Can Anyone Give Me A Good Answer To My Question?

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858459' date='May 5 2009, 05:33 PM']2. But you can be fertal while breastfeeding and you can get pregnant while on your period because semen survives up to seven days inside a women. This specifically deals with a women who is pregnant who has NO CHNACE of getting pregnant again because they are already pregant. All the pther situations you said have the chance to get pregnant, this does not have the chance.[/quote]
Actually, the longest lifespan of sperm that I've read is 5 days, with the presence of fertile mucus. Otherwise it's a matter of minutes. And I know you can be fertile with breastfeeding, and a woman can ovulate early in her cycle and thus be fertile during her period. My point was that she is only able to conceive from intercourse occurring in a window of time lasting 6-7 days; that, unlike men, women are only fertile for a short period of time. But the Church doesn't say a couple can't engage in intercourse during her infertile times, because it is a natural time of infertility and as long as the unitive aspect is not circumvented.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858459' date='May 5 2009, 05:33 PM']3. It is up to the couple. We can't control how people feel, no one can. So until we can control each person's feelings about what is unnative and what's not, then its subjective. Unless your saying the chruch teachs it SHOULD be considered unnative so we will just throw every couple under this big net of what should and what should not be unnative to a couple. Is this what you mean?[/quote]
No, we can't control how each person feels. But this isn't about feelings.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858465' date='May 5 2009, 05:38 PM']Ok, so when your talking about being unnative and the way your saying the church is talking about being unnative is not directly realed to a couple and what they find unnative, that does not matter according to what you are saying. Unnative as you are referring to it, is not about feelings, but just about a man and a women uniting their bodies as the church see's as right. So feelings have nothing to do with the word unnative in the way we are talking about?[/quote]
Pretty much. When we are one with our bodies in this way, we also image the love of God. What we say with our bodies is both an image of God's love, and a renewal of our wedding vows. Or at least it should be. By changing the "words" of sex, we are giving a false image of God's love. Or at least that's how I understand it. I am not a Church scholar, but I think I have this correct.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858522' date='May 5 2009, 06:21 PM']Also if the women has her uterus removed, is a couple called to never have sex again because by having sex they are not being open to life because life is not possible.[/quote]
No, having a hysterectomy doesn't condemn her to a life of celibacy. Nor is it a sin, provided it is medically necessary. She is still able to have intercourse, and the unitive aspect of intercourse is still achieved.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858522' date='May 5 2009, 01:21 PM']But how is a couple

a. not being open to life since they are already pregnat? you can't be much more open to life that that.

b. by not ending right, not being open to life, since they are already pregnant and have no possibility of getting pregnant while pregnat unless the women has 2 uterues or its within the first few weeks of conception?[/quote]

I never stated that it was a question of being open to life. I added in my previous reply a reminder to you that "open to life" means much more than "willing to have a child." Sex is only whole and complete if it is unitive, procreative, and done for the glory of God. You take away the unitive aspect when the man does not finish properly. You also, in a way, take away the glory of God - because the glory of God is fulfilled when the marital act is unitive and procreative. Just because the woman is pregnant does not mean we should dismiss the procreative aspect either. (Miracles do happen.) Having the proper mindset is important - it is good for your spiritual health. You are really toeing the line by trying to approach sexual intercourse from all these different angles. It is not MEANT to be viewed in this way and almost perverts the beauty of sex.

[quote]Also if the women has her uterus removed, is a couple called to never have sex again because by having sex they are not being open to life because life is not possible.[/quote]

I assume you mean because of a health emergency. Even though it is not physically possible to bear children, the couple is still called to conform to the teachings of the Church because this is the right and proper way, the way sex is designed.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1858536' date='May 5 2009, 01:32 PM']Actually, the longest lifespan of sperm that I've read is 5 days, with the presence of fertile mucus. Otherwise it's a matter of minutes. And I know you can be fertile with breastfeeding, and a woman can ovulate early in her cycle and thus be fertile during her period. My point was that she is only able to conceive from intercourse occurring in a window of time lasting 6-7 days; that, unlike men, women are only fertile for a short period of time. But the Church doesn't say a couple can't engage in intercourse during her infertile times, because it is a natural time of infertility and as long as the unitive aspect is not circumvented.


