Thoughts on contraception

[FM927]

Read the article I just posted, that will help.
The licitness of NFP or the sinfullness of contraception has nothing to do with the rate of failure of the method. NFP is licit because the marital act is not altered in any way–the unitive and procreative aspects are both fully present. With contraception (any kind) the procreative and unitive aspects are separated and thus broken.

And, just because “everone is doing it” is no excuse to condone sinful behavior. Whether the acts are subjectivly sinful for anyone person is not for me to judge, however, I can objectively know and state that sex before marriage is a bad idea on so many levels. It is not healthy physical and emotional behavior and it is sinful.

Keep praying for God to open your eyes to the sacredness of the marital act–the sacramental nature of it, so that you can come to a full understanding as to why using contraception is sinful.

Thank you for your reply, but I am speaking from a personal view,
and not “because everyone is doing it”.

I am married almost 28yrs. and yes we did engage in pre-marital sex and judging from the number of yrs. we have been happily married it DID NOT turn out to be such a bad idea, physically nor emotionally.

Personally for me at this time Contraception is NOT an issue, but if it was I would certainly use it.

 

[manualman]

I am married almost 28yrs. and yes we did engage in pre-marital sex and judging from the number of yrs. we have been happily married it DID NOT turn out to be such a bad idea, physically nor emotionally.

Personally for me at this time Contraception is NOT an issue, but if it was I would certainly use it.

And I have a Grandmother who died peacefully at age 91 of natural causes in spite of having smoked profusely for decades. She would have told you that smoking never negatively affected her one bit. Of course she had been a smoker that whole time, so she had no ready frame of reference, did she? She had no more use for medical authority on the matter than you seem to for Christ’s teaching authority (the Church).

This is the truly insidious thing about sexual sin. It has real effects on a couple, but they are deep effects not so easily discerned as a punch in the nose.

 

[mpartyka]

Of all the responses so far, I’ve enjoyed this one the most because I think it captures the real spirit behind the Church’s prohibition of ABC:

You’ll have to forgive my memory, but I believe in Humanae Vitae Paul VI spoke of the “contraceptive mentality” that can indeed be had by those using NFP.

An act obtains its morality from its object, and both intentions and circumstances form part of that object. That is, what is it you are aiming at in performing a sex act using NFP? What are you aiming at in using ABC? What are the circumstances surrounding the act?

Personally, I think the object changes in the two cases, although it can be the same. Using ABC, the intention is to not have a child, but it requires no respect for the personhood of the partner, which is a difference in circumstance and de facto a change in object. If I can have sex with my wife without respect for her, then I am going to demand it often; many times without respecting her. She becomes an object of my concupiscence, not a human being in the fullest sense.

Furthermore, there is no maintaining of the mean of temperance when using ABC’s. This I think, is the main crux of the matter. With NFP, there is an attempt at virtue, which ultimately has a view to the common good of the marriage. With ABC’s, self-indulgence is rampant, and thus, for lack of a better term, the objectification of partners.

My wife and I at one time contracepted, and believe me, at times it was more about self-satisfaction than about my wife. I didn’t need to respect her, or even court her, because I knew that sex could be, or should be, had whenever I wanted. I definitely lacked the virtue of temperance (and still do, though things are getting better .

Using NFP, the object can be the same as with ABC’s. If a couple’s intention is to use it so as to never have children, or with a contraceptive mentality, the object of that act is the same as using ABC’s. However, in the majority of cases, the cirumstance is changed by the bringing in of the virtue of temperance.

Furthermore, on the psychological level, I think NFP couples are more open to life because there is an openness to the possibility of error. With ABC’s, I think the case is different. THe possibility of error is not considered, and so the child is de facto, if conceived, a problem rather than a blessing.

Finally, I’ve found that in using NFP, during the fertile times, I have to court my wife because sex is off limits. Behold, the Romance is still alive!

