The Marriage Bed

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaughtInWonder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Times have thankfully changed in the Catholic Church, and IME the church of 2014 actively encourages marital love between couples. In fact, it goes so far as to celebrate it. So I am not sure why you are bringing up the idea of chastity within a marriage! Perhaps you and your husband have not engaged in oral sex (which is obviously your choice, and perfectly fine), but it is not right for you to deride couples that do. Particularly since some women cannot experience sexual pleasure from intercourse alone.

I also strongly disagree with your statement that sex is not a marital duty. It absolutely is, and I personally am saddended to see all the men here who are suffering due to their wife’s sexual issues. My doctor told me to abstain for a month recently to see if it would help my health issues. It didn’t, so we resumed normal relations. However, there is absolutely no way I would ever refrain from sexual activity on a long term basis without doing everything I could to fix the issue. I would see doctors, psychologists, therapists - whatever it took in order to fix my issues. So I cannot believe these people who just let their spouses suffer, particularly since the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce (neither do I!).

I basically feel that it is cruel and heartless to deny your spouse sexual relations. It is also contrary to God’s laws on marriage. Chastity has no place in a marriage whatsoever, aside from for NFP reasons.
Conjugal chastity means that the married couple DO engage in sexual relations, with reverence for the power and the holiness of the action. Continence within marriage is the phrase which refers to abstaining from sexual relations. We are all called to chastity, each according to one’s state in life. However, conjugal chastity can and does include joy and gratitude for the sublime pleasure of the marital act. We are NOT encouraged to minimize pleasure. The pleasure is a good thing, and orgasms are good. We should not reject God’s gift of pleasure in the marital act. Christians who enjoy and seek that pleasure are NOT hedonistic.
And you are absolutely correct. There is such a thing as marital duty. Each spouse has the responsibility to engage in marital relations. The focus of each spouse to love and please the other, and to allow their spouse to love and please them in return, is the best way to see that both enjoy it and no one is used as an object or neglected.
 
It is error to think that because something is not expressly forbidden then it must necessarily be permissible. But it equally an error to think that because something is not expressly permitted then it must necessarily be forbidden. I can understand your argument against the former, but the latter is equally problematic.
I don’t think that the Church has the power to ‘permit’. God ‘permits’ through His great beneficence but the Magisterium doesn’t have that type of authority over us. We have the ten Commandments and the Church formulates prohibitions to behaviours that are contrary to human dignity and faith, but she doesn’t ‘expressly permit’ anything. She can *dispense with *an obligation like a marriage that was never valid in the first place… or some other obligation if there is a valid reason that already releases a person, but the permission to live and love is a gift of God . We appreciate that permission through our own relationship with God. We make ourselves open to Gods will through prayer, the sacraments, sacrifice and almsgiving.

So I’m certainly not suggesting that because oral and anal sexual activity are not expressly permitted by the Church, that that is what renders them forbidden. I’m saying that because our primary attitude towards the body it to orient it to the service of God, chastity moves us to avoid lustful behaviours that run contrary to nature.
It seems that Jesus was just as concerned (if not more so) with the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, and so to that extent I can understand what you’re saying. But statements such as:
This is associated with more moderate approach to our sexual communion that while enjoying the natural pleasure of the communion, does not dwell heavily in maximising sensual pleasures.
…give me the impression that, given their adoption, we are (and you’ll forgive the oxymoron, I pray) locked into a kind of spirit-of-the-law legalism, a poetic scrupulosity that has us, in the midst of a welcome passion, ask ourselves silly questions like, “am I enjoying this too much?”

It’s not a matter of asking am I enjoying this too much during the act. It’s about examining our overall disposition in regards to the sexual life. Many people who have accepted contraception into their marriage bed and awoken to its corrosive effect on marriage, have a difficult transition period of adjusting their sexual behaviour to accomodate their natural fertility rather than adusting their fertility to accomodate their sexual behaviour.

It’s the same with people suffering from same sex attraction or sexual attraction to children. Those choosing to walk the narrow road make a continual commitment to orienting their sexual behaviour to the natural ends of human sexuality rather than rewriting the ends of human sexuality to accomodate their sexual desire.

