Interesting choice of words: "head" and not "heart". Usually I'd say about something I wasn't involved in that "my heart's not in it." Was that your phrase or hers?
See-Dubya | Homepage | 08.12.07 - 11:18 pm | #

It was her wording, See-Dubya. I thought it was interesting too.

To say one's heart isn't in it means one does not feel capable of enjoying the sex; there's no will involved. To say one's head isn't in it means that one is effectively willing one's self to detach for the purpose of having physical enjoyment without real joy.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.12.07 - 11:31 pm | #

Yeah, thinking really gets in the way of good sex.
corita | 08.13.07 - 12:08 am | #

Dawn, it was lovely to meet you at the party. As the "young woman" you mention, perhaps I should clarify ... we were talking about the distinction between love and lust. I pressed you and several of my new Catholic friends to "define lust." A few examples were thrown on the floor, and in true lawyer-style, I threw out a hypo of my own: "So it's wrong to do it if your head's not into it?"

Here's what I meant: I have several female friends who constantly admit to having sex with their husbands even if their "head isn't into it." Even though it's debatable whether men have stronger libidos than women, it's pretty common for men to itch for sex more frequently than women. Assuming that the purest of motives are involved, e.g.: "I'm not really into this but I'll do it because it makes my husband happy," and it results in decent but slightly uninspired sex (for her at least), what's so wrong with it?

I asked the question because I get the sense that for Dawn Eden, one's "motives" in approaching sex are incredibly important ... as is the connection between sex and emotions. So perhaps I should have been clear, but I wanted to know your thoughts on "motives" and "emotions" vis a vis sex in marriage.

What if her head isn't there but she really wants to please him? Can a married couple only have sex when the stars are aligned?

There, I even put it like Carrie Bradshaw would. :) Looking forward to your thoughts ... and I was serious about that Shabbos dinner.
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.13.07 - 1:22 am | #

PS: I would agree that the kind of detachment you warn against brings us closer to "Stepford Wives" than "liberated women." I think I was trying to get at another issue altogether ... perhaps it's in the book you'll write after you've wed.
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.13.07 - 1:27 am | #

ABH, lovely to meet you too. Thanks for the clarification. I'll let my entry stand because I think the issue is the same regardless of whether one is single or married -- it's still detachment, and an avoidance of intimacy.

In marriage, one would communicate to one's spouse that one's "head wasn't into" it (and I think a lot would also be missing from the sex besides one's head -- one's heart, for example). From that communication, one would go on to couples therapy or take other mutual efforts to increase communication and intimacy beyond sex.

UPDATE, 9:16 a.m.: I changed my mind and added an addendum to my post.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 7:43 am | #

I'll say this: I think it is more common for married women to not 'feel it' with their body then with their heads, at least in a good marriage. With my head, I always know that sex is unifying and I desire that unity - it's my body that may be exhausted and just want to turn in early that night! And as far as that goes, I don't think your body has to be 'in to it' to make love to your spouse. If your head and heart are in the right place, the body will catch up pretty quickly. ;-)

Just my 2cents. :-)
Kate | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 9:46 am | #

Re: sex without head and/or heart

To be proper and consistent with truth, sex must be an act of love. Now, love is a gift of self, and sexual love in particular is a gift of the entire self. Everything that is said with regard to not withholding that aspect of one's self that is fertility also applies to matters of head and heart.

It should properly be a gift of the entire self, which includes marriage, so as to eliminate the problem of lack of head/heart in casual sex. But marriage itself is not enough to supply the head and heart, they too must be actually present and given if the sex is to be an act of total self-giving.

So, if the head and/or heart are not there, then open them up so that they can start to be there. And if your spouse's head and/or heart is not in it at that particular time, how about you show a little patience and keep your pants on? Exercise a little marital chastity. Chastity -- its a virtue that is not just for single people.
Bender | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 10:24 am | #

ABH - your question regarding getting your head into it could be more literal than you intended. I'm trying to grasp what both you and Dawn are stating, but from a married man's perspective:

A wife makes love first with her mind, then her body, so if her head is not there, there is usually not much of a reaction. As one conference speaker put it, the wife may have too many "windows" open - and the husband just one. The momentary result is distraction from physical intimacy, yet the underlying reasons for this distraction must be examined by the wife.

