Posted on 08/16/2005 1:48:10 PM PDT by NYer
There is a simple rule of thumb for unmarried people. If the act they are contemplating cannot be done in front of their parents or the general public, they should not do it.
Normal unmarried people can kiss each other goodnight, or give an embrace, provided it is not done for the sake of pleasure. St. Thomas Aquinas notes:
"A sin is called mortal by what sort of action it is in itself and by what it is caused by. On the first count, kisses, embraces, and caresses signify no mortal sin. They can be done without libidnousness according to the custom of the country or from some fair need or reasonable causes ... Now we have noticed already that consent to the pleasure, not merely to the act, of a mortal sin is itself a mortal sin. And therefore since fornication is itself a mortal sin - and other acts of lechery much more so - to consent to its pleasure is to be gravely wrong. Consequently when kisses and embraces and so forth are for the sake of this pleasure they are mortal sins. Then only are they called libidinous, and to be treated as mortal sins. (Summa, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, Art. 4)
As to other expressions of affection between unmarried people, the following is a common opinion of sound moralists:
In the relationship between a boyfriend and a girlfriend, assuming there is no lustful intention, an expression of affection, which is acceptable but not necessary, which produced an incomplete disorder [sexual arousal], would be a venial sin, if the disorder is positively rejected, but it would be a mortal sin to continue this same action if it involved the proximate danger that the disorder would become complete. (A. Lanza, P. Palazzini, Principles of Moral Theology)
You have got to be kidding.
Seek help. Really, you have crossed many lines on this forum and your comments are unacceptable.
A couple using artificial means of birth control have taken God and nature out of the equation. As the article mentioned, it is used so that the woman can be available for sex at any time. Natural Family Planning actually involves being aware of how the woman's body works, and respecting that sometimes, if the couple believes they are not ready for a child at that time, it is not possible for the couple to express their love in the coital fashion. It requires folks to understand that their 'needs' may have to take a back seat for a couple of weeks. It isn't going to kill anyone to go without, it just goes against the grain of our immediate gratification society.
Are you series? That explains the brevity of my last cycle; it lasted 5 fewer days than usual, which was unusual. The last two weeks of it, I was in Japan, and the family with whom we stayed were vegetarians, so I didn't eat a whole lot of meat. VEY interesting.
blah.. The charting is simply unnecesarily forced interaction. Women are perfectly capable of doing their own charting......
I'm not the only man who feels this way...
Don't plan on that. I started back into my cycles at 6 weeks with each of my kids. And that was while breast feeding on demand!! Each of them started sleeping 'through the night' (from midnight til about 6am) when they were about 6 weeks old, and just that gap caused my body went back to the usual condition.
Pleasure is a movement of the soul caused by the the apprehension and satisfaction of the sensitive appetites.
The passionate kiss that began as a show of love and led to arousal--knowing that the kids would probably interrupt and therefore not allow us to "conclude"--was a mortal sin?
Not at all. Pleasure is not bad. What is bad is to make pleasure from a means into an end. Pleasure should induce us to properly tend to the needs of the sensitive appetites. We are inclined to eat and drink because food tastes good and drink slakes the thirst, and we are inclined to procreate because sex is enjoyable.
It is perfectly fine for a married couple to kiss as a show of love and enjoy the pleasure of the kiss and the arousal it produces even if it is forseen that the arousal probably cannot be satisfied. It is absolutely wrong to kiss merely for the sake of pleasure and arousal with no other end intended.
A normal married couple that avoids sexual perversions like artificial contraception, masturbation, adultery, rectal sodomy and male oral sodomy needn't worry about this at all in their relations with each other.
Why should enjoying the marriage act with your spouse during the non-procreative times be a problem? Remember, God created the process so that the man and woman could become one. Women are only able to become pregnant during a limited time frame. God made us that way, so why shouldn't we use that gift to express our love for our spouse during those non-fertile times? I frankly don't see what the problem is.
The Church does not ask for grave reasons, but just or proportionate reasons to use periodic continence in general.
Pius XII called for the consideration of grave reasons in the case of a couple who felt that they could not fulfill their duties towards distributive social justice in having the number of children the Church and Nation may rightfully claim from them as their due. Thus:
"Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life." (Allocution to Italian Midwives)
For everyone else who do intend to fulfill these duties, and merely wishes to space out their children's births, the Church requires a much lesser standard which basically involves avoiding injustices and frivolity.
Q. Certain married couples, relying on the opinion of learned physicians, are convinced that there are several days each month in which conception cannot occur. Are those who do not use the marriage right except on such days to be disturbed, especially if they have legitimate reasons for abstaining from the conjugal act?
A. Those spoken of in the request are not to be disturbed, providing that they do nothing to impede conception. (Sacred Penitentiary, Response of 3/2/1853)For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2368)
It has been said elsewhere that these media are generally a moral sewer.
Should a person who professes to be Catholic, Orthodox, or place Scripture in high regard even be watching that on the screen?
Probably not a lot of the drama and sitcom type shows. Even where the action is not lewd, it is still voyuerisitic.
All we see in advertisements, during television shows and on the 'big screen' are then -- mortally sinful?
Some is and some isn't. However, the prevelance of snful activity in the course of an acting career is what caused the early Church in Roman times to forbid Christians to be actors. Acting in the generally offered fair of today appears to be incompatible with a consistent profession of the faith, as Mel Gibson has discovered.
Charting is good for beginners. We don't bother anymore!
Not quite. The kiss only becomes illicit when it is motivated by the pleasure of the kiss itself. A kiss motivated by something else is not illicit. Again, in general, a married couple needn't worry themselves about this principle, because their sings of affection for one another almost invariably have a motive beyond mere sensual gratification, even though they certainly do and may enjoy the sensual gratification they bring.
The same principal also holds true for marital intercourse. Bl. Innocent XI condemned the proposition: "The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect."
I'm series :-) Also, less painful too.
I know people who have had experiences like yours. However, this is my 8th baby, and I've had 8-10 months without cycles when I've consistently nursed the others. Of course, at my age, I could always have a surprise hormone change :-).
Very good, again, Hermann!
The difference here, while I intellectually understand, seems to be very fine. You can enjoy the pleasure as long as you don't seek it? But we kiss because it is pleasurable. I cannot imagine having the time to consider whether I am kissing my husband because I love him or because I am ho . . .OOPS, excited, shall we say! The intermingling of these feelings in a relationship makes it hard to separate pleasure, love and, well, horniness. They are all there in varying degrees at any one time.
This is where the differences occur. I have read that we must have a GRAVE reason not to have more children in order to use NFP. It is selfish to only have 4 or 5 children if you make $200k a year, is it not? So just because you have contributed your 4, you can afford more. This assumes no medical conditions that preclude pregnancy, just a feeling that you have "enough".
The difference is very simple I think. Sexual acts performed for pleasure alone are wrong. Sexual acts with other motivations in addition to enjoyment of pleasure are okay.
You must have grave reasons to avoid fulfilling your duty to society by using NFP - i.e. having less than 4 children. You must have just reasons for using it if you have or reasonably intend to have 4 or more children.
It is selfish to only have 4 or 5 children if you make $200k a year, is it not? So just because you have contributed your 4, you can afford more. This assumes no medical conditions that preclude pregnancy, just a feeling that you have "enough".
I think this would depend on your circumstances. A young couple living in Manhattan or Boston or Washington or similar expensive locales will find that $200,000 does not go very far at all. $200,000 is a lot of money out in the country though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.