Sexual play within marriage

[johnnyjoe]

While it is not a sin to abstain, it is silly to claim that the couple is open to life while they are doing their best to avoid it. Open to life means to me, I am just going to do it when the mood strikes and let the chips fall where they may.

But it is not the ONLY way to be “open to life”. In my circles, we call that attitude “providentialism”, and it is a virtue, to be sure, but it begs a question. That is, that virtue comes with a responsibility to be able to provide for the children a couple currently has - spiritually, emotionally, and financially.

Does a couple have to be “rich” to be providenitalists?

Of course not, for poverty was Christ’s choice as well, but Joseph was not destitute. He was gainfully employed, and knew a “trade” if you will, as he raised his Son. When Christ came of age and made His own way in the world, He chose extreme poverty - AS A DISCIPLINE. He had the skills of a carpenter, but chose to remain completely disposed to the Will of the Father - working as a traveling preacher, depending on the gifts of those to whom He preached to sustain Him physically.

As a parent, you don’t “have” children, they are gifts entrusted into your care, and Christian Prudence must be exercised to ensure their proper rearing.

Sometimes that may entail abstaining from relations - a denial of self interest - for the greater good of providing for the children you have.

 

[Lee44]

don’t do it, just remember the Pope is always watching.

 

[Kendy]

I don’t understand what your reply has to do with the statement of mine that you quoted. I’m not being combatitive. I sincerely don’t see the connection.

It’s not that important.

 

[johnnyjoe]

First of all, I am sorry about your condition. Second, I am not trying to imply that you are sinning by using NFP. But I think the church, perhaps, needs another here because you cannot be said to be open to life when you are trying to avoid pregnancy. You may closed to unnatural means of contraception, as you should be, but you are not really open to open to life, i.e., having more children.

I think the reason why people struggle with this is that it crosses them as double-speak.

I think my earlier post addresses this some, but let me speak to this post specifically.

When a couple uses NFP, they are only tracking information, and timing relations to “avoid” pregnancy, not “circumvent”. You may think this a distinction without a difference, but you have lumped to different issues together.

The first is whether or not they should hope for a pregnancy, and the second is how they should not get pregnant.

Humanae Vitae speaks directly to the issues all parents must face as they consider whether it is PRUDENT to have more children - the big “SHOULD WE?” that is the very core of being married. The question of HOW we should avoid becoming pregnant is addressed by the Church’s prohibition of contraception. The Church really is very simple…if you don’t think you should have any more kids right now, don’t have sex. If you want to have sex some of the time, you can have Recourse to Infecund Periods to have marital relations.

 

[Kendy]

It is only double-speak if a person insists on using his own private definition of “open to life” rather than using the Church’s definition.

I love the church, but she doesn’t get to change the English language.

 

[Kendy]

I think my earlier post addresses this some, but let me speak to this post specifically.

When a couple uses NFP, they are only tracking information, and timing relations to “avoid” pregnancy, not “circumvent”. You may think this a distinction without a difference, but you have lumped to different issues together.

The first is whether or not they should hope for a pregnancy, and the second is how they should not get pregnant.

Humanae Vitae speaks directly to the issues all parents must face as they consider whether it is PRUDENT to have more children - the big “SHOULD WE?” that is the very core of being married. The question of HOW we should avoid becoming pregnant is addressed by the Church’s prohibition of contraception. The Church really is very simple…if you don’t think you should have any more kids right now, don’t have sex. If you want to have sex some of the time, you can have Recourse to Infecund Periods to have marital relations.

Let me be more clear, I don’t have a problem with NFP. I just think the terminology is misleading. Perhaps, something like every marital act must not include any unnatural means of contraception is more accurate. It seems to me that “openness to life” is a state of the mind. Thus, someone could be using no natural method and not really be open to life.

Kendy

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

I love the church, but she doesn’t get to change the English language.

But we are not talking about a casual conversation. We are talking about theological definitions, and the Church gets to set the definitions.

I understand saying, “I wish the Church used different words to express this idea.”

