Marriage and sexual practice


#1

Hello, I am a new member to the Orthodox church have some things that are a bit confusing to me. For quite someome now I have been studying ancient customs, rituals, historical facts of the time, of Judaism and the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I assume since Christianity has it's roots in Judaism it is essential to have an understanding. In addition it sheds great insight into the parables, works, reactions, etc. . .that we read about in the New Testament. With that being said I have some things I dont yet understand about sexual relations within the marital bonds.

My first concern is with the use of birth control. I fully get the point that something that causes a fertilized egg to be dispelled is completely immoral and obvisouly murder. However, those things that prevent fertilization I dont understand if the marriage is still open to creation, such a for spacing, etc. . . From what I have read and understand from the Talmudand other ancient Rabbinical texts not every sexual encounter between husband and wife had to have the intent of creation, but the marriage needed to remain with the possibility. In addition, it was expected that the man ensure that the woman was srxusl sayisfied. Contemporary Rabbis has explainef that this expectation did not place a restriction on the sexual act as long as it was mutal and did not degrade or was forced upon the partner. (this leads to another question relating o mutal masterbation, oral sex, anal sex, etc. . . Apearing here that unnatutal in the originte concept was any sexual act performed outside the bonds of male/female marriage. . . The natural state of sex is wothi marriage and not actual the specific deed performed). Now back to birth control.

I do not see how prevention of fertilization by condoms, pills, etc. . .is any different than NFP? I know the quick response is that it kills the sperm and thus makes you unopen to life, however, NFP in essence has the same effect. The goal being to prevent conception, lets face it, that is why you practice it. In NFP we time intercourse to times when the viginia is hostile toward sperm thus killing them in addition to the mucus plug acting as a barrier that prevents sperm entering the cervix. This has the same effect as most birth control right? And both intention are to prevent pregnancy at least for a period of time right? If your intent is only temporary in both cases what is the difference? I know most respond that artificial opens up people to have sex more freely outside of marriage. Well the wrong here is sex upside of marriage, and if what speed you was fear of pregnancy than guees what NFP just gave you a means as well being that it is just as effective when properly practiced correct?

Further I realize that most weil say the bible condemns it based on Onan and Tamar. But I dont see this. . . The bible said he was told to marry Tamar and raise up a child for his brother. Them it says Onan knew the seed would but be his own and that it came to pass WHENEVER he went into his brothers wife he emitted his semenon the ground, lest he should give seed to hi brother, but the thig he did appeared evil in the sight of the Lord, and he was put to death.

What stands out here is that the whole thing was an encounter that was one commanded to occur, to eppected by Jewish law to occur so that the family line could continue(in Det), and that Onan didnt like the fact he had to beat a son tjat would not be considered his own, but of Er. What signifficance is this, well for one if Onan fullfillef his duty the resulting child would receive Er's inherritence. If the child did not occur then it would have all went to Onan. Wh would I think this is posdible? Well it says, he knew he seed wouldnt be his so when he had sex he spillef his seed on the ground, and for what reason? So he would not give seed to his brother. It does no say that he wasted the seed, and given that sexual laws were given in scripture and this wasting of seedis never mentionef, it seems more likely that the evil before God wad greed, disobidence, and contempt for brother. Also in light of tradition and pracicead stated earlier sex wad somethig that could have been done for pleasure the occasional prevention of conception would not have been offensive. However tje intent was continual prevention and self gratification without regard to Tamars wamts amd wishes.

We must remember God doesnt just look at the action but intent and you heart behind that action ad with Cain and Able. If it was the action itself that wad judhef tjere would habe been no isdue because both offered sacrifice, the diffetence wad the intent..... It is obvious that Onan actions was more than a one time thing, and that it wasnt a temporary action like NFP, but is a permanent action intened not to have children for the sole reason of not giving seed to his brother. The consenqunce being by the custom amd laws not discussed that Onan would receive all the inheritance.

If the action wad as I see taught now simply because it ws birth control we would all be struck dead because in tje end NFP is a form of birth control, so if the bible condemned it then NFP shouldn't be taught. I have read alot of arguments for and against all through church History, concerning birth control and acveptable marital sexual acts. Ceryaonly there is a time to anstain, but when that period is over wouldnt it be the intent of the avt vice the avt itself. Ad.long ad the avt is not for self-gratitification and mutual agreeded upon. I know one may say that certain acts are only self-gratification, but that would be your opinion. Some people sincerely enjoy some things othet consider degrading to themselves, and engoy them on a dual level of satisfying a spouse and themselves.

