Can Anyone Give Me A Good Answer To My Question?

[havok579257]

[quote name='StColette' post='1858617' date='May 5 2009, 03:27 PM']Please view the links that I posted, they show where you asked this pregnant/open to life ending properly question.[/quote]


hmm guess i did ask that question in another thread i started about sex. although looking back, there was not a specific answer to that question, so that's why i fthought i never asked it because i never got a real answer, just peoples opinions. Hence I started this thread, which has been helpful answering my question, since I now understand when the church says unnative, it is not about feelings, but about a man ending right. Unnative is not the same as the definition of the word unnative.

Edited May 5, 2009 by havok579257

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858618' date='May 5 2009, 03:27 PM']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?[/quote]

I would like for you to respond to Post 40.

Furthermore, you should stop claiming that the couple is automatically open to life if they are pregnant, because plenty of individuals (those who are not married) get pregnant without intending to and seek abortions. That is certainly not open to life.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858619' date='May 5 2009, 03:30 PM']Hence I started this thread, which has been helpful answering my question, since I know understand when the church says unnative, it is not about feelings, but about a man ending right.[/quote]

NO ONE HAS SAID THIS.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858621' date='May 5 2009, 03:33 PM']I would like for you to respond to Post 40.

Furthermore, you should stop claiming that the couple is automatically open to life if they are pregnant, because plenty of individuals (those who are not married) get pregnant without intending to and seek abortions. That is certainly not open to life.[/quote]


This entire thread like i said deals with a married catholic couple who is pregnant. i am not talking about all other couples. i am narrowing it down to just this kind of couple.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858625' date='May 5 2009, 03:35 PM']This entire thread like i said deals with a married catholic couple who is pregnant. i am not talking about all other couples. i am narrowing it down to just this kind of couple.[/quote]

Okay, so would you care to answer Post 40.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858597' date='May 5 2009, 02:59 PM']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.



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


Didn't see this post because it was the last one on page 2.

1. I'm not trying to get around church teaching, I am trying to UNDERSTAND church teach, what is ok and what is not and why. Simple as that. The church does not make a list saying these things are ok, these are not and so on and so on. That's not just dealing with sex, that's everything in life. They don't cover every aspect of everything.

2. I brought up what you said in an unrealted thread because your saying by me questioning parts of the faith that means I am trying to find a loophole. Which is a stupid term in and of itself since a loophole is technically wrong anyways. I brought up the gay marriage things because when you didn't understand it, I am sure you asked questions to better understand things. No different than I am doing here. I am asking questions because I don't understand these things. Do I deviate from what the chruch teaches? No. Although I do and should ask questions when I don't understand things. Except you claim I am trying to find loopholes in church teachings.

3. Every mature adult knows what foreplay is? Are you kidding me? Foreplay can cover anything up until actual intercourse. So does that make anything before intercourse ok? In society today, people are more open to talking about sex and we as a society have learned foreplay involves more than just oral and manual stimulation. Perfect example, if you ask some people foreplay is everything leading up to any kind of sex act. Basically foreplay happens outside of the bedroom. Others will lump anything that is not intercourse in as foreplay. And since respectful foreplay is never defined, we are left up to wonder what this entitles. For some oral stimulation is not respectful foreplay. For others, anything their husband/wife does is respectful as long as they do it out of love.

[StColette]

[quote]Simply put, open to life doesn't just mean open to getting pregnant! Open to Life encompasses the total self gift from one spouse to another. If the man pulls out or is wearing a condom a barrier is created between the couple and there is no total self gift from one to another. Sex in marriage is two fold, both procreative and unitive.[/quote] From this question asked previously, I would like to add the following though:

Complete/total self gift is the exchange of life between a couple. For a man, his seed, is this gift of life, even when a woman is already pregnant. Just because a woman is pregnant, his sperm does not cease to be life giving.

[quote]The Bible says marital acts must not end with the spilling of seed, the Church isn't just making something up.

For a man to end in his wife is part of the gift from one spouse to another. Part of the sexual act between man and woman is orgasm. The man's orgasm of course cause sperm to be brought forth. If this is the end result of the sexual act then how could one be completely 100% giving without having this take place. Now let me clarify, some people have medical issues that can keep orgasm from happening for some time, and some women have difficultly orgasming, but there are ways her husband can help her after he has orgasmed.

