Haven't read HV yet, but about your last point…user, that is kind of the point. We are bombarded with temptations from all sides, and we are called to face them with virtue so we don't fall into sin.
Of course, this isn't as easy as it is yielding to them due to our biological nature. Despite this, we fight, sometimes together.There is a cyclical thread in this board dedicated to stop masturbation. This sin doesn't even require a partner, yet the idea is similar: Sexual activity must be performed in a setting that allows for its purpose (reproduction). Otherwise, it would be seeking for pleasure for the sake of itself.
TL;DR: Yeah, it is indeed challenging.
Jack Lewis
Isn’t artificial insemination literal cuckoldry as your wife gets the seed of a sperm donor? Idk maybe that’s not how it works.
It’s strange that most people saying “well how could we only have segs for procreation, that’s extreme” have very few if any kids. Yeah have at least 3 and get back to us. Not saying that’s you but hey. Good things come to those who wait. Delay gratification.
Brandon Lee
Nothing stopping you from being the donor
I was saying the precise opposite. I myself am a Catholic and my post was entirely sincere, and I quite frankly hate the Church trying to take some awkward middle ground like this. They either need to come out and say that yes, married Catholics should expect to have sex 10-20 times in their lifetimes and it would be better if they abstained entirely or they should interpret "procreation" to be as broad as possible (for the purposes of building and maintaining a family, perhaps) and be as generally permissive as St. Paul was on the matter.
Hudson Green
fpbp
Daniel Sullivan
Historically, people could understand that you're allowed to have sex with your wife, not allowed to use artifical contraceptives, and using whores is discouraged.
Today it almost sounds like we need to describe in detail which sex acts are permitted when. It's nuts. I'm not doing that.
Parker Bennett
There are lots of sex acts other than NFP that don't cause pregnancy and there's no need to go into what exactly is permitted when. The guidelines only with your wife and no artificial contraception were fine for a thousand years. There's no reason to be more specific. We're not legalists, this is virtue-based ethics, and this isn't about sex in itself, it's about marriage and family.
Ayden Thomas
Yeah, and I'm not asking you to. Only the pope can speak for the church and I think those are the only guidelines one reasonably can follow. I'm just trying to understand what it is the church actually believes, because going off the HV, they actually do care about the details.
I base this off of this part of it here
"This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character."
So going off this, it seems as if the church does not allow sexual acts that do not have a chance of causing pregnancy, at least. If it did, there would be no need for "self-discipline" or "self-denial".
If we accept that, though, it leads to a lot of further questions that the document doesn't address
Hudson Sullivan
You're still trying to read in this or that thing you might want to do is allowed or not instead of putting sex acts in their proper context. There are lots of reasons to not have sex, it shouldn't be done mechanically all the time. However, one sex act that is open to reproduction is a necessary condition to being married.
Gabriel Richardson
Don't blame me for what the church does. If they think it's more than just about context, then it is and there's nothing I can do about it other than convert to some other religion.
Now, I fully admit that I might be reading into it too much there and understanding those things as off-limits does contradict some other things in the HV (like how sex between infertile partners is supposedly permissable), but it can't well leave that part out because the self-control required for periodic abstinence is basically its entire argument for why NFP is permissable while artificial contraception isn't. I can only assume that interpretation is correct if it's such an essential part of the document. But again, we arrive at that contradiction, at that not understanding why NFP is permissable (and indeed, it seems like a reckless and sinful act on its face), and asking ourselves why the HV had to be written at all.
Cooper Scott
HV was necessary and only the Holy Ghost could have forced it on the zeitgeist of the 60s. HV tries to lay out the thousands of years old truth in a way that 60s people could understand. You're reading too much into the ideas of continence and chastity. Chastity means sexual conduct appropriate to your station in life. NFP is suggested by HV as something to do other than artificial contraception. As you say, infertile couples are allowed to do whatever. HV attempts to argue that NFP is different from artificial contraception and I think that entire line of reasoning is pointless. What you do with your wife in your bedroom is your business, but artificial contraception is forbidden by ancient tradition, since the goal here is to have families, not sex acts.
