Yet another NFP question...

[LaSainte]

The main argument I hear in favor of NFP is that God designed sex a certain way and that because NFP doesn’t interfere with that in any way, it is the only licit form of birth control.

Well, when you think about it, there are other things about the design of sex that are/seem very problematic. For example, 10-year-old girls and boys are capable of reproduction, so according to God’s design, there should be nothing wrong with these children getting married and having sex, right? Except that canon law does not allow them to do so? Why??? Because it’s sick and wrong and we all know it.

What about the fact that a woman’s fertility ends around the age of 45 or 50, but a man’s doesn’t end until he is around 85? At the very least, this design has men who are 85 having sex and children with women who are 40 years younger than they are, and at the greatest extreme, it has 85 year old men having sex and children with 10 year old girls! This must be a part of God’s perfect design for sex right? Well again, this would be sick and wrong.

So the question is, if we have SO much respect in one sense for the way sex and procreation take place to the point where we can’t even use any method besides NFP to prevent conception, then how can we logically say that in some ways the design of sex and reproduction is so flawed that there are even canon laws preventing it from taking place at all for years after the body was DESIGNED to do it?

And please do not throw out the argument that brothers and sisters are capable of reproduction but are disallowed, because there is an actual biological mechanism in place that is the basis for the prohibition of this practice, namely, that their children will very often have severe handicaps, so this is not a valid rebuttal.

The fact is that we seem to pick and choose exactly what we find sacred and well-designed about sex and what parts we can and should absolutely do without if not outright forbid.

 

[Spencerian]

The main argument I hear in favor of NFP is that God designed sex a certain way and that because NFP doesn’t interfere with that in any way, it is the only licit form of birth control.

Well, when you think about it, there are other things about the design of sex that are/seem very problematic. For example, 10-year-old girls and boys are capable of reproduction, so according to God’s design, there should be nothing wrong with these children getting married and having sex, right? Except that canon law does not allow them to do so? Why??? Because it’s sick and wrong and we all know it.

What about the fact that a woman’s fertility ends around the age of 45 or 50, but a man’s doesn’t end until he is around 85? At the very least, this design has men who are 85 having sex and children with women who are 40 years younger than they are, and at the greatest extreme, it has 85 year old men having sex and children with 10 year old girls! This must be a part of God’s perfect design for sex right? Well again, this would be sick and wrong.

Just because biologically, our bodies are CAPABLE of reproduction at certain times, with certain people, at certain ages, does not mean that it’s morally right and even canon law disallows it.

So the question is, if we have SO much respect in one sense for the way sex and procreation take place to the point where we can’t even use any method besides NFP to prevent conception, then how can we logically say that in some ways the design of sex and reproduction is so flawed that there are even canon laws preventing it from taking place at all for years after the body was DESIGNED to do it?

Hi. I think you’ve answered your own question, or your question has a flaw in its logic.

A hand is capable of building a weapon and using it. But the *hand *isn’t the one responsible for pointing itself at a target. Nor is the hand responsible for choosing a target or committing the weapon to action. The human that guides the hand is responsible. Your question isn’t a matter of design and ability. It’s a matter of free will and morality.

NFP was arrived at deductively to plan marital relations during infertile cycles and also to gain knowledge of fertile signs to greatly increase the chance of pregnancy when the couple is financially or spiritually prepared. It’s the “weapon” here, to continue my analogy.

But a consenting couple can choose to use the weapon improperly. This isn’t a fault of the design. It’s a fault–a sin–of the people who commit to the incorrect action and knowing that the action is incorrect.

There is nothing I know of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or canon law that implies that couples can “do what they want to whom they want” in regards to having a child after the female has experienced menopause. The Church leaves the possibility (not probability) of conceiving children open throughout a couple’s entire married life. There is no “age limit” in having children for validly and lawfully (canonically and civilly) married couples.

While the idea of a 28 year old female marrying a 60 year old man may be distasteful to some, who are we to question that union if they, as other more age-comparable couples, are catechized properly, are following Church laws and practice to be open to children and are able to consummate their union?

 

[sw85]

It all goes back to natural law.

