The unitive purpose of sex

[Nate13]

… and if NFP is not an option due to medical reasons then what?

Let me guess, let’s take away the unitive part of sex from a married couple as well.
Good luck to you in sharing bed with your spouse that you love without sex.

Explain the medical problems that would arise that would prevent NFP from being used effectively, but would not prevent intercourse? The only way a person would be unable to use NFP is if temperature readings, mucus readings, and cervix positioning were all impossible to get consistent readings from that reflected the woman’s current fertility state. I do not know of any conditions that would prevent all of these readings from being applicable, especially cervix position, without also being a condition that would render intercourse impossible. The quote you posted by the way is explaining the reasonable circumstances by which a couple may resolve to use NFP to morally avoid having a child at that time.

Now lets assume this is true and intercourse is not possible. Your now claiming foul since a couple is denied the unitive aspect of sex. I have to ask you though, how “unitive” is non-intercourse sex? Is it not a shadow of the real thing? How is having morally decrepit sex a solution to fixing the real, and sad problem of a couple not being able to express their love through intercourse? This seems like similar reasoning to the argument that rape victims should be able to have abortions. One horrible thing happens to the woman that is not her fault, and we propose to fix it by doing another horrible thing to her and her baby.

 

[Nate13]

Mary_Gail,
Nate,
I did not say that a woman cannot have intercourse without a climax. I said that her climax increases her lubrication and thus seems to be aimed at helping intercourse. Her climax however is less essential.

I believe its pretty standard to attribute lubrication to state of arousal. Some women actually have decreased sexual arousal after climax so your statement is not generally true. It would be true in the cases where climax results in increased sexual arousal.

Also, I was thinking about your situation more and it seems to me that if every reasonable attempt was made to have normal intercourse, you could still have the male achieve climax while still keeping within what the Church teaches. Avoiding getting graphic, if you were both in the right position, but at a point where that is as good as it gets because of physical barriers out of your control you would be full-filling the Church’s teaching to the bets of your ability and in full faith. This is just a thought of course and its really hard to say because it depends on the specific circumstances surrounding your situation. It appears from some quick research though that vaginismus does not necessarily prevent pregnancy.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Nate13:
Is it necessary for the woman to reach orgasm every time she has sex?
Before getting married, I thought Yes.
Now, I think No.

 

[searching04]

Mary_Gail,

According to my embryology notes, fertilization on average occurs 72 hours after intercourse. It has occurred in rare cases as late as 6 days after intercourse. The process I was referring to has nothing to do with the sperm getting to where they are going.

You are offending me by denying the existence and simplifying the problem of sexual difficulties couples can have. You are also combining my initial problem of vaginismus (which was MORE than vaginal pain) with our current problem of delayed ejaculation (which causes the man to last beyond the point of female tolerance of any woman). You are also failing to comprehend my point not allowing the man to climax outside of the woman puts extreme psychological pressures on an already difficult situation and exacerbates the problem. You’re simplification that simply quitting and coming back another day so that it will work completely ignores the reality of the problem.

Moreover the According to the Pope Paul IV Institute, includes the use of perforated condoms in their list of Reproductive Technologies that agree with Church teaching: catholicinfertility.org/guidelines.html

Nate,

I did not say that a woman cannot have intercourse without a climax. I said that her climax increases her lubrication and thus seems to be aimed at helping intercourse. Her climax however is less essential.

Searching04,

The Church is not as stubborn as you think it is. While there is no way that the Church is going to permit any couple from using manual stimulation as a form of birth control (which is what you are relying upon for birth control if you’re doing that during your fertile time), the Church is not as annalistic about complicated moral problems as people make it to seem. Indeed not all situations are black and white, but when it comes to Church teaching the Church’s primary job is to teach the basics. It is not there to address morally complicated situations officially because that has the tendency to open a can of worms. I would suggest you read the sections of the Catechism on the formation of conscience and the nature of sin.

But this is exactly what posters here say, and what is stated as church position: that the teachings are absolute and if it causes problems, then so be it. However, what you post above is one of the points I’ve made before - the church throws out a teaching, says “here you go, deal with it”, and that’s it. If the church is going to lay down dictates as it does, then it should absolutely address the morally complicated questions and situations. We are told as Catholics to follow the church without question, yet you say the church isn’t the place to go for that? So the church is not going to address issues because it opens the can of worms? You make my point: couples do indeed need to be able to make their own decisions and without being told they are going to hell.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Twoangels, I in no way meant to be offensive.