Is it hard during fertility? Certainly, but I like the challenge. For Aquinas and Aristotle, the virtuous man is the happy man. Believe me, at fertile times in the past I’ve thought they must be wrong because the urge was that strong; however, it has gotten easier to refrain because the habitus has been formed. Alas! Sex doesn’t control me (as much) anymore; I control it!

I don’t agree with everything said, but I do think some very good points are raised that cast NFP in a very positive light.

–Mike

 

[Brooklyn]

I just want to say God Bless You to all of you who wrote so eloquently and beautifully regarding the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception.

I spent many years outside the Catholic Church and was completely deceived as to how evil ABC is. After coming back into the Church, I read Humanae Vitae, which is a beautiful document, and as so many of you said, one of the most prophetic documents ever produced. Truly, so many of the evils in our world can be traced directly to the use of artificial contraception, changing sex into a God-given way of expressing love for one’s spouse into a selfish, uncaring and even hateful, narcissistic act that does not give life but in fact, destroys life.

The Catholic Church, in so many ways, is the last bulwark for God’s Truth. I thank God everyday for the courage and spiritual fortitude of people like all of you.

Mary

 

[mpartyka]

Here’s what I’ve been thinking of late:

The Fathers are pretty clear in their views on sex in marriage: it’s a means to an end (i.e., making babies) and NOT an end in itself. There is nothing in the Fathers that would ever suggest that married sex is something good in and of itself, or something to be enjoyed by married couples as something unitive and enriching to marriage. Indeed, the Fathers were pretty clear that sex initiated in marriage for the purpose of pleasure was venially sinful, though the sin was covered by the sacrament of marriage. The modern ideas of “sexual fulfillment” and having a “healthy sex life” are completely foreign to the mind of the Fathers. Marriage was done for the propogation of the race, or because some people couldn’t “contain” themselves. Virginity was prized and called the “higher life” by the Fathers, whereas marriage was not considered a “different but equal” state (as it is generally seen today) but rather an inferior state in which the people involved sadly could not dedicate themselves fully to God as the virgin “caste” (e.g., priests, nuns, monks) could. Indeed, married folk were often urged to chastity within marriage (i.e., for those who are married to live even as if they weren’t, much like St. Paul says in 1 Cor 7). A second marriage after the death of a spouse was permitted but seen by many in the early Church as a sign of weak character, i.e., an inability to control one’s physical urges – hence St. Paul’s rule that bishops must be the husband of only one wife.

Now, let’s jump ahead to Vatican II. “Make love, not war” is the spirit of the age. Sex is elevated to something good in and of itself, and this new attitude toward sex begins to permeate the Church, too – mostly the laity, naturally. The science of biology has advanced, too. We can now see how humans are biologically wired to have mating urges. Sex becomes something “natural” and “fulfilling”. (How strange this would sound to that Church Father – I wish I had written down the reference – who called sex a means of procreation fit for beasts!) Married Catholics start seeing sex as a necessary component to a healthy, happy marriage. They speak of its “unitive” function as something positive, even when isolated from its “procreative” function. New biological and evolutionary perspectives also cast sex in a positive light, and the human sex drive is something thought more and more to be part of God’s original design for mankind. (Such a notion would have horrified Augustine, who speculated that in an unfallen state a man’s member would respond directly to his will, rather than requiring the stimulation of lust to rise to action.) In light of all this “new information”, married Catholics practically begged for the Church to reconsider its stance on ABC. After all, why should married people have to go without the unitive benefits of marriage just because they didn’t want the procreative benefits, especially since God made humans to be sexual creatures?

I got confused initially because I had thought it was the Church that had somewhere along the way changed its official teaching to include this view of the “goodness” of sex when it really hadn’t. Instead, the laity, trusting in voices coming primarily from outside the Church, adopting the scientific method of factoring “new information” into one’s theories, and once they had been convinced that sex was something good and necessary for a healthy marriage (and not just the way married couples make babies), they demanded that the Church change its teaching to accomodate their new, “educated” view of marriage – as if seeking the pleasures of the flesh could ever be looked upon as a noble venture by the Church!