Expanding on what Dawn was referring to - if there's some sort of block to immediate physical intimacy - which could well be the husband's fault, (or maybe not) then it's more loving and honest to tell him so rather than giving in physically, and in a sense playing out a role that's less than genuine. (However, that moment may not be the right time to discuss the issue!)

On the other hand, if those distractions are not urgent priorities, then why is the wife elevating those issues over time spent with her husband? By assuming his immediate motivations are merely a physical sex drive, she devalues and disrespects his judgement, and in a sense rejects his authority over her body.

As for the husband, if his motivation is simply sex without the goal of full intimacy, if he's not opening up emotional windows in his heart, then he's not being genuine either, and he's lacking full love for his wife.

Sensing each others needs and respectfully proceeding in those delicate moments can only come about with the true commitment of love and willingness to grow the full harvest of intimacy, after the "bloom is off", to have truly fulfilling sex within marriage.

I could further address that particular emotional disconnect Dawn mentioned in the update - but I'd like to know if I've grasped what both of you were saying. Thanks!
Chris Arsenault | 08.13.07 - 10:32 am | #

While I'd be hard pressed to verify it (indeed, without researching it, I couldn't), I think there's a fair amount of at least anecdotal data that supports your conclusions in your update. That is, it seems to be the case that women engage freely in premarital sex with multiple partners generally loose interest more readily later in life, when they're often married. According to something I dimly recall, the younger the conduct starts, the more likely this result is.

It makes sense. If, by nature, women will bond with a sexual partner, training yourself to ignore that will ultimately be a pattern that's hard to break. It may be the flip side of the "habit" or "addiction" phenomenon discussed below in another context. After sex becomes a mere act, it'll become a mere act directed towards getting something, such as affection or stability. After that's acquired, in marriage, the incentive evaporates.
Yeoman | 08.13.07 - 10:35 am | #

UPDATE/CORRECTION - I said A wife makes love first with her mind, then her body, so if her head is not there, there is usually not much of a reaction.

As Bender points out, it's really a matter of heart and mind, but I was addressing specifically those issues as a matter of mind/will - the willingness to examine and choose paths of behavior, as opposed to being which is at least for me an issue of heart.
Chris Arsenault | 08.13.07 - 10:37 am | #

Hello, "Billable"! Hope you will visit us often, and bring more of these insightful questions!

I think Kate is on the right track here. Underneath the excuse that "my head's not into it" lies a myth that total sex should be "effortless." But everything good requires some effort... especially relationships.

My wife wants to interact with me every day.... maybe sexually, but more often just to talk a bit. And it always seems like I am tired, or distracted, or concerned about something else when the time comes. It takes some real effort to put my selfishness aside and make that "total gift of myself" to her.

I still agree with Dawn's first conclusion: It's wrong to withhold your "head," or any other part of your total self.

There's plenty of Scripture (Ephesians 5) and Theology of the Body to guide us, but first we have to pop the world's myth that great communication must be effortless.
Del | 08.13.07 - 10:38 am | #

"By assuming his immediate motivations are merely a physical sex drive, she devalues and disrespects his judgement, and in a sense rejects his authority over her body."

And within a sound marriage, Chris, a spot of situational disrespect is easily cured by humor!

If my husband ever accused me of "disrespecting his judgement" in such circumstances, he'd better have an extremely good punchline to his "joke"!
Jody Tresidder | 08.13.07 - 11:36 am | #

Del,

Exactly. Every good thing takes some effort, especially a marriage. I guess I'm an example of a woman mostly untouched by the trends Dawn refers to, as my husband and I married young, with no previous sexual partners. And when I first read the (corrected) question, I don't think I quite understood it, because it is so foreign to me. The 'head' part comes pretty naturally to me - why wouldn't you want and will intimacy and unity with your spouse? *Especially* when you've been distracted, or busy, or otherwise disconnected?

