the RC Church drawing divisions along lines based on where they already believe people are doing ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

For the record, I don’t think the practice of homosexual sex is alllowable by God. What I’m objecting to is the (to me) strange notion of ‘Natural Law’ being applied here; as Catholics do with regards other areas, such as abortion (which I’m also against)

 

[fix]

They can’t ever procreate.

They may be infertile, through no fault of their own, but that does not make their acts less open to procreation. Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?

The act being procreative does not simply mean conception will happen. It is in the very nature of the act.

One could argue that humans are, in general ‘objectively procreative’ and therefore homosexuals, who are ‘subjectively procreative’ are covered by being within the realm of humanity, per se.

They may argue that but it would be illogical. Two men or two women together can never be procreative. They are not designed to be. It contradicts the natural moral law and laws of biology. We are all body and soul.

All I see is the RC Church drawing divisions along lines based on where they already believe people are doing ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

The Church transmits what has been revealed to us. Right and wrong are determined by the Creator.

For the record, I don’t think the practice of homosexual sex is alllowable by God. What I’m objecting to is the (to me) strange notion of ‘Natural Law’ being applied here; as Catholics do with regards other areas, such as abortion (which I’m also against)

Then I would ask where you think the human race gets the understanding that somethings are right and some are wrong? That is another thread.

 

[KarenNC]

Marriage is much more. Legally, it is the codification of a relationship that bears the responsibility for begetting and raising the next generation. Spiritually, it is the bond of two souls in a lifelong commitment of complimentary service and self-sacrifice.

There are many same sex couples who raise children, either their own biological children (from a previous heterosexual relationship or through artificial insemination) or by adoption. Some of these adopt children that are considered less desirable for adoption by the majority of heterosexual couples due to mixed race, age, disability, etc.

I have personally seen great levels of self-sacrifice and commitment between members of same-sex couples, just as I have in opposite-sex couples. I have also seen selfishness and self-centeredness in both. I can’t see that the same sex couple who has been committed monogamously to each other for 30 years as being in any less sacred a relationship than that of a heterosexual couple.

Could you clarify “complementary service” for me? I really can’t imagine what you might mean that an opposite sex couple could do that a same-sex couple could not in terms of service to others, for each other or the community.

**Same-sex unions, by their very nature, deny the fruitfulness of the sexual act and spurn sexual complementarity in favor of an insular, sterile arrangement. **

A couple (male/female) decide that it is not advisable for them to have children, for medical, socioeconomic, or other reasons, and avoids this by practicing NFP throughout the course of their entire marriage. They are not sterile or infertile, they have actively chosen not to procreate, but have chosen means that are within the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

The couple who marries knowing that one partner or the other is infertile, due to biological dysfunction, age, accident, etc. They choose not to or are unable to raise the next generation through adoption.

Priests, monks and nuns take vows of celibacy thus thwarting their ability to procreate.

Do you consider these also to be sterile, insular arrangements?

Spiritually, it is a vainglorious lifestyle that seeks to turn the imagery of seeking and loving the other into loving that which is a proxy for oneself

Could I have your basis for this reasoning? It is at total odds with the committed same-sex couples I know.

In my opinion, we need to strengthen the wall of separation of church and state in the area of marriage. There are two issues here–marriage as a spiritual contract under the rules of a particular religion (whatever that might be) and marriage as a legal contract enforced by secular society conferring specific legal protections and benefits on the parties involved. I see no compelling reason for the first to dictate the parameters of the second. They are two very separate issues.

I would like to see civil marriage required for the second, and let those who subscribe to the first do a religious ceremony for themselves. As I understand it this is not uncommon in Europe.

There is currently no law that compels the clergy of any religion to perform a marriage for anyone they do not choose to, whether such a marriage is legal in the eyes of the state. Catholic priests, for example, are not compelled to perform weddings for divorced people or anyone they do not consider as following the dictates of their religion. That is their right.

Conversely, there is no law forbidding clergy of any religion from providing a religious marriage ceremony for anyone they so choose, whether it follows the dictates of secular law or not. It will not carry the legal benefits in secular society that a civilly legal marriage would, but that is no bar from it carrying any religious benefits.

