When "normal" sex is difficult or impossible

[drafdog]

Content,
Please be advised that this forum is frequented largely by persons with scrupulocity issues and any variation from the “party line” is viewed as heretical and mortally sinful. Don’t take too much of it to heart as you try to keep your wife happy and your marriage healthy.

Matthew

PS “If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy!”

 

[Gizmo]

Content,
Please be advised that this forum is frequented largely by persons with scrupulocity issues and any variation from the “party line” is viewed as heretical and mortally sinful. Don’t take too much of it to heart as you try to keep your wife happy and your marriage healthy.

Matthew

Way to read the whole thread - she is the wife. Should we also warn Content that there are people who frequent this forum and post things without really understanding what the thread is even about? I would at least make sure you read the entire thread next time so that you know who you are addressing.

Second, what the heck is the “party line”? Sexual intercourse between spouses should not be seen as a party, or entertainment, it is an act love and self-gift to each other.

PS “If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t NOBODY happy!”

Other than the fact that you directed your post to the wrong spouse this post script is highly insensitive. Content has made it known that this is an issue that is not easy to talk about. What was your intention by posting something like that? Was it to be consoling or directive? Maybe it’s just me that but remark is just plain crude.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The problem in all of this has been discussed in other posts - how can the Church say other than it does because it then opens the door to approving of sin or other sins.

Searching, I think this is precisely the point. I’m a homosexual, and often it appears (from my perspective) that because the Roman church does not want me having sex with another man, you get to suffer in your relationship with your wife. The logic is a bit obtuse for me, but that’s really beside the point. I’m not Roman. You are.

I understand the Roman church’s stance on the generative aspect of sex. Our Lord is a Lord of Life, we must therefore live open to Life. Where I have trouble with Roman doctrine is that it prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex. Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening, relationship-building, non-vaginal sexual expression between two married people is simply not as valuable as perfunctory vaginal intercourse between two married people. In fact, some may argue that it is impossible to have a non-vaginal sexual experience and for it to be intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening, etc.

Because the function of sperm is to unite with egg to produce another person, to deny sperm their ontology is to close the act to Life. That seems to be the bottom line from Rome. The ontology of the sperm is more important than the ontology of the relationship: the relationship exists for the uniting of sperm and egg–the uniting of husband and wife is secondary to that primary purpose. You thought your sacramental marriage was about you, your partner, and God! Really, it’s just about procreation.

Although to deny sperm their purpose when sex isn’t an option–i.e. celibacy–is just fine. This denial is noble: because, it is admitted, sex is pleasurable, but only when subject to the conditions of marriage and put to procreative ends is it purposeful (even if those procreative ends are purely metaphorical, as in an infertile couple). it is the possibility of this purpose that, in turn, gives sperm their purpose, becuase it is only through the male orgasm that that purpose has the possibility to be achieved. Sperm only acquire an ontological purpose in the act of sex, or, more specifically, in the moment of ejaculation. If sperm are not in danger of being expressed (and of therefore acquiring an ontology), then they’re just curious little things the body produces a lot of for no real reason. Until ejaculation. When they discover their reason, or are denied it. Or, to summarize:

1–The purpose of sperm is to seek to unite with an egg.
2–It is morally wrong to thwart this purpose.
3–However, the sperm only acquire this purpose during ejaculation.
4–Therefore celibacy is not morally wrong, but not ejaculating into a vagina is morally wrong.

To me, this is what Rome is ultimately saying. Everything else (which to me sounds more important–that masturbation is wrong, for instance, because there is no mutuality and it is merely self-reflexive) is just filler. And it disturbs me that the basis of Rome’s moral doctrine on this point is biology (focused on the male orgasm and the purpose of ejaculate, essentially), and not something greater like the presence or absence of intimacy, which, according to Rome, is secondary to the procreative purpose.

Which is all just to say, I can empathize with those confused by Rome’s standing on some sexual issues.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[CuriousInIL]

Grace & Peace!

Searching, I think this is precisely the point. I’m a homosexual, and often it appears (from my perspective) that because the Roman church does not want me having sex with another man, you get to suffer in your relationship with your wife. The logic is a bit obtuse for me, but that’s really beside the point. I’m not Roman. You are.

