Can Anyone Give Me A Good Answer To My Question?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1858648' date='May 5 2009, 05:12 PM']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.[/quote]

The simple answer is that the form of our actions must communicate the unseen spiritual reality. I think if you ponder that concept and let it sink it, then the Church teaching will begin to make more sense. Consider, for example, that when schools enforce dress codes their aim is primarily at improving behavior... this works because the things we do, even if we do them only half-heartedly, have an effect on our actions. What we perceive with our senses affects things unseen: our mood, appetite, comfort. Likewise, the Church is saying that the way married couples engage in sexual intimacy, while indeed open to creating new life, is even more meaningful than this.

If the purpose of sex were simply to achieve the physical/mechanical processes necessary to create life, then anything would be permissable (including in vitro fertilization) as along as life was created. However, the means are just as important as the ends, and God's design for sexual intimacy is such that becoming "one flesh" makes a husband and wife into a beautiful image of the imtimacy between Christ and his Church. As far as the climax is concerned (I think you are confusing this for "finishing," but few stories stop abruptly at the climax of the plot), I personally think of how grace flows unseen from Christ to his Church... it is a physical reality, like the Eucharist, that is communicated both physically and spiritually.

Attempting to do something with our bodies that does not match the spiritual reality is basically saying that our bodies can be torn from our souls, or that there is no real correlation between flesh and spirit. This, of course, would lead down a road to all kinds of historical heresies, such as denying the necessity of Christ for salvation, his dual (human and divine) natures, etc. As I pointed out about halfway through the in the Christopher West thread, all truth is catholic in its universality -- everything is interconnected -- and the need for couples to share their sexual intimacy in a manner that is open to life, even when they cannot become pregnant, points back to the necessity for God to become flesh as a man sharing our human nature with his divine nature and to fulfill all the prophesies and the Law to open a door to heaven for all of humanity.

[missionseeker]

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520524,00.html?test=latestnews"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520524...test=latestnews[/url]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='1871416' date='May 19 2009, 09:55 PM'][url="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520524,00.html?test=latestnews"]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520524...test=latestnews[/url][/quote]


I liked this quote:[quote]When twins have two fathers, doctors call it heteropaternal superfecundation, according to myfoxdfw.com. It's so rare — there are only a handful of documented cases in the world.[/quote]

I suspect the reason it is rarely documented is because most women, at least the non-prostitutes, aren't with more than one guy while ovulating. The women in my family are all double ovulators, lots of fraternal twins. Some ovulate two eggs at once, and some ovulate twice at different times. I fall into the latter. I ovulated every month I was pregnant. I guess it's a good thing I didn't sleep around when younger. I might have a dozen kids by a dozen different guys by now.