Morality consists in using our faculties in a manner consistent with their respective ends. We have reason so that we can know truth; therefore it is good to use our reason to know truth (and the Truth above all truths, i.e., God) and evil to use our reason to invent and disseminate falsehoods.

Our sexual faculty has the end of procreation (and a subordinate unitive end). We know this because the sex act is how procreation is accomplished. If morality is using our faculties in a manner consistent with their ends, and the end of the sexual faculty is procreation, then sexual morality consists in using your sexual faculty in a manner consistent with procreation – i.e., intravaginal ejaculation in the context of marriage. This is why contraception is immoral: ejaculating into a condom is not how children are made, and if children result from it, its only because the condom failed to subvert the fulfillment of the sexual faculty).

We don’t let 10 year olds marry because they can’t complete the sex act in a manner consistent with its end (eunuchs and people who are paralyzed from the neck down, etc., can’t marry for the same reason). It’s clear that only post-pubescent people are capable of marriage because they’re the only ones capable of completing the sex act. (This is why there is nothing *necessarily *wrong with two pubescent teenagers getting married, provided they are mature enough to understand what they’re getting themselves into by doing so and are able to do so in accordance with the law, e.g., parental dispensation.)

Old age doesn’t change the sexual faculty. Thus, so long as an older couple is capable of completing the sex act (even if old age has incidentally rendered them infertile), they may marry.

Hope that helps.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t get the segue that “Some children reach puberty early, that means that there is a flaw in God’s design for sex, so NFP must not be licit.”

Well no. God didn’t make sex just a fun activity to do to have a child.

Love is the core of marriage

Why does Holy Scripture choose this particular relationship as an image? It is chosen because marriage is the closest and most intimate of all earthly unions in which, more than in any other, one person gives himself to another without reserve, where the other in his complete personality is the object of love, and where mutual love is in a specific way the theme (that is to say, the core) of the relationship.

Love is also the inmost core of the relation of the soul to God. Unquestionably, we owe adoration and obedience to the eternal King of Glory, the splendor of Everlasting Light. He is our Lord. Our duty here on earth is to serve Him in all things without reserve. Yet, three times He asks St. Peter, "Lovest thou me?"7 Does not the chief Commandment which contains all the Law and the Prophets say, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, with thy whole soul, with thy whole strength, and with thy whole mind”?8

Marriage has been chosen as the image of the perfect union between the soul and Christ because in marriage, likewise, the center and core is love. No other earthly community is constituted so exclusively in its very substance by mutual love.

In friendship, for example, community of thought or spiritual interests and common experiences play a capital part. In the relationship between parent and child, the care and upbringing of their charges holds an essential place. At the root of the child’s relationship to the parent is gratitude and obedience due for protection and care.

Of course, family relations, too, can be transfigured only by love, and should be permeated by love. But even though they can only unfold their real meaning on the basis of love and under its banner, the essence and exclusive principle of such relationships is not mutual love.

Subjectively considered, love does not enter so exclusively into the essence of their relations as it does in the case of marriage. Their objective character is not founded in the same way on love nor are they constituted to the same extent for love.

On the other hand, in marriage the fundamental with the subjective attitude and the objective raison d’être of the relationship, a relationship which also mysteriously serves to procreate new human beings, is mutual love.

Marriage is the wonderful union of two persons in which is love and by love. Later we shall see that in sacramental marriage this love is elevated to a mysterious communion of love and life in and for Christ. But this presupposes a unique mutual love, and it is in just this that the married couple glorifies Jesus Christ.

Love is the primary meaning of marriage just as the birth of new human beings is its primary end. The social function of marriage and its importance for the State are something secondary and subordinate. We shall understand this better if, putting aside for the moment the sacramental dignity of marriage and considering it simply as a natural communion, we recall the specific characteristics of conjugal love.

Can ten year olds, bearly a few years over the age of reason even begin to understand this idea? I think that goes with the Church’s wisdom that 10 year olds can’t marry.

