I just don't get this...

[simpilotswife]

My DH and I were having a discussion about this...since most people want "changes" in the catholic church...but what people are forgetting is that ....we aren't here to change religion...religion is here for us to change and better ourselves. That is what amazes me about the gall of people....If you can't live the lifestyle that is dictated by your church then you go find another one that fits your lifestyle and justify your actions for wanting to live that way.

While you have a point I don't agree with that.

Surely you realize that Christianity is the result of changing religion. If everyone is not supposed to want changes then Christians and Muslims would still be Jewish.

As it is the Catholic church is always changing and evolving. There are many strictures that have developed within the Catholic church that were not there at the beginning.

 

[poohandwendy]

Just a dumb question, if it is taught that 'marital relations' are for the sole purpose of procreation, is a married couple expected to abstain after a hysterectomy? (ie, they know it is not possible to become pregnant)

I guess I am not understanding the wording.

 

[simpilotswife]

I know lots of couples like that, and I'm opposed to one spouse suffering because of the infidelity of the other. But that's something that the couple needs to work out within the framework of their marriage, taking into account how much they want to follow the teachings of the Church. But that doesn't mean that the Church should have to change its teachings on the issue.

Again you are assuming that both people in the marriage want to do that. Since the church does not believe in divorce (and annulments within the church are cumbersome and expensive) what choice does a devout partner have?

But I highly doubt that the AIDS explosion in Africa is a result of couples where one is devout and the other one isn't.

No but certainly there have to be many couples who are casualties of it.

As for your example, I would say the same thing - it's up to the couple to decide how they want to handle it. But I doubt that AIDS transmission through rape is so prevalent that it is really a big issue.

So it is acceptable for people to die because the Catholic church will not make allowances for people in that situation?

 

[DissyLove]

I would think a hysterectomy would of course be forbidden unless necessary to save the woman's life-but good point, does that mean in theory, once I can no longer make babies, I am never supposed to have sex with my husband again?

 

[simpilotswife]

Then that goes back to the OPs original question - if they are so faithful in following the Church's teaching on no condoms, why aren't they just as faithfully following the Church's teachings on no sex outside of marriage?

Which I responded to. Not everyone is married to someone as devout as them.

 

[helenabear]

I would think a hysterectomy would of course be forbidden unless necessary to save the woman's life-but good point, does that mean in theory, once I can no longer make babies, I am never supposed to have sex with my husband again?

There are two points (according to the church) for having sex. One would be for having children and the other (often VERY over looked) is for union. So no, you would not be expected to abstain after that. You are fulfilling the OTHER reason for sex, which is to promote a union of two.

I can understand the point of the OP and it is totally valid. If you are that devout to not use condoms, one would think you wouldn't be having sex outside of the church. However, nothing in this world is perfect... the thing that gets me is hearing high level clergy backing up this point of no condoms by saying that condoms promote promescuity. That's when I wonder what the heck they are thinking!!!

Yes, I am Catholic, and have been all my life. I do wonder about some of the rules, but that doesn't mean that I can go find another church to suit my needs. Trust me, I've even looked and nothing even comes close to fitting me as well as this one does.

 

[poohandwendy]

I would think a hysterectomy would of course be forbidden unless necessary to save the woman's life-but good point, does that mean in theory, once I can no longer make babies, I am never supposed to have sex with my husband again?

That's what I mean, like a medical condition that would make it impossible to have children. Exactly what are the rules?

 

[poohandwendy]

Thanks for the clarification Helenabear!

 

[cheyita]

Just a dumb question, if it is taught that 'marital relations' are for the sole purpose of procreation, is a married couple expected to abstain after a hysterectomy? (ie, they know it is not possible to become pregnant)

I guess I am not understanding the wording.

No - I think you are supposed to be "open" to creating new life when you engage in that activity. If it is not physically possible, well, there's not much you can do about that. As long as you are open to it. If your hysterectomy was driven solely by not wanting to have more children, that would be considered bad.