I understand the Roman church’s stance on the generative aspect of sex. Our Lord is a Lord of Life, we must therefore live open to Life. Where I have trouble with Roman doctrine is that it prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex. Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening, relationship-building, non-vaginal sexual expression between two married people is simply not as valuable as perfunctory vaginal intercourse between two married people. In fact, some may argue that it is impossible to have a non-vaginal sexual experience and for it to be intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening, etc.

Because the function of sperm is to unite with egg to produce another person, to deny sperm their ontology is to close the act to Life. That seems to be the bottom line from Rome. The ontology of the sperm is more important than the ontology of the relationship: the relationship exists for the uniting of sperm and egg–the uniting of husband and wife is secondary to that primary purpose. You thought your sacramental marriage was about you, your partner, and God! Really, it’s just about procreation.

Although to deny sperm their purpose when sex isn’t an option–i.e. celibacy–is just fine. This denial is noble: because, it is admitted, sex is pleasurable, but only when subject to the conditions of marriage and put to procreative ends is it purposeful (even if those procreative ends are purely metaphorical, as in an infertile couple). it is the possibility of this purpose that, in turn, gives sperm their purpose, becuase it is only through the male orgasm that that purpose has the possibility to be achieved. Sperm only acquire an ontological purpose in the act of sex, or, more specifically, in the moment of ejaculation. If sperm are not in danger of being expressed (and of therefore acquiring an ontology), then they’re just curious little things the body produces a lot of for no real reason. Until ejaculation. When they discover their reason, or are denied it. Or, to summarize:

1–The purpose of sperm is to seek to unite with an egg.
2–It is morally wrong to thwart this purpose.
3–However, the sperm only acquire this purpose during ejaculation.
4–Therefore celibacy is not morally wrong, but not ejaculating into a vagina is morally wrong.

To me, this is what Rome is ultimately saying. Everything else (which to me sounds more important–that masturbation is wrong, for instance, because there is no mutuality and it is merely self-reflexive) is just filler. And it disturbs me that the basis of Rome’s moral doctrine on this point is biology (focused on the male orgasm and the purpose of ejaculate, essentially), and not something greater like the presence or absence of intimacy, which, according to Rome, is secondary to the procreative purpose.

Which is all just to say, I can empathize with those confused by Rome’s standing on some sexual issues.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

If taken literally, your reasoning shows that the intentional periodic abstinence of NFP (for any reason) is morally wrong. Thus, while an interesting thesis, I don’t think it flies.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If taken literally, your reasoning shows that the intentional periodic abstinence of NFP (for any reason) is morally wrong. Thus, while an interesting thesis, I don’t think it flies.

No–abstinence (which is a temporary period of voluntary celibacy) does not allow the sperm to assume its purpose. In the 4 points enumerated above, there is no danger of ejaculation mentioned in point 3. Therefore, abstinence is fine.

But you raise a bigger point–if the purpose of the sperm is to unite with the egg, isn’t the egg also important? Shouldn’t some of Rome’s moral doctrine surrounding sex focus on the woman or on the egg? Well, the liceity of NFP shows the the answer to these questions is “No.”

When I was questioning myself about the thesis (that the sexual moral theology of Rome is centered on the male orgasm, more specifically, the purpose of the ejaculate), I had to question if there were any sort of allowance for a female orgasm centered interpretation of things. There wasn’t–a wife does not ever have to have an orgasm for sperm to do their thing. I then asked,is there any possibility at all of an egg focus? No, not really–you can have sex outside menopause and not sin.

So what you are left with is: the wife is a receptacle. The woman becomes symbolic earth (in a fundamentally primitive sense) into which the seed is planted. The ontological purpose of sperm is respected as long as the seed is planted. The earth may be fallow or infertile. But ultimately, the condition of the earth is immaterial to the planting of the seed–that’s what matters. (This is what I referred to above when I mentioned that the procreative end is primary, even if only metaphorically present, as in the case of the infertile couple.)

So maybe it would be better to say this: the purpose of sperm is to be planted seed. The vagina is the only correct ground in which this seed may be planted. None of this really alters the argument of the previous post–the focus of the moral question remains: what do we do with semen? Everything else is immaterial.

Now, if the husband is infertile, the whole act of sex reverts to symbolic role-play–which is acceptable as the procreative purpose of sex is still metaphorically present–“seed” and womb become rain and earth.