There is nothing immoral about an older man marrying a younger woman, provided that the older man was still capable of performing the marital act. Alice and Dietrich von Hildebrand were many years apart.

ewtn.com/library/marriage/sipmarrg.htm

 

[Bookcat]

Well, when you think about it, there are other things about the design of sex that are/seem very problematic. For example, 10-year-old girls and boys are capable of reproduction, so according to God’s design, there should be nothing wrong with these children getting married and having sex, right?

no…the design of God is that Human beings are to develop in a certain way. Just cause the capacity is there is not a sign it is his will to act upon it. We are born and develop gradually. …(though by the way 10 is usually rather early…at least for boys)…so that by the time the possibility of marriage arrives…they are prepared biologically for such.

 

[Corki]

The main argument I hear in favor of NFP is that God designed sex a certain way and that because NFP doesn’t interfere with that in any way, it is the only licit form of birth control.

Well, when you think about it, there are other things about the design of sex that are/seem very problematic. For example, 10-year-old girls and boys are capable of reproduction, so according to God’s design, there should be nothing wrong with these children getting married and having sex, right? Except that canon law does not allow them to do so? Why??? Because it’s sick and wrong and we all know it.

You already received the best answer - free will and it’s place in God’s plan. But here are a few other thoughts.

When you look at the teaching on human sexuality, it is helpful to look at the longer time frame and not just what works in the 21st century.

Most 10 year old girls and boys aren’t capable of reproducing. Most children enter puberty around 10-13 years of age and are fully “capable of reproducing” around age 12 -15. The age has been moving lower in modern times in part due to early psychological sexualization and in part due to the presence of artificial elements in the diet and environment among other things. Those things are not part of the natural state of human sexuality. The 12-15 year age worked quite well into God’s plan in the days when life expectancy was in the 30s. Even now, a 15 year old can marry in many places. It has more to do with societal changes and views of family than anything else.

What about the fact that a woman’s fertility ends around the age of 45 or 50, but a man’s doesn’t end until he is around 85? At the very least, this design has men who are 85 having sex and children with women who are 40 years younger than they are, and at the greatest extreme, it has 85 year old men having sex and children with 10 year old girls! This must be a part of God’s perfect design for sex right? Well again, this would be sick and wrong.

Again, in the long term picture, hardly anyone lived to 85 let alone still have sex. Even today, it is a very rare man who is potent at age 85.

I don’t find anything intrinsically sick or wrong with an vibrant 70 year old marrying a woman in her 30s. It is only the way we have structured society that makes that an annomoly.

So the question is, if we have SO much respect in one sense for the way sex and procreation take place to the point where we can’t even use any method besides NFP to prevent conception, then how can we logically say that in some ways the design of sex and reproduction is so flawed that there are even canon laws preventing it from taking place at all for years after the body was DESIGNED to do it?

I have no idea what you are referring to - canon laws preventing reproduction? And of course there are other methods besides NFP that can morally be used to space births of children.

And please do not throw out the argument that brothers and sisters are capable of reproduction but are disallowed, because there is an actual biological mechanism in place that is the basis for the prohibition of this practice, namely, that their children will very often have severe handicaps, so this is not a valid rebuttal.

The actual rates of incest related birth defects if very low. But the prohibitions against marrying close relatives is based more on the needs of early societies to cement ties with other tribes and nations than an understanding of genetics.

The fact is that we seem to pick and choose exactly what we find sacred and well-designed about sex and what parts we can and should absolutely do without if not outright forbid

Most of what you argue here is not about when to have sex but about who should be allowed to marry. The teaching of the Church on the sacredness of sex in marriage is not directly related to who should marry but on how the couple relates to each other after the marriage is already in place.

 

[LaSainte]

Maybe I should have phrased this differently.

My point is that canon law forbids marriage under the age of 14, I belIeve. It used to be 12. So you have people who are biologically capable of reproduction who are not allowed to marry. Why? We are tacitly saying here that the design is flawed, that even though someone has entered puberty, they have no business having sex. Also, just because 2 people are capable of reproducing healthy, normal offspring according to biology, doesn’t mean that they are allowed to in the Church. The Church would never marry a 10 or 12 year old girl and an 85 year old man. Not going to happen. But it does not go against Natural Law now does it?