There's an act of will involved here, and it comes into play when you decide to make love to your spouse. In that decision should come the commitment to set aside everything but your spouse and give yourself entirely to him or her. And if you can't (and I think most of us *can*, barring marital problems) you should tell your spouse so and do whatever you need to do to remedy the distance between you.
Kate | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 11:45 am | #

A commenter wrote me the following via e-mail. I'm posting it with the writer's permission:

I can't post this, because I never post anonymously. I
know more about this struggle than I wish, and I am sure
that would come out, in anything I posted.

Married chastity is a complex beast, especially with NFP.

It is mortal sin to refuse sex to your spouse unless
for a serious reason. (Illness is one of those reasons,
so this isn't slavery.) This isn't well taught in the
catechism, but you can read good faithful resources using
"marriage debt" as a key phrase.

Your post did not seem to recognize the seriousness of
refusing your spouse. On the other hand, submitting to
marital sex by being detached is very disordered. Anyone
who knowingly asked their spouse to pay the debt, knowing
that the detachment was the way it was satisfied, would
not be practicing charity, even if the reason for the
detachment was not their fault.

Solutions are very individual, made extremely complicated
by our broken world, and the habitual detachments that you
write against.

Keep up the good work.

Paul on the marriage debt:

"But because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.
A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.
Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control."

No doubt some folks will find fault with Paul -- he'd definitely be a fish out of water in contemporary America. But I think he's sharing some wisdom here.
And I think Kate has figured that wisdom out.

When I got married my father told me to not concern myself with my happiness -- that's my wife's job; that my job is to concern myself with hers. I think he probably read Paul.
Mike Petrik | 08.13.07 - 2:32 pm | #

And I suspect Dawn's anonymous commentator has it figured out too. Struggle is a pretty sure sign.
Mike Petrik | 08.13.07 - 2:33 pm | #

Mike,
Paul may be "sharing some wisdom" but his premise for marriage "because of cases of immorality" sounds pretty dour!

More seriously, though, surely his words describe his view of how marriage should work - not what steps to take when it is in trouble?

(And, no, I don't generally have a knee jerk problem with prescriptive comments or dusty texts.)
Jody Tresidder | 08.13.07 - 4:11 pm | #

I wish I had the time to go through and respond point by point ... but yes, what I was getting at was this idea that "women make love with their heads" and sometimes it takes tremendous effort to get the stars to align, set aside the worries of the day, and be fully "into" sex with her husband.

Jewish law has a response to this. Upon marriage, a groom signs a "ketuba," or marriage contract, which articulates HIS obligations to his wife. Included in this is the obligation to satisfy her sexually. Notably, she has no corresponding obligation to satisfy HIM sexually.

The rabbis make a big deal about the fact that, under tradition, the bride doesn't sign the contract, but instead holds onto the ketuba and can enforce it against her husband before a religious court if necessary. They say this tradition is in place because typically, men want sex more frequently than women and due to their physical strength (and other social mores that support a dominant position) a man's will is harder to overcome (modern research has revealed that the rape of men by women is statistically infrequent). Therefore, the ketuba is structured the way it is to ensure that no wife is ever "forced" or "guilt tripped" into sex with her husband.

This would seem to support the position that G-d gives women the prerogative to say "no" when her "head isn't into it."

But then there's Paul, who basically says "unless you're fasting and you've mutually agreed to abstain, you owe it to each other." The problem with Paul's approach is that it can lead to rather uninspired sex. Maybe Paul (and G-d) is OK with that.

But which is it?

[Snip - Ed.]

Maybe I'm getting too salacious for the blogosphere [Yup - Ed.], but this is something that I think believers don't discuss enough.

Edited By Siteowner
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.13.07 - 4:47 pm | #

With respect to "satisfaction guaranteed" --

I think, ABH, that you would be quite interested that, in his landmark book, Love and Responsibility, Karol Wojtyla (later known as John Paul II) agrees with you, especially in Chapter Five, where he says that the man must take into account the sexual arousal differences between a man and a woman, and that nature dictates a rhythm, a harmonization of intercourse and tenderness, which both partners must discover such that a man's personal selfishness should never lead him to leave the woman unsatisfied.

This is an excellent work, ABH, and it cannot be recommended to you highly enough.