But the question arises: if there is no ejaculate, no viable seed, what’s the problem? I.e., if there is no viable seed, is it acceptable for the male orgasm to happen outside the vagina?

If it isn’t, then the focus of the doctrine is really just the male orgasm. Or, to be more specific, Rome views insertive vaginal sex ending in the male orgasm as the only sexual expression which has any real value. If the presence or absence of fertility does not have any effect on liceity, this is the only conclusion that can ultimately be reached.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[bilop]

I don’t think it is necessarily/exactly/always because we love our sins. The grief comes from not understanding, being able to accept, or submit wholly without understanding to the fact that the Church says God gives us our spouses to love and yes, have sex with (yes for the ultimate purpose of kids), but then tells us how and when we can or cannot do so. I do not see wanting to make love to my wife and have her do so with me as loving sin. That causes the grief.

But nowhere does the Church says you can’t make love to your wife. You can do it every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. You just have to do so in a way that’s uniative and procreative.

 

[Save_Us]

Married for over 30 years. Intercourse has been painful for my wife for that entire time. Many years ago she had a condition which caused need of a hysterectomy. Because of this condition, and the surgery to “contain” the condition, intercourse for her is now excrutiatingly painful. Penetration sends now her through the roof, painful expressions on her face, body convulsing in pain.

I did not marry to have sex. I married for life. But, God made me and God makes no mistakes. God made me with sexual desire. God put me with a wife who can not have penetrative intercourse. So according to those here, quoted/touting, the Catechism, written by “human beings” (I believe hundreds of years ago - the time is no matter), my choices to not be in a state of mortal sin are: 1) to abstain from sex, since penetration is not possible, byt saying that it’s not possible, it is possible, but only if I am willing to cause my wife a great deal of pain and she is willing to accept this pain; 2) divorce my wife for being unable/unwilling to fulfill her duties to not withhold sex for a long period of time, and marry someone else; 3) oh, there is no number 3…

Hmmm…what to do, what to do.

I think men and women who take every word of every document ANY church or religion endorses as GOD’s word, and believe that laws (God’s laws) such as those described here are the only way to live without sin (and I expect believe themselves to be so holier than thou) because they know the “MIND OF GOD”, will be the very first to be astounded when they get the the gates of Heaven and are told they must wait…for those they believe are “the sinners” to enter Heaven first.

content If you believe you are doing something sinful, go to your priest and confess. If you believe that God meant for married couples to live without sex when “normal sex” is not possible go and confess. If you believe that God meant for marriage to be a gift and sex is part of that gift, and you can no longer have “normal sex”, but you and your husband show and share love, caring, and affection through the sexual acts that you can perform together and get and give pleasure to one another with, then leave this thread now and never come back, and know that God loves you for your concern of doing the right thing in His eyes - and don’t worry abuot the eyes of men.

 

[bilop]

content If you believe you are doing something sinful, go to your priest and confess. If you believe that God meant for married couples to live without sex when “normal sex” is not possible go and confess. If you believe that God meant for marriage to be a gift and sex is part of that gift, and you can no longer have “normal sex”, but you and your husband show and share love, caring, and affection through the sexual acts that you can perform together and get and give pleasure to one another with, then leave this thread now and never come back, and know that God loves you for your concern of doing the right thing in His eyes - and don’t worry abuot the eyes of men.

I really am very sorry for your situation, it is a terrible cross to bear.

However, how can you be so certain that you are right and everyone else (who are in agreement with the Church) are wrong? Have the opinion, have hope, but how can you have moral certitude?

Maybe, God does want those who can’t have “normal” sex to abstain.
Many people God loved dearly never had sex in their lives (Jesus, Blessed Mother, John the Baptist, just to name the obvious).
Maybe God doesn’t view sex as that important?

God Bless

 

[Save_Us]

I really am very sorry for your situation, it is a terrible cross to bear.

Thank you. I really do appreciate your understanding.

However, how can you be so certain that you are right and everyone else (who are in agreement with the Church) are wrong? Have the opinion, have hope, but how can you have moral certitude?

I can be so certain because it’s between God and me. He is the judge…not man.

Maybe, God does want those who can’t have “normal” sex to abstain.

God doesn’t make mistakes and God made me. Other than engaging in acts that cause my wife pain, and/or are against “her” will, I don’t believe God has a problem with what we are required to do to have anything (and I’m talking a stretch here) close to a normal, intimate, sexual relationship. And again, God made me with the desire I have for my wife.