Now look at the ban on ABC. The argument used is that God in His infinite wisdom designed sex a certain way, that that design is perfect and that we are not allowed to do anything to change that act because of its innate natural perfection, ever.

Well, if the design is so perfect, then there should be no law forbidding anyone who is not related and who has reached puberty and is capable of sex from getting married and doing just that. And yet, we recognize that this is not prudent and that God intended for us to use common sense to keep adults from marrying children or children from marrying each other, right?

So why on EARTH would we not be allowed to use our common sense and the technology available to us when we are told we will DIE if we have more kids? We are allowed to completely BAN sex between people that we deem too young, thereby saying that the design of sex itself is not always perfect, but when it comes to ABC, we somehow change our tune, call it a perfect design, and have to be willing to die rather than use it. It’s kind of hypocritical.

 

[Bookcat]

no…the design of God is that Human beings are to develop in a certain way. Just cause the capacity is there is not a sign it is his will to act upon it. We are born and develop gradually. …(though by the way 10 is usually rather early…at least for boys)…so that by the time the possibility of marriage arrives…they are prepared biologically for such.

 

[Bookcat]

So why on EARTH would we not be allowed to use our common sense and the technology available to us when we are told we will DIE if we have more kids? We are allowed to completely BAN sex between people that we deem too young, thereby saying that the design of sex itself is not always perfect, but when it comes to ABC, we somehow change our tune, call it a perfect design, and have to be willing to die rather than use it. .

Because it is gravely disordered means. It is gravely disordered “technology”.

Just as it is gravely disordered technology to make babies and then kill them for the sake of others…to cure some horrible disease…that will kill many.

---

The design of sex has already been explained in the preceding post.

 

[LaSainte]

My point is that we have apparently set up arbitrary rules for what part of the design is flawed and what part is not. The logic doesn’t make sense.

When it comes to puberty, we suddenly decide “Oh no, God couldn’t possibly intend for kids to be having sex even though they are biologically prepared to do just that. Let’s ban it.”. But when it comes to ABC, the argument is “Never, ever mess with God’s perfect Biological design.”

 

[Bookcat]

My point is that we have apparently set up arbitrary rules for what part of the design is flawed and what part is not. The logic doesn’t make sense.

When it comes to puberty, we suddenly decide “Oh no, God couldn’t possibly intend for kids to be having sex even though they are biologically prepared to do just that. Let’s ban it.”. But when it comes to ABC, the argument is “Never, ever mess with God’s perfect Biological design.”

The point is based on a misunderstanding of what is at issue.

It not that we can not use technology for good things…like the cure of disease. But we can not use it for bad things like attacking the meaning of the marital act (etc), aborting children, euthanizing our elderly, seeking to clone our aunt sally…

It is not a contra technology. All sorts of technology can use to assist and support marriage … But it can not be used in an evil way…in a way that is contrary to marriage and the realities and meaning involved…

(nor of course are the arbitrary…nor for that matter even “rules”)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

My point is that we have apparently set up arbitrary rules for what part of the design is flawed and what part is not. The logic doesn’t make sense.

When it comes to puberty, we suddenly decide “Oh no, God couldn’t possibly intend for kids to be having sex even though they are biologically prepared to do just that. Let’s ban it.”. But when it comes to ABC, the argument is “Never, ever mess with God’s perfect Biological design.”

Are you honestly saying that the Church is arbitrarily saying 10 year olds should not marry? Really?

Does the Church actually ever divorce the body from the mind? A 10 year old can possibly conceive…same 10 year old is not emotionally/ mentally/ intellectually / spiritually prepared to enter into a covenant with another person.

The Church does not separate sexuality into biological on one side/ spiritual on another. That’s why sexuality is a total self giving to the spouse.

A 10 year old is not capable.

 

[sw85]

My point is that canon law forbids marriage under the age of 14, I belIeve. It used to be 12. So you have people who are biologically capable of reproduction who are not allowed to marry.

