Birth control.

[benedictaoo]

Irenaeus, have you defeated the demons of lust in your life, to the point that you do not succumb to temptation to sin? Bene and I know a thing or two about marriage and following THE RULES. We do a disservice to other couples when we lie about how satisfying not having sex with our spouses is. The loudest proponents of a non-contraceptive lifestyle on here have traditionally been people who could not hack it themselves.

If we sound cynical it is only because shamefully dishonest people are selling young Catholics a lie about the miraculous joys and graces that come with periodic abstinence.

That and the fact that I have been married for as long as Irenaeus has walked this earth. The fact that he thinks we are attacking the teachings is ridiculous especially when I've followed them for the better part of his life.

I feel like this, even if I were to "attack" them, which I am not, BTW, if feel that I can because I follow them when others don't but preach to others on how to. When they have put themselves in a position of not having to follow them. Frankly, I can say what I want about it.

 

[Irenaeus]

The teaching is there, it is what it is and it is wonderful because it's God's awesome teaching. However, comma, unless you and your spouse are one hundred and million percent on board, together , as one down with this teaching it will never in a million trillion, bazillion years ever work. Over time the marriage will fail under the stress of the high expectations that are put on each spouse.

Thanks for the clarification. I think you're absolutely right in this. Marriage always takes two, that's a no-brainer. Granted the terrible state of marriage in general, and the fact that there is so much selfishness today, some are beginning to wonder whether people have the necessary dispositions to enter into Christian Marriage.

As to Mike,

Irenaeus, have you defeated the demons of lust in your life, to the point that you do not succumb to temptation to sin? Bene and I know a thing or two about marriage and following THE RULES. We do a disservice to other couples when we lie about how satisfying not having sex with our spouses is. The loudest proponents of a non-contraceptive lifestyle on here have traditionally been people who could not hack it themselves.

Mike, I would understand if you both said things like "this is a hard thing to do", or some other way of putting it like that. But the language actually used seemed a lot more, well, critical of the Church's teaching. No one is saying that this is easy. Everything from vicious gossip to illicit sex can be a sin for which we are completely culpable, and can destroy our spiritual lives.

On my own, in real life, I don't go after the contraception issue apart from trying to work with people in their concrete situation. That is how I do marriage prep and that is how I talk to people who bring it up. However, on a message board like this it may seem that I take a more "intellectualist" approach to the problem. That is not practically what I do. It's just that here none of us know each other, and I'd rather not presume anything of anyone of whom I have no knowledge. I'd rather stick with the matter at hand and, since I assume most us are adults, we can find a way to apply the teaching.

I think we should also remember that no matter where we are in life, we all have to follow "The Rules." Take for instance my vow of celibacy. I made a decision that for the people of God and for the Kingdom of Heaven I would preserve perpetual chastity for my entire earthly existence. Yes, that's even with the "primal itch," as you have called it, or if I see a girl to whom I'm attracted. Not only can someone in my position not "scratch" that itch, there will never, ever, conceivably be a time when that will ever happen.

When two people come together in Christian Marriage, it is assumed by the Church that they are aware of "The Rules", the nature of the sacrament, and that they intend to abide by them to the best of their ability. I shouldn't be making light of the "Rules" I have freely chosen to live by. Mutatis mutandis, anyone who is married likewise should not make fun of the rules, because they are Christ's rules in the context of their wedded life. If someone decides to get married in the Church, they chose to live their lives in this way.

I will concede that it is somewhat more difficult for two married people to do this because they do have to be onboard with what Christian Marriage means. That is absolutely true. But that's why we have Pre-Cana and necessary meetings before anyone gets married. A couple has to be prepared, to be able to communicate, and that applies to their sex lives as it does to everything else between them.

I missed this post....

When the "hooked" person masturbates, God seems to react with a "meh, he/she is hooked. Poor thing. Not their fault." When the non-hooked person falls, God seems to react with a "They better hope they don't have a fatal aneurism before they get to Confession, because that's ETERNAL TORTURE."

That is a very cynical way of looking at Church teaching and even God's "attitude" toward people in general.

 

[Irenaeus]

That and the fact that I have been married for as long as Irenaeus has walked this earth. The fact that he thinks we are attacking the teachings is ridiculous especially when I've followed them for the better part of his life.

Benedicta, please look back on the last page. I did thank you for the clarification. All my words were in fact questions, not statements. Now that you have said you were not intending to attack the teachings, I believe you.

