- Status
S
searching04
Guest
Sitting on the outside reading this, you are correct in the the black and white print of the CCC. In the poster’s situation, she makes perfect sense as they move towards what the CCC dictates; it where they are; it is their reality. However, this is also the perfect example of where the CCC makes no allowances for couples whatsoever, even as they move towards the goal.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
The funny part is that you can find priests following this to the last word but there are some who say “No adultery, no abortion, … go ahead, enjoy”.
I guess we can pick.
N
Nate13
Guest
Haha of course, because Truth is a matter of preference.The funny part is that you can find priests following this to the last word but there are some who say “No adultery, no abortion, … go ahead, enjoy”.
I guess we can pick.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
How do you define/understand Truth if church’s priests tell you different things?
N
Nate13
Guest
If we were back 500 years ago you would have a case for being blameless if your priest led you astray. Today, with the internet you have access to everything your priest has access to. The Church those priests belong to says those priests are the communicators of an already established and revealed Truth, not the creators of it. If they say something that contradicts the Magesterium you should have no doubt which of them to believe. Contraception has been deemed immoral for 2000 years by the Church as a whole, and the opinions of a few priests today should not override that.
T
twoangels
Guest
Neither. Married couples do not control when they conceive children. Children are a gift from God and married couples open themselves up to receiving that gift any time they engage in sex. Sex is oriented toward open the door to the possibility. The Church permits women to come to understand their fertility cycles to help the couple make decisions about sexual activity, but ultimately all postponing and limiting of family size is done through abstaining around the time that a woman is likely to ovulate. However, whether we ovulate or not is not something we are supposed to grasp for control over. Whether the sperm present actually reaches the ovum and fertilizes the egg is not a part of our will. So whether we are aiming to have a child or to prevent a child, it is ultimately within God’s hands.
The Church teaches that we are to fully accept our spouses entirely as well as the nature of our sexuality. We are to rejoice in our procreative nature, rather than to seek to obsessively control it.
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.
What I am aiming to discuss here is whether or not it is ok to experience the height of sexual pleasure when through no fault of their own, the sexual act is imperfect. Unforunately most books assume that all men suffer from premature ejaculation. They write in ignorance of the variety of sexual problems a couple can struggle with, as such premature ejaculation is often not condemned as sinful, but the issues of vaginismus and delayed ejaculation are not addressed. Moreover, even without sexual dysfunction it seems the rest of the world recognizes that sexual intercourse does not always happen perfectly - that delayed ejaculation can happen in the average men, not just couples who struggle from sexual hang ups, are on medications with sexual side effects or what have you.
I believe that the couple can fully express themselves sexually even if intercourse does not happen perfectly. It is not merely people with premature ejaculation that get the leeway. What is sinful is willfully subverting the sexual act. It would be sinful of my husband and I to seek out cause sexual problems or to act like we’re having sexual difficulties when we are not. If my husband can climax in me, he should. That should be our goal. If we are abstaining during our fertile period, we do not substitute other behavior. We completely abstain. But if my husband is past the point of no return for arousal, yet at the same time cannot finish inside of me through no fault of our own, it is not sinful for us to help him to finish outside of me. We are not rejecting the procreative nature of sex. We are dealing with our car breaking down and deciding that rather than hanging out in the middle of no where and starving to death, we’re going to arrive out our destination by some other means. So our car might get abanonded while we walk to a gas station or we might get a tow. Seeking that out is disordered, but we’re not morally obligated to strand ourselves there.
If what we are doing were immoral, having sex when we were infertile would be immoral. Because it is not the man ejaculating inside of the woman that causes pregnancy. Conception occurs a day after sex to a few days after sex and occurs merely because the sperm and the ovum are there. All sexual activity is oriented toward that, and sexual pleasure exists prior to the climax. If what we’re doing is masturbation, than the point of no return for intercourse and ejaculating inside of the woman happens at the moment the couple starts pursuing any sexual pleasure at all…which frankly isn’t a clear line at all and would require the couple to be cold to each other unless their aim is intercourse.
