What is periodic continence?

[LJN21]

Okay, then therein lies my question:

After I was assaulted, I was told very bluntly by my doctors that sex… well, it just may not be fun for me. (scar tissue, etc, let’s just not get into it).

Obviously I’m not going to take my body out for a test run to find out! So if I literally only have sex ONCE does that mean I shouldn’t have gotten married?!

Honestly, thats between you and your future husband. If you really think you’d only be interested in it to consummate the Marriage then I’d really recommend against it. The purpose of Catholic Marriage is to raise kids and the salvation of the spouses, the love and companionship in it are all aids toward the end goal not the actual purpose of marriage. That is why not being capable of sex is an impediment.

Sex isn’t that much fun the first couple times anyway. Its pretty uncomfortable, but that goes away fairly quickly. Then again after you have a kid it can be pretty painful for a while too. It could be that over time it might get easier.

Something else to think about is the effect of a marriage of very little/no sex on a man. It could be very hard, men can be very physical in there needs for affection and there is no way to satisfy those needs completely outside of intercourse without winding up in mortal sin.

 

[ghaybyers1]

“Not fun” and “impossible” are not the same thing.

The standard of canon law is quite high. Where there is doubt, the marriage can take place until/unless it is proven otherwise.

But, you and any potential spouse would need to undergo intense counseling.

Possibly. No one can answer definitively. If you spouse agrees-- remember mutual consent-- then you can live in continence. But, the sexual component of marriage is a central aspect.

I am very sorry for any physical and psychological trauma you encountered.

We are speaking in generalizations here, no one can speak to all aspects of your specific situation. You should seek counseling and** medical opinion as to options**. Any potential spouse would have to agree to a celibate marriage. That is a heroic virtue, not what most people intend going into marriage. And, again, if one or the other changes their mind the marital relations must be available and you must be able.

There is a difference between being *unable *to render the marriage debt and mutually *choosing *to forego it.

Perhaps there is a man out there who would want to marry and remain celibate with you. Who’s to say? **But, if you meet a man and he intends a regular marriage with sexual relations you probably should not marry him until you are **sure you can agree to that.

I’m sorry. By not fun, I meant “better buy new bedding because people are going to think you beat your wife” not fun.

This is just what my 3 doctors have told me. I haven’t tested it. And yet, I don’t really want to. It seems like, either way, I’m screwed with the Church because one way or another (I test it, pre-marital sex… aaaand bigtime sin, or I don’t test it and find I can’t have sex all that often and am denying my husband his marital rights and that’s apparently a big no-no, too) I’m messing up, you know?

Oh to have future-sight! Naw… that’d wreck the fun!

I don’t think (to a pp) that men are constantly trying to have sex with their poor, sad, ever-so-maligned wives. Let’s be real here- women are just as excited and nervous for the marriage night as men are. BUT there is definitely a much higher rate of males abusing women than women abusing males.

and to 1ke- thank you for your kind words. It’s surprisingly easy to move on and forgive now that I have found the Church. I fuddle around, I stuggle to figure things out- But I have God and His Church… and that’s all I need

 

[1ke]

or I don’t test it and find I can’t have sex all that often and am denying my husband his marital rights and that’s apparently a big no-no, too) I’m messing up, you know?

This is something your future spouse will know beforehand. If he agrees that sexual relations will be infrequent and possibly not at all after consummation then that is not “messing up”. There have been married saints and blesseds that agreed to a Josephite Marriage (no sex). It’s not the norm, and it requires heroic virtue.

If your doctors really don’t believe you can have sexual relations without serious levels of harm-- which you allude to-- then yes you do need to *consider *that marriage may not be something you should pursue.

Talk to your priest for guidance.

and to 1ke- thank you for your kind words. It’s surprisingly easy to move on and forgive now that I have found the Church. I fuddle around, I stuggle to figure things out- But I have God and His Church… and that’s all I need

Don’t give up hope. Whatever you are called to, or whatever your circumstances have dealt you, God will give you the grace (be it marriage or singlehood).

 

[ghaybyers1]

This is something your future spouse will know beforehand. If he agrees that sexual relations will be infrequent and possibly not at all after consummation then that is not “messing up”. There have been married saints and blesseds that agreed to a Josephite Marriage (no sex). It’s not the norm, and it requires heroic virtue.