Again, please speak to an actual person who would be knowlegeable.

As for the perforated condom, I showed it was a licit means, not sure why you put the Pope Paul link.

I’m not sure why you opened a thread and asked “Am I Wrong” if you are so sure you are correct.

BTW as for sexual dysfunction, I am somewhat knowledgeable. I’m an abuse survivor, and with my past, I shouldn’t really even like men.

I’m unsubscribing.

 

[searching04]

Explain the medical problems that would arise that would prevent NFP from being used effectively, but would not prevent intercourse? The only way a person would be unable to use NFP is if temperature readings, mucus readings, and cervix positioning were all impossible to get consistent readings from that reflected the woman’s current fertility state. I do not know of any conditions that would prevent all of these readings from being applicable, especially cervix position, without also being a condition that would render intercourse impossible. The quote you posted by the way is explaining the reasonable circumstances by which a couple may resolve to use NFP to morally avoid having a child at that time.

Now lets assume this is true and intercourse is not possible. Your now claiming foul since a couple is denied the unitive aspect of sex. I have to ask you though, how “unitive” is non-intercourse sex? Is it not a shadow of the real thing? How is having morally decrepit sex a solution to fixing the real, and sad problem of a couple not being able to express their love through intercourse? This seems like similar reasoning to the argument that rape victims should be able to have abortions. One horrible thing happens to the woman that is not her fault, and we propose to fix it by doing another horrible thing to her and her baby.

You are presumptive. Got news for you - non-intercourse sex, when intercourse is not an option, is extremely loving and unitive, no it is not a shadow of the real thing (whatever that is supposed to mean), and who are you to say it is morally decrepit if it is all a couple has? Oh, I know, it isn’t you, it is the church. But it goes to the point I made in a previous post - rules are thrown out there and couples are told to deal with it, because the church isn’t going to get into the complicated issues because it opens pandora’s box.

Your analogy is so far off the mark, it is nuts. Non-intercourse sex is equatable to rape and abortion? A couple expressing their love for each other is like rape and abortion? So let’s take it a step further - if the rapist loved his victim, then rape is OK? Yep, tha’s about as good of an analogy as yours.

As for your other comments, are you a doctor, medical professional, NFP “expert”?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Explain the medical problems that would arise that would prevent NFP from being used effectively, but would not prevent intercourse? The only way a person would be unable to use NFP is if temperature readings, mucus readings, and cervix positioning were all impossible to get consistent readings from that reflected the woman’s current fertility state. I do not know of any conditions that would prevent all of these readings from being applicable, especially cervix position, without also being a condition that would render intercourse impossible. The quote you posted by the way is explaining the reasonable circumstances by which a couple may resolve to use NFP to morally avoid having a child at that time.

Now lets assume this is true and intercourse is not possible. Your now claiming foul since a couple is denied the unitive aspect of sex. ** I have to ask you though, how “unitive” is non-intercourse sex?** Is it not a shadow of the real thing? How is having morally decrepit sex a solution to fixing the real, and sad problem of a couple not being able to express their love through intercourse? This seems like similar reasoning to the argument that rape victims should be able to have abortions. One horrible thing happens to the woman that is not her fault, and we propose to fix it by doing another horrible thing to her and her baby.

Big time my friend, big time.
That is a fact that many people can confirm.

 

[searching04]

Big time my friend, big time.
That is a fact that many people can confirm.

Well, Halleluiah! Someone else out there who agrees with me!

 

[Nate13]

Well, Halleluiah! Someone else out there who agrees with me!

haha I didn’t ask because I didn’t know. I have not led a perfect lifestyle in the past, and in my opinion its a shadow. Also please note I’m talking about “unitive” not “pleasurable”. Pleasure is part of it being unitive obviously, but if you just rate unitive by how much you pleasure both parties felt we are not talking about the same thing. Obviously my opinion doesn’t mean that applies to everyone, but I guess you now have some understanding as to why I feel as I do

Also, please go back and see I was referring to the reasoning used by those who favor abortions for rape victims not the actual events. You can get all up in a knot about that if you want but in no way do I equate rape with anything we are talking about. The line of reasoning that was being used was all I was trying to pull out. A bad thing happens out of our control, so lets fix it with another bad thing in our control.

 

[sw85]

For Heaven’s sake…

Folks, what do you think it means when we say “God is love”?

