It’s still in God’s hands and also you can’t practice NFP without a grave reason
Grave reason? So you’re telling me Catholic couples have to plan on having a baby every time they have sex? Would it not be better to wait until one has more financial resources to have a child? Also what about women whose pregnancy would put them at a health risk?
It likely is contributing to the porn, the thoughts, your current mental state and the way you relate to the opposite sex.
Those are grave reasons.
What isn’t a grave reason is just not having kids just because
Things are changing. Church teachings on sexuality in parts go back to Judaism. We live in the 21th century. The Catholic church is changing, ever so slightly. Today, people have a different understanding of relationship and personal identity compared to what was acceptable 2000 years ago. There is a thing called doctrinal development. It is not about radical change or revolution but rather reevaluation of tradition in the light of more recent scientific results. We have a broader understanding of love and its legitimate expressions today. Church teaching has to take into account real-life scenarios in an ever changing world. AL is a first step implicitly acknowledging this. I am sure there is more to come.
In which way do you would like to see the church changing her sexual moral?
No, an act which concludes with the man ahem finishing inside of his wife (non-contracepted) is valid.
There are two ends of sex: unitive and procreative. Thus, one must always be open to conceiving a child when engaging in sex. NFP and conception are not an either/or scenario. You can practice NFP and be open to conception (and, in fact, even conceive; NFP isn’t 100% prevention). A woman’s probability to conceive bares no moral weight on the conjugal act. That said, NFP must be practiced with the proper disposition. Yes, like all good things, NFP can be abused. Vatican II teaches that parents must:
So it’s a bit open to interpretation, but selfish or trivial reasons will not be sufficient in the Church’s eyes.
I’d also ask the rhetorical question, “What happens when a woman hits menopause?” No more sex? She is always infertile (theoretically, though it’s ultimately up to God), so sex with such a woman would always be a sin, right?
That would be saying infertile couples sin by having sex which is ridiculous.
That’s…kinda depressing, actually.There’s nothing spouses can offer each other that beats not having done it with other people?
Think of the “oppression” as a positive. It is forming a guided path/road for you to stay on so you can reach understandings along the way about all these things.
I wouldn’t say the Church changes her teachings so much as she can come to a different perspective. But yes, the Church teaches the Truth of Christ through the cultural and moral values of the society in which she exists.
The very phrasing of that question indicates to me that, while you may have academic knowledge of the Church’s teaching on sexuality, you don’t really understand it.
Or maybe I do understand it, but just happen to operate under a different vocabulary.
I know lots of mostly older gay men now in their 70s who were married to women at one time and all of them had “feelings” for their wives. Some of them still love their ex-wives. But that doesn’t mean they felt sexually attracted to their wives and that’s why their marriages didn’t work out.
Sex is an important part of marriage and if there’s no mutual sexual attraction, how can a married couple have a satisfying sex life? And if someone doesn’t have real sexual attraction to begin with, they shouldn’t expect for it to come later.
I read a book once by a gay man who went through a “reparative therapy” program to try and make himself straight. I especially remember a part where he said that he used to have all these fantasies about having a wife and children, but then later when he looked back he realized that he had never had any fantasies about having sex with his wife.
I agree with what you say but one point, I think there is a misguided notion out there that people of the LBGT are excluded Catholics, In fact I think it’s the opposite , they have excluded themselves in many ways, for example: LGBT people want the church to change to allow Gay priest etc to make them feel welcomed so if the church says No we are not doing that then they are labelled Bigots etc. So by these acts they exclude themselves because after all every Catholic regardless of your sexuality knows That the Church only teaches the laws of God and it is God they are fighting. So until the Lord himself tells the church to go ahead and allow LBGT people to become priests etc, I will do what the church has always taught and that is to Love my Neighbour regardless of gender or creed or sin and stand up for truth and not pander the the agenda to bring down the church.
Just a thought!
OP your anxiety with these questions is like a heroin addict trying to figure out how to get his life straightened out while high.
It ain’t gonna happen til you get off the drugs.
I always saw it as a waste of virginity to save it and then get married. I guess I’m weird that way.
No one said that.
More? More than who? It’s something couples discern together. In general people always think they can be “more” ready before having kids. Fortunately, it doesn’t work like that— you grow into marriage and parenthood over time.
What about it?
The OP said he went three months last year without porn, so it didn’t appear to have made him understand Church teachings more.
Yes, your attitudes about sex are quite bizarre.
Just an observation, not intended as an insult.