T
twoangels
Guest
I have never in my life accepted the secular world view. My background is that when I found out what sex was, I wanted nothing to do with it. The secular world view has always disgusted me. This was due to a lot of factors. I was petrified of sex and my parents only encouraged this fear in me to instill chaste values in me. When I went overboard and started saying I wanted to marry but remain a virgin forever like the Blessed Mother, I was told by my mother that men needed sex and that even the most virteous husband would cheat on his wife if she did this. I was also told that sex was more of a guy thing. My mom expressed complete indifference to sex, as did my grandmother. You did it because you had to, you were morally obligated to. Meanwhile men abused you. My mom almost died in a miscarriage and my Dad rationalized getting a vesectomy which I saw as merely to enable him to have sex without the consequence of killing my mother. In my mind, sexual pleasure was so corrupting in men that it made them incapable of love. I resented men. I resented sexual pleasure.
I never masturbated. I never experienced a climax in my life prior to being with my husband. I had difficulty accepting pleasure after I was married because I was still petrified of it turning me into a monster.
Part of what changed my perspective was my exposure to the Theology of the Body. However much of the psychological damage was done. My body had been conditioned to reject penetration of any kind. I couldn’t use tampons. I couldn’t submit to vaginal exams. I was referred to councilors who tried to destroy my Catholic faith to help me overcome my problems. Meanwhile people who were clueless that such a problem could even exist kept telling me I was a whimp, that even though I was “too embarrassed” to submit to a vaginal exam, that sex was different and that one thing would lead to another and I’d be able to do it. I believed them. I got married and could not be penetrated. I had to go through therapy and the fact is the condition I suffered from was partially caused by unbalanced religious ideas about sexual pleasure.
Unforunately the Church’s positive view of sexual pleasure gets distorted because people still have a negative view of our procreative powers.
A
ahs
Guest
It’s isn’t the CCC that dictates anything. It is God. The CCC is what the Church knows to be God’s “rules”. Perhaps instead of setting ourselves up to judge His rules as too restrictive or too black and white…maybe we should submit ourselves to His authority?
You study Church Doctrine and read Encyclicals that give you the Truth.
No, we can’t pick. We are ultimately responsible for knowing the Truth. If you find yourself in a situation where a Priest has given you poor advice or told you something contrary to Truth, you research Church Teaching (CCC, Canon Law) and make your decision based on the official Church Teaching.The funny part is that you can find priests following this to the last word but there are some who say “No adultery, no abortion, … go ahead, enjoy”.
I guess we can pick.
T
twoangels
Guest
All sexual activity is aimed toward both the unitive and procreative purposes of sex. These are positive things. If the couple is abstaining from sex to prevent the bearing of children, the abstainence must be complete for both. It would be morally disordered to engage in an act of self surrender merely for the pleasure sake without fully surrendering to the procreative purpose of sex.
I do think however that many Catholic authors still confuse a woman’s sexuality with a man’s. When a man climaxes he becomes unaroused and the act is completed. When a woman climaxes, her lubrication increases and she tends to go back to plauteu. Moreover, her climax tends to put her at the peak of her physical attractiveness to the man, stirring up the height of his desires for physical unity and ultimately for the complete sexual encounter. She also has the capacity to experience multiple climaxes, meaning she has the capacity to climax prior to intercourse and then to climax as close to near his climax as possible. As such the procreative aspect of her climax is to help foster intercourse. That said, she can submit to intercourse without a climax and she can become fully sexually satisfied without a climax. I would say that the female climax has lasting effects on the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality that extend beyond one particular encounter.
T
twoangels
Guest
Because the man ejaculating into the woman is not fertilization. The man ejaculating into the woman puts the woman’s cervix (for a series of days) in the presense of sperm. At soonest, fertilization occurs 24 hours after sex. It is never the day you have intercourse because it takes 24 hours for sperm to go through capitation. If you have sex daily, the sperm gets mixed together. There is simply not one encounter that causes procreation.
God did not give us the ability to control procreation. He only gave us the ability to open ourselves to his creative power.
Now, as I said in my last post (probably just above this one unless someone commented while I was typing this) the procreative purpose for a woman is acheived through what enables her to open herself up for intercourse. As I indicated, her climax lubricates her, she does not become unaroused and she reaches the height of her sexual attractiveness for her husband which stirs the height of his desires for intercourse.
