When "normal" sex is difficult or impossible

[Pug]

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

What I said is not relevant to you at all. I know nothing about you that would indicate that it does. I do know some people that I think it is partly relevant to, based upon their own description of how their situation changed when they switched from using contraception to using NFP. When they describe the changes this caused, it really does seem like the regular practice of contraception for them was causing some amount of mental unhappiness or distress, at least to the wife. This distress became more obvious to them once they were distanced from the situation. I did not mean this applied to you in any way. It applies partly to the experience of some people that I know. It is not a full description of their experience, though. It seems to function as part of it, though, as I said.

I did not intend this to mean you. I, too, wish I had received more information about right and wrong from the generation that raised me. I really had no idea what marriage was about. Zip. The only helpful information they shared was that marriage was harder than I thought it would be. And they were right.

I meant my own experience when I said that switching from not observing Church teaching to observing it is helpful. It was helpful. Also, logically that would be so, since Church morality does not come from a vacuum, but by the loving care the Father.

 

[Chancellare]

So, wouldn’t withholding sexual enjoyment just because a man is unable to finish “inside” be wrong?

I tried to read all the responses to the above logic from the OP but I failed to see one logical aspect in the subject. This is ,IMHO what I would like to add:

Our present and immediate past culture has produced in us a certain taste or preference for deriving pleasure from doing things outside the “beaten path”, so to speak. When someone uses the flashlight for hammering nails, the designer will feel insulted and point out that it was not designed for such use, not withstanding the obvious damage from such wrongful use. By the same token, many of us have come to think that sexual intercourse need not necessarily involve finishing “inside” but contrarily, conclude more pleasure if “outside”. That it is outside the design parameter of the original application; and that it violates the design rules, etc was never part of our consideration. So when the Instruction For Use reminds us that of such wrongful use, we invoke our freedom.

My point is this:
God set the design rule for man and all his faculties, including sex. Man can only violate this at his own disadvantage.

 

[Save_Us]

When someone uses the flashlight for hammering nails, the designer will feel insulted and point out that it was not designed for such use, not withstanding the obvious damage from such wrongful use.

Interesting. But, if one had a nail to hammer, but no hammer was available, then it would necessitate the use of the flashlight because that’s what you had to work with. And, there is NO doubt in my mind that “the Maker” would understand.

(Hey honey! You want to…“hammer the nail”?)

Sorry…I couldn’t help myself.

 

[Chancellare]

Interesting. But, if one had a nail to hammer, but no hammer was available, then it would necessitate the use of the flashlight because that’s what you had to work with. And, there is NO doubt in my mind that “the Maker” would understand.

(Hey honey! You want to…“hammer the nail”?)

Sorry…I couldn’t help myself.

Sorry, for correct syntax you should have said:
"Hey Honey! You want to …“flashlight the nail”?

In so doing, you not only lose your flashlight, you also most likely lost the nail too, with nary the job done. So what does that make of your situation?

Don’t worry, being able to laugh at our own predicament is a healthy thing.

 

[Save_Us]

Sorry, for correct syntax you should have said:
"Hey Honey! You want to …“flashlight the nail”?

In so doing, you not only lose your flashlight, you also most likely lost the nail too, with nary the job done. So what does that make of your situation?

Don’t worry, being able to laugh at our own predicament is a healthy thing.

Touche, but…

ham-mer (ham-er)
–verb (used without object)
18. to strike blows with or as if with a hammer.

btw - Have you ever seen a Maglite flashlght? Very versatile. You could pound a nail with that puppy, and still have light in your life.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Content…and all others…

I have serious doubts that most who post here have degrees in Theology or Canon Law…yet have no problem reading black and white into the CCC which is meant to be a general guide, not exhaustively review each circumstance or possibility. My advice to you is to find a good solid Catholic Priest and consult with him…consider his advice above the amateurs (myself included) in this forum.

Yes, looking at the porn is disordered, role play under most circumstances is not a bad thing IF IT IS UNITIVE…

God Bless and Good Luck.

 

[Chancellare]

Touche, but…

ham-mer (ham-er)
–verb (used without object)
18. to strike blows with or as if with a hammer.

btw - Have you ever seen a Maglite flashlght? Very versatile. You could pound a nail with that puppy, and still have light in your life.

Let’s put it this way: You can have Maglite or Eveready or Swiss Army Knife but one cannot accomplish the job to be done if one does not follow design rules. Even atheists know that and laugh.

 

[Delphinus85]

All of us would agree that God gave us sex for a husband and wife, and to procreate. Also for our enjoyment, or He could surely have designed us to reproduce without the enjoyment of the act. Reading the Song of Solomon alone would seem to show us that there is a lot of plain ol’ desire and enjoyment involved. If a couple is at a place in their lives where conception cannot possibly occur (post-menopause, hysterectomy, etc) and “normal” intercourse is difficult to impossible (erectile dysfunction issues, obesity, other physical issues) then why the dogmatic idea that sex is “wrong” if the man doesn’t finish inside the woman?