What’s weakened the Church so much, then, where NFP and ABC are concerned, is that it refuses to go all the way and return to the basic view of sex expressed by the Fathers. The Church toes the line with the world and says, “Sex is good for you,” and then wonders why the laity wants to have sex so badly that they’d use ABC to do it! The Church instead needs to go all the way (no pun intended) and say, “Sex isn’t the positive thing you’re making it out to be. Married couples can live without sex – indeed, they ought to live without sex if they aren’t trying to make babies. Pursuing sex for the sake of pleasure is no different than pursuing any other indulgence in sensuality for its own sake – it’s wrong!” Instead, the Church gives a mixed message to its flock – “Sex is good and natural…so long as you don’t use a condom” –
and then scratches its head and wonders why its flock won’t listen. It’s because they know mealy-mouthed double-speak when they hear it!

Agree? Disagree?

–Mike

 

[Brooklyn]

The Fathers are pretty clear in their views on sex in marriage: it’s a means to an end (i.e., making babies) and NOT an end in itself. There is nothing in the Fathers that would ever suggest that married sex is something good in and of itself, or something to be enjoyed by married couples as something unitive and enriching to marriage.

You don’t give any references for this, and I for one have never heard this anywhere. It’s hard to imagine that the Church fathers would have said this when God said at Creation, which included the creation of sex, that it was all good, and that the creation of man and woman was very good, which would certainly include sex between husband and wife.

What’s weakened the Church so much, then, where NFP and ABC are concerned, is that it refuses to go all the way and return to the basic view of sex expressed by the Fathers. The Church toes the line with the world and says, “Sex is good for you,” and then wonders why the laity wants to have sex so badly that they’d use ABC to do it! The Church instead needs to go all the way (no pun intended) and say, “Sex isn’t the positive thing you’re making it out to be. Married couples can live without sex – indeed, they ought to live without sex if they aren’t trying to make babies. Pursuing sex for the sake of pleasure is no different than pursuing any other indulgence in sensuality for its own sake – it’s wrong!” Instead, the Church gives a mixed message to its flock – “Sex is good and natural…so long as you don’t use a condom” –
and then scratches its head and wonders why its flock won’t listen. It’s because they know mealy-mouthed double-speak when they hear it!

Agree? Disagree?

–Mike

I’m curious as to whether you have read Humanae Vitae. It is a beautiful document that expresses just how magnificent sexual love is between a husband and wife. Sex is an act that pictures in many ways our relationship with God, especially the fact that it can produce life. Sex, of course, gives us much pleasure, but that is purely a byproduct. The purpose of sex is to give ourselves totally to our spouse, and by that to give life to our children. Anytime sex is separated from the life giving component that God intended to be an integral part of it, and is instead used merely for physical gratification, either for ourselves or our spouse, it is a sacrilege and a serious sin.

I think you only need look around and see what the results of the thinking expressed in your post have produced.

I completely disagree with you, and I will pray that God will show you where you are wrong for your own sake.

Mary

 

[Joseph_Metrick]

I’ve found “Theology of the Body” very helpful in all subjects involving human sexuality and the Catholic Curches teachings. Pope John Paul II wrote it and “The Covenant of Love.” It seems to me the act of intercourse with artificial contraception becomes less human and very selfish. It becomes more an act of using each other with the premise of personal sexual gratification than making love. On another thread a young man noted his “problem” with masturbation. Masturbation usually involves fantasy which is against church teaching, it takes a person out of the moment, the present. It also causes the person to “objectify” the person being fantasized. Just as it does with any partner we have, including spouses. The person we’re having intercourse with no longer is human but an object to be “used” for our own selfish purpose, for sexual pleasure. It’s no longer an act of real human love, but an act of lust. Both books are indepth and very enlightening. Nothing can be overcome without prayer and God’s help. In Him I can do all things. If it’s His will. He who overcomes himself is greater than he that overcomes a city.