No problem.

 

[MikeK]

When two people come together in Christian Marriage, it is assumed by the Church that they are aware of "The Rules", the nature of the sacrament, and that they intend to abide by them to the best of their ability. I shouldn't be making light of the "Rules" I have freely chosen to live by. Mutatis mutandis, anyone who is married likewise should not make fun of the rules, because they are Christ's rules in the context of their wedded life. If someone decides to get married in the Church, they chose to live their lives in this way.

What is all of this talk of choices? "Do as I command or risk eternal torture" isn't really a free choice. Let's call it what it is, a mandate backed by the threat of infinite punishment. Practicing Catholics follow God by choice in the same way that the mouse chooses to run from the cat.

That is a very cynical way of looking at Church teaching and even God's "attitude" toward people in general.

It is. I don't think it's wholly inaccurate though, as best I can tell.

 

[Irenaeus]

What is all of this talk of choices? "Do as I command or risk eternal torture" isn't really a free choice.

Did you read what I said? I was talking about the choice of marriage. It seems you having another issue entirely with the idea of "law" and "commandment," and what God's relationship to our weakness is.

Let's call it what it is, a mandate backed by the threat of infinite punishment. Practicing Catholics follow God by choice in the same way that the mouse chooses to run from the cat.

Have you ever heard of the idea of "Participated Theonomy?" This view you are mentioning is not Catholic teaching at all.

If you believe that about practicing Catholics, I'm going to say that I for one am not one of them. I love God, I want to follow him because his words are spirit and life. God's commandments are not rules imposed on us, which he doesn't lift a finger to help us. God enters us with his Holy Spirit to transform us from within in a radical way, and we become able to follow him in love because we are his sons and daughters.

When I sin, I turn to God with sorrow and receive his forgiveness and restoration. Victory in the spiritual life is not a choice of success or damnation. It is the perseverance even through the falls, depending on the grace of God, and living in that relationship moment by moment.

 

[benedictaoo]

Thanks for the clarification. I think you're absolutely right in this. Marriage always takes two, that's a no-brainer. Granted the terrible state of marriage in general, and the fact that there is so much selfishness today, some are beginning to wonder whether people have the necessary dispositions to enter into Christian Marriage.

It's not selfishness, wrong choice of words there and it speaks to your ignorance about marriage in general. Its not selfishness but the level of spiritual maturity and understanding each one has. God gives to some but not to all. Spouses are not always equally yoked in the enlightenment department. So one must meet the other where they are at. You have to come down, the other can not come up to you. If you think they need to come up to you, then you will find yourself perched on your high horse in the annulment line.

A true Catholic couple would do good understanding that love, compassion and understating each spouse's needs should come before "The Rules".

Are you beginning to understand what it is that I am talking about? Zeal for the Church sometimes causes us to miss the forest through the trees. You have a real live marriage in front of you. Plug into that and meet it's needs instead of worrying if you are following the rules.

As to Mike,



Mike, I would understand if you both said things like "this is a hard thing to do", or some other way of putting it like that. But the language actually used seemed a lot more, well, critical of the Church's teaching. No one is saying that this is easy. Everything from vicious gossip to illicit sex can be a sin for which we are completely culpable, and can destroy our spiritual lives.

But it's more than that. More then just hard. It's at times very illogical and impractical. At times, it just can't be lived out all the time in order for the marriage to survive. It looks good on paper but in life, it just don't work.

On my own, in real life, I don't go after the contraception issue apart from trying to work with people in their concrete situation. That is how I do marriage prep and that is how I talk to people who bring it up. However, on a message board like this it may seem that I take a more "intellectualist" approach to the problem. That is not practically what I do. It's just that here none of us know each other, and I'd rather not presume anything of anyone of whom I have no knowledge. I'd rather stick with the matter at hand and, since I assume most us are adults, we can find a way to apply the teaching.

Oh, Gez... you are doing marriage prep? Oh lord... help us all.

I think we should also remember that no matter where we are in life, we all have to follow "The Rules." Take for instance my vow of celibacy. I made a decision that for the people of God and for the Kingdom of Heaven I would preserve perpetual chastity for my entire earthly existence. Yes, that's even with the "primal itch," as you have called it, or if I see a girl to whom I'm attracted. Not only can someone in my position not "scratch" that itch, there will never, ever, conceivably be a time when that will ever happen.

and we do, it just won't bee 100%, 100% all the time. Why? Cuz we are fallen people living in a fallen word.