The catholic attitude is overwhelmingly in favour of orienting our sexual desires to the natural ends of human sexuality. There are many wonderful things that can be foreplay to intercourse, but simulating intercourse in unnatural ways as foreplay to natural intercourse is to disrepect the natural ends of sexuality and your spouse in the name of sexual desire.
it is unhygenic to… …engage the mouth in pursuits detrimental to its purpose.
Like kissing? Serious question.

Kissing is natural. Even animals kiss or connect affectionately face to face. How does that even compare to mouth genital intercourse?
Additionally, I believe it is a demonstration of scrupulosity to pursue lines of thought such as the suggestion that other posters are interested in coming as close to sinning as possible without actually sinning. Now I’ve seen this opinion expressed in many threads here, both sexuality related and otherwise. But it doesn’t work. Consider the example: is it the sin of theft to take a quarter from a “take a penny, leave a penny” jar, because there’s nothing that says it’s OK to take a quarter? Now imagine someone responding, “the OP only asks this because he wants to get as close to sin as possible without actually sinning.” No, the OP is asking it because he needed a quarter one time. Like, for real people, let’s get a grip. 🙂
I don’t know what a 'take a penny, leave a penny" jar is, so I don’t know the rules that are being broken or not. But we often ask ourselves these questions… ‘the shopkeeper gave me too much change. Is it a sin to keep it?’. Well technically there is nothing in the Catechism forbidding or permitting you to keep the change, but there is one right answer. We all know it. It doesn’t depend on whether we are a rich or poor person or whether we like the shopkeeper or hate him or any other ancilliary circumstances. It simply doesn’t serve honesty and keeping it will serve to erode your integrity.
 
It’s the same with people suffering from same sex attraction or sexual attraction to children. Those choosing to walk the narrow road make a continual commitment to orienting their sexual behaviour to the natural ends of human sexuality rather than rewriting the ends of human sexuality to accomodate their sexual desire.
Did you seriously compare homosexuality to paedophilia? That is extremely offensive, given that the vast majority of homosexual acts are consenting, whereas paedophilic acts are always abusive and/or rape. This type of attitude is probably part of what fed the abuse within the church. After all, if priests aligned homosexuality with paedophilia, no wonder they were able to justify their abuse of children. How anyone could compare the two is beyond me. I know two ppl who were abused by priests, and comparing these acts to consenting sex between gay people is very upsetting to me.

Then again, I am not against homosexuality. I am so glad we now have a Pope like Francis on board, as it seems he is softening the stance on homosexuality. As if God would seriously create 10% of people as gay and then leave them to suffer alone without any sexual outlet ever for the rest of their life. I personally think homosexuality was God’s smart design, a natural form of contraception without the abortive effects of the IUD or other man made contraceptive disasters.

Also, there is emerging evidence that the Catholic Church used to bless homosexual unions: rense.com/general50/cath.htm.
Kissing is natural. Even animals kiss or connect affectionately face to face. How does that even compare to mouth genital intercourse?
Animals also masturbate, and I am sure you are against that. If we are to apply animal reasoning then men should be free to mate with hundreds of females. Thankfully society frowns upon men like that! So comparing our sexual behaviour to animals is not really relevant.
 
Did you seriously compare homosexuality to paedophilia? That is extremely offensive, given that the vast majority of homosexual acts are consenting, whereas paedophilic acts are always abusive and/or rape. This type of attitude is probably part of what fed the abuse within the church. After all, if priests aligned homosexuality with paedophilia, no wonder they were able to justify their abuse of children. How anyone could compare the two is beyond me. I know two ppl who were abused by priests, and comparing these acts to consenting sex between gay people is very upsetting to me.
That was a bit out of left field. Having an attraction doesn’t make someone a criminal or a sinner. Engaging disordered desires and acting on a that attraction does. I wasn’t even talking about those acts, I was just talking about the nature of attraction.