 

[mpartyka]

You don’t give any references for this, and I for one have never heard this anywhere. It’s hard to imagine that the Church fathers would have said this when God said at Creation, which included the creation of sex, that it was all good, and that the creation of man and woman was very good, which would certainly include sex between husband and wife.

Right now I can only dig up a couple, as I’m pressed for time:

Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were “made a little lower than the angels,” to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. – St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 17:2

In Paradise virginity held sway…when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children…“Be fruitful and multiply" does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken. But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” – St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:24

I realize these are only two examples, but this is a theme I’ve seen throughout the Fathers: “Sex was not the way humanity would have multiplied had they kept themselves free from sin.”

I’m curious as to whether you have read Humanae Vitae.

Yes, I have.

It is a beautiful document that expresses just how magnificent sexual love is between a husband and wife.

That’s exactly the problem. The Fathers never spoke on the magnificence of sexual love in marriage. They never sang the praises of sexual love in marriage at all. They rather preached continence even to the married.

Sex, of course, gives us much pleasure, but that is purely a byproduct. The purpose of sex is to give ourselves totally to our spouse, and by that to give life to our children. Anytime sex is separated from the life giving component that God intended to be an integral part of it, and is instead used merely for physical gratification, either for ourselves or our spouse, it is a sacrilege and a serious sin.

You’re not going far enough. The Fathers believed that sex and marriage were intended for procreation – period. They considered it immoral for married people to have sex for the sake of pleasure regardless of whether they used birth control (mortal sin) or not (venial sin).

It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. – St. Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 17

–Mike

 

[Brooklyn]

Mike - the examples you give from the Fathers only state that there is a better state than marriage, but to quote further from St John Damascene,

Virginity is the rule of life among the angels, the property of all incorporeal nature. This we say without speaking ill of marriage: God forbid! (for we know that the Lord blessed marriage by His presence(8), and we know him who said, Marriage is and the bed undefiled(1)), but knowing that virginity is better than marriage, however good. For among the virtues, equally as among the vices, there are higher and lower grades. We know that all mortals after the first parents of the race are the offspring of marriage. For the first parents were the work of virginity and not of marriage. But celibacy is, as we said, an imitation of the angels. Wherefore virginity is as much more honourable than marriage, as the angel is higher than man. But why do I say angel? Christ Himself is the glory of virginity, who was not only-begotten of the Father without beginning or emission or connection, but also became man in our image, being made flesh for our sakes of the Virgin without connection, and manifesting in Himself the true and perfect virginity. Wherefore, although He did not enjoin that on us by law (for as He said, all men cannot receive this saying(2)), yet in actual fact He taught us that and gave us strength for it. For it is surely clear to every one that virginity now is flourishing among men.

Good indeed is the procreation of children enjoined by the law, and good is marriage on account of fornications, for it does away with these(4), and by lawful intercourse does not permit the madness of desire to he caromed into unlawful acts. Good is marriage for those who have no continence: but that virginity is better which increases the fruitfulness of the soul and offers to God the seasonable fruit of prayer. Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge(5).

This is also from Book IV, Chapter XXIV.

This quote makes it quite apparent that although the Fathers, like the Apostle Paul, felt that a celibate life was higher than that of married life (any time you can more completely devote yourself to God it is better, that is a given), they certainly did not denigrate marriage in any way. As St John Damascene says here, ***For among the virtues, equally as among the vices, there are higher and lower grades.
***.

He most certainly is saying, then, that marriage, including sex within marriage, is virtuous.

You say you have read Humanae Vitae. I don’t think it conflicts in any way what I have just quoted above, a quote that you led me to, and for which I thank you.

I really don’t want to win debates with you just for the sake of who can present better arguments. I just want you and others who think like you, to see that the Church has not really changed its views on sex and marriage at all. There have certainly been many prudes down throughout history in the Church, but the official Church stance, from the Apostle Paul to our time, is that sex in marriage is a good and blessed act. But because man has corrupted this wonderful gift from God, the Church has had to spell things out much more clearly in our time.

Mary

 

[mpartyka]

He most certainly is saying, then, that marriage, including sex within marriage, is virtuous.