Religious marriage ceremonies are legally binding only if the officiating person has followed the law in becoming a representative of the state in the particular jurisdiction where the ceremony is held. Simply being clergy is not always an automatic in for that. It is possible that a Christian minister who is able to legally marry someone in one state may not be able to legally do so in another due to variation in state law or procedures.

 

[KarenNC]

They may be infertile, through no fault of their own, but that does not make their acts less open to procreation. Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?

Yes, in fact, I would, if they are specifically timing their sexual acts to minimize the chances of pregnancy. Is that not a major use of NFP? To time their acts specifically so that conception is either least or most likely to occur depending on the desire of the couple?

If a couple knows that there is no chance that the woman will conceive (due to age, hysterectomy, etc) then there is no use at all for sexual acts, as they are well aware that there is no chance that conception will be able to occur as such an occurance also contradicts the laws of biology.

If we want to go with laws of biology, why would God create humans with the type of sexual desire pattern that you claim He did if He meant sex only to be procreative? We are rather in the minority in that one according to the laws of biology.

 

[fix]

They may be infertile, through no fault of their own, but that does not make their acts less open to procreation. Would you argue a husband and wife who have sex during infertile periods on the menstrual cycle are being not open to life?

Yes, in fact, I would, if they are specifically timing their sexual acts to minimize the chances of pregnancy. Is that not a major use of NFP? To time their acts specifically so that conception is either least or most likely to occur depending on the desire of the couple?

If a couple knows that there is no chance that the woman will conceive (due to age, hysterectomy, etc) then there is no use at all for sexual acts, as they are well aware that there is no chance that conception will be able to occur as such an occurance also contradicts the laws of biology.

If we want to go with laws of biology, why would God create humans with the type of sexual desire pattern that you claim He did if He meant sex only to be procreative? We are rather in the minority in that one according to the laws of biology.

The problem is definitions. If you want to refute what the Catholic Church teaches you must understand that teaching and not replace it with your own teaching.

"every matrimonial act should be
‘intrinsically’ ordered to life, to the transmission of life, even if in
actual fact, owing to an accidental and extrinsic reason, it must remain
barren."10 A conjugal act that respects the gift of fertility, of
procreativity, is one that is intrinsically open to the transmission of
life, even if conception, as a physical event, does not take place or
cannot take place because of sterility resulting from “natural rhythms” or
age or disease. A conjugal act respectful of what Pope John Paul II calls
the “nuptial meaning” of the body and of the willing submissiveness of
sexed humanity to the gift of fertility11 is one that is “open” to the
transmission of life. There is a significant “moral” difference between a
conjugal act that is sterile because of natural rhythms, age, or disease
and one that has been deliberately “sterilized” by the free choice of the
spouses…
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/SEXSAN.TXT

I offer this link as some help. When The Church speaks of procreative
in relation to the marital act She is speaking of the moral significance, not simply a biological
issue. There is a procreative meaning to the marital embrace that should not be attacked. That does not mean there must be a likelyhood of conception to take place in every contact. That does not mean age, or time of month, or illness, attacks the procreative meaning. It does mean there is a moral, and yes physical, meaning to the act.

Same sex acts can never have that meaning. Intentionally sterile acts can never have that meaning. It takes a man and a woman without altering or frustrating any part of the act.

 

[Other_Eric]

The application of principals of the “Natural Law” philosophy is a common Catholic argument. It however leaves out in the cold ALL unions of couples who are unable to have children (including where a man and woman are infertile).

One cannot reasonably compare the example of a sterile opposite-sex couple to a same-sex couple. In the case of the opposite-sex couple, their sexual act would be fruitful but for the medical condition, which is out of their control. Their bodies aren’t functioning the way that they should. One could imagine that if there was a way to change this, that they would embrace it.

The case of a same-sex couple is completely different. Sexual activity between two members of the same sex can never be fruitful. There is no medical condition that thwarts the creation of new life, just the choice of a sexual partner with whom such fruitfulness is impossible by design. That the sterility of this relationship is entirely within the control of the two participants, their coupling is nothing more than an attempt to unmoor the sexual act from its procreative end in the same way that a glutton attempts to separate consumption from nourishment.

The bottom line is that sex is not something for mere recreation. It has a very specific purpose in both procreation and the union of the couple. Neither part of this dual purpose can stand alone by the active choice of the couple. Therein lies mortal sin.