No, we can't control how each person feels. But this isn't about feelings.


Pretty much. When we are one with our bodies in this way, we also image the love of God. What we say with our bodies is both an image of God's love, and a renewal of our wedding vows. Or at least it should be. By changing the "words" of sex, we are giving a false image of God's love. Or at least that's how I understand it. I am not a Church scholar, but I think I have this correct.


No, having a hysterectomy doesn't condemn her to a life of celibacy. Nor is it a sin, provided it is medically necessary. She is still able to have intercourse, and the unitive aspect of intercourse is still achieved.[/quote]


1. but all those aspects, you can still get pregnant. while pregnant you can not get pregnant again.

2. but how is sex not about feelings? its completly predicated on feelings, but your saying the chruch does not take feelings into account when being unnative. to them its about the act and feels plays no part in it.

3. you lost me on #3.



so if i am to get this right, the church considers sex between a married man and women to be unsinful as long as they are open to life and must be unnative in the aspect of a man ending inside a women. Feelings between thew couple play no role in being unnative. unnative just refers to the act. If that's the case, the church should use a different word than unnative because it doesn't jive with the definition of the word.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858542' date='May 5 2009, 01:37 PM']I never stated that it was a question of being open to life. I added in my previous reply a reminder to you that "open to life" means much more than "willing to have a child." Sex is only whole and complete if it is unitive, procreative, and done for the glory of God. You take away the unitive aspect when the man does not finish properly. You also, in a way, take away the glory of God - because the glory of God is fulfilled when the marital act is unitive and procreative. Just because the woman is pregnant does not mean we should dismiss the procreative aspect either. (Miracles do happen.) Having the proper mindset is important - it is good for your spiritual health. You are really toeing the line by trying to approach sexual intercourse from all these different angles. It is not MEANT to be viewed in this way and almost perverts the beauty of sex.



I assume you mean because of a health emergency. Even though it is not physically possible to bear children, the couple is still called to conform to the teachings of the Church because this is the right and proper way, the way sex is designed.[/quote]

1. I am trying to approch sex from a real point of view, which is it involved more than one simple thing. The probem is the church deals with sex in broad generalizations and doesn define things adequetly enough. Like the whole foreplay is ok thing but then they never really say what is considered foreplay. Sex is one of the most important aspects of marriage so its something that needs to be looked at and discussed from every angle. The problem is the chruch takes a general approch to sex and leaves the details a mystery.

2. I understand now that unnative has nothing to do with feelings in the way the church talks about it. Unnative is just a man ending right, feelings play no part of being unnative during sex.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858548' date='May 5 2009, 06:41 PM']1. but all those aspects, you can still get pregnant. while pregnant you can not get pregnant again.[/quote] And a woman absolutely cannot get pregnant if she isn't producing the fertile, lubricative type of cervical mucus. Without something like IVF, just isn't possible.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858548' date='May 5 2009, 06:41 PM']2. but how is sex not about feelings? its completly predicated on feelings, but your saying the chruch does not take feelings into account when being unnative. to them its about the act and feels plays no part in it.[/quote] It isn't just about feelings. Of course our feelings and desires play a part in sex (would be a bit like in 1984 otherwise), but we don't base what is truth just on feelings. Our feelings can mislead at times, and so we don't say that something is or isn't correct just based on that.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858548' date='May 5 2009, 06:41 PM']3. you lost me on #3.[/quote] I'm pretty sure I read something to that effect in Christopher West's [i]Theology of the Body for Beginners[/i]. Or maybe it was [i]Good News about Sex and Marriage[/i] (BTW, I highly recommend that book. It's organised as a Q&A, and I found it to be really good). [url="http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=98"]This link[/url] gives some of his argument on that. It deals more with contraception than your exact question, but it might help.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858557' date='May 5 2009, 01:47 PM']1. I am trying to approch sex from a real point of view, which is it involved more than one simple thing. The probem is the church deals with sex in broad generalizations and doesn define things adequetly enough. Like the whole foreplay is ok thing but then they never really say what is considered foreplay. Sex is one of the most important aspects of marriage so its something that needs to be looked at and discussed from every angle. The problem is the chruch takes a general approch to sex and leaves the details a mystery.[/quote]

The Church in no way addresses sex in "broad generalizations." She is VERY clear on the nature of sex and what it means to the married couple. The problem is that you are having a difficult time accepting this. You are "attacking" sex from various angles, trying to find a loophole.