I'll fully admit to being one of those Catholics having issues with this facet of church law. But I won't get into all that now - it seems to be another thread.

 

[cheyita]

Helenabear - interesting. I was always taught that #2 (union), on its own, was not enough. I guess that if you are able to procreate, you should be open to it and not be taking action to prevent it using outside means. However, natural family planning is okay. I'm not sure why it's okay to use your cycle as birth control but not other artifical means. Considering nothing is completely fool-proof, what difference does it make?

 

[DisDuck]

I like to thru in some thoughts here.

1) I always thought that those who have the 'experience' make the best counselors. So in an organization whose hierachy are celibrate what makes them an authority in 'sex'?

2) Look at the history of the Catholic Church. There have been popes who sired children while Pope. They did not lose the job.

3) Is celibracy based on actual 'words/preachings' or based on Jesus was most likely not married. Something from an historical point of view cannot be proven either way.

4) The idea of procreation as reason for 'sex' is supposed to be rooted in the 'spilling of seed' statements in the bible. However, The Torah has statements in it and elaborated on in The Talmud that 'sex' outside of procreation is a wonderful thing (my paraphrase).

5) Birth Control within a marriage. According to Jewish law (and I can cut/paste my source if anyone interested), male b/c is prohibited but not female b/c. Somewhat paternalistic I know. So since church's roots thru Jesus are in Jewish Law how did they jump to no b/c and who made that jump. Personally, I think it was done so as to increase the number of 'new' members in the Church.

Keep in mind when most or all of these issues were first brought what was the state of b/c and medicine in general plus AIDS was definitely unknown. Think 1st millinia of the church.

 

[BuckNaked]

Which I responded to. Not everyone is married to someone as devout as them.

Agreed - but because some people aren't as devout as others, the Church should change its teachings to cater to the less devout?

Again you are assuming that both people in the marriage want to do that. Since the church does not believe in divorce (and annulments within the church are cumbersome and expensive) what choice does a devout partner have?

I'm not assuming anything of the kind - I'm simply saying that they need to either decide as a couple to work within the framework of the Church or not to do so. If the more devout member of the couple can't in good conscience use condoms and can't in good conscience divorce, then it seems that he or she would be making the decision to remain celibate. That is the choice of the individual. Whether you or I think that is a good choice or a valid choice is irrelevant - it's up to the individual. To expect the Church to waive the rules just because we don't like them makes no sense to me.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

There are two points (according to the church) for having sex. One would be for having children and the other (often VERY over looked) is for union. So no, you would not be expected to abstain after that. You are fulfilling the OTHER reason for sex, which is to promote a union of two.

I can understand the point of the OP and it is totally valid. If you are that devout to not use condoms, one would think you wouldn't be having sex outside of the church. However, nothing in this world is perfect... the thing that gets me is hearing high level clergy backing up this point of no condoms by saying that condoms promote promescuity. That's when I wonder what the heck they are thinking!!!

Yes, I am Catholic, and have been all my life. I do wonder about some of the rules, but that doesn't mean that I can go find another church to suit my needs. Trust me, I've even looked and nothing even comes close to fitting me as well as this one does.

Very well said helenabear

 

[golfgal]

The Catholic Church does NOTteach that sex is for procreation only! That is really a common misconception.

http://www.ascensioncatholic.net/ALPHA TOPICS/Catholic Church's Teaching on Birth Control.htm

This is a link to a good article on the Catholic stance on birth control/sex.

Below is an exerpt from the article on sex in the marriage.



Humanae Vitae



Pope Paul VI in his encyclical, Humanae Vitae, condemned all forms of artificial contraception because, by a free act of will, they separate the procreative dimen*sion of sexual intercourse from its unitive dimension. In the Church's view, sexual intercourse has written into its very nature a twofold meaning. One is the unitive aspect which uses sex to celebrate and deepen the love which a married couple has for each other. The second meaning is the procreative aspect through which a couple cooperates with God to create new life, thereby ensuring the continu*ation of the human race.