[Just trying to keep this thread from getting into the TMI zone, folks - Ed.]

Edited By Siteowner
Bender | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 5:07 pm | #

oops, the point I was responding to was "snipped." Still, I highly recommend Love and Responsibility to you ABH.
Bender | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 5:09 pm | #

Thanks for the recommendation!
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.13.07 - 6:41 pm | #

ABH - Christopher West doesn't delve deeply enough into the Theology of the Body for my tastes, but he does address this question pretty thoroughly in "The Good News about Sex and Marriage."

I think perhaps my attitude towards the marriage debt would be pretty different if it weren't mutual, but I think we can read into Paul a mutual obligation, not only to do the deed, but to *satisfy* their partner - otherwise the marriage debt would not be such a guard "against immorality". That is to say, I don't think the purpose of the teaching is to leave men satisfied and women frustrated. ;-)

Mike P's father was very wise. If the husband gives %100 for the good of his wife, and the wife gives %100 for the good of her husband, both are completely cared for without either needing to reserve anything for themselves, or behave selfishly. That's the ideal, and that's what I'm shooting for!
Kate | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 6:57 pm | #

Kate,
And ideals are wonderful if you understand the other's needs.

All I meant is that such advice is a little otiose when this is not the case.
Jody Tresidder | 08.13.07 - 7:20 pm | #

Last Saturday night I was having a discussion with a friend about priorities in life - I said the order of my priorities, (arrived at mutually with my wife) based on our understanding of the Bible were: God, our marriage, spouse, myself, immediate family (including parents) - then others. (This was under normal, non-emergency conditions.)

At first he disagreed - what he found strange was that we considered our marriage unique and apart from each other and second only to God in terms of our priorities. In other words, what's best for the both of us must be considered first before either one of us.

It's not easy to think of marriage that way, but it tends to wrap the spouse comfortably between the security of the marriage and the self-sacrifice of the other.

Thoughts?
Chris Arsenault | 08.13.07 - 8:06 pm | #

we considered our marriage unique and apart from each other

Somebody somewhere, Benedict, I think, said that, of course, we should be subservient and give of ourselves fully to the other. However, in being subservient and putting the other before ourselves, we should be careful to not get into the absurd situation of both arriving at a door at the same time and saying, "You first," "No, after you," "No, please, you go," "I'm fine, you may go first," etc., etc. Pretty soon, the two are starting to get resentful that the other will not allow them to give to the other.

I don't know if that means consider the union before the other individual, but it was an interesting point.
Bender | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 8:21 pm | #

Bender - right, it's the union that I'm referring to, but it's not merely husband + wife. It's like a new creation of God, where he's joined two utterly unique individuals, but the sum is greater than the two parts, because He is the love that binds us together.

I'll have to look into Benedict - thanks!
Chris Arsenault | 08.13.07 - 10:45 pm | #

And it's this attitude - of seeing your marriage as a shared project - that allows you to find solutions to the situation Jody references, when maybe both spouses aren't putting in %100, or just don't understand how to give what the other spouse needs. If the commitment to the marriage exists, there's a foundation for at least working towards the ideal.

My parents didn't go into marriage in the ideal way (no shared religion, and mom was pregnant when they married) but their mutual commitment to making the marriage work and understanding that marriage is forever(so you'd better make it work) gave them the foundation to build on. 35 years, 7 kids, and 10 grandkids later, I'd say they did a pretty good job of it.

(btw, my dad converted to Catholicism after a decade+ of marriage and several years of NFP. He says that finding out that the Church was right about sex made him wonder what else it was right about. I've often wondered whether NFP has brought anyone else into the Church.)
Kate | Homepage | 08.13.07 - 10:55 pm | #

Chris --

My mistake. It wasn't Benedict, it was Screwtape, as related by C.S. Lewis in Chapter 26 of his book on the Screwtape Letters, and it wasn't about going first through a door, it was about one person wanting to have tea in the garden and the other person saying that he would rather not, but he would go along in the spirit of being unselfish, which would lead the first person to withdraw his proposal of having tea in the garden, so as to be unselfish himself, and so begins the cycle of insisting on doing what the other wants until they erupt into resentment and argument.