There is great merit and spiritual advancement in resisting disordered sexual desires and all unholy desires.
Then again, I am not against homosexuality. I am so glad we now have a Pope like Francis on board, as it seems he is softening the stance on homosexuality. As if God would seriously create 10% of people as gay and then leave them to suffer alone without any sexual outlet ever for the rest of their life. I personally think homosexuality was God’s smart design, a natural form of contraception without the abortive effects of the IUD or other man made contraceptive disasters.
Also, there is emerging evidence that the Catholic Church used to bless homosexual unions: rense.com/general50/cath.htm.
CCC2357 Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Animals also masturbate, and I am sure you are against that. If we are to apply animal reasoning then men should be free to mate with hundreds of females. Thankfully society frowns upon men like that! So comparing our sexual behaviour to animals is not really relevant.
Again, that wasn’t an exercise in using animal reasoning to give a thing moral merit. It was to demonstrate its naturalness within the relationships of beasts as opposed to simulating intercourse in unnatural ways like sodomy and oral sex.
 
Also, on the Rense quote, Boswell is largely not taken seriously on that topic by modern scholarship.
 
Then again, I am not against homosexuality. I am so glad we now have a Pope like Francis on board, as it seems he is softening the stance on homosexuality. As if God would seriously create 10% of people as gay and then leave them to suffer alone without any sexual outlet ever for the rest of their life. I personally think homosexuality was God’s smart design, a natural form of contraception without the abortive effects of the IUD or other man made contraceptive disasters.
Galbin, how shall I say this charitably? You are not against homosexual activity, but the Church is and has been, and ever will be because this activity is opposed to natural law. I strongly suggest you search your heart and pray about how to align yourself with the Church’s teachings on this grave matter of sodomy. It really rattles me that you dare say that homosexuality is “God’s smart design” and a “natural form of contraception.” Seriously?!

Whatever the temptations a person has towards desiring sexual behavior with someone of the same sex, homosexuality is a disorder and objectively a grave sin. I understand you’re expressing your opinion, but it’s just that: your personal opinion that’s not aligned with Catholic morality.
 
As if God would seriously create 10% of people as gay
I think, generally, I’m somewhat sympathetic to your position, but have to call a “redirect” on the 10% figure. It’s actually around 2 to 2.5%, based on estimates.
 
The Church’s position on homosexual physical relations is clear… and her teaching has nothing to do with aesthetics and a general feeling of ickiness. It has everything to do with the right order of human sexuality towards unity and procreation at the same time. Sexuality is not to be twisted in ways that frustrate either element as they are intimately entwined with one another.

It’s the same reason that the Church opposes IVF. She does not oppose IVF “merely” because embryos are frequently discarded. She would oppose IVF even if no embryos were ever discarded at all and even if the harvesting of the sperm to meet egg were done in ways that negated the “need” for masturbation. It’s because that process strips out the physical unity element of the sexual act and makes it simply for procreation.

That’s why I always laugh at those who find the Church to be antiquated or Puritan or something and claim that She is “only in favor of sex for procreation.” Please. She understands that sexuality is ordered for both unity and procreation and that you cannot have one without the other.

And that teaching is why, again, I will take up arms against anyone who reduces that teaching to aesthetics and takes on Puritan tones… and those who think that “anything goes” between “consenting adults.”
 
Did you seriously compare homosexuality to paedophilia? That is extremely offensive, given that the vast majority of homosexual acts are consenting, whereas paedophilic acts are always abusive and/or rape. This type of attitude is probably part of what fed the abuse within the church. After all, if priests aligned homosexuality with paedophilia, no wonder they were able to justify their abuse of children. How anyone could compare the two is beyond me. I know two ppl who were abused by priests, and comparing these acts to consenting sex between gay people is very upsetting to me.

Then again, I am not against homosexuality. I am so glad we now have a Pope like Francis on board, as it seems he is softening the stance on homosexuality. As if God would seriously create 10% of people as gay and then leave them to suffer alone without any sexual outlet ever for the rest of their life. I personally think homosexuality was God’s smart design, a natural form of contraception without the abortive effects of the IUD or other man made contraceptive disasters.

Also, there is emerging evidence that the Catholic Church used to bless homosexual unions: rense.com/general50/cath.htm.

Animals also masturbate, and I am sure you are against that. If we are to apply animal reasoning then men should be free to mate with hundreds of females. Thankfully society frowns upon men like that! So comparing our sexual behaviour to animals is not really relevant.
These weren’t blessings for homosexual relations.

catholicvote.org/sergius-bacchus-and-the-myth-of-early-christian-gay-marriage/

newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1294-viscuso

The rest was being adressed by previous posters.