Please note that all things mentioned are in context of a momogomoos male/female marriage not to be enfeveroued on witjout the others participation.

Thoughts and concerns please without judging or belitteing


#2

Haha, welcome to the club. I wish I could help you, but I don’t know the difference either. I am against the pill and other forms of hormonal birth control simply for the reason that they are harmful to a woman’s body and can cause the early abortion of a fertilize egg before it implants into the uterus. As for condoms and other barrier methods? I don’t see what’s wrong with them either or how they differ from NFP in a way that would make them a mortal sin while keeping NFP licit. :shrug:

No worries though. Others will chime in and explain it to you. Good luck wrapping your head around it, because I can’t. :frowning:


#3

My understanding of the Orthodox teaching on spacing children (and that's admittedly light) is that each couple decides with the priest what they should do. I don't believe that all forms of contraception are forbidden in the Orthodox church but my understanding is that they may not be used without consultation with your priest.


#4

Condoms and other barrier methods interrupt the sex act as designed by God, NFP does not. In both cases the result may be a lack of pregnancy, but Catholic theology is anything but consequentialist.

Also, if a man insists on wearing a condom, it’s like saying “I’ll hold your hand dear, but only if I wear a glove.” If a woman insists on her husband wearing a condom, it’s like saying, “I’ll hold your hand dear, but only if you wear a glove.” It is deeply insulting in that it reflects an unwillingness to give oneself fully or to receive the other fully, or both.


#5

I think you for your reply and thoughts but lack to see how your example is anything similar. If wearing a condom is dirupting the sex act by preventing union so is NFP because you are still preventimg the chance for life, both are equally effective remember. You conduct sexual relation when the mucus plug acts as a barrier, like the condom and you cause the distruction of the seed by intentionally having intercourse when th vaginal ph balance is very acidity killing the seed, such as spermicide on the condom. The complete giving of oneself is not physical, but mental. The physical act is the manisfestation of the mental, physical, and soirtual giving. It is only holding back if you never intend to concieve. That is the true reservation and lack of total giving. In either case if they are both intended to stop pregnancy pretty much by similar facualties, then you cant ascribe one as selfish and not the other. If the giving of self is looked judged by the physical act itself then you reduce the love to lust. Because a couple uses a condom doesnt mean they arent totaly comitted,it means they are trying to responibly space children for proper developemnt the same as a couple who uaes NFP. Once again I dont understand this. If birth control is condemmed biblcally then you cant teach NFP either. If the sexual act is to always havw the mean of creating then that is its only ourpose, however, the church does say it can be for pleasure. Thus we have means to regulate called NFP when used right has the same rate if effwcticeness thus removing the chance of conception.


#6

In addition you asking to wear a condom is deeply insulting because of lack of giving. How is the following not insulting and prehaps degrading: with NFP you will not give yourself until until the wife sits down with a group of strangers and discuss her vaginal temperature, mucus, discharge, in addition to the at home daily exams and probing with themometers? How can you fully express your love when you turn the union into a medic ask exam? How natural is NFP when it has more sience and calculations involved than what goes into a simple barrier that is used to reach the same effect? Back to the biblical reason for this: during the time of Onan birth control in some form was accepted, especially for pregnant or nursing women. That was for fear of loss of this first child due to the beliwf another conceptikn could take place after the first or that the first chiled woild be weaned to soon afterwards. So if the spilling the seed was what was bad and merrited death then I suspect we would have read about more than just Onan. It says what he did was wicked before God and he took his life. What did he do? He spilled his seed. Why? To prevent conception. But you cant stop there, you must ask why he wanted to prevent conception. And yes that must be important because the bible makes a point to tell us why and the whole reason for the encounter. So why did he want to prevent? To stop the heir for his brother. It would have been considered his brothers child. Yes det. says the male didnt have to bring to produce the heir, but that meant he refused the marriage, not go through with it and turn the women into a personal toy for pleasure. It is quite obvious he never intended to conceive for the sole purpose of keeping Er from having an heir. So from the understandimg and teaching of the church we know that to have a vaild marriage it must be ooen to lifw, this ime was not so the union would be invalid… Hummm I think that means the sin of fornication would apply here which was condemed. You could also add possibly greed so he could keep the ok nheritance, either way spilling his seed was how he carried out his evil intent. The action itself was not evil, go back and read leviticus and how the see a was to be cleaned off clothes, bedding, skins, etc. . . Obviously some seed had to be spilled for this cleansimg to be described and it wasnt considered any worse than menstration.


