Why We Quit Contracepting (Two couples tell their ‘conversion’ stories)

National Catholic Register ^ | August 16, 2005 | Stephen Vincent

[annalex]

I have got to run after this post, but don't misinterpret it....

to further the connection between spouses

Absolutely, but this valid reason must not be at the expense of the procreative aspect, which alone uniquely invites God as a full partner of your marital union. For example a good dinner has two aspects as well: nutritious and social; it would be fine to enjoy a dinner alone if the companion is unavailable for dinner and thus forego the social aspect; but it would be wrong to go to two separate rooms to eat dinner when the companions can have it together.

oral sex

My studied understanding is that any foreplay designed to increase the enjoyment of the marital union is a good thing as long as the marital act remains a unitive and procreative act as a whole, -- which means, oral sex cannot result in the seed ending up in wrong places, and it cannot be something only one partner enjoys. Of course, a risk of those caveats being violated is substantial with oral sex.

NFP teaches that when abstinence is recommended according to the goals of the couple using NFP, it should be complete abstinence, not just avoidance of regular intercourse.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

But personally I find Christopher West to be much more objectionable on the whole, and just as popular on the NFP lecture circuit.

What don't you like about Christopher West?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

As far as NFP and women's enjoyment of sex, I was referring to the fact that women are more "receptive" during their fertile times, exactly when one abstains in NFP. If other methods of sexual pleasure during that time are acceptable, then that negates that issue.

Sexual acts done for pleasure alone (even a passionate kiss) are mortally sinful. Pope Alexander VII condemned the opinion: "It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded." (Denzinger 1140)

So all sexual pleasure involving arousal that does not conclude in intercourse with the man climaxing inside the woman in the normal way is mortally sinful. Hence all complete acts of oral sex on a male are mortal sins, and all complete acts of oral sex on a female apart from the male either before or after climaxing inside the woman in the normal way are also mortal sins.

So all methods of producing sexual pleasure in a woman apart from the man completing it with an act of marital intercourse must be entirely excluded as mortal sins.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

But it is not sunful because the pleasure per se is sinful, but because it is not ordered toward love of God and love of the spouse, even though the spouse is the physical partner.

The problem with sexual pleasure is that it is not under the control of right reason due to the disorders of concupiscence.

To will the pleasure of lust as the end of an act (rather than to simply experience it as something that is a part of an act and that impels us to perform it) is to will the surrender of the mind to the sensitive appetites and to turn ourselves away from rationality to slavery to sensible pleasures (sex, food, drink, etc.), and to confuse the means (the inducement of pleasure) with the end (a completed act of marital intercourse).

[pa mom]

Good point about sexual feelings after fertility is over. I think you hit something on the head. Nail or . . . whatever! LOL!

[pa mom]

Thanks for your time and input!

[pa mom]

But you know many women cannot orgasm by intercourse alone, of course. So helping her along is sinful? Or am I misinterpreting and it is not sinful as long as the man ejaculates inside her after her orgasm?

[pa mom]

I guess if I read you correctly there should be no physical contact at all between unmarried persons? Because obviously intercourse is wrong before marriage and even a goodnight kiss can cause arousal.


I am not being flippant, I am trying to understand. I did not go to Catholic school so I guess I am deprived!

[pa mom]

Okay, another question. Sorry.

Is it wrong to kiss your wife passionately say, when you are exiting the car to go into a restaurant for a romantic dinner, or in the hall in the morning when you have to run to work but you want to connect?

[Dajjal]

Bumpus ad summum

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I guess my question to you, and other very devout Catholics, is what constitutes a grave reason not to have more? I know four to a bedroom isn't a reason. Is the inability to pay for a Catholic school a valid reason? Are stressful pregnancies with much medical intervention a valid reason? What if you are not a very good mother/father and cannot handle more?

Anything you list above, including 4 to a bedroom, could constitute a just reason. A married couple should "thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they will consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church itself" (Gaudium et Spes, 50).

Or is it up to the individual conscience?

Yes, if the conscience is well formed in its moral obligations. To those with doubts, they should consult a Priest.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I am not trying to be rude. SOrry if you took it that way.

But you are continuing to make the same untrue assertions about the teaching of the Church that I showed you were not true many moons ago.

Those who know me well know that on these topics I try to present what the Church teaches and refrain from offering unsubstantiated opinions.

I invite you to back up your assertions you made with teaching from the Church.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

But you know many women cannot orgasm by intercourse alone, of course.

With their current partner's incompetence ... but I digress. However, far too many women are told they are "frigid" or have a low sex drive when in reality what they have is a spouse very poor at lovemaking and perhaps too focused on their own pleasure.

So helping her along is sinful?

No, it is perfectly acceptable.

Or am I misinterpreting and it is not sinful as long as the man ejaculates inside her after her orgasm?

There is nothing wrong with oral (or manual) sexual stimulation for a female either before or after sexual intercourse where the man has or will climax inside her.

Female oral sex is only sinful if it is seperated from the completed sexual act and is made into a solitary act of its own. One is not permitted to enjoy female oral sex during fertile periods as a substitute for sexual intercourse.

The same cannot be said about male oral sex. Male oral sex is always wrong because the sine qua non of sexual activity is the man climaxing inside the woman's vagina. So for him to climax in her mouth is inherently perverted. Because of the excitability of many men, even the use of this as a pre-intercourse stimulative technique is highly dubious because of the risk of pollution.

It would also seem that a woman is permitted to enjoy multiple orgasms both vaginally, orally, or a combination of the two, since the female orgasm does not end the sexual act, unlike the male orgasm. OTOH, the practice of some men with a high sexual drive of achieving multiple orgasms is inherently contraceptive unless the first is achieved vaginally, since nearly all the sperm are sent forth in the first male climax. So it would seem okay for a woman to achieve an orgasm orally and then another vaginally, but it is not okay for a man to do so.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Is it wrong to kiss your wife passionately say, when you are exiting the car to go into a restaurant for a romantic dinner, or in the hall in the morning when you have to run to work but you want to connect?

A normal person would kiss his wife in these situations as an expression of love and would enjoy the pleasure of the kiss as something arising out of the expression of love.

To kiss ones wife to enjoy the pleasure of the kiss only is to turn the means into the end. Sexual pleasure is not a licit end in itself.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Can't win 'em all but you've completely struck out.

Not entirely. You did respond, didn't you.

Ball four!

[HighlyOpinionated]

Sexual acts done for pleasure alone (even a passionate kiss) are mortally sinful. Pope Alexander VII condemned the opinion: "It is a probable opinion which states that a kiss is only venial when performed for the sake of the carnal and sensible delight which arises from the kiss, if danger of further consent and pollution is excluded." (Denzinger 1140)

Whoa.

Then what about the kissing and other stuff that goes on in the movies and on television?

Should a person who professes to be Catholic, Orthodox, or place Scripture in high regard even be watching that on the screen?

Educate me here. All we see in advertisements, during television shows and on the 'big screen' are then -- mortally sinful? And the actors and actresses?? No wonder Scientology and other cults have infiltrated Hollywood.