Do you think it means “God is goopy sentimentalism and spousal affection”?

No, that’s nonsense – God is a spiritual being, and emotions are a physiological reaction; so God is not (purely or even primarily) an emotional entity.

The “love” of which the Church is speaks is NOT mere affection (the affection of husband for wife or mother for child) but the ordering of the will toward the good of another – the love of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade, giving up his life to save the lives of his squadmates – much as Christ did for us at Calvary.

So an act may make you FEEL love and may even make you FEEL closer to your partner – but still be fundamentally contrary to the love TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED as Christians and fundamentally contrary to the unity TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED through the sacrament of marriage, a unity which mirrors the total and complete and uninhibited self-giving of the Trinity.

To LOVE another is to seek out their good – EVEN AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.

So tell me what is GOOD about inducing another person to mortal sin so that you don’t have to feel the discomfort of self-denial?

(For that matter, maybe you can point out the part of the Bible wherein Jesus says, “Follow me, dude, it’s like totally easy, you won’t have to suffer at all!”)

You literally CANNOT rationalize contraception in any way without perverting the language the Church uses to speak of God and the sacraments.

Such contraceptive acts are ALWAYS necessarily LESS than acts of full self-giving – and as such are ALWAYS contaminated by the infernal spirit of calculation which seeks only to gratify its obscene lusts, NO MATTER how loving or close they make you FEEL.

Because this is not a FEELING religion. You want solipsism, be a Buddhist.

Now one can hardly be blamed for failing to recognize the corruption of language endemic to the modern age. It is for that reason, after all, that we are called to assent to the teachings of the Church, whatever our personal reservations may be – for she alone has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s constant protection from error.

You CAN be blamed for rejecting that authority and acting contrary to it, a vile affront to Christ’s bride and thereby to Christ Himself.

And if you presume to continue taking communion while rejecting that authority and living a life of unrepentant mortal sin, you are only compounding that sin with perjury and desecration.

And you will almost certainly be required to answer for THAT offense when you stand before Christ for judgment.

 

[twoangels]

Explain the medical problems that would arise that would prevent NFP from being used effectively, but would not prevent intercourse? The only way a person would be unable to use NFP is if temperature readings, mucus readings, and cervix positioning were all impossible to get consistent readings from that reflected the woman’s current fertility state. I do not know of any conditions that would prevent all of these readings from being applicable, especially cervix position, without also being a condition that would render intercourse impossible. The quote you posted by the way is explaining the reasonable circumstances by which a couple may resolve to use NFP to morally avoid having a child at that time.

Polyovarian cysts and other diseases that cause there to be the presense of mucus constantly. Creighton has instructions on on using yellow stamps once a condition has been identified. However other things like using NFP when you’re breastfeeding but are past 6 months, are not able to rely on ecological breastfeeding because you have to work. Its an amazingly confusing time. I’ve bleed twice so far for a period of days and still have no clue whether to count that as a period or not. It was light and the supposed peak day makes no sense…especially when the peak day occured 5 days prior to the bleeding.

Of course the effectiveness of NFP stays high because “When in doubt, assume you’re fertile.”

NFP has a 99% method effectiveness. That means perfect usage and that perfect usage with an irregular cycle can be hard on a marriage.

I’m not saying I think couples should use contraceptives. I just saying that denying how complex a situation can get is not helpful.

Now lets assume this is true and intercourse is not possible.

This had nothing to do with NFP, but this was the case my husband and I were in for the first two months of our marriage.

Your now claiming foul since a couple is denied the unitive aspect of sex. I have to ask you though, how “unitive” is non-intercourse sex?

It is tremendously unitive. In fact trying to force intercourse when it is not physically possible and causes tremedous amounts of pain for the woman is dividing. Even as you go through treatment and develop the ability to engage in intercourse, it is not unitive. In fact, intercourse can be so horrible that its hard to stay motivated to keep going through treatment. Eventually though it does get better through treatment and then you discover that intercourse can be unitive and is even preferred, but again that unity still relies and builds upon the unity that was being experienced prior to having intercourse.

Is it not a shadow of the real thing?

No. Indeed not. Refusing to have intercourse when you are able to can be a shadow, but forcing intercourse when you can barely physically tolerate is definitely not.

How is having morally decrepit sex a solution to fixing the real, and sad problem of a couple not being able to express their love through intercourse?