If your doctors really don’t believe you can have sexual relations without serious levels of harm-- which you allude to-- then yes you do need to *consider *that marriage may not be something you should pursue.

Talk to your priest for guidance.

Don’t give up hope. Whatever you are called to, or whatever your circumstances have dealt you, God will give you the grace (be it marriage or singlehood).

I had never heard of a Josephite marriage. Honestly, that is a cool thing (shame I can’t think of a better word for it than “cool” but it works haha).

I have sort of had this thought milling about in my head through most of this conversation. Is it really any different of an expectation for ME to live my life either
a) in pain and/or
b) celibate,
than it is to expect a man to do the same? Not at ALL to be argumentative, I’d love an honest opinion.

Personally, I’d think not, but I often wonder if I think too much of people and am maybe too idealistic. In my head, marriage is a give and take, a partnership built off of emotional love rooted in Christ… so really, should the frequency of the marital act be a concern for a Catholic man walking into a marriage? One who would turn away because he didn’t think he’d get it enough strikes me as selfish, and not the man I’d want to marry anyway!

To be honest, whomever it was that said “sex hurts the first few times, and then can get better, and then may hurt again after a baby, and then get better…”
Well thank you for the hope! Now I have something to pray for- it honestly never occurred to me that it might hurt, for sure, but then get better.

 

[LJN21]

I have sort of had this thought milling about in my head through most of this conversation. Is it really any different of an expectation for ME to live my life either
a) in pain and/or
b) celibate,
than it is to expect a man to do the same? Not at ALL to be argumentative, I’d love an honest opinion.

The church does actually ask the same of men. Men with SSA must live celibate lives, they have no outlet, OR they can live in the pain of having a faithful marriage with a female spouse that they are not totally sexually attracted too. The church does require some hard lifestyles in special circumstances. A quadriplegic man under most circumstances cannot marry and must live a celibate life.

Everyone in life has a cross to bear, and it’s different for everyone. The church just asks that we bear it, whatever it may be, in fidelity to Christ.

Personally, I’d think not, but I often wonder if I think too much of people and am maybe too idealistic. In my head, marriage is a give and take, a partnership built off of emotional love rooted in Christ… so really, should the frequency of the marital act be a concern for a Catholic man walking into a marriage? One who would turn away because he didn’t think he’d get it enough strikes me as selfish, and not the man I’d want to marry anyway!

Been debating how to reply to this one for a bit. I think the views of modern society on sex has totally wrecked how people think about it. Sex is so infinity more than just “getting some”, in a lot of ways its food for marriage. It helps bond the husband and wife together and strengthens their love for each other. I swear there is something that helps you forget about their faults in it to If my husband died and I found someone I was going to remarry and found out that he had no sex drive, as much as I might love the guy I’d really have to think about if I would be able to marry him. I need physical intimacy, I need quite a bit of it. I go up a wall abstaining for 10 days in an attempt to do NFP. (We have 4 kids 3 are 3 and under.) This has nothing to do with selfishness but my ability to not die of starvation.

 

[1ke]

I had never heard of a Josephite marriage. Honestly, that is a cool thing (shame I can’t think of a better word for it than “cool” but it works haha).

I have sort of had this thought milling about in my head through most of this conversation. Is it really any different of an expectation for ME to live my life either
a) in pain and/or
b) celibate,
than it is to expect a man to do the same? Not at ALL to be argumentative, I’d love an honest opinion.

Yes, it is. Sex is an expectation of marriage. It’s not an afterthought or optional. You should not expect any man to marry you with the intent of being celibate.

Personally, I’d think not, but I often wonder if I think too much of people and am maybe too idealistic. In my head, marriage is a give and take, a partnership built off of emotional love rooted in Christ… so really, should the frequency of the marital act be a concern for a Catholic man walking into a marriage? One who would turn away because he didn’t think he’d get it enough strikes me as selfish, and not the man I’d want to marry anyway!

Yes, the frequency does matter and it should be a concern. And, no it is not a sign of selfishness on the part of the man.

Perhaps you should stay tuned in to this thread, and pay attention to how sad and rejected this man feels because his wife refuses him sexually. She is hurting him as surely as if she were stabbing him with a knife. What she is doing is inexcusable.