#7

[quote="Ignatius1979, post:1, topic:250796"]
For quite someome now I have been studying ancient customs, rituals, historical facts of the time, of Judaism and the Catholic/Orthodox Church. I assume since Christianity has it's roots in Judaism it is essential to have an understanding. In addition it sheds great insight into the parables, works, reactions, etc. . .that we read about in the New Testament. With that being said I have some things I dont yet understand about sexual relations within the marital bonds.

[/quote]

Here's a great article about the deep Jewish roots of historical Christian teaching about contraception. rtforum.org/lt/lt67.html


#8

[quote="Equites_Christi, post:4, topic:250796"]

Also, if a man insists on wearing a condom, it's like saying "I'll hold your hand dear, but only if I wear a glove." If a woman insists on her husband wearing a condom, it's like saying, "I'll hold your hand dear, but only if you wear a glove." It is deeply insulting in that it reflects an unwillingness to give oneself fully or to receive the other fully, or both.

[/quote]

No, it's not like that at all. It has nothing to do with "an unwillingness to give oneself fully or the receive the other fully." Rather, it has to do with not wanting to conceive an child at that point in time.


#9

Interesting thread so far...


#10

Thank you deeply forthe posted link to the article. It was certainly good reading. However, it didnt really touch on the belief and teaching of the ti,e as is written in the Talmud, Midrismah and other official documents used in Jewish teaching and belief as is still in use today. These writtings in Judiasm is like our writtings of the saints. This is where I draw my study on Judaism from.


#11

[quote="Ignatius1979, post:1, topic:250796"]
However, those things that prevent fertilization I dont understand if the marriage is still open to creation, such a for spacing, etc

[/quote]

A couple who uses contraceptives are by default not open to creation. Couples who use NFP can have a closed heart to children as well and that attitude is sinful. However I don't believe anyone comes into marriage with a purely chaste heart. NFP challenges the couple to live their marital lives chastely. It challenges your attitudes toward children and has the potential to purify your intentions and opens your heart to greater generocity.

. . . From what I have read and understand from the Talmudand other ancient Rabbinical texts not every sexual encounter between husband and wife had to have the intent of creation, but the marriage needed to remain with the possibility.

A couple does not have to intend on getting pregnant. What is sinful is changing the nature of the sexual act in order to frustrate the procreative aspects of sexuality. It is sinful in the same manner that it would be sinful for a man or a woman to strive to emotionally distance themselves from a sexual partner in order to more easily practice promiscuity. The unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality must be integrated into the person so that there is no distinction from the decision to have sex and the decision to be open to getting pregnant. it simply is having sex and that opens you to the possibility whether you're using your peak days or not. Spacing children in NFP is simply abstainence. NFP itself is simply knowledge.

(this leads to another question relating o mutal masterbation, oral sex, anal sex, etc. . . Apearing here that unnatutal in the originte concept was any sexual act performed outside the bonds of male/female marriage. . . The natural state of sex is wothi marriage and not actual the specific deed performed).

Huh? What is your question?

I do not see how prevention of fertilization by condoms, pills, etc. . .is any different than NFP?

Contraceptives distort the nature of sexuality to divorce the fertile aspect of sexuality from the other aspects of sexuality. This enables the couple to have more freedom to engage in sex whenever they want to without the unwanted aspects of their sexuality. The Church forbids rejecting these aspects of sexuality as "unwanted." We are to have a fully integrated sexuality, not something that is divorced. As such, if we want to space children our own legimate option is to abstain from sexual relations. NFP does not seek to control and manipulate fertility, but to understand it more completely. So rather than a couple deciding "Ok we need to space children" and abstaining full cycle (period to period) every month, we understand our cycles more fully and abstain when we are naturally most fertile.

The goal being to prevent conception, lets face it, that is why you practice it.

The goal with contraceptives is to surpress fertility to allow the couple to have sex whenever the urge hits them (provided the other consents) without getting pregnant. The goal of NFP is give information for the couple to utilize in order to practice the virtue of temperence in their marriage. Sometimes temperence means abstaining when you want to have sex because you have a grave reason to avoid pregnancy. Other times temperence helps you to recognize that you do not have a valid reason to avoid pregnancy.