I do not deny that the Fathers believed marriage to be virtuous, but the Fathers do not extend that belief to sex within marriage. In the mind of the Fathers, sexual intercourse even within marriage is only free from sin if it is done with the intent of procreation, not pleasure – and some Fathers (e.g., Pope Leo the Great) don’t even make this allowance!

There have certainly been many prudes down throughout history in the Church, but the official Church stance, from the Apostle Paul to our time, is that sex in marriage is a good and blessed act.

See, this is the fallback position that every Catholic I’ve encountered always uses – no matter how much evidence you can gather from the Fathers of a consistent belief that was contrary to modern Church teaching, the Catholic can always label the evidence a collection of private opinion rather than a valid expression of the mind of the Church at that time.

Think about it: How can you ever come to the conclusion that “official Church teaching” is correct if the definition of “official Church teaching” is “whatever it is that the Church teaches now”? This is a tautology, not a proof!

–Mike

 

[rad314]

See, this is the fallback position that every Catholic I’ve encountered always uses – no matter how much evidence you can gather from the Fathers of a consistent belief that was contrary to modern Church teaching, the Catholic can always label the evidence a collection of private opinion rather than a valid expression of the mind of the Church at that time.

Think about it: How can you ever come to the conclusion that “official Church teaching” is correct if the definition of “official Church teaching” is “whatever it is that the Church teaches now”? This is a tautology, not a proof!

I wonder how many times I’ve said this.

You need to understand what the magisterium is and what makes a teaching infallible. (These are not secrets.) A consistent belief among some number of ECFs does not necessarily constitute a valid expression of the Church’s teaching.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Have you ever read the Song of Solomon–you know, in the bible???

Personally, I think your view of the Church’s past view of sex is flawed and perhaps incomplete. The Church fathers are great; however, not every word they uttered is doctrinally sound and infallible. Also, a growth in the understanding of marriage and the role of sex, doesn’t make the Church wishy-washy.

Some reading:
therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_004.htm

 

[mpartyka]

A consistent belief among some number of ECFs does not necessarily constitute a valid expression of the Church’s teaching.

No kidding. What I’m saying is that even a universal belief among every ECF whose works are available to be read can be labeled an “invalid expression of the Church’s teaching” if it so happens that the Church teaches a contrary belief today.

I once read an amazingly honest statement by a priest which went something like this: “My confidence that the teaching of the Church is correct lies entirely upon the grounds that it is what the Church is teaching right here and now. In other words, I trust that the Church teaches me the truth because I trust the Church.”

–Mike

 

[rad314]

What I’m saying is that even a universal belief among every ECF whose works are available to be read can be labeled an “invalid expression of the Church’s teaching” if it so happens that the Church teaches a contrary belief today.

Unless you can demonstrate such a case – something believed by every ECF, in contradiction to a definitive Church teaching – this statement is ridiculous.

I once read an amazingly honest statement by a priest which went something like this: “My confidence that the teaching of the Church is correct lies entirely upon the grounds that it is what the Church is teaching right here and now. In other words, I trust that the Church teaches me the truth because I trust the Church.”

Yes, and if you won’t make the effort to understand, you never will.

 

[mpartyka]

Unless you can demonstrate such a case – something believed by every ECF, in contradiction to a definitive Church teaching – this statement is ridiculous…and if you won’t make the effort to understand, you never will.

I think I understand fine. I just want something better.

–Mike

 

[LittleDeb]

Agree? Disagree?

–Mike

Disagree. Both with your understanding of ECF and with your understanding of the teaching now.

It was then and is still wrong to seek the marriage act for pleasure. You see that in ECF’s teaching but you fail to understand what that means. You see a wording now and you misunderstand it to mean that teaching has changed. It hasn’t!

It was and is wrong to seek the marriage act for the sake of pleasure. Unity is NOT merely pleasure. Unity is unity. It means in the joining of the act. One easy example is condoms are an affront to unity. The couple doesn’t really even unite because of the barrier.