[quote]2. I understand now that unnative has nothing to do with feelings in the way the church talks about it. Unnative is just a man ending right, feelings play no part of being unnative during sex.[/quote]

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Not one person in this thread suggested that the Church has a strictly biological, no-feelings approach to sex. God allows us to enjoy sex, we just cannot abuse it (i.e. outside of marriage, for our own pleasure, etc.).

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858577' date='May 5 2009, 02:19 PM']The Church in no way addresses sex in "broad generalizations." She is VERY clear on the nature of sex and what it means to the married couple. The problem is that you are having a difficult time accepting this. You are "attacking" sex from various angles, trying to find a loophole.



How on earth did you come to this conclusion? Not one person in this thread suggested that the Church has a strictly biological, no-feelings approach to sex. God allows us to enjoy sex, we just cannot abuse it (i.e. outside of marriage, for our own pleasure, etc.).[/quote]


1. You must have som problems yourself because you keep talking about loopholes when that has never once been soemthing at all talked about. When you questioned same sex unions were you looking for loopholes for gay people to get married or did you just not understand why the church teach such a way? And the church does teach in generalizations. Like foreplay. They say foreplay is allowed but don't define whats foreplay and the only thing they say is use foreplay that is respectful to the other person. Which is so subjective. When my wife and I met with the priest before marriage, he was talking about some things are ok during sex and some things are not. If something is not respectful to human nature, then its wrong. That's the most we went into the topic of whats respectful during sex. That's not much detail at all. The church teaches that foreplay is ok but don't define foreplay and what it is, the church says you shouldn't do anything that not respectful in a marriage bed but then never say what's considered not respectful and so on and so on. Does the church cover sex? Yes. Does it go into detail about sex? Not really. If it did go into detail, then people would not have millions of debate about what sex is ok and what sex is not ok according to the catholic church.

2. According to what has been said in this thread, the unnative aspect has nothing to do with feelings. Its just about a man ending right. Feelings and unnative are not the same thing in the church. According to what your all saying.

[StColette]

Please go read Theology of the Body for Beginners and Good News About Sex and Marriage. You continually bring up this topic time and time again. And we continue to tell you to read these materials because they will help you to understand. If you aren't willing to put forth some effort and go read what we suggest then I fear you are never going to find the answer. And if you are having that great of difficulty with this subject you should go and speak with a priest. When you have read those materials and you have questions, I'll be more willing to answer them.

[havok579257]

[quote name='StColette' post='1858592' date='May 5 2009, 02:46 PM']Please go read Theology of the Body for Beginners and Good News About Sex and Marriage. You continually bring up this topic time and time again. And we continue to tell you to read these materials because they will help you to understand. If you aren't willing to put forth some effort and go read what we suggest then I fear you are never going to find the answer. And if you are having that great of difficulty with this subject you should go and speak with a priest. When you have read those materials and you have questions, I'll be more willing to answer them.[/quote]


Actually this topic has never been brought up before. YOu must be thinking about another question i brought up, but this question, I have never brought up before.

Like I said, My priest is not the most comfertable person talking about sex and when we have talked about it, its been in broad generalizations, which don't really help me answer my questions.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858587' date='May 5 2009, 02:37 PM']1. You must have som problems yourself because you keep talking about loopholes when that has never once been soemthing at all talked about. When you questioned same sex unions were you looking for loopholes for gay people to get married or did you just not understand why the church teach such a way? And the church does teach in generalizations. Like foreplay. They say foreplay is allowed but don't define whats foreplay and the only thing they say is use foreplay that is respectful to the other person. Which is so subjective. When my wife and I met with the priest before marriage, he was talking about some things are ok during sex and some things are not. If something is not respectful to human nature, then its wrong. That's the most we went into the topic of whats respectful during sex. That's not much detail at all. The church teaches that foreplay is ok but don't define foreplay and what it is, the church says you shouldn't do anything that not respectful in a marriage bed but then never say what's considered not respectful and so on and so on. Does the church cover sex? Yes. Does it go into detail about sex? Not really. If it did go into detail, then people would not have millions of debate about what sex is ok and what sex is not ok according to the catholic church.[/quote]