When two people come together in Christian Marriage, it is assumed by the Church that they are aware of "The Rules", the nature of the sacrament, and that they intend to abide by them to the best of their ability. I shouldn't be making light of the "Rules" I have freely chosen to live by. Mutatis mutandis, anyone who is married likewise should not make fun of the rules, because they are Christ's rules in the context of their wedded life. If someone decides to get married in the Church, they chose to live their lives in this way.

Not making fun. That is your perception.

I will concede that it is somewhat more difficult for two married people to do this because they do have to be onboard with what Christian Marriage means. That is absolutely true. But that's why we have Pre-Cana and necessary meetings before anyone gets married. A couple has to be prepared, to be able to communicate, and that applies to their sex lives as it does to everything else between them.

In a perfect world. the world is imperfect.

Would you rather see people marrying and divorcing and annulling and remarrying... sorry, marrying for the first time several times over? Or just making their one and only marriage work? Which do you think God prefers?

 

[Irenaeus]

It's not selfishness, wrong choice of words there and it speaks to your ignorance about marriage in general.

I didn't say you were selfish. I didn't say any particular couple was selfish. I just said selfishness is in the culture and its affecting our marriages. That is it.

Its not selfishness but the level of spiritual maturity and understanding each one has.

Selfishness or selflessness is also part of the quotient of spiritual maturity and understanding one has, is it not?

God gives to some but not to all.

In what respect? And what does he have to offer that we cannot obtain with fervent prayer, at least with regard to the only person we can change, ourselves?

Spouses are not always equally yoked in the enlightenment department. So one must meet the other where they are at. You have to come down, the other can not come up to you. If you think they need to come up to you, then you will find yourself perched on your high horse in the annulment line.

Fair enough on the enlightenment front. I'm not saying that everyone has to have a complete idea of what Christian Marriage is, but they have to have an idea.

A true Catholic couple would do good understanding that love, compassion and understating each spouse's needs should come before "The Rules".

A true Catholic couple would first attempt to find away that all these can be found in the context of the teachings of Christ, and his love. These are not "Rules" like "No Smoking". These are Christ's words to us.

Are you beginning to understand what it is that I am talking about? Zeal for the Church sometimes causes us to miss the forest through the trees. You have a real live marriage in front of you. Plug into that and meet it's needs instead of worrying if you are following the rules.

As I said in my post at 10:08 AM EDT, in real life I always do this. But I am on a message board. I don't know many people here in a concrete way. So I try to stick to issues, and not to persons, and hopefully the persons can make decisions for themselves which are good ones. That's my angle on the matter.

Would you rather see people marrying and divorcing and annulling and remarrying... sorry, marrying for the first time several times over? Or just making their one and only marriage work? Which do you think God prefers?

I would rather people seriously discern marriage as a vocation and come to an understanding of it together, and learn to communicate on that level before they approach the Church for the sacrament.

Not making fun. That is your perception.

Where am I mistaken then? I mean, if two people come together before the Church, the assumption is that their consent is intact. Otherwise it is an invalid marriage. Are they consenting to live a Christian Marriage together or aren't they? If one or both do not, they do not have a Christian Marriage, but simply a Natural One.

 

[Irenaeus]

How about this, Benedicta: Let's both sum up what we think about this in a way that's more complete, rather than a back-and-forth on particulars. Since we both agree on Church teaching, let's maybe talk about a constructive way to apply to it.

 

[benedictaoo]

Irenaeus, I don't think in any way possible you can begin to understand where I am at with this.

You are just expecting way to much from people. To use a past member as an example... they were married to an atheist. One had what I call too much for their own good, enlightenment. When one knows what all the expectations of Christian marriage are and expects the other spouse to meet those but they just can't because they are no way at that same level of enlightenment as the other, the marriage will end in divorce.

Is that what God intends marriage to be? For us to be so devoted to sticking to our guns on this or that rule, that the marriage falls part?

 

[Irenaeus]

You are just expecting way to much from people. To use a past member as an example... they were married to an atheist. One had what I call too much for their own good, enlightenment. When one knows what all the expectations of Christian marriage are and expects the other spouse to meet those but they just can't because they are no way at that same level of enlightenment as the other, the marriage will end in divorce.

Is that what God intends marriage to be? For us to be so devoted to sticking to our guns on this or that rule, that the marriage falls part?

Thank you first of all, Benedicta, for your patience in talking this out with me.

