Sexual play within marriage

[Lee44]

every sperm is sacred every sperm is good every sperm is needed in your neighborhood, let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground, GOD will make them pay for each sperm that can’t be found.

 

[MilesXpisti]

every sperm is sacred every sperm is good every sperm is needed in your neighborhood, let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground, GOD will make them pay for each sperm that can’t be found.

Heh…I really enjoyed that movie when I was younger, but when I converted, it just annoyed me. Now the Camelot number from Holy Grail? Classic.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Anybody know the text from the catechism which addresses this issue.

I know setter will come through for me on this one.

Ah, but why would you follow the catechism on this but not on the proper use of sex?

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Heh…I really enjoyed that movie when I was younger, but when I converted, it just annoyed me. Now the Camelot number from Holy Grail? Classic.

Same here. Life of Brian still holds up for me though. The only line I don’t like in it is, “You don’t need to follow anybody, you’ve all got to figure it out for yourselves.” God forbid!

(Bet you like that line, Kendy! )

Off topic – you may have noticed that I’m smiley obsessed. It’s a recent craze with me. Are we allowed to use other smilies or just the ones provided?

 

[johnnyjoe]

How important is the doctrine we’ve been debating? As well to ask me to choose from among the stars. No single doctrine taught by the Church can be discarded, no matter what the situation. You either believe or you don’t. And to disbelieve one doctrine is to disbelieve all, because then infallibility means nothing.

Careful Miles.

“Disbelieve” is a standard that requires a MORTAL rejection of a teaching. The definition heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. “Disbelief” is a bit mushy…something not heretical, and not fully assent either. The Church most certainly allows some “maturation” on the matters that the believer is coming to understand more slowly than others.

The Church is Merciful, Patient, and CHARITABLE first - then the infallibility has some authenticity.

 

[st_ignatius110]

That’s pushing it. Afterall, what if they just didn’t have sex that night? I think God would figured out how to get Isaac born.

Again, my only point is that obedience to God comes first. I fully realize Isaac could have been conceived the next night or the next or the next…the only issue is obedience.

 

[Kendy]

Ah, but why would you follow the catechism on this but not on the proper use of sex?

I was asking about sex.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I was asking about sex.

I guess that’s my mistake. Your request came in a post in which you quoted my statement on obedience, not a statement on sex – so I assumed you wanted to know what the catechism said about obedience since sex was not mentioned in the post. Sorry I misunderstood.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Anybody know the text from the catechism which addresses this issue.

I know setter will come through for me on this one.

Catechism Paragraph #2366:

Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which “is on the side of life” (FC 30) teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” (HV 11) “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii)

 

[fix]

Careful Miles.

“Disbelieve” is a standard that requires a MORTAL rejection of a teaching. The definition heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same. “Disbelief” is a bit mushy…something not heretical, and not fully assent either. The Church most certainly allows some “maturation” on the matters that the believer is coming to understand more slowly than others.

The Church is Merciful, Patient, and CHARITABLE first - then the infallibility has some authenticity.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

 

[Daniel_Kane]

One of the problems when it comes to sex, marriage, children, etc. is that we tend to see things from our limited vision of at most a few decades of experience to at worse a few years. This defective vision is often further corrupted by multiple sex partners and a near life long history of contraception. With so many half-hearted “total gifts of self” prior to marriage, it makes an actual total gift of self within marriage difficult to impossible once one finally decides to get married. One confuses fornication with total gift of self since fornication is all one knows and it “looks” the same…

This is the norm, with a recent poll stating 90% of adults experiencing pre-martial sex. This coupled with a rather morally bankrupt society that provides for anything two adults consent to as being acceptable and good, further influences us and perpetuates the confusion.

The Church has 2000 years of experience in marriage and even if the issue does not involve sin, but merely consists of suggestion, prudence would suggest that the recommendation of the oldest institution in the history of the world be followed. God, through His Church, has communicated that the acts unique to the Sacrament of Marriage have a certain “form”; this has been transmitted down through the centuries largely unchanged. This form includes respect for the unitative and procreative aspect, disdains artificial contraception and requires a completed marital act (which is a sacramental act reserved only to the married) to include the exchange of fluid in such a manner that conception may occur. It does not offer exemptions to the married because of age, presence or absence of fertility, pregnancy etc. Deviate from this form and you risk harm to self or the relationship (minimally) or sin gravely.

This sin, like most comes from pride, the dominant defect of western culture. We of course, know more about marriage than the institution that invented it!

The separation of the procreative from the unitative aspect of marriage is a leading (but by no means the only) cause of the objectification of women. To the extent one choose to separate these two aspects, one contributes to the corporate and personal loss of morality and it does trickle down to the young and goes across the street to the neighbors as all sin darkens the intellect and makes you its slave. Sexual sin is the grand slave master of the era. This sin, is so attractive that those who fall prey (and most if not all do) call their slavery to it freedom, which is the ultimate lie.

 

[leonie]

One of the problems when it comes to sex, marriage, children, etc. is that we tend to see things from our limited vision of at most a few decades of experience to at worse a few years. This defective vision is often further corrupted by multiple sex partners and a near life long history of contraception. With so many half-hearted “total gifts of self” prior to marriage, it makes an actual total gift of self within marriage difficult to impossible once one finally decides to get married. One confuses fornication with total gift of self since fornication is all one knows and it “looks” the same…

This is the norm, with a recent poll stating 90% of adults experiencing pre-martial sex. This coupled with a rather morally bankrupt society that provides for anything two adults consent to as being acceptable and good, further influences us and perpetuates the confusion.

