Do Catholics have more conservative / boring sex lives?

Not quite. The definition of natural is "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." God made human biology, he made the timing of ovulation. In other words - God made certain periods in a woman's body during which she is non-fertile. This is natural... because it is a normal part of the human body created by God. Therefore it is equally natural to use NFP to time sex during those periods. If it isn't immoral for a married couple to have sex every night (which think about it, nothing actually wrong there) then it is just as moral for that same couple to skip a few nights. I believe what you meant to say was that you think it's immoral/unnatural to try and avoid having children, but since it's done in a natural way that is within the god-made nature of sex it isn't immoral. I know couples who have used NFP to make it more likely to have a child when it's within their means and to avoid having another child when it isn't within their means. Also, it's incorrect to say that one intercourse = one kid. Often times, couples have to actively try to have children. Conception is a difficult thing for many couples.

There's a reason why the church has allowed NFP - it's because it's not immoral or unnatural. And I hope my thoughts have helped to illuminate that for ya.

Prayers,
Tryin'

 

The church logically maintains its consistency. Let me explain. The article misunderstands basic Catholic teaching and this manifests itself as illogical reasoning. It reads, "Man is therefore capable of putting someone's pleasure above his own. Why should this not happen in a sexual act? After all, the Church encourages it to be so." The church agrees that man is capable of putting someone's pleasure above his own. The church does encourage this. However, in order for this doctrine to ring true, both the man and the woman need to simultaneously put the other's pleasure above his/her own. The article attempts to argue that one partner has to put the other's pleasure above his/her own whilest the other receives the pleasure. See the problem?

Let's give another example. "The presented argumentation of the Church for the immorality of artificial contraception comes down to the statement: yes, because it is so! It is irrational, and its reliance on immutable natural law is only an appearance. This does not mean at once that spouses can use any form of contraception. Under this collective term, there are decent and wicked forms." The church is relying on immutable natural law and it is perfectly rational. I proved this in my previous post. NFP is not contraception and does not fall under that term, because the Catholic church claims it has the authoritative interpretation of natural law and the Bible. This is Catholic doctrine and I can explain it if you want. It too is consistent with the bible and with natural law, and without this doctrine the first falls apart. I'd be willing to explain that also. Anyway, the church interprets sex's natural law as follows:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2366 "which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

Sex is inherently procreational and unitive to the marriage act. All of the sexual behaviors the Catholic church condones as sin can be explained using this one statement. And it's logically consistent. If you would like me to explain this further, let me know - I'm always happy to clarify church doctrine because I firmly believe it to be true and believe that God himself guides the Church in her interpretations of truth. (Bold statements, I know... but it's what I believe and I have reasons)

God bless you,
Tryin'

 

As I have already demonstrated through the links and quotes I provided. Pope Benedict XVI did NOT "allow" condoms, even to prevent AIDS. If you want to understand why what you have said is an outrageous lie, go back and read those. Otherwise you are just repeating the same lie you have already told. Pope Benedict XVI said that for a male prostitute with HIV to start using condoms might be a step toward taking personal responsibility, but that this wasn't enough. (Also note that he made these comments in the context of a conversation, not in the presentation of Church teaching.) He NEVER said that it is okay to use condoms if it is to prevent the spread of HIV or AIDS. If you want to prove me wrong, show me where he wrote that. The Church is very clear that using contraception is "intrinsically evil." (CCC 2370)

First, I never said that the Church teaches that we can only have sex to make babies. As the links I have already provided demonstrate (e.g. the Catechism and a papal document), however, the Church also teaches that every sexual act must be ordered toward the procreation of human life. Go back and read them; I don't have all day to repeat myself. Sodomy is not ordered to the procreation of human life. As any informed Catholic knows, not every sin is explicitly spelled out in the bible, but that is one of the reasons Christ gave us the Church. However, the one time I know of that male/female sexual intercourse that is non-procreative comes up is the story of Onan, whom God slays after Onan "wasted his seed on the ground." (Genesis 38:1-10)

You mention recourse to infertile periods in your previous post. Yes, the Church does allow that, but there is a big difference. An act of sexual intercourse during a non-fertile period is still ordered toward the procreation of human life. That is because this respects God's design. (See: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/natural-family-planning/) The couple has intercourse in just the same way they would have it if they were trying to conceive a child; the design of the woman's body just doesn't happen to make procreation possible during certain time periods. The couple is under no obligation to have sexual intercourse at a specific time, so refraining from sexual intercourse during fertile periods is not a sin.

The Church is aware that sex between a husband and wife is unitive as well as procreative in nature. That is why natural family-planning methods are not inherently sinful. However, the Church is clear (as I have shown in previous links; again, look them up) that sexual acts that are not ordered toward procreation, as well as acts that artificially render the husband or wife infertile, are always gravely sinful.

If you want to show me that the Church teaches otherwise, go for it, but don't give me your "summary" of what you think popes or others have said, because you already got it wrong on Pope Benedict XVI. Provide links to direct quotes, so we can discuss what was ACTUALLY written or said.

 

I see nothing in that article that I haven't seen addressed by the Church. But White_umbrella doesn't claim to be arguing about whether the Church's teaching is logical; he is claiming that the Church teaches something other than what it actually teaches.

 

Catholics have boring sex lives? Monthy Python does not agree:

Unfortunately the Youtybe video doesn't show the subsequent dialogue of a Protestant couple who were watching it all:
"MR. BLACKITT: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby
MRS. BLACKITT: But it's the same with us, Harry
MR. BLACKITT: What do you mean?
MRS. BLACKITT: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice"

 

I think that we Catholics should not have a "sex life". What we should have is a Love life.

 

I've only had sex with my wife. That's probably more from a lack of opportunity, though. And we had sex before we were engaged. Still...
Coming late to the party (forgive my phrasing), I wanted to try some things with her that I had seen in porn. She was okay with trying, but I ended up not liking it. It seemed very impersonal, like we weren't making love, but I was just using her to orgasm. We never did it again because I really didn't care for it. If real lovemaking is boring, viva la boredom!