That’s like strapping a baby down in a carseat for 9 months, finally letting her out and screaming "Now walk. You’re 9 months old. It is immoral to crawl or to lay on your belly and learn how to control your head. No, you must simply walk or you’re a terrible decrepit person.

This seems like similar reasoning to the argument that rape victims should be able to have abortions. One horrible thing happens to the woman that is not her fault, and we propose to fix it by doing another horrible thing to her and her baby.

Now you’re just sounding crazy.

 

[searching04]

For Heaven’s sake…

Folks, what do you think it means when we say “God is love”?

Do you think it means “God is goopy sentimentalism and spousal affection”?

No, that’s nonsense – God is a spiritual being, and emotions are a physiological reaction; so God is not (purely or even primarily) an emotional entity.

The “love” of which the Church is speaks is NOT mere affection (the affection of husband for wife or mother for child) but the ordering of the will toward the good of another – the love of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade, giving up his life to save the lives of his squadmates – much as Christ did for us at Calvary.

So an act may make you FEEL love and may even make you FEEL closer to your partner – but still be fundamentally contrary to the love TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED as Christians and fundamentally contrary to the unity TO WHICH WE ARE CALLED through the sacrament of marriage, a unity which mirrors the total and complete and uninhibited self-giving of the Trinity.

To LOVE another is to seek out their good – EVEN AT YOUR OWN EXPENSE.

So tell me what is GOOD about inducing another person to mortal sin so that you don’t have to feel the discomfort of self-denial?

Boy, do you miss the point…

(For that matter, maybe you can point out the part of the Bible wherein Jesus says, “Follow me, dude, it’s like totally easy, you won’t have to suffer at all!”)

You literally CANNOT rationalize contraception in any way without perverting the language the Church uses to speak of God and the sacraments.

Such contraceptive acts are ALWAYS necessarily LESS than acts of full self-giving – and as such are ALWAYS contaminated by the infernal spirit of calculation which seeks only to gratify its obscene lusts, NO MATTER how loving or close they make you FEEL.

Because this is not a FEELING religion. You want solipsism, be a Buddhist.

Now one can hardly be blamed for failing to recognize the corruption of language endemic to the modern age. It is for that reason, after all, that we are called to assent to the teachings of the Church, whatever our personal reservations may be – for she alone has the guarantee of the Holy Spirit’s constant protection from error.

You CAN be blamed for rejecting that authority and acting contrary to it, a vile affront to Christ’s bride and thereby to Christ Himself.

And if you presume to continue taking communion while rejecting that authority and living a life of unrepentant mortal sin, you are only compounding that sin with perjury and desecration.

And you will almost certainly be required to answer for THAT offense when you stand before Christ for judgment.

FLOG!

“Thank you, Master! May I have another?!”

FLOG!

“Thank you, Master! May I have another?!”

Judge and jury, are you? Proven guilty before inoocent? You know what you do when you A-S-S-U-M-E, right? You are the type of person who drives people away who have come looking for answers or a place to discuss disagreements. Some Catholics do not agree with nor understand all the nice flowery words.

Thanks for the Catholic hospitality.

 

[Nate13]

Polyovarian cysts and other diseases that cause there to be the presense of mucus constantly. Creighton has instructions on on using yellow stamps once a condition has been identified. However other things like using NFP when you’re breastfeeding but are past 6 months, are not able to rely on ecological breastfeeding because you have to work. Its an amazingly confusing time. I’ve bleed twice so far for a period of days and still have no clue whether to count that as a period or not. It was light and the supposed peak day makes no sense…especially when the peak day occured 5 days prior to the bleeding.

That still leaves temperature readings, and cervix positioning?

Of course the effectiveness of NFP stays high because “When in doubt, assume you’re fertile.”

NFP has a 99% method effectiveness. That means perfect usage and that perfect usage with an irregular cycle can be hard on a marriage.

I’m not saying I think couples should use contraceptives. I just saying that denying how complex a situation can get is not helpful.

The post your responding to was not directed towards you but towards another posters who seemed to think contraceptives would be allowed in certain circumstances. Also, I think past posts have shown I do see how complicated it is.

Also, I was thinking about your situation more and it seems to me that if every reasonable attempt was made to have normal intercourse, you could still have the male achieve climax while still keeping within what the Church teaches. Avoiding getting graphic, if you were both in the right position, but at a point where that is as good as it gets because of physical barriers out of your control you would be full-filling the Church’s teaching to the bets of your ability and in full faith. This is just a thought of course and its really hard to say because it depends on the specific circumstances surrounding your situation. It appears from some quick research though that vaginismus does not necessarily prevent pregnancy.