It is tough to discern exactly the correct lessons from Screwtape, since he is a liar, so that some, but not all of what he says is the opposite of good, but perhaps the lesson here is to not be so humble and unselfish that we start to take pride in our humility and are smug about our unselfishness.

I see though that I have strayed pretty off-topic, so I'll stop now.
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 2:25 am | #

I think the ketuba got it right.

With the uneven matching of men's and women's sexual drive's, I think the male needs to be accountable for what is in his head concerning intimacy.

Men can be conditioned to a degree to expect unbounding sexual cooperation from the woman/wife based on the sexual stereotypes that dominate, at least within western cultural standards.

Marital sex does not mean a woman gives up the right to decide if she is available for sexual service or not. You might as well say that the man can order the woman to dig the garden anytime he sees fit. Intimacy needs to be an agreeable event, not required service.
middlegal | 08.14.07 - 5:12 am | #

Re: serious reasons

"There is no way I want to have sex right now" is a pretty serious reason.

There's a lot of misunderstanding going around of what "grave reason" or "serious reason" means in canon law. It doesn't mean "life or death serious"; it basically means "not a frivolous or nasty reason".

So yeah, there are plenty of "grave reasons" for this sort of thing. The Church just doesn't want people to refuse each other sex as a weapon, or because they don't want to get mussed.
Maureen | 08.14.07 - 6:01 am | #

Going back to the initial disconnect between the actions, the head, and the heart...it reminded me of what a converted Porn star says is referred to as "The Split" in the Porn industry. Also, telling (but not unexpectedly) the percentage of mental illnesses in the sex industry is shockingly high. In marriage, having to perform "The Split" would also cause serious damage to the individual- and the relationship.

Also, in regards to definitions of lust that ABH referred to- I heard a good one yesterday- Lust and Hell can be defined using the same five words: the absence of God's Love. Sex is meant to image God's love- so sex that does not image God's love is not loving- it's disordered and lustful. Chrisopher West has a four point review for people to assess the nature of their sexual lives: Free, Total, Faithful, Fruitful. I won't go into all of them: but I like the viewpoint and approach.
Josh Cordonnier | 08.14.07 - 11:59 am | #

Okay, I am going to chime in (with the caveat that I am not a Catholic).

For me, there are very few earthly things that I want as much as I want to please my husband. I think--if I wrap my head around what people are saying--that I probably never "don't have my head in it," because it's never that my head isn't interested, unless I just desperately need sleep. Usually it is more that my body isn't interested. And that sometimes doesn't stop us, by the mutual agreement of my husband and myself. He has a need which I (and only I) can fill, and I really don't even have a need--just a preference. So I would say under those circumstances we do nothing wrong--am I right? I cannot see how it can be wrong for one person to fulfill the other with mutual consent even if that person can't give everything he or she would like to--not because the spouse is withholding, but because something is not there to give. When in doubt, have sex, seems like a pretty good rule (in marriage).

To the person (Kate?) wondering if NFP brought many to Catholicism: NFP is one of my major problems with Catholicism. It sounds like an argument between stealing food and letting your children starve. God created our bodies and our fertility, and how is it not withholding your fertility to avoid having sex when one is fertile? God created natural mechanisms for child spacing (pregnancy, breastfeeding). Who am I to decide when is the perfect time for my child? How can a person talk out one side of their mouth that NFP is as accurate as the pill and out the other that God is in control? Birth control is a sin. So is abstinence in marriage. There is no conflict there for most people.
ycw | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 12:17 pm | #

Not to mention that NFP means avoiding sex when it is most enjoyable, and is pretty much the opposite of the Levitical laws on sex (wait until day 14).
ycw | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 12:19 pm | #

ycw,
I think you make some excellent observations. I would only add that NFP is not intended to be a requirement. It is permitted by the Church subject to good reason. While some parents can handle 10 kids, frankly others reasonably fear they cannot. The Church is understanding -- and acknowledges that those in the latter group can engage in NFP without sinning. This is not to suggest that using NFP is preferable to relying solely on the handful of natural mechanisms that you suggest, though I'm sure you would agree that a couple who engage in sex without regard to their ability to provide basic necessities for future children are not doing what God wants. The Church understands the competing considerations and allows couples to consciously use all the body's "natural mechanisms" precisely because these mechanisms, too, are part of God's plan.
That said, use of these mechanisms without good reason is not in keeping with Church teaching as I understand it. In this connection many Catholics probably do hope that God has a charitable understanding of "good reason." We all have our weaknesses, and in the end we all rely on mercy.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 12:39 pm | #