Many people God loved dearly never had sex in their lives (Jesus, Blessed Mother, John the Baptist, just to name the obvious).

As I recall, and I could be mistaken, Jesus had brothers and sisters. Were they conceived immaculately? It’s not that obvious or clear cut, unless you were there. I wasn’t there.

Maybe God doesn’t view sex as that important?

What is or is not “that important”? Intmacy between a husband and wife, where there are desires “obviously” put there by God?

God Bless

And again, I Thank You for your opinion, your understanding (to a degree), and your “obvious” thoughfulness.

God Bless you as well.

 

[kage_ar]

And again, I Thank You for your opinion, your understanding (to a degree), and your “obvious” thoughfulness.

God Bless you as well.

Save Us - in your above quote, you reference “brothers and sisters” of Jesus. The doctrine of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is basic Catholic teaching. Perhaps you should ask that question over in the Apologetics section to get an understanding of this dogma.

 

[Katie1723]

There are probably more people than not on this forum who have “indulged” in something that would be considered a bit “off color”.
They just won’t admit it. And to the poster who described them as “sanctimonious”, you are dead on.
Kathy

 

[Save_Us]

Save Us - in your above quote, you reference “brothers and sisters” of Jesus. The doctrine of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is basic Catholic teaching. Perhaps you should ask that question over in the Apologetics section to get an understanding of this dogma.

Thanks kage. Just show in my Catholic convert ignorance I guess, with my off the cuff comment. This isn’t something I’ve analysed by any means, so I guess I’m guilty of reporting the rumors and beliefs of others.

As I recall, I was kind of thrown off by the comment itself, “Many people God loved dearly never had sex in their lives (Jesus, Blessed Mother, John the Baptist, just to name the obvious).”, as if God might love one or another more or less based upon whether they’ve had sex or not. I just couldn’t figure out how it applied.

Thanks again for pointing out my mistake. I dearly love Mary, so I believe I’d just as soon think of her as being wholly pure, as a perpetual virgin.

 

[setter]

There are probably more people than not on this forum who have “indulged” in something that would be considered a bit “off color”.
They just won’t admit it. And to the poster who described them as “sanctimonious”, you are dead on.
Kathy

Your point? …we are called to be children of the light and to cast off the deeds of darkness committed in our former ignorance apart from our new life in Jesus Christ. I suggest that you immerse yourself in the NT writings (especially of St. Paul) for a perspective appropriate to one having their righteousness founded in Jesus Christ.

 

[Katie1723]

Your point? …we are called to be children of the light and to cast off the deeds of darkness committed in our former ignorance apart from our new life in Jesus Christ. I suggest that you immerse yourself in the NT writings (especially of St. Paul) for a perspective appropriate to one having their righteousness founded in Jesus Christ.

My point is that there are people here who are afraid to admit for fear that they would be judged, that they themselves are guilty of some sin. Instead, they sit back and say :bigyikes: when someone admits they have done something less than :angel1: .

Kathy

 

[dixieagle]

My point is that there are people here who are afraid to admit for fear that they would be judged, that they themselves are guilty of some sin. Instead, they sit back and say :bigyikes: when someone admits they have done something less than :angel1: .

Kathy

What is that saying I’ve heard? “The things that we find most distasteful in other people are those which we detest most in ourselves” - or words to that effect.

This thread is pertinent to most Catholic married people. As someone married 30+ years, I can attest to the angst caused by trying to be faithful to the often difficult teachings of the Church when one’s husband isn’t quite “with the program”, sexually speaking.

I was faced with years of frustration and, often, anger from him during our NFP years. He simply couldn’t accept how we could reasonably be expected to abstain from sexual activity for weeks or even months (during questionable times during nursing or perimenopause.) This issue caused great tension and much pain. My choice was to violate my conscience and ease the tension, or keep my conscience clear and my husband angry. This was the origin of many years during which he often felt rejected. I think many couples must deal with choices - abstain and escalate marital tensions or give in, use birth control or alternative means for sexual intimacy, etc., and make one’s spouse, at least temporarily, happy. Not easy choices.