Why would giving a spouse pleasure in this area be wrong? The Scriptures and church say that it is wrong to withhold sex from a spouse without very good reasons, and only for a short time. I don’t need to get into all of that. So, wouldn’t withholding sexual enjoyment just because a man is unable to finish “inside” be wrong? I just can’t see that, although that is the impression I have gotten from some posts. Unfortunately, age and physical issues make it so that not all men can finish in the traditional manner. I can’t imagine a way to be more cruel to a husband than to refuse sexual activities because he is having problems completing the act inside the vagina.

Please, I hope that my post is in no way coming across attacking anyone. This is such an emotional issue, one I am writing about with tears in my eyes. Let’s see, how to drive a man from the church but to say that God won’t allow Him sexual activity anymore because he is having physical issues in that most sensitive of areas.

I’m sorry I don’t have an answer, but I write to let you know you aren’t alone in this issue. While my husband and I are of concieving age, I am on medicine that make conception impossible for us. However, in our marriage this far (granted it hasn’t been that long) my husband has been having performance anxiety, and other issues have stemmed from that. He has this problem because his whole life he has heard that he can’t enjoy sexual pleasure at all unless he finishes in his wife. Now he admits he is scared because every time we do something he’s scared he cant, and usually that causes him to be unable to, which reinforces his fear. We’ve read all the books and talked to people about it, but the simple fact remains that this rule puts a little too much pressure on some men, especially men who really are trying to follow God and the church.

 

[Chancellare]

He has this problem because his whole life he has heard that he can’t enjoy sexual pleasure at all unless he finishes in his wife.

As a man, I haven’t come across such unfortunate pressure from others. It’s just like saying that you won’t be able to enjoy the morning sun anymore because people say it can only come from the east. I’m sorry for your husband.

 

[setter]

Content…and all others…

I have serious doubts that most who post here have degrees in Theology or Canon Law…yet have no problem reading black and white into the CCC which is meant to be a general guide, not exhaustively review each circumstance or possibility.

The teachings and principles of Catholic sexual morality found in the CCC are definitive and binding on the faithful. Too often the problem is that many folks have never learned critical or analytical thinking …another symptom of our media, information and sound bite over load society and defunk educational system where folks do not think through or in depth for themselves. This is why relativism is such a pervasive and insidious cultural ethos, from without and within the Church.

My advice to you is to find a good solid Catholic Priest and consult with him…consider his advice above the amateurs (myself included) in this forum.

If one still has doubts …find a priest who is orthodox, faithful to the magisterium teaching.

Btw – you feed into the belief that many people have that 1) they are not capable themselves of arriving at or knowing how to apply truth to their specific circumstances, and 2) one must have credentialed pedigree and official position in order to really know and understand what is right and wrong; when in fact, most often what only is needed is a sincere desire and effort to find, know and live the truth of our Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals, IMHO. Time for Catholics to grow up into mature sons and daughters …but until then, give 'em the bottle and change the diapers, or listen to many of them whine or walk away or smugly ignore when asked to grow up and to start feeding themselves.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Btw – you feed into the belief that many people have that 1) they are not capable themselves of arriving at or knowing how to apply truth to their specific circumstances, and 2) one must have credentialed pedigree and official position in order to really know and understand what is right and wrong; when in fact, most often what only is needed is a sincere desire and effort to find, know and live the truth of our Catholic teaching in matters of faith and morals, IMHO. Time for Catholics to grow up into mature sons and daughters …but until then, give 'em the bottle and change the diapers, or listen to many of them whine or walk away or smugly ignore when asked to grow up and to start feeding themselves.

No, not at all, my issue here is that when someone DOES have doubts the person to consult is an orthodox Priest, not Joe from Catholic Answer Forum.

 

[CuriousInIL]

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.

You miss the point of my comment. With NFP it is the period of non-abstinence that literally violates your statements. There is ejaculation and the timing “thwarts the purpose” of the sperm as there is no egg to fertilize.

 

[PennitentMan]

You miss the point of my comment. With NFP it is the period of non-abstinence that literally violates your statements. There is ejaculation and the timing “thwarts the purpose” of the sperm as there is no egg to fertilize.

Ahhh, procreative **and **unitive. That’s the teaching. The Church says that each act has to be unitive as well as pro-creative. They say that ABC is not procreative. But how is that different from NFP?

Some say that with NFP vs ABC, that it’s not the intent that matters, it’s the means.
They give all sorts of complicated explanation for that, how it thwarts God’s plan, etc.

Plainly put, the Catholic school of thought, says thus:
NFP does what ABC does, and it does it better.
It lets you have sex without getting pregnant. Both are non-procreative.

So, basically every married couple, no matter how intensely devout they are would have had non-procreative sex if they have ever practised NFP to avoid pregnancy.

I have not been able to resolve NFP and the Procreative **and **Unitive teaching for myself.

 

[FLCathMom]

The “unitive and procreative” teaching is a means of explaining the Church’s teaching on onanism. It is the explanation, maybe it doesn’t work for you, but the issue is that man is not to spill his seed (onanism). Human seed is supposed to go into the womb (earth), and no where else. It is too precious as the source of human life to be violated.