I'll say this another way. The contraceptive world is very hostile to the conception of children. Frequently I hear people criticizing couples who have large families. They are treated as irresponsible and wreckless. "Get a condom!" is what they say. But for the NFP couple, others come across as completely rude to make judgment calls about the size of their family. Why? Because they are dictating to the couple about when to have sex. They don't know they are because contraceptives doesn't regulate when a couple has sex. In fact for an NFP couple to complain, the contraceptive culture would just shrug their shoulders and say "Its your contraceptive method that is retraining not us." But that is because they see sexuality and fertility as separate. An NFP couple though has to practice restraint and if they want a sex life has to be more deliberate about having sex. They have to recognize that sex is important even if they don't have the urge to have sex on their infertile days. They must recognize that sex is not about scratching an itch but about renewing their marital vows and engaging in a sacramental act. Its important to have sex and things get in the way of it even without NFP. As such the couple has to look at their situation and weighs it out. Is it worth not engaging in the marital embrace? Sure, a couple may be financially strained, but if abstainence is straining the marriage even more, than perhaps embracing another child would be better. Other situations may be regularly grave enough to abstain. It is overall the couple's choice.


#12

Hello,

Please read: priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
And: catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

Hope it helps. :slight_smile:

God Bless.


#13

Let me thank you all.for your comments. Your arguments are not foriegn. I was a Catholic Theology major and that Theology is what put me to Orthodoxy. Two Angels I believe you said a couple doesnt have to intend to have a child? I am not sure to what level you mean that, temporarily or permantly? To have a vaild marriage you must have to attempt to concieve at some point. That is the teaching of the Church and that is why Onan was evil, not that he just simply spilled his seed. His intent was to never attempt conception,.that makes for an invaild marriage and therefore.places him in the categorry of fornicatiin and for neglecting his duty. This is how the Jews interperted.as.well, which is why they permit certian types of Birth Control. I can assure you not everyone who use birth control is seeking sterility, most people only want to time kids in a responsible manner. I am not for just any form of birth control, howecer, barrier methods and some pills are not abortitive therefore could be used responsibly. There were laws that prescibed what to do when seed was spilled in leviticus and none involved death, only a cleansing. So if thats the case the spilling of seed itself is not the grave matter. Its why he did it that is wrong, the intent to keep his brother from having an heir. And if thats the case then the justification for no birthcontrol is out the window so long as the form you use causes no harm to an already fertilized egg and your intent is only for.timing and spacing of children.


#14

Contraception (ABC) is inherently ordered towards the idea that sex and babies are separate topics that God only accidentally linked together. Being advanced as we are, we are finally able to fix his little oopsie and perfect things. :rolleyes:

NFP, on the other hand, inherently preserves the bedrock idea that sex and babies are an entangled subject. NFP CAN be abused, but it is not fundamentally ordered towards being abused.

ABC tends to perpetuate itself. It creates a gratification version of sex that is inward focusing rather than self-giving. There is nothing inherent about it that forces the couple to re-evaluate its use for avoiding children. NFP, on the other hand, forces the couple monthly to honestly face their ‘serious reason’ for not having kids and places significant pressure on that alleged reason.

We humans frequently over-estimate ourselves. But that fact is that we are weak, sinful and often senselessly selfish buffoons. ABC sabotages a self regulating feature of our humanity and encourages selfishness. NFP confronts selfishness and uses our own biological urges towards counteracting our sinful urges so that we reflect often about our priorities. Among catholics I know who have never practised ABC, there are many (including me) who have “Oh what the heck” children. This is a VERY different thing than an ‘oops’ child, mind you. I know few to no ABC couples with ‘oh what the heck’ kids. This is a manifestation of what I explained above. NFP doesn’t divorce sex from baby-making the way ABC does. The result is that NFP couples generally CAN avoid children when they need to, but they are more likely than ABC couples to recognize that they really don’t need to. Perhaps that is why every country on earth in which ABC is culturally accepted and widely available has a NEGATIVE native population growth rate…


#15

The Talmud is not a place for a christian to get advice.Its just a Jewish pt.of view.


#16

[quote="Ignatius1979, post:13, topic:250796"]
Let me thank you all.for your comments. Your arguments are not foriegn. I was a Catholic Theology major and that Theology is what put me to Orthodoxy. Two Angels I believe you said a couple doesnt have to intend to have a child? I am not sure to what level you mean that, temporarily or permantly? To have a vaild marriage you must have to attempt to concieve at some point.

[/quote]

To have a valid marriage, the couple must consent to accepting children as a gift from God. They express this consent by having sexual relations. If a couple goes into marriage with the intent of using contraceptives in order to permanently prevent children, they are doing two wrongs. 1. They are not consenting to accepting children. 2. They are engaging in sexual relations in a masterbatory way - that is frustrating the act to distort the natural ends of the act to something other than God's intention.