Read about Natural Law. Also, a Pope can’t change Natural law, nor he can change Chuch doctrine on homosexuality.
 
For information:

google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gAKAslcqLJSC0Vn0IyHb6sOuBXFg?hl=en

WARSAW (AFP) — He has been dubbed the high priest of Catholic Kama Sutra, but Polish Friar Ksawery Knotz says that by giving married couples tips on how to practice divine sex he is simply doing God’s work.

“I certainly encourage married couples to pray for a good and happy sex life – it’s a way for them to become closer to God,” the 43-year-old Roman Catholic monk told AFP.

“At first people are usually slightly shocked but at the same time happily surprised,” says Knotz, who like all Catholic clergy has taken a vow of celibacy.

Knotz has held retreats with more than 3,000 devoutly Roman Catholic couples in Poland since 2000, with the tacit blessing of church superiors … and an approving nod from secular therapists.

Couples are so eager to attend that his weekend and six-day workshops are booked solid for the next year.

“If you believe in God, then you believe God is involved in life, in love, marriage and in sex and sexuality – it seems natural to talk about sex to remove taboos and the label of sinfulness,” says the monk, who resides in a monastery of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin in Stalowa Wola, southern Poland.

The friar admits the popular teachings of the Roman Catholic church on the subject of sex have been weak – if not downright dissuasive.

“It’s been labeled taboo or sinful,” Knotz says, but is quick to point out that in keeping with the church’s teaching, he preaches only about the joys of sex restricted to marriage between a women and men.

Both his book, entitled “The Act of Marriage”, and his “Chance to Meet” website (szansaspotkania.net/), launched in 2004 and has both English and Polish versions, graphically explore the steamy details of divine love-making.

In a passage entitled the “theology of the orgasm”, Knotz likens the peak of sexual excitation to meeting God in heaven.

"Love between a married couple expressed in sex, brings the human body closer to heaven. The ecstasy in the joy of sexual intercourse can be likened to the joy of eternal life," he says giving an unusual twist to the religious notion of eternal salvation.

“This is why the conjugal act allows spouses to begin to understand the sweetness of encountering God,” Knotz concludes, and is quick to caution that “concentration on the physiological side of a sexual intercourse causes reduction of its most important elements.”

Husbands must take time to ‘fully appease’ their wives –

Knotz also insists “good, open communication between spouses” is the best technique to achieve orgasms of heavenly proportions.

And he does not neglect women – in strongly Catholic and conservative Poland where a Women’s Party founded last year said the country’s real political problem was not corruption or the legacy of communism but… male chauvinism.

He encourages husbands to take their time to** “fully appease” their wives.**

"When a woman is excited, she wants to experience absolute pleasure as much as a man does," the monk’s website says. "The feeling of sexual dissatisfaction, for a woman who is already excited, is a great physical and psychological suffering."

Though his teachings do not skimp on spicy details, detractors argue that as a celibate man of the cloth he lacks the hands-on experience to speak credibly about sex.

“I look at it this way: you don’t have to have a heart condition to be a cardiologist and you don’t have to be an alcoholic to work as a therapist,” he says unfazed.

The monk explains he was originally inspired by the open atmosphere of his family home and the early teachings of late Polish-born Pope John Paul II who broached the subject of sexuality in his book “Love and Responsibility”, first published in 1960.

“The Holy Father’s ‘theology of the body’ and other philosophical and theological works delve deeply into the divinity of sexual relations in marriage – I’m just making these complex ideas more accessible to average Catholics,” he says.

Kasia and Jan Paluszewski are true believers. Married for 18 years the parents of three children aged 16, 13 and three, they say Friar Knotz’s teachings have “uplifted” and “enlightened” their sex life and spirituality.

“The workshops with Father Knotz really helped us to overcome our inhibitions and guilt regarding sex,” Jan, a 46-year-old IT specialist from Poland’s north-western Kujawsko-Pomorskie region told AFP. “He really listens to couples and this is why I think he understands us so well.”

Psychotherapist Marek Ruzdziewicz says conventional sex therapy does not address or really consider spiritual aspects of sex.

“I never heard of it before meeting Father Ksawery,” he told AFP. “It’s a novel approach which in my experience helps couples achieve greater intimacy – so why not?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top