While his attitude could certainly be ascribed to selfishness, to a degree, I did see his point. I also remember feeling that, if, years in the future, the Church refined its position on contraception in any way (knowing that, according to its interpretation of natural law, it wouldn’t be likely) I would be tempted to pummel the first bishop who crossed my path as payback for years of struggle! I was delighted beyond words when I went through menopause in my early forties, settling the question forever while we were both still pretty young.

I have a feeling that a merciful God understands and sympathizes with the struggle.

 

[TruthSkr]

After having read through this thread I couldn’t help but notice the intense difference of opinion between the two opposing sides on this issue…and understandably so. This is a very difficult subject, as I well know, from personal experience. What I can’t help but wonder is whether or not the posters who adamantly support the church’s position have themselves abstained for long periods of time, and whether or not they suffered in their abstenance or if was not really a problem, as their attitude seems to suggest. And if it wasn’t a problem, the big question is why? Could the sexual revolution that occurred in the 60’s that lead to sex on demand with no fear of pregnancy due to easy access to “the pill” be the reason? I am of the impression that those couples who practiced NFP willingly may not have the problem that everone else seems to have with abstenance. If you are one of the supporters of the church’s position on this issue and you have experience with lengthy abstenance or maybe permanent abstenance please let us know how you handle all this.

 

[Sonic]

If you are one of the supporters of the church’s position on this issue and you have experience with lengthy abstenance or maybe permanent abstenance please let us know how you handle all this.

My wife and I willingly practice NFP and we’ve found that our relationship is actually growing stronger. We’re both in our thirties.

Instead of focusing on sex, we’re finding that other aspects of our relationship are getting stronger. We’re more intimate now and the act is more meaningful.

 

[Pug]

What I can’t help but wonder is whether or not the posters who adamantly support the church’s position have themselves abstained for long periods of time, and whether or not they suffered in their abstenance or if was not really a problem

Abstinence is difficult in a marriage, but it most definitely can be done. It is not a small thing, though. It takes work and practice. I often have wondered if a partial reason why it is well received by some of those who receive it well is that the sexual practices that they were doing before adopting it were hurting them in various mental ways, and those ways are suddenly removed, and different attitudes set in. This could really improve a marriage.

Myself, I haven’t found that not having marital relations is particularly helpful over the long run. Observing Church teaching when you previously weren’t observing it IS quite helpful, though.

I think how it affects a person/couple likely varies.

 

[Sonic]

I often have wondered if a partial reason why it is well received by some of those who receive it well is that the sexual practices that they were doing before adopting it were hurting them in various mental ways, and those ways are suddenly removed, and different attitudes set in. This could really improve a marriage.

I can’t say that my wife and I were ever involved with sexual practices that were harmful to our mental health. I can say that practicing NFP helped us to mature more in our attitudes about sex. Church teachings helped, as well. After all, we only had “teenage” concepts and attitudes about marriage and sex when we first got married. I couldn’t say that the older generation was of much help in teaching us right from wrong.

But, if you must believe such things about people, then I’ll gladly wear that scarlet letter proudly.

 

[setter]

After having read through this thread I couldn’t help but notice the intense difference of opinion between the two opposing sides on this issue…and understandably so. This is a very difficult subject, as I well know, from personal experience. What I can’t help but wonder is whether or not the posters who adamantly support the church’s position have themselves abstained for long periods of time, and whether or not they suffered in their abstenance or if was not really a problem, as their attitude seems to suggest.

Every couple is unique. What is common to faithfully practicing NFP couples is their choice to honor the marriage bed in the sacramental language, i.e., theology, of their bodies. I surmise that the “attitude” you detect is the mature fruit of obedience to God’s command.

And if it wasn’t a problem, the big question is why? Could the sexual revolution that occurred in the 60’s that lead to sex on demand with no fear of pregnancy due to easy access to “the pill” be the reason? I am of the impression that those couples who practiced NFP willingly may not have the problem that everone else seems to have with abstenance.

Sin and disobedience to God’s commands has a way of making the straight and narrow way that leads to life seem burdensome and insurmountable. Suggestion: First, pray for the grace to repent, get out of the sin, and then see how the yoke of Jesus Christ becomes easy and the burden light.

If you are one of the supporters of the church’s position on this issue and you have experience with lengthy abstenance or maybe permanent abstenance please let us know how you handle all this.

Self-mastery, self-discipline as in the acquired virtue of chastity.

“For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Hebrews 12: 11-14