Ok, so a Christian is married to an atheist. First, that is not a Christian Marriage, and the person going into it presumably knew that, and the stresses that would inevitably cause. They were, to use the Biblical phrase, "unequally yoked." If the Christian spouse desired to get divorced in that case, he or she may. That kind of marriage is dissolveable. Lest I seem callous, I acknowledge that this could cause a great deal of distress for both the man and the woman, not to even mention if there are children involved. Yet if the Christian spouse decided it would be better for her soul if the unbelieving partner departs, it can happen. It's in Saint Paul's letters. Saint Paul counselled the same thing to Ancient Romans and Greeks quite explicitly.

I think every human being has to ask themselves, "Who is the most important person in my life?" The answer for a sincere Christian is, Jesus Christ. Not even a spouse can come before him.

 

[MikeK]

Irenaeus, I don't think in any way possible you can begin to understand where I am at with this.

You are just expecting way to much from people. To use a past member as an example... they were married to an atheist. One had what I call too much for their own good, enlightenment. When one knows what all the expectations of Christian marriage are and expects the other spouse to meet those but they just can't because they are no way at that same level of enlightenment as the other, the marriage will end in divorce.

Is that what God intends marriage to be? For us to be so devoted to sticking to our guns on this or that rule, that the marriage falls part?

I know the marriage you're talking about. When one spouse wants sex, the other is obligated to provide it, even if that means the other will be faced with caring for children that they are not physically or emotionally capable of raising.

Saying to this couple "you should mutually agree to love and serve God with joy, and abide by the teachings of Chist's Church" is about as realistic and helpful as telling a homeless begger that they would be better off if the went to Medical school and became a Pediatrician.

 

[benedictaoo]

You see, this is what I mean by missing the forest through the tress. You are so fixated on the high standard of being this perfected Christian, you are willing to let go of a real live marriage that is right in front of you... why? What could you possible gain from that?

For what ever the reason, you married the person and are married to them. Your obligation lies with in that- not on how good and great a Christian you are.

Obviously God's hand was in that union in some kind of way- so why not make it work? Why would you think bailing out on that because they are so beneath you spiritually is an option for a loving person such as yourself?

Do you see where I am going with this? The puffed up pseudo humility? It's pride to think you can walk out on your husband or wife because they do not see things exactly as you.

I am not a believer in walking away from a commitment you made to another person, especially when kids are involved. I also do not believe in the over used annulment/ you were never really married excuse. This is the example of a lope hole to the rules.

How about you just make your marriage work?

 

[MikeK]

Did you read what I said? I was talking about the choice of marriage. It seems you having another issue entirely with the idea of "law" and "commandment," and what God's relationship to our weakness is.



Have you ever heard of the idea of "Participated Theonomy?" This view you are mentioning is not Catholic teaching at all.

If you believe that about practicing Catholics, I'm going to say that I for one am not one of them. I love God, I want to follow him because his words are spirit and life. God's commandments are not rules imposed on us, which he doesn't lift a finger to help us. God enters us with his Holy Spirit to transform us from within in a radical way, and we become able to follow him in love because we are his sons and daughters.

When I sin, I turn to God with sorrow and receive his forgiveness and restoration. Victory in the spiritual life is not a choice of success or damnation. It is the perseverance even through the falls, depending on the grace of God, and living in that relationship moment by moment.

Then what is the purpose of eternal punishment? God elected to allow hell for some reason, and elected to allow hell to be terrible and infinite, although the crimes that send one there are finite, for a reason.

 

[Irenaeus]

I know the marriage you're talking about. When one spouse wants sex, the other is obligated to provide it, even if that means the other will be faced with caring for children that they are not physically or emotionally capable of raising.

Saying to this couple "you should mutually agree to love and serve God with joy, and abide by the teachings of Chist's Church" is about as realistic and helpful as telling a homes begger that they would be better off if the went to Medical school and became a Pediatrician.

The other solution: get divorced for the sake of your soul. If this is the marriage that benedicta is mentioning, that is.

 

[MikeK]

The other solution: get divorced for the sake of your soul. If this is the marriage that benedicta is mentioning, that is.

To be clear, the marriage we are talking about is not mine or Bene's. We are both married to spouses who are or we're at least nominally on board with not contracepting. The divorce option you mention in the case we're talking about results in a half-dozen children being raised by divorced parents. I trust you're aware of the effects of divorce on children.