Pleasure is a result of the marriage act. It is a result built right into the act. If it is done correctly it is procreative and unitive. It then results in pleasure. If done incorrectly, it is still procreative and unitive, but does not result in pleasure. (Ask any woman with a brute for a husband.)

What the ECF were against was the same thing the Church still teaches on all fronts. We are not to seek pleasure for the SAKE of pleasure. That is what is evil. But pleasure in and of itself is good. It is part of the design. We are not to seek only sweets just because they taste good. We are to seek to eat within the design of the human body. The fact that it is pleasurable is by God’s own design!

Think of it this way, dessert is the result of dinner, not the purpose. We even say it to kids. “Don’t eat that now or you will spoil your dinner!” Translation= “You won’t be hungry for what is good for you because you have filled up only on the pleasurable.” Notice we don’t say, “Don’t ever have dessert!”

What the ECF were warning against is what happens to a marriage when you seek dessert for dessert’s own sake. A marriage gets fat, and lazy, and eventually dies a bloated death.

So I completely disagree with your assessment of the writings of the ECF, especially St. Augustine. He was a former playboy and speaking to the playboy mentality. A playboy indulges every whim. A playboy uses others to his own end. St. Augustine was saying that celibate chastity brings more fulfillment than all the indulgence in the world.

I further disagree when you say that current teaching is that “celibacy and marriage are considered equal.” Absolutely not! Our late Holy Father made it very clear that celibate chastity is a superior form of marriage. Human marriage is a reflection of the marriage in heaven. Celibacy has skipped over earthly marriage and gone straight to a heavenly marriage.

Please seek a deeper understanding of Church teaching. To say “it changed” is to deny the Church as the authentic Truth.

 

[rad314]

I think I understand fine.

Here’s what makes me think you don’t understand – and it’s not that you don’t agree. (In fact, I do think that if you really did understand, you would agree, but that’s a separate issue.)

In all the posts I’ve seen from you under a variety of topics, you always reflected back, in sufficient detail to show understanding, what the other person had said, either to dispute it or to grant the point. On the many occasions I’ve brought up the magisterium and what constitutes an infallible teaching, you haven’t done that. Same goes for the development of doctrine and the difference between development and change.

 

[mpartyka]

So I completely disagree with your assessment of the writings of the ECF, especially St. Augustine. He was a former playboy and speaking to the playboy mentality. A playboy indulges every whim. A playboy uses others to his own end. St. Augustine was saying that celibate chastity brings more fulfillment than all the indulgence in the world.

I’m currently in the process of doing a survey on all the Church Fathers – the ones to whose works I have access, anyway – on their views of sex within marriage. Right now I’m bogged down in St. Augustine’s writings which bear directly on the topic of marriage: On Continence, On the Good of Marriage, Of Holy Virginity, and On the Good of Widowhood. From what I’ve gathered so far, these treatises were plainly directed toward all Christians, not simply those toward having a “playboy mentality.”

It was and is wrong to seek the marriage act for the sake of pleasure. Unity is NOT merely pleasure. Unity is unity. It means in the joining of the act.

I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that there are in fact four reasons to initiate sex in marriage, which in descending order of blamelessness are:

1. To attempt to have a child.
2. To unify with one’s spouse.
3. To relieve the sexual tension of one or both spouses.
4. To receive pleasure.

Here’s something you probably don’t realize. To the ECFs, there is no such reason as #2. The ECFs – St. Augustine in particular – never speak of sex within marriage as something to be enjoyed or encouraged for its “unitive” function. Either you had sex for procreation’s sake (#1), or you had sex to relieve the pressure so that you and/or your spouse wouldn’t be tempted to masturbate or cheat (#3), but that was it – anything over and above that was considered a gratification of lust (#4) and frowned upon as venially sinful, though pardoned by reason of the Sacrament of Marriage. (Actually, even #3 was frowned upon somewhat, because it demonstrated a Christian’s lack of continence.)