Marriage is meant to be a complete sharing and the sexual union of spouses, not a celibate relationship.

 

[Geremia]

You argument is flawed in the idea that a couple practicing periodic continence is acting selfishly

Although I cannot judge a particular couple’s selfishness, I can say that periodic continence or Natural Family Planning (NFP) should be a rare occurrence, especially among the first world countries capable of supporting children, and it definitely should not be promoted for all married Catholics. From Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanæ Vitæ, there must be

well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Some translations say “serious motives to space out births.” The (2368)CCC mentions “just reasons:”

For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood.

and that the ONLY purpose of sex in marriage is to make babies.

Again, from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii, the secondary purposes of marriage should be subordinated to the primary end.

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

He defined earlier in the encyclical that “primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.” This does not contradict your quote of Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio.

1 Corinthians 7:5

Regarding this verse,

Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

here is what St. John Chrysostom said in his homilies:

suppose a wife and husband, and let the wife be continent, without consent of her husband; well then, if hereupon he commit fornication, or though abstaining from fornication fret and grow restless and be heated and quarrel and give all kind of trouble to his wife; where is all the gain of the fasting and the continence, a breach being made in love? There is none. For what strange reproaches, how much trouble, how great a war must of course arise! since when in an house man and wife are at variance, the house will be no better off than a ship in a storm when the master is upon ill terms with the man at the head. Wherefore he says, Defraud not one another, unless it be by consent for a season, that you may give yourselves unto prayer. It is prayer with unusual earnestness which he here means. For if he is forbidding those who have intercourse with one another to pray, how could pray without ceasing have any place? It is possible then to live with a wife and yet give heed unto prayer. But by continence prayer is made more perfect. For he did not say merely, That ye may pray; but, That ye may give yourselves unto it; as though what he speaks of might cause not uncleanness but much occupation.

And may be together again, that Satan tempt you not. Thus lest it should seem to be a matter of express enactment, he adds the reason. And what is it? That Satan tempt you not. And that you may understand that it is not the devil only who causes this crime, I mean adultery, he adds, because of your incontinency."

I am sure you would agree with St. John Chrysostom’s analysis, but nowhere does he say that the husband and wife should use charts, tables, thermometers, and natural body rhythms to figure out whether having sex would result in conception. Also, neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom mention “periodic.” “Periodic” implies recurring.

By advocating periodic continence (NFP), you are saying that sex for “mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence” can be more important than sex for “the procreation and the education of children” regardless if the Catholic husband and wife have a “serious motive,” a “well-grounded reason,” or “just reasons” for doing so.

Think about this quote from Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Ratzinger’s predecessor, in The Rhine flows into the Tiber:

Never has this [that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have] been heard of in the Church. My father was a laborer, and the fear of having many children never entered my parents’ minds, because they trusted in Providence.

 

[LittleDeb]

Although I cannot judge a particular couple’s selfishness, I can say that periodic continence or Natural Family Planning (NFP) should be a rare occurrence, especially among the first world countries capable of supporting children, and it definitely should not be promoted for all married Catholics.

[emphasis mine] I read your whole post and I do get where you are coming from. I really do. But you are making a subjective judgment here and in other parts I snipped for brevity. (Brief? Yeah me, be brief? Right!)

In your opinion it should be rare. In your opinion you are saying it isn’t rare. It is rare. I am the only one of my (Catholic) friends with bad health who needs to practice NFP. But on topic to this thread…periodic continence is a GREAT thing to practice in marriage.

As I stated in the other thread (the one that got locked ) charting is completely neutral. There is no reason whatsoever to indict couples for understanding their mutual fertility. No document in Church history has ever said that understanding fertility is even part of the problem of the culture of death. My charts and my thermometer have nothing to do with this discussion. My knowledge of my fertility is a good thing.

What the documents in question are saying is that a couple must have just reason (or serious, or grave,) to purposefully make exclusive use of the infertile phases. That is without question. Any and every couple using NFP will agree with that. If they don’t, then we can discuss ways to counter their contraceptive mentality. A couple who remains ignorant of fertility is not more holy than a charting couple. But a couple who is generous in their circumstances IS holy. That means my small garden with 2 blossoms or a large garden are both holy given our circumstances.