Well, yeah. Again, mentally they cannot appreciate what they’re agreeing to. It has nothing to do with some design in the flaw but the gravity of the commitment being expected of them.

So why on EARTH would we not be allowed to use our common sense and the technology available to us when we are told we will DIE if we have more kids?

See my post above.

 

[mark_a]

The main argument I hear in favor of NFP is that God designed sex a certain way and that because NFP doesn’t interfere with that in any way, it is the only licit form of birth control.

Well, when you think about it, there are other things about the design of sex that are/seem very problematic. For example, 10-year-old girls and boys are capable of reproduction, so according to God’s design, there should be nothing wrong with these children getting married and having sex, right? Except that canon law does not allow them to do so? Why??? Because it’s sick and wrong and we all know it.

What about the fact that a woman’s fertility ends around the age of 45 or 50, but a man’s doesn’t end until he is around 85? At the very least, this design has men who are 85 having sex and children with women who are 40 years younger than they are, and at the greatest extreme, it has 85 year old men having sex and children with 10 year old girls! This must be a part of God’s perfect design for sex right? Well again, this would be sick and wrong.

So the question is, if we have SO much respect in one sense for the way sex and procreation take place to the point where we can’t even use any method besides NFP to prevent conception, then how can we logically say that in some ways the design of sex and reproduction is so flawed that there are even canon laws preventing it from taking place at all for years after the body was DESIGNED to do it?

And please do not throw out the argument that brothers and sisters are capable of reproduction but are disallowed, because there is an actual biological mechanism in place that is the basis for the prohibition of this practice, namely, that their children will very often have severe handicaps, so this is not a valid rebuttal.

The fact is that we seem to pick and choose exactly what we find sacred and well-designed about sex and what parts we can and should absolutely do without if not outright forbid.

From my point of view, you have completely missed the pro-contraception straw you are trying grasp.

 

[LaSainte]

Are you honestly saying that the Church is arbitrarily saying 10 year olds should not marry? Really?

Does the Church actually ever divorce the body from the mind? A 10 year old can possibly conceive…same 10 year old is not emotionally/ mentally/ intellectually / spiritually prepared to enter into a covenant with another person.

The Church does not separate sexuality into biological on one side/ spiritual on another. That’s why sexuality is a total self giving to the spouse.

A 10 year old is not capable.

I like this response, but I have never gotten a sense from the Church that the spiritual side of sex matters very much st all, which is probably part of the reason why I have a problem with the teaching.

In fact, until TOB, I never read anything indicating that the spiritual side really matters at all.

For the Church, sex is at least 90% about the physical mechanics of the act itself. “Place penis in vagina, ejaculate.” Sure, if one or both parties enjoy it or get some kind of bonding experience out of it, that’s great, but it’s definitely not a deal-breaker. The only things that make sex illicit are 1.) not being married, 2.) physical force and 3.) not making sure the semen is ejaculated into the vagina. That’s it.

Both partners don’t even have to be willing, per se. They just both have to agree. In fact, even if one party is NOT willing, refusal can be a mortal sin. This is taught specifically by the Church as “the marital debt”. Even if I am in a virtual panic every time my husband and have sex because for whatever reason, conception for me would be a nightmare, it is still a licit act. Just lay back and think of England, as they say. Even if it absolutely impossible for me to feel bonded and closer to my husband through sex because I’m so paranoid about the possible consequences, if we have not MUTUALLY agreed to abstain indefinitely, then I am told to give it up like a good little wife or face the consequences of mortal sin.

I wonder where I get the idea that feelings aren’t all that important to the Church where sex is concerned. Actually, how many times have we read on this very site from various posters, “How you FEEL doesn’t matter, these are the rules”. Inknownthese people don’t necessarily speak for the Church, but the sentiment doesn’t seem that far off when you actually look at the teachings.

The ONLY thing that really matters is that the semen goes in the right place. Everything else (bonding, a sense of love and closeness and well-being, a mutual desire to make love, a sense of oneness with the other) is just a bonus if you get it, but really no bog deal if you don’t. This is clear from the teaching.