Anyway why would a man want to keep even a small amount of himself from his wife? If he loves her completely and wants to give himself to her completely then why would he not want to finish inside of her? I mean, seriously, his sperm is part of him, it's the part when it joins with her ovum creates new life! Why would a man keep this from someone he loves so completely? Why would a man keep part of himself from his wife, when he is supposed to give her everything he is capable of giving her. I could not imagine my husband keeping anything from me. I could not imagine him not wanting to give himself as much as humanly possibly to me. Did you know that when a couple become pregnant and the baby is born that part of the baby's DNA is left in the mother? And because of that the husband's dna is also left within her? I mean how amazing is that! Why would we want to rob anyone of being so closely tied to another another that you literally have the DNA of one another in your body![/quote]

from rkwright

[quote]The sex act has to be open to life. When you have intercourse you have to be open to life, that is your act has to be open. The only way this is possible is when the male 'finishes' inside his wife. If for some natural reason the couple cannot conceive (pregnancy, wife is sterile due to age, wife is in infertile period, husband is naturally infertile) then there will be no life produced. But the act still needs to be open to life; its the act that requires openness to life not the result or circumstances.[/quote]

From me [quote]Okay, let's see how this goes.
The Church teaches that the marital act must be both unitive and procreative in every act.

Pope Paul VI in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (No. 11). The Holy Father continued, "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact" ("Humanae Vitae," No. 12).

Okay now the question posed was in regards to why a man's orgasm must take place within his wife even if she is already pregnant. Okay, I think I might have the explanation lol

We must remember that the sexual act is two fold, it is both unitive as well as procreative and both of these must be the intentions of the spouses during the sexual act. Most of us know that there are times when a woman is not fertile, naturally designed there by God. There are also those women who are post-menopausal who are no longer able to conceive. There are also those that suffer from long periods of infertility for one reason or another. Now given these three cases when conception is not going to take place, it does not keep the act from being unitive and procreative. Now during pregnancy another conception is not going to take place of course, but just like with the other circumstances above it does not keep the sexual embrace from being unitive and procreative.

The sexual embrace is the exchange of total self gift. The giving of one's self to another, the exchange of bodies and souls, so to speak. This is not hampered by the fact that either the wife is pregnant or infertile (for the different reasons listed above). In the marital embrace there is literally an exchange of bodies, bodily fluids are also exchanged as part of this. It's a complete giving of self. Its in this manner that I said a man can not achieve orgasm outside of his wife, because he's literally pouring himself into his wife. He's giving his "source of life over" to his wife. And she in return is giving of herself in a similar fashion; I won't go into the Biological details. The Catechism of the Catholic Church in article 2363 says 'The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. Even if a woman cannot reach climax, the exchange is still there (just wanted to add that end in case this was not covered well enough). The Church teaches that the use of condoms, during pregnancy, infertility, or what have you is wrong in every case because it creates a reservation of self. Because the man's climax is so depended on for conception and completion of the sexual act (because of its role in conception) to reserve this away even if pregnant or infertile would create a barrier or reservation between the spouses. The man would not be "pouring" himself and giving himself to his wife completely. Just like with contraception, if the man were not to reach orgasm in his wife he would be creating a barrier or reservation between them. The sexual act would not be taking place as it should.[/quote]

[HisChildForever]

This is the last thing I am saying in this thread.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858633' date='May 5 2009, 03:47 PM']2. I brought up what you said in an unrealted thread because your saying by me questioning parts of the faith that means I am trying to find a loophole. Which is a stupid term in and of itself since a loophole is technically wrong anyways. I brought up the gay marriage things because when you didn't understand it, I am sure you asked questions to better understand things. No different than I am doing here. I am asking questions because I don't understand these things. Do I deviate from what the chruch teaches? No. Although I do and should ask questions when I don't understand things. Except you claim I am trying to find loopholes in church teachings.[/quote]

You are doing more than just asking questions, you are trying to find justifications. There is a huge difference. The right answers have been given to you. Unfortunately, you are really looking for the answers that you want to hear, which is why this thread is on page three.

[quote]And since respectful foreplay is never defined, we are left up to wonder what this entitles.[/quote]

You do not need a manual. This is common sense.

[havok579257]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1858637' date='May 5 2009, 04:00 PM']This is the last thing I am saying in this thread.



You are doing more than just asking questions, you are trying to find justifications. There is a huge difference. The right answers have been given to you. Unfortunately, you are really looking for the answers that you want to hear, which is why this thread is on page three.



You do not need a manual. This is common sense.[/quote]


The answers given are because the church says so and that's it. I want to know why, is that so wrong. I am looking for in depth answers which seems to bother people. Of that i don;t know why.

Yes common sense dictates that what is not offensive to either person is not offensive.

[Noel's angel]

All I can say is...Onan.
"Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother's widow, he wasted his seed on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the LORD, and the LORD took his life too."

I know the response to this will be 'ah, but Onan wasn't open to life and that's what offended God' but imo it's the 'wasting of seed' that offended him, not the reason behind it.