You are misunderstanding because you still are viewing having a child as a much more deliberate choice than God gives us. There is only the response of "Let it be done according to your will." It is about God's will. Not ours. NFP is not about having sex when you're infertile. NFP is about abstaining from sex.

That is the teaching of the Church and that is why Onan was evil, not that he just simply spilled his seed. His intent was to never attempt conception,.that makes for an invaild marriage and therefore.places him in the categorry of fornicatiin and for neglecting his duty.

Onan did not commit the sin of fornication. He had motivation to prevent the conception of a child, but he still agreed to go through the marriage and to engage in sexual relations on some kind in order to prevent the child. As such, he was slain for his actions. Certainly more than lust motivated him, but if it were merely greed, than he would have sought not to marry his brother's widow.

I can assure you not everyone who use birth control is seeking sterility, most people only want to time kids in a responsible manner.

Most people, myself included, are afraid of the responsibilities of parenthood. The standards put on parents continues to increase and the amount to which we pamper our children increases. We have turned having children into an expensive luxury, like the purchase of a boat, a house or an expensive car. Those in poverty who have children are seen in the same light as those in poverty purchasing a luxury they cannot afford. This leads to viewing the bearing of children to something only the rich are entitled to. It fails to see that children are merely the natural outcome of engaging in marital relations. It views the fertility as an inconvinence.

The only legitmate way to space children is first to recognize that you are not in control and then to abstain when you are most likely. But you need to remember with each sexual encounter, even if you know you're going to abstain once fertile mucus shows up, that children are not a choice. You are saying yes with every sexual encounter. Contraceptives says "No, but I still have this scratch I need to itch." Contraceptives say no because they deliberately interfer with how sex occurs or how the woman's body works for the sake of acheiving the end of increasing infertility for the sake of scratching the itch when it comes.

There were laws that prescibed what to do when seed was spilled in leviticus and none involved death, only a cleansing. So if thats the case the spilling of seed itself is not the grave matter.

There is a difference between intentionally spilling your seed for the sake of preventing conception, and sex just occuring imperfectly as it sometimes does.

Its why he did it that is wrong, the intent to keep his brother from having an heir. And if thats the case then the justification for no birthcontrol is out the window so long as the form you use causes no harm to an already fertilized egg and your intent is only for.timing and spacing of children.

The passage about Onan is vague. It is not clear. It definitely can be interpreted either way. The thing is, as a Catholic, I believe in the teaching authority of the Church. Where there is ambiguity, there is the Church to guide and clarify.

The Church holds that sex is sacred. It is not merely like eating. I mean, we could compare contraceptives to diet pills that reduce appetite, speed up motabolism and treat the symptoms of a poorly balanced diet and little exercise. The Church does not condemn these things like she condemns contraceptives. I would say that is because of two things. First it is because sex is more sacred than eating. The second is that we our culture is obsessed with sexual sins to the point of ignoring all other sins. I have myself gotten to consider that poor eating habits, being picky about food and what not is sinful and an expression of gluttony. It is not merely overeating that is an expression of gluttony. It is pickiness, wanting to eat only the foods that I like and failing to treat my body with the dignity it deserves. There is a moral superiority to eating a balanced diet and exercising regular over buying slim fasts shakes. Are such inventions as immoral as contraceptives? Well the Church does not speak up about them. I'd say the fact they are never spoken of is because we obsess about sex. I'd say the reason they're not at the same level of immorality as contraceptives because sex is sacred. But I have come to consider those fast diet plans to be sinful.


#17

Valentino, didnt our Savior say He didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it? And yet again that not one Iota would be changed.... I think Jewish texts are worthy of study since we derive our roots there. Why dismiss what they had to say, agterall the law came through the Jews as did salvation. As far as everyone telling me how I misunderstand how boit explain it in a way other than what your local catechism class has told yoi. I assure yoi I have a decent understanding of this since I was a 4.0 student staying Catholic Theology. To say barrier methods take away from sex is not a statement you can attribute to all, because you dont know what is in a mans heart. Birth control was not a divine revelation, it was used then and I am sure it would have been spelled out otherwise. Like you said Onan was motivated ti do what he did, hence it was is intention that was evil and tje spilling of tje seed is how it was accomplished. I can abuse NFP and never inted to concieve, does that make it still ok? Onan went into that marriage with know intent to conncieve thus that marriage was not valid. Just as you said he would have had to go in with the intent but he did not.