@sw65
haha I’m going to agree with searching04 on this one, your post was a little over the top.

The gist of it is a good point though. When we say God is love we are not talking about the warm feeling you get, and the butterflies. Those obviously could be physical signs of love, but are not at all necessary for love to exist. Love does not rely on feelings. Its much the same as God’s forgiveness doesn’t rely on me feeling forgiven.

 

[Wardog]

When a couple is using NFP, that couple has to discern their motivations for abstaining. You have to balance the need for intimacy with the good of the family. Using NFP as if it were Catholic approved birth control can hurt the marriage. It can also give people the wrong mindset that the Church somehow frowns on sexual pleasure, as if pleasure were merely a necessary evil for the begetting of children. A contraceptive mentality with NFP leads to couples not rejecting the mindset that procreation is bad, but leads couples to reject sexual pleasure as being as bad as they wrongly believe their procreative powers are. Sexual pleasure and intimacy are good things. But it is just as disordered to pursue sex with the objective to supress the orgasm as it is to pursue sex with the objective to supress fertility. In the same note it is also disorder to pursue sex with an obsessive aim for the orgasm just as it is to pursue sex with an obsessive aim for getting a child. We can heal our bodies. We can learn our bodies. We can abstain. We can practice temperence with our sexual activity and use the knowledge of our fertility to practice temperence. But we must accept the entirety of our sexual powers and that these powers including the power to open ourself up to procreation are good things.
.

This is not true; the Ends of NFP and ABC are the same; to have sex without getting pregnant. The Ways & Means are different and this is where the Church makes a distinction: NFP uses the natural cycle, while ABC artificially interferes with it Here is a cut & paste quote from Humanae Vitae:
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.** It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. **But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

 

[Nate13]

This is not true; the Ends of NFP and ABC are the same; to have sex without getting pregnant. The Ways & Means are different and this is where the Church makes a distinction: NFP uses the natural cycle, while ABC artificially interferes with it Here is a cut & paste quote from Humanae Vitae:
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.** It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. **But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

I believe two angels was talking about the fact that a contraceptive mentality makes the act wrong whether you are using contraceptives or NFP. You are rather referring to the objective difference between contraception and NFP which is the means by which each method goes about reaching the same end.

 

[twoangels]

Is it necessary for the woman to reach orgasm every time she has sex?
Before getting married, I thought Yes.
Now, I think No.

Before I got married, I thought no. After suffering through vaginismus and going through months of treatment, I realized that it is not essential each and every time, but that it is still essential.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I believe two angels was talking about the fact that a contraceptive mentality makes the act wrong whether you are using contraceptives or NFP. You are rather referring to the objective difference between contraception and NFP which is the means by which each method goes about reaching the same end.

So how do you avoid the contraceptive mentality with NFP?

 

[searching04]

I believe two angels was talking about the fact that a contraceptive mentality makes the act wrong whether you are using contraceptives or NFP. You are rather referring to the objective difference between contraception and NFP which is the means by which each method goes about reaching the same end.

Then I’d say the vast, vast majority of NFP users are sinning continuously. I’d bet a 100:1 that couples hop in the sack thinking “Yea! We can have sex because it is phase whatever! We happily accept a baby if we get pregnant, but we kind of hope we don’t.” We do. It is why couples have sex during infertile phases! It is why the church only approves of NFP as the means to avoid pregnancy.

If it is sinning to do that, then we might as well have non-intercourse sex…your point above: what, then, is the difference?

 

[LaSainte]

So people here seem to be suggesting that “unitive” sex refers strictly to the physical aspect of “penis in vagina, ejaculate”. It was always my impression that this was the procreative aspect and that the unitive aspect was the bonding experience and closeness between spouses.

According to most people here, spousal rape is unitive.

 

[LaSainte]

“Contraceptive mentality”. What a joke.

Let’s face it. If I’m peeing on an ovulation predictor stick every day, taking my temperature, checking my toilet paper for mucous, putting my hand inside my body to feel for my cervical position, and then recording all this information on a neat little chart with colorful little stickers, I have a “contraceptive mentality”. Much more so than if I ask my husband to wear a condom and hope it doesn’t break.