I should probably add that I would think that use of the practices associated with NFP must not be ordered toward a bad end. A couple should no more use these practices to avoid children that they can afford and care for without undue burden than they should use them to create more children that they cannot afford or care for without undue burden.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 12:43 pm | #

Wow! I had no idea this NFP stuff was still alive and kicking ... I must admit as a Jewish girl who attended Catholic high school it always made me scratch my head (still does).

Then again, we have our own laws regulating marital sex. Scripture's pretty clear about forbidding sex during menstruation (why doesn't the Catholic church follow this command?). The prohibition is firmly rooted in the Scriptural concept that there is something very special about blood ("the life is in the blood") and it's not to be eaten or touched, and definitely shouldn't be spilled anywhere near the tabernacle except in the context of a sacrifice. Also, rabbinic law practically MANDATES that husbands and wives do the deed on Shabbat (if she's not menstruating, of course).

So it's not odd to me that marital sex is regulated by the Church ... it's just that I've never understood the logic behind it. From what Scriptures did the dogma-writers derive this concept that sex that isn't both "unitive and procreative" is sinful? I don't see it anywhere in the Tanakh or the New Testament. Enlighten me.
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.14.07 - 1:16 pm | #

ABH,
Some answers can be found in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. It is a fairly short document, as I recall, and includes footnotes to Scripture and other references.
It is important to understand that Catholics are enjoined to interpret the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) in light of the New Testament. Many of the laws handed down in the Old Testament are not regarded as binding on Christians, but instead they have been superseded by commands and teachings embodied in the New Testament.
Similarly, it is important to understand that Catholics do not regard Scripture as the source for all revelation, even though we do know it to be the inspired word of God, and fully true when properly understood. This explains why not all the footnotes referenced in HV are to Scripture.
I realize this will not answer all your questions, which are very fair and thoughtful, but it should be a start.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 1:41 pm | #

ycw - abstinence in marriage is not a sin. Paul speaks of being apart by mutual consent, and the old Jewish law mandated time apart as well. I never have to deny my husband to use NFP to avoid conception, since the decision is a mutual decision involving our mutual consent, so he would never pressure me for sex if we had agreed that we needed to space out our pregnancies.

And....NFP can be used very successfully to conceive as well, as evidenced by my growing belly!
Kate | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 1:42 pm | #

I must admit that I have some doubts about whether the Church would have found NFP acceptable in the centuries before Humanae Vitae. I don't think it would. Most of the great moral theologians that I've read, and even more of the saints and mystics, were convinced that sexual relations were only licit when they were intended to produce children.

It's a point that must remain moot, because it wasn't until some time in the late 1930s (I think; it's been a while since I looked this up) that scientists (Carl Hartman was esp. important to this work) even discovered when a woman's most fertile period occurred.

The discovery of the time when ovulation was most likely to occur in women, and methods of determining when it occurred in an individual woman, were late developments and so could have no part in the history of Catholic moral theology on birth control. All the same, I suspect that the Fathers, and nearly all who followed them, would have opposed exploiting these findings for the purpose of limiting family size.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 2:14 pm | #

alias,
You may be right. But the Holy Spirit speaks when He does for a reason, I suspect.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 2:48 pm | #

"All the same, I suspect that the Fathers, and nearly all who followed them, would have opposed exploiting these findings for the purpose of limiting family size."

Alias Clio,

Does your point hold true when the purpose would be to increase chances of conceiving? (i.e, it's the "meddling" that's the moral rub, not the intention of the meddling?)
Jody Tresidder | 08.14.07 - 2:48 pm | #

I don't know, Jody. I don't think so. It wasn't the "meddling" that was the moral issue at stake in contraception; it was turning that ignoble thing, sexual desire, away from the one outcome that could justify it.