 

[Chancellare]

Ahhh, procreative **and **unitive. That’s the teaching. The Church says that each act has to be unitive as well as pro-creative. They say that ABC is not procreative. But how is that different from NFP?

Some say that with NFP vs ABC, that it’s not the intent that matters, it’s the means.
They give all sorts of complicated explanation for that, how it thwarts God’s plan, etc.

Plainly put, the Catholic school of thought, says thus:
NFP does what ABC does, and it does it better.
It lets you have sex without getting pregnant. Both are non-procreative.

So, basically every married couple, no matter how intensely devout they are would have had non-procreative sex if they have ever practised NFP to avoid pregnancy.

I have not been able to resolve NFP and the Procreative **and **Unitive teaching for myself.

Your argument tries to prove that NFP is equal to ABC simply because both do not result in conception. But you did not recognize that ABSTAINING is different from DISABLING. ABC disables the natural reproductive process in order to satisfy sexual urge. NFP temporarily abstains from and sacrifices sexual urge and preserves the integrity of the natural reproductive process. One promotes self control while the other does not. Therein lies the big difference.

 

[fix]

Plainly put, the Catholic school of thought, says thus:
NFP does what ABC does, and it does it better.
It lets you have sex without getting pregnant. Both are non-procreative.

That is not what the Church teaches.

So, basically every married couple, no matter how intensely devout they are would have had non-procreative sex if they have ever practised NFP to avoid pregnancy.

Nope. NFP does not suppress or alter the procreative element in any way. If it did then every minute one was not engaging in the marital act would be equal to practicing contraception.

I have not been able to resolve NFP and the Procreative **and **Unitive teaching for myself.

Procreation does not simply equal likelyhood of conception.

 

[PennitentMan]

Okay, let’s forget the whole ABC vs NFP debate. Maybe I shouldn’t have taken that tangent, it’s not what this thread is about.

The thread is about sex being Procreative and Unitive.

To procreate is to produce offspring.

The Church teaches that every sex act performed between husband and wife must be open to life.

Using NFP not to avoid having children, is certainly not open to conception.
It avoids conception in a very real and effective way.
Thus, every sex act performed whilst using NFP for this intention is counter to the Churches stance that every sex act between husband and wife must be Procreative and Unitive.
Plain and simple.

 

[rtconstant]

The “unitive and procreative” teaching is a means of explaining the Church’s teaching on onanism. It is the explanation, maybe it doesn’t work for you, but the issue is that man is not to spill his seed (onanism). Human seed is supposed to go into the womb (earth), and no where else. It is too precious as the source of human life to be violated.

I hope that isn’t the case. Or I should say I hope this isn’t what these disciplines are based on. Onan’s sin was not in spilling seed but in disobeying Jewish legal tradition. If a woman was widowed before conceiving a child. Jewish tradition allowed that she should then be wed to the next oldest brother who would impregnate her in place of his brother and the resulting child would be considered the child of the dead brother. In this way the deceased would still have a legacy and wife would have a child.

Onan, used his brother’s wife to sate his lust but denied her and his brother their heir which was the entire purpose of this sort of marriage. The spilling of seed on the ground was simply the medium by which this was accomplished. This is also reaffirmed when this tradition because part of the divine Law giving by Moses later.

 

[fix]

Using NFP not to avoid having children, is certainly not open to conception.

The Church does not say one must intend to conceive in each act. She says one may not alter the act.

It avoids conception in a very real and effective way.

Avoiding conception is not wrong if one has a serious reason. After all the cycle exists in such a way one is not always going to conceive.

Thus, every sex act performed whilst using NFP for this intention is counter to the Churches stance that every sex act between husband and wife must be Procreative and Unitive.
Plain and simple.

Nope. There is no suppressing of fertility or altering the act in any way when using NFP.

Being open to procreation does not mean likelyhood of conception in each act. It means we do not intentionally frustrate any part of the act.

 

[agangbern]

Ahhh, procreative **and **unitive. That’s the teaching. The Church says that each act has to be unitive as well as pro-creative. They say that ABC is not procreative. But how is that different from NFP?

Some say that with NFP vs ABC, that it’s not the intent that matters, it’s the means.
They give all sorts of complicated explanation for that, how it thwarts God’s plan, etc.

Plainly put, the Catholic school of thought, says thus:
NFP does what ABC does, and it does it better.
It lets you have sex without getting pregnant. Both are non-procreative.

So, basically every married couple, no matter how intensely devout they are would have had non-procreative sex if they have ever practised NFP to avoid pregnancy.

I have not been able to resolve NFP and the Procreative **and **Unitive teaching for myself.

Nature is God’s work, and God works on nature. Therefore, for as long as nothing is done contrary to the nature of the body and its elements for the purpose of preventing conception, then sex therein is still considered procreative. Hence NFP is procreative.

And the same rule applies to sex. The word “normal sex” should be understood better than antiquated concepts.