I do not understand saying, “This person is not open to life,” when the Church says he is.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Let me be more clear, I don’t have a problem with NFP. I just think the terminology is misleading. Perhaps, something like every marital act must not include any unnatural means of contraception is more accurate. It seems to me that “openness to life” is a state of the mind. Thus, someone could be using no natural method and not really be open to life.

Kendy

Indeed, “openness to life” is very much a state of mind - of mind, and heart and soul. One can be using “natural” means to avoid pregnancy and not be “open to life”. That possibility does not mean that the reverse is also possible - that is, that one can be “open to life” and be using contraception. That indeed is the great contradiction of our culture.

Contraception is a DELIBERATE act to have sex “free” of the “worry” of pregnancy. Just because a couple stops using contraception to “get pregnant” doesn’t mean they were “open to life” before, while they were using contraception.

When one is using “natural” means to avoid pregnancy - even when one is not “open to life” - one is still obeying the natural process - and respecting the fact that sex includes the risk of getting pregnant.

 

[siamesecat]

I understand that the vast majority of the time a couple is not fertile. That honestly is one of my issues with NFP. Women are their spouses are being taught to know when they are fertile /infertile. So I honestly feel like when they’re avoiding sex during fertile periods and having it during infertile periods, they are just deluding themselves. Because even though they are physically creating a situation during the infertile times where there is a slight chance that the women could ovulate, if the women is really tracking and charting everything she knows when it’s not going to be possible at. So really they aren’t “open” to procreation. Sure maybe physically there is a miniscule chance of conception, but the couple are mentally and emotionaly doing everything they can to prevent it, which means they are not really “open.”

They’re having sex with intention of avoiding conception. They are having sex, they are not attempting procreation in any way. If it happens its simply a accident. Sure they may be fine with that, but they still didn’t want it and were trying to avoid it.

I agree. I understand the teaching of NFP and the logic behind it, and I do believe that if used properly, it’s probably better for the marriage. But if people aren’t looking at it as emotionally open to life and instead they’re just trying to get as close to artificial birth control as possible, that takes away the real unitive aspect of NFP.

 

[leonie]

It might help if one considers that **every act of marital intimacy that occurs must be open to life. **

It’s not a general attitude, but the actual act that must be open to life.

It’s like when the Priest does consecration. That consecration has to follow certain guidelines to be valid. If he doesn’t say Mass, then there is no consecration to be evaluated for validness.

Each marital act must be open to life. If there is no marital act, then there is no act to be evaluated for openess to life.

a Priest can do an invalid Mass, but if he doesn’t do Mass–no harm, no foul. A couple can have sex open to life or not open to life. But, if they don’t have sex, then…

see? I hope.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

It might help if one considers that **every act of marital intimacy that occurs must be open to life. **

It’s not a general attitude, but the actual act that must be open to life.

It’s like when the Priest does consecration. That consecration has to follow certain guidelines to be valid. If he doesn’t say Mass, then there is no consecration to be evaluated for validness.

Each marital act must be open to life. If there is no marital act, then there is no act to be evaluated for openess to life.

a Priest can do an invalid Mass, but if he doesn’t do Mass–no harm, no foul. A couple can have sex open to life or not open to life. But, if they don’t have sex, then…

see? I hope.

Very well said!

 

[Jay2]

Geezzzz

A question about a couple wanting to play a little game of “grab *ss & tickle” turns into 4 pages of quotations of doctrine! Get Over It!

My wife & are on the uphill to 50 years old. We’ve been married 18 of those. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ll grab a handful when it walks by!.. I’m still an adolescent teenager with my girlfriend!
She’s now my wife, and mother to my kids, but she’s still my teenage sweetie too! I’ve got a great looking gal walkin’ around and I can give her a squeeze without getting smacked?? I’ll do it in a heartbeat!

Prelude to intercourse? Maybe - if we’re lucky
Prelude to another child? Maybe - if we’re lucky
Another “Geez would you quit squeezing me!” Admonition - Usually
Daily reminder that we’re still kids in love, crave our physical relationship, and can “gross out our children at will” by kissing/hugging eachother in the kitchen? - Oh Yeah!

 

[rayne89]

Geezzzz

A question about a couple wanting to play a little game of “grab *ss & tickle” turns into 4 pages of quotations of doctrine! Get Over It!