To me, it seems like a cold, utilitarian teaching on the most intimate experience we can share with another person, entirely based on biology with any sort of feelings coming in a very distant second. No wonder it seems so hollow to me and to many others who have difficulty with this teaching.

 

[ahs]

I like this response, but I have never gotten a sense from the Church that the spiritual side of sex matters very much st all, which is probably part of the reason why I have a problem with the teaching.
In fact, until TOB, I never read anything indicating that the spiritual side really matters at all.
For the Church, sex is at least 90% about the physical mechanics of the act itself. “Place penis in vagina, ejaculate.” Sure, if one or both parties enjoy it or get some kind of bonding experience out of it, that’s great, but it’s definitely not a deal-breaker.

I can see your point here, but I think you just have not been catechized very well on this. It sounds like the only thing you were taught was the “fecundity” of marriage. There is also “marital fidelity” which balances this out. The marital union is just as much emotional as it is spiritual as it is physical.

Forgive me if I have missed something, and I don’t mean to be rude, but do you have a copy of the Catechism? I actually never had one until I was in my mid-late 20’s…didn’t even know what it was.

Both partners don’t even have to be willing, per se. They just both have to agree. In fact, even if one party is NOT willing, refusal can be a mortal sin. This is taught specifically by the Church as “the marital debt”. Even if I am in a virtual panic every time my husband and have sex because for whatever reason, conception for me would be a nightmare, it is still a licit act. Just lay back and think of England, as they say. Even if it absolutely impossible for me to feel bonded and closer to my husband through sex because I’m so paranoid about the possible consequences, if we have not MUTUALLY agreed to abstain indefinitely, then I am told to give it up like a good little wife or face the consequences of mortal sin.

I think you misunderstood what the marital debt is. A husband cannot force his wife to have sex if she does not want to. Neither spouse can use sex (or lack of) as a tool for manipulation, punishment, etc…but if you really do not want to have sex, you are not in a state of mortal sin to tell you husband that he just has to wait until tomorrow or whatever. If a husband is pressuring his wife in that way, against her will, he is in sin. And if the spouses were not having sex because one or both simply do not want to…there is more going on there than a lack of sex…that’s a red flag for some major communication issues, IMO.

… Actually, how many times have we read on this very site from various posters, “How you FEEL doesn’t matter, these are the rules”. Inknownthese people don’t necessarily speak for the Church, but the sentiment doesn’t seem that far off when you actually look at the teachings.

I hope that hasn’t been said to you regarding whether or not you want to have sex with your spouse…that would be awful. The only place I can think of having read, or posted it myself, is in regards to a person “feeling” like it’s okay to use contraception. In that particular case, this is true…it doesn’t matter how you feel about it, contraception is a grave evil as taught by the Church.

ahs

 

[Corki]

I like this response, but I have never gotten a sense from the Church that the spiritual side of sex matters very much st all, which is probably part of the reason why I have a problem with the teaching.

In fact, until TOB, I never read anything indicating that the spiritual side really matters at all.

Try Casti Canubii

By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God’s decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises.

Wherefore, conjugal faith, or honor, demands in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between one man and one woman. And although afterwards this primeval law was relaxed to some extent by God, the Supreme Legislator, there is no doubt that the law of the Gospel fully restored that original and perfect unity, and abrogated all dispensations as the words of Christ and the constant teaching and action of the Church show plainly.

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage.

This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

I love this encyclical. It far pre-dates TOP or even HV. It is all about the beauty and spirituality of marital love and of the marital embrace. It is not at all cold or utilitarian. It is quite flowery and almost romantic in the way it describes the physical side of married love.

I wonder where I get the idea that feelings aren’t all that important to the Church where sex is concerned.

I don’t know how you got that idea. Feelings, as in movements of the heart, are very important to the Church where sex is concerned. The caution is that feelings are often a poor barometer regarding morality.

 

[LaSainte]

I can see your point here, but I think you just have not been catechized very well on this. It sounds like the only thing you were taught was the “fecundity” of marriage. There is also “marital fidelity” which balances this out. The marital union is just as much emotional as it is spiritual as it is physical.