Christopher West and other Catholic celebrities do not understand this. Even JP II did not understand this and advocated that man and woman should climax together with the man artificially delaying himself. Ultimately this all comes down to equating the climax with a far more direct cause of fertilization than it is.
The Church teaches that each and every act is to remain open to the procreative aspect of sex. As such, that includes having sex when the woman is not ovulating. Again what happens after sex is not our action. It is merely that we cannot try to do things to divert it from the procreation and that includes obsessing about our fertility and using NFP with a contraceptive mentality.
So why it isn’t it contraceptive? Because the goal is to enable the procreative aspect rather than disable it.
This is completely a different situation. You aren’t inhibiting the man’s ability to climax inside the woman in this case. In my case you are. You’re causing a sexual hang up that merely puts the man in the occassion of sin to masturbate, and further prevents the sperm from ever entering the woman’s vagina since he has to go through months without a climax because you took legalistic approach to sex.
Gregory Popcak is not directly available by phone. You get assigned to one of his many councilor’s. It takes over a week to hear back from them. They are not moral ethicists and will not give you advise for free and they warn you ahead of time that they do not accept insurance because they’re doing the counciling out of state and most claims get denied. You thus have to pay out of pocket the full price. Insurance companies will never fully reimburse you sense they don’t even pay the full amount claimed when they pay the provider directly. Moreover in most cases they will deny your claim anyway.
I can ask my priest, but then again it depends what priest I ask with what viewpoint I will get. I’m sure regardless of what viewpoint I get from anyone, someone will condemn that person as a heathen. Ultimately this is where overscruplocity gets in. We cannot be so petrified coming to the wrong conclusion about morality that we constantly defer our conscience to the consciences of other people. Our job is to form our consciences according to the Church’s teaching. That means educating ourself in the Christian moral principals, praying, and receiving the sacraments. My husband and I have done our full duty to understand the Church’s principal and to understand how sexuality works especially in regards to dealing with our difficulties. What we disagree with is not the Church’s teaching, but with how sexuality works.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Here is the problem. The Church’s teaching assumes all the conditions are prefect.
If it’s not the case then you should talk to a priest but they can have wide spectrum of opinions based on information provided to them.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
If I study Doctrines and Encyclicals so I can protect myself from priests with wrong ideas then who is going to feed my family.It’s isn’t the CCC that dictates anything. It is God. The CCC is what the Church knows to be God’s “rules”. Perhaps instead of setting ourselves up to judge His rules as too restrictive or too black and white…maybe we should submit ourselves to His authority?
You study Church Doctrine and read Encyclicals that give you the Truth.
No, we can’t pick. We are ultimately responsible for knowing the Truth. If you find yourself in a situation where a Priest has given you poor advice or told you something contrary to Truth, you research Church Teaching (CCC, Canon Law) and make your decision based on the official Church Teaching.
Why to stop there why not to study Bible and Tradition as well. Where do we stop?
On what authority and what guarantee I can have that my truth is closer to the Truth than priest’s version of truth?
It’s not so simple as it seems.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Can you prove it?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
The following might be a bit graphic.
Well you are a bit incorrect in various interpretations. It does not take 24 hours for the sperm to get to where it goes, it can take as little as 3 or 4 hours, depending on the quality of mucus.
Since each and every marital act needs to be ordered per se towards procreation, it is defacto contraceptive for a man to have an external orgasm. For this reason, condom use is wrong, also for this reason coitus interuptus is wrong. For the same reason masturbation is wrong.
Look at this example, the licit way to obtain a sperm sample is through use of a perforated condom during a completed act of intercourse. Why, then is your method not allowed as a way to get the sample? The intention would not be contraceptive…but the act would be defacto contraceptive by design.
The example I gave of the older couple is quite similar. Actually please explain why an older couple would not be permitted to give up intercourse completely and opt for other types of release? The woman can no longer procreate.
Forgive me, I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around your exegesis, because you seem to understand NFP very well.
And, having been married for 14 years, and sadly having had brought sins against chastity to the confessional I just don’t get something.
If your DH feels that he cannot stop, he feels tempted to masturbate etc, perhaps that is something he needs to work on. You are not rejecting him willfully, you cannot complete the act.