The documents advising against a set number of children are often about an early decision to limit the number of children. This is a problem made worse by total celibacy in marriage. Period continence keeps that discussion alive. Do we still have serious reason? Have the circumstances changed? Is our health/financial/other children etc. and so on, reason still serious? For a couple to enter marriage with a set number of children in mind is one of the things couples are cautioned against. This is on both ends of the spectrum, many or few children.

Periodic continence IS trusting in Providence. With periodic continence you plan for each baby at a time. 1 Cor 7:5 says “for a season” in your translation. (A translation I fall in love with more every day, BTW.) What is a season? Three months? Winter, Spring, Summer, Autumn. One month? A lunar season? Is it like my health, which waxes and wanes? Is it a season fertility-infertility? ‘Season’ in most translations means ‘for a time’ or ‘during change.’ Those definitions apply to fertility, pregnancy, and menopause.

Yes, I totally 100% agree with you that limiting of family size should be rare. But making that happen is tough on some of us. If you know someone who can cure my health struggles, please point the way. I will NOT stop practicing periodic continence because it brings blessings to my marriage…but I would stop practicing it during fertility.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thank you Geremia and Little Deb for your thoughtful insights. You both made excellent points. I agree that deciding on a set amount of children going into marriage is a bad idea. Having said that, a general idea about how many children each person believes God may be calling them to have may be in order. Communication on the number of children the couple can handle physically, emotionally, psychologically, and financially is important during the courtship stage of a relationship.

But, as with anything, life experiences can sometimes change things. One couple may have gone into marriage with the thought that they could handle eight children but then they have a special needs child to start off with which makes having another child detrimental to the care of that child. Conversely, a couple may go into a marriage thinking they can only handle two children, and after the first child born, God blesses them with triplets. Then they realize they can handle more than they thought and go on to have another two naturally and then adopt another three after that for a total of nine children.

Periodic continence plays a role in both situations. The first in the demands of the special needs child, the second in the decision to adopt children after a certain point in their marriage.

 

[LittleDeb]

Thank you Geremia and Little Deb for your thoughtful insights. You both made excellent points. I agree that deciding on a set amount of children going into marriage is a bad idea. Having said that, a general idea about how many children each person believes God may be calling them to have may be in order. Communication on the number of children the couple can handle physically, emotionally, psychologically, and financially is important during the courtship stage of a relationship.

But, as with anything, life experiences can sometimes change things. One couple may have gone into marriage with the thought that they could handle eight children but then they have a special needs child to start off with which makes having another child detrimental to the care of that child. Conversely, a couple may go into a marriage thinking they can only handle two children, and after the first child born, God blesses them with triplets. Then they realize they can handle more than they thought and go on to have another two naturally and then adopt another three after that for a total of nine children.

Periodic continence plays a role in both situations. The first in the demands of the special needs child, the second in the decision to adopt children after a certain point in their marriage.

Such an excellent point! I was going to mention something along those lines but I already get too wordy sometimes…(sometimes?)

One important communication before marriage is on the definitions of the terms. What is a “big” family? Both sides of the couple might say, “I want a BIG family.” Unfortunately, one person means 3 children and the other means 11. Perspective makes a big difference.

Similarly, if a couple decides to practice periodic continence the definitions need to be discussed before entering marriage. How long is “a time” or “a season?” What is the purpose of practicing it? Will it be life-long, or only in application to fertility? Is it truly a sacrifice for this couple? What results does the couple expect to attain? And finally, is it truly God’s will for this particular couple?

 

[newbetx]

The purpose of Catholic Marriage is to raise kids and the salvation of the spouses, the love and companionship in it are all aids toward the end goal not the actual purpose of marriage. That is why not being capable of sex is an impediment.

Point of order!!! You may raise kids that are not your own. I know a couple that did that. It was too painful for the woman to have sex so the couple abstained but adopted instead. A couple does not have to have sex if there is a problem/issue or they choose mutually to abstain.

 

[1ke]

Point of order!!! You may raise kids that are not your own. I know a couple that did that. It was too painful for the woman to have sex so the couple abstained but adopted instead. A couple does not have to have sex if there is a problem/issue or they choose mutually to abstain.

You are correct, they do not have to exercise their right to intercourse. But they do have to be capable of sexual intercourse. Permanent, antecedent impotence is an impediment to marriage.