 

[benedictaoo]

I know the marriage you're talking about. When one spouse wants sex, the other is obligated to provide it, even if that means the other will be faced with caring for children that they are not physically or emotionally capable of raising.

Saying to this couple "you should mutually agree to love and serve God with joy, and abide by the teachings of Chist's Church" is about as realistic and helpful as telling a homes begger that they would be better off if the went to Medical school and became a Pediatrician.

Or when they have about 10 kids all under the age of 10, that walking away from the marriage is an option because they have the, "you were never really married to them anyway" card to play. At that point, so what? Who cares if its not a sacrament or not- you got 10 kids. You got 10 kids under the age of 10. You have no choice but to make that marriage work.

You just can not keep putting this inordinate insatiable need to be this good Catholic ahead of everything else in your life. It's not true spirituality anyway. It's some kind of emotional disorder.

 

[Irenaeus]

You are so fixated on the high standard of being this perfected Christian, you are willing to let go of a real live marriage that is right in front of you... why? What could you possible gain from that?

Heaven. That's what is possible to gain from that. If the choice is your spouse or Jesus, Jesus is the obvious choice.

For what ever the reason, you married the person and are married to them. Your obligation lies with in that- not on how good and great a Christian you are.

I didn't say that. But it's not "whatever the reason." In the concrete example you just gave me, it was not a Sacramental Marriage. Then divorce, especially if you have an "irreconcilable difference" of that magnitude!

Obviously God's hand was in that union in some kind of way-

Not necessarily. God may have permitted it, but not willed it directly.

Do you see where I am going with this? The puffed up pseudo humility? It's pride to think you can walk out on your husband or wife because they do not see things exactly as you.

It's not pride. It's spiritual sanity. If your spouse were an atheist, and he does not respect your beliefs, it's not pride to leave the relationship for the sake of your soul and spiritual well being.

I am not a believer in walking away from a commitment you made to another person, especially when kids are involved. I also do not believe in the over used annulment/ you were never really married excuse. This is the example of a lope hole to the rules.

I don't see how this conversation can proceed if you cannot accept the idea of an annulment. An annulment says you were never married sacramentally. It does not say you were never married naturally. These two types of marriages are different in several respects.

Hence this comment...

You just can not keep putting this inordinate insatiable need to be this good Catholic ahead of everything else in your life. It's not true spirituality anyway. It's some kind of emotional disorder.

No, it's not. What is the most important thing in life? Here is what Jesus did actually say. There is of course a nuance here, but the meaning is clear:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26.

So I ask, what exactly may be sacrificed in comparison to being a disciple of Christ?

 

[Irenaeus]

To be clear, the marriage we are talking about is not mine or Bene's. the divorce option you mention in this case results in a half-dozen children being raised by divorced parents. I trust you're aware of the effects of divorce on children.

I am. I'm not saying this is going to be easy on everyone. There is going to be hurt and upset. The parents would have to do the best they can to dissolve any tension, and to make sure the kids would see both of them as much as they can.

But then, I ask you: did St. Paul know this when he counselled the exact same thing to the Corinthian believers, several of whom undoubtedly were in the same situation?

Then what is the purpose of eternal punishment? God elected to allow hell for some reason, and elected to allow hell to be terrible and infinite, although the crimes that send one there are finite, for a reason.

Hell is terrible for a reason. But hell is not the only reason for avoiding sin. That is basic Catholic theology. It is also part of the Catholic tradition that the bars of hell are locked from the inside.

 

[benedictaoo]

The other solution: get divorced for the sake of your soul. If this is the marriage that benedicta is mentioning, that is.

Or how about, for the sake of everybody's soul, not just yours, and for the sake of sanity and blood pressure, you just make the marriage work? How on earth can there be sin in that?

You are no way close to being on this page with me, are you? You really think divorce in Catholicism is an option? And you think it is an option over one spouse realizing the limitations of the other and meeting them where they are at and making a marriage work?

 

[MikeK]

I am. I'm not saying this is going to be easy on everyone. There is going to be hurt and upset. The parents would have to do the best they can to dissolve any tension, and to make sure the kids would see both of them as much as they can.

What you're suggesting will harm the children. Neither parent is unfit. To divorce for the sake of one's own soul seems selfish. Maybe instead of asking the parents to sperate, we could ask God to bend a bit for them? Maybe loosen up the requirements a bit so that they aren't choosing between damnation and raising their children in a two parent home?