According to Humanae Vitae, these two meanings cannot be separated. Sexual intercourse is to express love and to be open to the transmission of life simultaneously. According to official Catholic Church teaching, artificial forms of contraception are morally wrong because they involve a positive attempt to remove the procreative aspect of sexual intercourse from its unitive aspect. On the other hand, taking advantage of the body's natural rhythms of fertility and infertility, as in the case of methods like the NFP, is morally permissible because it does not involve that attempt to separate the procreative aspects of sexual intercourse from the unitive aspect. The Church believes that when couples use natural methods of birth control to do family planning, they are using the method God and nature has given them.

 

[RitaZ.]

yes - that is what we are taught - my mom always tells me - babies will come when babies will come - yet she is advocating my DH and I stop

Contraceptives are forbidden b/c we are supposed to open to the possibility of life

any form of contraception or sterilization (unless it's the unintended result of a lifesaving surgery) is a grave sin. The Church is absolutely clear about that.

well - everyone I know at church will be in hell with me!

How does NFP fit in all of this? NFP can be used to find out when a woman is most fertile to increase the probability of pregnancy and also to avoid pregnancy. It's not a man-made way to avoid pregnancy, but it's still avoiding the possibility of life.

 

[BuckNaked]

What I honestly don't understand is all of the derision poured on the Catholic Church because of its teachings. I'm Catholic (raised Baptist, converted when I married) and there are a number of issues where I disagree with the Church, chief among them the prohibition regarding artificial birth control. But I've never felt that it was up to the Church to change its teachings to agree with *my* opinion. I follow the teachings as best I can within the bounds of my conscience, and the priest and I work out the details in confession. If/when it gets to the point that I can no longer do that, then I'll leave the Church.

 

[beattyfamily]

What I honestly don't understand is all of the derision poured on the Catholic Church because of its teachings. I'm Catholic (raised Baptist, converted when I married) and there are a number of issues where I disagree with the Church, chief among them the prohibition regarding artificial birth control. But I've never felt that it was up to the Church to change its teachings to agree with *my* opinion. I follow the teachings as best I can within the bounds of my conscience, and the priest and I work out the details in confession. If/when it gets to the point that I can no longer do that, then I'll leave the Church.

Very well said! I agree wholeheartedly.

I cannot believe how many threads there have been on this subject over the last month, and with lots of inaccurate info posted.

I give up. It's not worth my time explaining again about NFP or why no BC etc...

 

[septbride2002]

during my pre-cana classes 2 years ago we were taught that intercourse was a way for God to love us through another person and for us to be used as a way for God to love the other person. It is about intamacy. Procreation never came up as the reason for intercourse - but rather an intimate realtionship between yourself, your husband, and God.

BTW, normally I would intersect a sort of off color joke, but we've been warned about the tone of the boards I'm sure you all can see where I'm going here though.

~Amanda

 

[BuckNaked]

during my pre-cana classes 2 years ago we were taught that intercourse was a way for God to love us through another person and for us to be used as a way for God to love the other person. It is about intamacy. Procreation never came up as the reason for intercourse - but rather an intimate realtionship between yourself, your husband, and God.

Same here...the only context in which procreation came up during the discussion was "being open to new life" through not using artificial birth control.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

during my pre-cana classes 2 years ago we were taught that intercourse was a way for God to love us through another person and for us to be used as a way for God to love the other person. It is about intamacy. Procreation never came up as the reason for intercourse - but rather an intimate realtionship between yourself, your husband, and God.

That's very interesting. I'm glad they are doing that now. When my parents got married (through the Catholic church) 22 years ago they did not tell them that. But later, in conversations with their priests, he shared this bit of information with them. 'Course they'd already had me so... But I think it's great that they tell couples this now. Since that's very true. Sex isn't just for procreation.