Secondly:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes. (CCC)

What about:
Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Noel's angel

[tinytherese]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1858571' date='May 5 2009, 02:05 PM']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]

Is it just me or did this post get forgotten about? Feelings ARE involved in the unnative act, but are not the ONLY thing.

[Marie-Therese]

Havok...first of all, I respect your asking the question, if you truly are seeking the answer to what the Church's position is on this matter. It is the responsibility of all the faithful to educate themselves on the faith and adhere to it, since the teaching of the Magisterium represents the revealed truth of the Holy Spirit to the Body of Christ.

The answer to your question has been given a few times by very eloquent responders in this thread. One of the points I think you are missing is that the act of marital love is a SPECIFIC act, instituted by God for several reasons: marital pleasure, procreation, and (this is where you seem to be missing the intent of the respondents) the UNION of two into one. ONE FLESH. You are hanging up on semantic and missing the bigger point. Sex, just as faith, is not a "pick and choose" activity as society has been led to believe. It's not "well let's try this, and a little of that", etc. God made it very specific. When two people take vows into the vocation of marriage, they are mystically united into one body, just as baptism mystically unites us into the body of Christ. Marital love is a foundational activity instituted by God to increase the FEELINGS of love and fidelity in that marital union. It is also for the procreation of new life, just as the Church begets new life in the spiritual order.

Consummated intercourse is the end that God designed for this act. Anything outside that, no matter whether it brings pleasure to one or both partners, was not intended by God and therefore is not permissible for faithful Catholics. The Church teaches specifically that some acts intended to bring about stimulation and pleasure that will result in consummated intercourse are permissible. Male orgasm, outside the confines of consummated intercourse, is not permissible in terms of Church teaching.

I hope that none of this was in any way too graphic or offensive for any reader. I'm an RN so sometimes what is graphic to some is a little too commonplace for me. I certainly do not want to violate the modesty of any reader.

[ariaane]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858444' date='May 5 2009, 06:18 PM']to you its degrading, but that does not apply to everyone. if my wife likes such a thing, it does not mean she likes being degraded. but just to show further proof of it being subjective from person to person. some people think oral stimulation is absolutly wrong and one of the most degrading things in the world, y[b]et the church teachs oral stimulation is ok. [/b] which means it can't be degrading, yet some people still think it is.


pregnancy as a cover for sexual practices? how so? i really don't think people will be getting pregnant just to have certain kinds of sex.[/quote]

Note for all: The wordds of Havok is exactly why I take offence to people claiming that sex between married couples is equal to partaking in the sacrament of the mass, when in reality [b]most[/b] Catholic marriage beds are defiled.

He is literally proposing acts of sodomy as legitimate- and I can give one guess on where he has got this faulty idea from: Christopher West.

Maybe now we can stop treating Catholic marriage as if it’s this untainted union so superior to that of unmarried sexual relationships, when it seems that some unmarried sexual relationships are more dignified than married sexual relationships.

Correction Havok: Oral stimulation = oral sex. Oral sex is not defined by ending in climax or ejaculation, just as pro choice means exactly the same thing as pro abortion.

The Church does not permit the use of oral sex during marriage regardless of the subjective erroneous opinions of theologians and if we look at the teachings of the Magisterium, scripture, tradition, and in particular the words of the Fathers of the Church, we can see plenty of evidence supporting this.

[spoiler]PS- The fact that your wife would allow herself to be used as receptacle for fluids which are released from the place that you urinate from says a lot about how little she thinks about herself and how little you value the mother of your child.[/spoiler]

[ariaane]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858451' date='May 5 2009, 06:27 PM']from my understanding from the massive debate this board had about 6 months ago, the chruch teachs oral stimulation is ok as long as it leads to intercourse sex act. as long as the couple is open to life, then oral stimulation is fine, lets say, to get the ball rolling.[/quote]

[b]The Church does not teach this.[/b]

If you wish to engage in these acts, feel free. Just know that you and your wife, in engaging in these practices, are not that much different from homosexuals as this is the way they "make love", hence the term sodomy.

Just don't distort the teachings of the Church so as to make yourself feel guilt free.

[ariaane]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858461' date='May 5 2009, 06:35 PM']I never said oral sex, I said oral stimualtion, 2 very different things. [b]the church, like i said, says oral stimulation is ok, oral sex is not.[/b][/quote]

[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral%20sex"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oral%20sex[/url]

[b]sexual contact between the mouth and the genitals[/b] or anus; fellatio, cunnilingus, or anilingus.

Main Entry: oral sex

: [b]oral stimulation [/b]of the genitals

Oral sex= oral stimulation= felatio= blowjob

There is no difference betwee any of these words so please stop trying to draw a distinction where none exist.

The Church [b]does not teach[/b] that any of these acts are licit, and in fact condems sodomy.