You never blatantly used the word "loophole" but it is clear by your constant questions, clarifications, and "rationalizations" that you are trying to get around Church teaching. I have no idea why you are bringing up what I said in a completely unrelated thread. If you really want to know, I never challenged the Church on Her beliefs regarding homosexual practices. I fully believed that homosexuals could not be married in the Church. However, I was confused as to why we (the Church) had any right interfering with civil unions - which are not religious but legal ceremonies. This is no way affected or affects my life because I am not a homosexual. It was just a topic that confused me. In the end I came to understand that homosexual "sex" is immoral, whether the couple is "married" in a Church or "married" by a JOP.

Every mature adult knows what foreplay is. When the term "respectful foreplay" is used, it is explaining foreplay as mutual stimulation before the actual sex act. You CAN degrade another person's dignity through certain forms of foreplay (to give the mildest example, dressing up in roles). Other sex practices are disrespectful but are not appropriate to discuss here.

[quote]2. According to what has been said in this thread, the unnative aspect has nothing to do with feelings. Its just about a man ending right. Feelings and unnative are not the same thing in the church. According to what your all saying.[/quote]

I am just going to ignore this because you are reading what is NOT there. No one has said ANYTHING like this.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858596' date='May 5 2009, 02:59 PM']Actually this topic has never been brought up before. YOu must be thinking about another question i brought up, but this question, I have never brought up before.

Like I said, My priest is not the most comfertable person talking about sex and when we have talked about it, its been in broad generalizations, which don't really help me answer my questions.[/quote]

By "this topic" she means sex in general. You have a tendency to constantly make threads about various sex acts.

[StColette]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858596' date='May 5 2009, 02:59 PM']Actually this topic has never been brought up before. YOu must be thinking about another question i brought up, but this question, I have never brought up before.

Like I said, My priest is not the most comfertable person talking about sex and when we have talked about it, its been in broad generalizations, which don't really help me answer my questions.[/quote]

You have brought up several topics regarding the sexual act and use the same tactics in those topics as you are doing in this one, trying to rationalize your practices to Church teaching. I can do a search on PM if you would like and show you all your old topics regarding sex.

btw you did ask this question here once already and it was addressed
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82698&st=0&p=1600764&hl=pregnant&#entry1600764"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1600764[/url]

and you asked the question here too [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=81836&st=120&p=1582276&hl=pregnant&#entry1582276"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...p;#entry1582276[/url]

If you aren't comfortable speaking with your priest then contact another parish and speak with theirs.

[havok579257]

[quote name='StColette' post='1858606' date='May 5 2009, 03:09 PM']You have brought up several topics regarding the sexual act and use the same tactics in those topics as you are doing in this one, trying to rationalize your practices to Church teaching. I can do a search on PM if you would like and show you all your old topics regarding sex.

If you aren't comfortable speaking with your priest then contact another parish and speak with theirs.[/quote]

1. I only practice what the church teaches, even though I don't understand it.

2. It was a similar topic but not the same. This is in regards to being pregnat and being open to life during sex, since your already open to life since your pregnant. This is exactly what happens. I ask a similar question and people say, well we answered a similar question of yours so just use that answer for this question. Ram a square peg in a circle hole. My other question was answered which I appricitae the board for doing. Although now I ask a similar question and get this kind of answer from you. Which further shows when it comes to sex and marriage, everything is in board terms. This is a different question then before and the same answer does not fit here and it does there. A I would not be asking these questions if books and stuff I have read adequetly answered my questions. But like I said, they generalize things. Like this question, which is a specific question in regards to one specific time in a couples life and is totally different from all other times a married couple will be having sex.

I never said I was uncomfortable talking to a priest. I said he was the one uncomfortable.

[StColette]

Please view the links that I posted, they show where you asked this pregnant/open to life ending properly question.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858600' date='May 5 2009, 03:01 PM']By "this topic" she means sex in general. You have a tendency to constantly make threads about various sex acts.[/quote]


This is topic 2 or 3 about sex from me. I have started more topics about other things besides sex. Still, I ask these questions because I don't get answers to them in the books and things I read? I figured a good place for an answer would be a catholic board? Is this not a good place to get answers to your questions when you run into dead ends everywhere else you look?