Forgive me if I have missed something, and I don’t mean to be rude, but do you have a copy of the Catechism? I actually never had one until I was in my mid-late 20’s…didn’t even know what it was.

I think you misunderstood what the marital debt is. A husband cannot force his wife to have sex if she does not want to. Neither spouse can use sex (or lack of) as a tool for manipulation, punishment, etc…but if you really do not want to have sex, you are not in a state of mortal sin to tell you husband that he just has to wait until tomorrow or whatever. If a husband is pressuring his wife in that way, against her will, he is in sin. And if the spouses were not having sex because one or both simply do not want to…there is more going on there than a lack of sex…that’s a red flag for some major communication issues, IMO.

I hope that hasn’t been said to you regarding whether or not you want to have sex with your spouse…that would be awful. The only place I can think of having read, or posted it myself, is in regards to a person “feeling” like it’s okay to use contraception. In that particular case, this is true…it doesn’t matter how you feel about it, contraception is a grave evil as taught by the Church.

ahs

Hello! Yes, I have a copy of the catechism. And I of course know that a husband cannot force his wife into sex or vice versa. However, there are couples (we are not one of them) where one member (usually the wife) is completely unable to enjoy sex because she is so afraid of pregnancy. Since pregnancy and motherhood tend to affect the woman more than the man, the woman often carries the largest part of this burden. Since ABC is never allowed, the woman just has to grin and bear it.

The Church is mainly concerned with the physical mechanics of sex, not with feelings or will or anything else really. If the semen goes into the vagina, you did it right, if not, you did it wrong. All this talk of feelings and oneness and unity is nice and everything, but the actual teachings where this is concerned seem to belie any importance these may have.

The teaching on proper marital sex can be summed up in 3 words: Semen In Vagina.

No wonder so many Catholic couples contracept. The cold sterility of this teaching May have worked for our grandmothers and great-grandmothers, but for couples today who want to and do experience more out of sex than this, it is an untenable teaching with no regard for the feelings of the couple. It starts to feel like we are being bred in captivity.

 

[LaSainte]

Try Casti Canubii

I love this encyclical. It far pre-dates TOP or even HV. It is all about the beauty and spirituality of marital love and of the marital embrace. It is not at all cold or utilitarian. It is quite flowery and almost romantic in the way it describes the physical side of married love.

The last paragraph you cited is really lovely. And if actual doctrine reflected this, it would be great. Unfortunately, the teaching basically comes down to the idea that whether you feel it or not, whether you are in a constant state of panic during sex or not, whether or not your adherence to NFP is tearing you apart as a couple emotionally, that just because some semen gets into the vagina, you are somehow completing some great spiritual act of mutually self-giving love…just take their word for it. Sorry, but for those people who have actually HAD sex, we know the truth, and the truth is that the physical act being “just so” is not in any way indicative that you are giving yourself totally to the other person, no matter what they try to tell us. And yet, this is the only requirement for a licit marital sex act. It is not surprising that people turn away from this teaching when personal experience is exactly the opposite of what the Church is telling us.

 

[Bookcat]

The last paragraph you cited is really lovely. And if actual doctrine reflected this, it would be great. Unfortunately, the teaching basically comes down to the idea that whether you feel it or not, whether you are in a constant state of panic during sex or not, whether or not your adherence to NFP is tearing you apart as a couple emotionally, that just because some semen gets into the vagina, you are somehow completing some great spiritual act of mutually self-giving love…just take their word for it. Sorry, but for those people who have actually HAD sex, we know the truth, and the truth is that the physical act being “just so” is not in any way indicative that you are giving yourself totally to the other person, no matter what they try to tell us. And yet, this is the only requirement for a licit marital sex act. It is not surprising that people turn away from this teaching when personal experience is exactly the opposite of what the Church is telling us.

Thankfully such is not how the Church understands or teaches regarding marital relations.

And yes there can be various sins within the marital act…various degrees of not giving oneself …of selfishness. The Church of course knows this. There are many things in life that are to be all good…but we fall short. That does not mean the Church should not still proclaim the truth of the reality of what is to be going on in the marital act.