Actually refraining from external orgasm would make his duration time shorter the next encounter, and more comfortable for you. That is why men who have prematurity problems are instructed to climax outside of intercourse. It makes them less sensitive. Physiologically, this might be contributing to the cycle.
The late Father Torraco on EWTN, recommended a book on sexual morality, written in the 50’s. It’s out of print, but I was able to find a used copy, if you like, I could forward it to you.
I really am not trying to judge you, I am trying to be helpful.
Well you are a bit incorrect in various interpretations. It does not take 24 hours for the sperm to get to where it goes, it can take as little as 3 or 4 hours, depending on the quality of mucus.
Since each and every marital act needs to be ordered per se towards procreation, it is defacto contraceptive for a man to have an external orgasm. For this reason, condom use is wrong, also for this reason coitus interuptus is wrong. For the same reason masturbation is wrong.
Look at this example, the licit way to obtain a sperm sample is through use of a perforated condom during a completed act of intercourse. Why, then is your method not allowed as a way to get the sample? The intention would not be contraceptive…but the act would be defacto contraceptive by design.
The example I gave of the older couple is quite similar. Actually please explain why an older couple would not be permitted to give up intercourse completely and opt for other types of release? The woman can no longer procreate.
Forgive me, I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around your exegesis, because you seem to understand NFP very well.
And, having been married for 14 years, and sadly having had brought sins against chastity to the confessional I just don’t get something.
If sexual intercourse becomes so painful, it is not at all a sin to stop and start again at a later time. Why would you think that this suffering is necessary?
If your DH feels that he cannot stop, he feels tempted to masturbate etc, perhaps that is something he needs to work on. You are not rejecting him willfully, you cannot complete the act.
Actually refraining from external orgasm would make his duration time shorter the next encounter, and more comfortable for you. That is why men who have prematurity problems are instructed to climax outside of intercourse. It makes them less sensitive. Physiologically, this might be contributing to the cycle.
The late Father Torraco on EWTN, recommended a book on sexual morality, written in the 50’s. It’s out of print, but I was able to find a used copy, if you like, I could forward it to you.
I really am not trying to judge you, I am trying to be helpful.
N
Nate13
Guest
N
Nate13
Guest
staycatholic.com/ecf_contraception.htm
Here is starting from the time of Jesus to 500 A.D. There is some debate as to whether these folks understood the unitive aspect of sex fully at this point and were certainly not aware of how our biological functions actually worked. They probably believed every act of intercourse had just as much of a chance of creating a baby as another. Read their comments with this in mind.
bibleandbirthcontrol.com/earlychurchfathersonbirthcontrol.html
More quotes from early Church fathers, and a couple from Martin Luther and John Calvin themselves so you can see how the great Protestant leaders felt about it. Look up those two leaders comments on the Onan story if you really want a shocker.
St. Frances de Sales 1567
"As for those who are married, chastity is very necessary for them, because in their case it does not consist in abstaining altogether, but in exercising self-control.
“Even with a lawful wife, the marriage act is unlawful and shameful if the conception of offspring is prevented.”
Casti Connubii 1930
Humanae Vitae 1968
ewtn.com/library/MARY/PIOPOPE.HTM
letter from Padre Pio to the JPII about Humane Vitae
catholicfire.blogspot.com/2007/10/contraception-quotes.html
This is what I found in 5 minutes of searching…
Christ said, “I am the Truth”; he did not say “I am the custom.” – St. Toribio
“I also know that there are great problems in the world - that many spouses do not love each other enough to practice natural family planning. We cannot solve all the problems in the world, but let us never bring in the worst problem of all, and that is to destroy love. And this is what happens when we tell people to practice contraception and abortion.”
~ Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta
The way to plan the family is Natural Family Planning, not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."
~ Blessed Mother Teresa (in front of Bill and Hillary Clinton)
catholicfire.blogspot.com/2009/12/st-john-of-cross-brief-bio-favorite.html
because he is my favorite saint
S
searching04
Guest
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Thanks, I didn’t know many of these things. It’s just a prove that one can not know everything.
On the other side, here is a quote:
from ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM
… 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.
T
twoangels
Guest
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.
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.
- Status