My wife & are on the uphill to 50 years old. We’ve been married 18 of those. I’m not ashamed to admit that I’ll grab a handful when it walks by!.. I’m still an adolescent teenager with my girlfriend!
She’s now my wife, and mother to my kids, but she’s still my teenage sweetie too! I’ve got a great looking gal walkin’ around and I can give her a squeeze without getting smacked?? I’ll do it in a heartbeat!

Prelude to intercourse? Maybe - if we’re lucky
Annoying “Geez would you quit squeezing me!” Mostly
Daily reminder that we’re still kids in love, crave our physical relationship, and can “gross out our children at will” by kissing/hugging in the kitchen? - Oh Yeah!

Thankyou! My thoughts exactly.

 

[Jay2]

I’m disappointed… more than 3 hours have gone by and no reference to verse/chapter as to why a married couple can’t enjoy themselves “fooling around”. Come on!

Married couples are BONDED. Not with glue or adhesive, but with a substance that is indefinitive.

We’ve got about 5 more years where conception is physically possible - after this menopause sets in - and the conception of new life is worldly & physically improbable. My wife can’t do it, her store is closed, but I may be able too… there’s still “lead in my pencil”, but nowhere to write.

Are we supposed to curtail “grab-*ss” and “teenage” behaviour? I sincerely hope not!
We’re married… Sex is FUN… We’ve conceived kids… we want to return them!.. but can’t!

We’re waiting for them to leave home… so we can chase eachother around the house naked again… with our walkers!

(Why is it that no-one gets their knickers twisted when old folks kiss & have sex??

There’s a time & place for actions - within the rules of the “Big 10”…No need to disect them into the “fine print” that doesn’t exist…

 

[fix]

I love the church, but she doesn’t get to change the English language.

She is not changing any language. She uses it with precision and is speaking about theological issues, not simply biologic uses.

 

[fix]

(Why is it that no-one gets their knickers twisted when old folks kiss & have sex??

There’s a time & place for actions - within the rules of the “Big 10”…No need to disect them into the “fine print” that doesn’t exist…

When the act is unaltered it is objectively procreative even if subjectively infertile due to age, or time of month, or disease, ect.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

If I enjoy a sunset am I sinning? The sun does not set for my enjoyment but so that the other side of the planet can have day light. The moment I enjoy a nice sunset I sin.

If I enjoy a good pizza am I sinning? The pizza is food and food is only meant for my survival, therefore I am wrong to enjoy it. Food is for survival, not for enjoyment. So am I sinning?

If I enjoy playing ball with my kid am I sinning? The purpose of having kids is to raise them up in the faith and bring more souls to heaven; not to play ball with them. So am I sinning? Having kids is for the advancement of the human race, not for enjoyment.

I think you can see where I’m going here. Where I’m going is this anti-sex, anti-pleasure, holier than thou mentality is bull. God is not against married people ENJOYING each other, whether or not the wife ends up pregnant. I thank God that my wife and I are going to enjoy each other, even if she doesn’t get pregnant. And it’s none of anyone’s business but she may not be able to have kids.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Excuse me if someone has already asked this, but isn’t anal sex sodomy? Even between a husband and a wife? I cannot fathom how anyone can claim it’s not a sin as long as it leads to vaginal intercourse (that is very unhealthy, too!). Please explain how anal sex is not sodomy and thus not a sin.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Excuse me if someone has already asked this, but isn’t anal sex sodomy? Even between a husband and a wife? I cannot fathom how anyone can claim it’s not a sin as long as it leads to vaginal intercourse (that is very unhealthy, too!). Please explain how anal sex is not sodomy and thus not a sin.

I can’t help you – someone would have to explain it to me, too.

 

[jwoodsome]

I would answer this with what Jason Evert would say to any single young adult; we should not be asking ‘how far is too far.’ If you really love your spouse you will find better ways to show your affection than by teasing him/her and bringing up some desires for intercourse even if neither of you intend to have it. It still plays with emotions and cheapens these acts from their proper place of leading to intercourse that is meant to procreate. This is a Holy act, not a game.