Please also keep in mind that in St. Augustine’s day, arranged marriages were the rule, and marriages for the sake of love were the exception. Thus, when a person grew to marrying age, he or she generally had to make a decision between continuing in celibacy or getting married (whether or not you were in love with someone at the time). The basic criteria for this decision wasn’t, “Do I want to be married?” or “Do I want to have children?” but rather, “Am I capable of remaining celibate my whole life?” If the answer to the question, “Can I remain celibate?” were, “Yes, I can,” then the person usually became a monk/nun or a priest, although the option to remain celibate “in the world” was an available choice, too. If, however, a person’s answer were, “No, I’m never going to be able to hold out forever; my passions are too strong,” then marriage was the available fallback position for that person, and that person then proceeded to get married (whether to his/her beloved or to somebody arranged for him/her via family agreement) because the thinking was that if he/she didn’t get married, fornication was inevitable. Celibacy, then, was considered the Christian’s “default state,” and married life was something the Christian settled for if he/she couldn’t hack the celibate life.

Question: Is this the attitude toward celibacy and marriage that prevails in the Catholic Church today? Is celibacy understood to be the young Christian’s hoped-for goal, and marriage to be the fallback position for those who have not been granted by God the gift of lifelong continence?

–Mike

 

[Mommomamats]

For goodness sake, must the church be in my marriage bed? As long as we as a married couple aren’t using abortificient ABC, preventing children for selfish reasons, bringing others into our bed, using porn etc etc than why must the church dictate under what circumstances we can come together.

We’re not allowed to seek pleasure for pleasures sake? Huh? I really don’t get this. Especially when I’ve been dutiful and obedient in becoming preganant 4 times. I’ve eaten my dinner for sure. That’s all I can handle.

Paul says we must be married rather than burn with lust… he didn’t say rather than burn with desire to have a child. Onan was snuffed out because of his selfish intentions not because he wanted to space out his children.

To rule that a man can’t have an orgasm anywhere than his wife’s vagina is ridiculous. To say that this is mortal sin… I can’t accept it! Be damned to hell for being pleased by your wife???

I am really struggling with the Church’s teaching on this. I do not want anymore children I am having a hard enough time raising those I do have, for their sake I do not wish to bring anymore into this family.

I am in the process of becoming a Catholic but this teaching is ruining my sex life. If the church approves NFP than she should approve withdrawal as well.

 

[Jennifer_J]

For goodness sake, must the church be in my marriage bed? As long as we as a married couple aren’t using abortificient ABC, preventing children for selfish reasons, bringing others into our bed, using porn etc etc than why must the church dictate under what circumstances we can come together.

We’re not allowed to seek pleasure for pleasures sake? Huh? I really don’t get this. Especially when I’ve been dutiful and obedient in becoming preganant 4 times. I’ve eaten my dinner for sure. That’s all I can handle.

Paul says we must be married rather than burn with lust… he didn’t say rather than burn with desire to have a child. Onan was snuffed out because of his selfish intentions not because he wanted to space out his children.

To rule that a man can’t have an orgasm anywhere than his wife’s vagina is ridiculous. To say that this is mortal sin… I can’t accept it! Be damned to hell for being pleased by your wife???

I am really struggling with the Church’s teaching on this. I do not want anymore children I am having a hard enough time raising those I do have, for their sake I do not wish to bring anymore into this family.

I am in the process of becoming a Catholic but this teaching is ruining my sex life. If the church approves NFP than she should approve withdrawal as well.

NFP retains the proper order of the act. Withdrawal does not and is NOT a very good method for spacing children. NFP works with the moral order, withdrawal does not. The Church’s rules on sex is not to be an interferance–the Church’s goal is to get us to heaven…properly understood the marital embrace is a renewal of the sacramental covenant of matrimony. When you mess with the nature of the act, you remove the sacramental nature–you “uninvite” God, so to speak. So, if you have just/grave/serious need to space children, I would suggest NFP–take a course with your husband so he understands the method. There are several methods to choose from. They are morally licit and a bit more reliable than withdrawal.