The Church has 2000 years of experience in marriage and even if the issue does not involve sin, but merely consists of suggestion, prudence would suggest that the recommendation of the oldest institution in the history of the world be followed. God, through His Church, has communicated that the acts unique to the Sacrament of Marriage have a certain “form”; this has been transmitted down through the centuries largely unchanged. This form includes respect for the unitative and procreative aspect, disdains artificial contraception and requires a completed marital act (which is a sacramental act reserved only to the married) to include the exchange of fluid in such a manner that conception may occur. It does not offer exemptions to the married because of age, presence or absence of fertility, pregnancy etc. Deviate from this form and you risk harm to self or the relationship (minimally) or sin gravely.

This sin, like most comes from pride, the dominant defect of western culture. We of course, know more about marriage than the institution that invented it!

The separation of the procreative from the unitative aspect of marriage is a leading (but by no means the only) cause of the objectification of women. To the extent one choose to separate these two aspects, one contributes to the corporate and personal loss of morality and it does trickle down to the young and goes across the street to the neighbors as all sin darkens the intellect and makes you its slave. Sexual sin is the grand slave master of the era. This sin, is so attractive that those who fall prey (and most if not all do) call their slavery to it freedom, which is the ultimate lie.

Good post, Mr. Kane.

 

[Kendy]

Catechism Paragraph #2366:

Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which “is on the side of life” (FC 30) teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” (HV 11) “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii)

This only says that each act of intercourse must be open to life, which I agree with. It doesn’t say that all physical contact between spouses has to include intercourse. Not nitpicking. I just don’t see it in the text.

 

[Kendy]

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

So, which of these am I suffering from?

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

This only says that each act of intercourse must be open to life, which I agree with. It doesn’t say that all physical contact between spouses has to include intercourse. Not nitpicking. I just don’t see it in the text.

Isn’t “physical contact” (in the context in which you’ve been using it) a marriage act? It seems you are equating “marriage act” with intercourse, but that is not what the passage says.

 

[Kendy]

Isn’t “physical contact” (in the context in which you’ve been using it) a marriage act? It seems you are equating “marriage act” with intercourse, but that is not what the passage says.

I think the passage is not at all clear about this and I always thought the “marital act” meant intercourse. If it doesn’t, this passage could very well mean that any type of arousing touching between spouses could be considered the marital act.

Kendy

 

[countertenor]

My issue has been with the prohibition against HER orgasm during “off” nights.

It is my understanding that a woman may climax just about any way possible and as often as possible specifically because her climax is not directly related to procreation
.

This may seem like a strang comment but since this had to do with the whole senario about dealing with them man having to ejaculations, what if the first time was only an orgasm without ejaculation. Personally I’m able to orgasm without ejaculation. For that matter many times I ejaculate without having an orgasm. The two are not necessarily linked for me. So when that’s the case could not the same thing be said that it is okay for the man to reach orgasm without ejaculation.

For that matter I’d like to know what a man is supposed to do when he’s not able to ejaculate. So much of these discussions revolve around where the man ejaculates, and whether or not the foreplay or oral, leads up to the man ejaculating “inside” to the point that it begins to seem wrong if the man can’t ejaculate. There have been times with my wife that we’ve worn each other out because I just could ejaculate, because so many people say the man has to ejaculate if he has sex. So am I sinning when I’m able to have an orgasm but can’t ejaculate? If not, then is it possible that maybe sex between a husband and wife doesn’t just revolve around whether or no the husband ejaculates “inside” her?

 

[countertenor]

Catechism Paragraph #2366:

Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which “is on the side of life” (FC 30) teaches that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life.” (HV 11) “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” (HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii)

Where does that leave a couple where either the husband has had to have his tesicles removed for some reason, or where the wife had to have her uterus or ovaries removed? Are they not allowed to have sex, because it’s not possible that it would be open to life?

 

[Kendy]

This may seem like a strang comment but since this had to do with the whole senario about dealing with them man having to ejaculations, what if the first time was only an orgasm without ejaculation. Personally I’m able to orgasm without ejaculation. For that matter many times I ejaculate without having an orgasm. The two are not necessarily linked for me. So when that’s the case could not the same thing be said that it is okay for the man to reach orgasm without ejaculation.

For that matter I’d like to know what a man is supposed to do when he’s not able to ejaculate. So much of these discussions revolve around where the man ejaculates, and whether or not the foreplay or oral, leads up to the man ejaculating “inside” to the point that it begins to seem wrong if the man can’t ejaculate. There have been times with my wife that we’ve worn each other out because I just could ejaculate, because so many people say the man has to ejaculate if he has sex. So am I sinning when I’m able to have an orgasm but can’t ejaculate? If not, then is it possible that maybe sex between a husband and wife doesn’t just revolve around whether or no the husband ejaculates “inside” her?

Oh, boy.

 

[countertenor]

This may seem like a strang comment but since this had to do with the whole senario about dealing with them man having to ejaculations, what if the first time was only an orgasm without ejaculation. Personally I’m able to orgasm without ejaculation. For that matter many times I ejaculate without having an orgasm. The two are not necessarily linked for me. So when that’s the case could not the same thing be said that it is okay for the man to reach orgasm without ejaculation.

For that matter I’d like to know what a man is supposed to do when he’s not able to ejaculate. So much of these discussions revolve around where the man ejaculates, and whether or not the foreplay or oral, leads up to the man ejaculating “inside” to the point that it begins to seem wrong if the man can’t ejaculate. There have been times with my wife that we’ve worn each other out because I just could ejaculate, because so many people say the man has to ejaculate if he has sex. So am I sinning when I’m able to have an orgasm but can’t ejaculate? If not, then is it possible that maybe sex between a husband and wife doesn’t just revolve around whether or no the husband ejaculates “inside” her?

That was supposed to read, “…that we’ve worn each other out because I just could not ejaculate…”