#18

[quote="manualman, post:14, topic:250796"]
Contraception (ABC) is inherently ordered towards the idea that sex and babies are separate topics that God only accidentally linked together. Being advanced as we are, we are finally able to fix his little oopsie and perfect things. :rolleyes:

NFP, on the other hand, inherently preserves the bedrock idea that sex and babies are an entangled subject. NFP CAN be abused, but it is not fundamentally ordered towards being abused.

ABC tends to perpetuate itself. It creates a gratification version of sex that is inward focusing rather than self-giving. There is nothing inherent about it that forces the couple to re-evaluate its use for avoiding children. NFP, on the other hand, forces the couple monthly to honestly face their 'serious reason' for not having kids and places significant pressure on that alleged reason.

We humans frequently over-estimate ourselves. But that fact is that we are weak, sinful and often senselessly selfish buffoons. ABC sabotages a self regulating feature of our humanity and encourages selfishness. NFP confronts selfishness and uses our own biological urges towards counteracting our sinful urges so that we reflect often about our priorities. Among catholics I know who have never practised ABC, there are many (including me) who have "Oh what the heck" children. This is a VERY different thing than an 'oops' child, mind you. I know few to no ABC couples with 'oh what the heck' kids. This is a manifestation of what I explained above. NFP doesn't divorce sex from baby-making the way ABC does. The result is that NFP couples generally CAN avoid children when they need to, but they are more likely than ABC couples to recognize that they really don't need to. Perhaps that is why every country on earth in which ABC is culturally accepted and widely available has a NEGATIVE native population growth rate....

[/quote]

Thank you. That is a lot better than I put it.


#19

[quote="Ignatius1979, post:17, topic:250796"]
Valentino, didnt our Savior say He didn't come to abolish the law but fulfill it? And yet again that not one Iota would be changed.... I think Jewish texts are worthy of study since we derive our roots there. Why dismiss what they had to say, [after all] the law came through the Jews as did salvation.

[/quote]

The study of the Law in Judaism has become very much "what can I get away with" rather than "how should I behave.

Jesus gave us the Beatitudes to supersede the Commandments. That is, by fulfilling the Beatitudes one is at no risk of violating the Commandments.

Elsewhere He commanded us to "be perfect as the Father is perfect." An impossible task, to be sure. However, by striving for perfection, we explicitly have to avoid the "get away with it" line of thinking.

How about reevaluating NFP and ABC by the standard of perfection Jesus commanded us to use.


#20

... my dear friend ,,,

... my own thoughts largely as follows --

... you must be natural and that is the big point , artfcial birth control is not natural it is artificial as it says , you can naturally space your children but still need to be for life and not selfish with this ,,, we can learn an awful lot from our fellow creatures here , they are totally natural and never engage in any sexual practises that are perversions of sex , i'm talking of ones whose sex is similiar to hunans of course -- you never see sodomy , oral sex , masturbation and anything except the normal sex act ,,, we can learn a lot from the rest of nature ,,, if one really loves ones spouse then the sex is greater with the amount of love , the enjoyment and pleasure of sex increases the more you love one another on the basis of that love ,,, it seems most people need to turn the sex into something dirty and evil in order to increase the pleasure and this is why most humans pervert sex -- this is lust and not love , love unites and evil lust divides -- important to note too ,,, on our fellow creatures they can make mistakes with sex even tgough they have no knowledge of good and evil and no free wills -- worth noting too ,,, as to sin this only becomes sinful when you consent to and indulge evil thoughts in your mind and evil desires in your heart , but even if there is no sin you are still suppose to learn from your mistakes ,,, the creator has given man a way of having and spacing children and it is totally natural , there are no other options in the eyes of god ,,, it is vital man is natural for his health and he has not the clue what he does to himself when he is unnatural as yet ,,, study your fellow creatures here as we are really just another creature here when it comes down to it and can really learn a lot from them , and this is why jesus used nature so much to explain things , i know man has a rational immortal soul and destiny in heaven so don't point out this please ,,, man must do things as god naturally intended but has lost all knowledge of this since the fall , but as said a close study of the rest of nature and putting on your thinking cap will really help ,,, if you need to turn the sex into something unnatural , dirty and evil then you do not love your spouse at all , if you love your spouse you will love and not do evil ,,, unnatural = evil ,,, hope this helps ??? ,

... may god bless and love you :thumbsup::) ,,,

... john ...


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.