Somebody will probably attempt to explain that I'm wrong, and that the Church Fathers were not hostile to sexuality per se, and did not regard it as "ignoble" or shameful, but although that's true in a sense, it's also not the whole truth. Most pre-20th century Catholic writings on sexual desire and the sexual act are not especially friendly to it, whatever the circumstances in which it occurred.

Even Francois de Sales wrote to Jeanne de Chantal that a widow, of all people, had most reason to be humble, since she lacked the glory of virginity without the honour of wifehood.

If you can read French, here it is: "Premièrement, ma chère Soeur, il m'est venu en mémoire que les Docteurs donnent aux veuves pour leur propre vertu la saint humilité. Les vierges ont la leur, les apôtres, martyrs, docteurs, pasteurs, chacun la sienne comme l'ordre de leur chevalerie, et tous doivent avoir eu l'humilité, car ils n'auraient pas été exaltés s'ils ne se fussent humiliés. Mais aux veuves appartient surtout l'humilité; car, qui peut enfler la veuve d'orgueil? Elle n'a plus son intégrité, [...] ni ce qui donne le plus haut prix à ce sexe selon l'estime du monde; elle n'a plus son mari, qui était son honneur et duquel elle a pris le nom. Que lui reste-il pour se glorifier, sinon Dieu? Ô bienheureuse gloire, ô couronne précieuse..."

I cite this example because it shows how even the greatest and most sympathetic theologians (Sales is regarded as a "doctor" as well as a mystic), still regarded sexuality, even in its most undeniably lawful form, as carrying some kind of taint with it.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 3:13 pm | #

Alias Clio,
Thanks (she said bitterly). That's just proved my French is horrible!

Super answer, btw.

I do wonder if widows gave even the most kindly authorities the double jitters, being not only lawfully sexually experienced yet unguarded women - but sometimes with unusual financial clout too.
Jody Tresidder | 08.14.07 - 3:47 pm | #

Jody - Paul advised Timothy about younger widows who were sensually inclined, counseling them to remarry, unless they remained dedicated to Christ. (1 Tim 5:5-15) He clearly recognized the danger you were talking about and addressed it in those verses.
Chris Arsenault | 08.14.07 - 4:18 pm | #

Alias,
I agree that much of the writing from early Church thinkers, fathers, and saints were not especially friendly toward sexuality generally, and not reflective at all of its unitive aspect. But their views were never Church dogma as such, whereas HV is. While reading de Sales is instructive and enriching, Church teaching is more important.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 4:19 pm | #

Mike, in response to this: "Many of the laws handed down in the Old Testament are not regarded as binding on Christians, but instead they have been superseded by commands and teachings embodied in the New Testament. Similarly, it is important to understand that Catholics do not regard Scripture as the source for all revelation, even though we do know it to be the inspired word of God, and fully true when properly understood."

I'm reasonably familiar with the Catholic faith's comfort with "inspired truth" coming from sources other than Scripture. To be fair, we Jews have developed our own set of traditions and rituals "outside of" or "parallel to" Scripture (see Talmud). However, there's a critical distinction between Jewish law and Catholic catechism. Rabbinic law, at least the way I see it, is an attempt at building fences around the "real" sins. We don't mix milk and meat in the same meal because we want to stay as far away from possible from the possibility of every (horror!) "cooking a calf in its mother's milk." The actual sin is cooking the calf in its mother's milk ... eating milk and meat in the same meal isn't actually a sin, we've merely prohibited it as a precautionary measure.

My sense is that Catholic doctrine goes further than just building fences around "real sin." It actually goes on to call certain behaviors sinful, even if they're not specifically articulated as sinful in Scripture. e.g., "sex that is not both unitive and procreative is sinful."

I won't even get into the Galatians debate here about whether OT law applies to non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah (that's a huge debate for another day and one I still feel ambivalent about) ... but can you see why it makes me, as a Jew, uncomfortable to hear another "follower of the Book" declaring that something is a sin when G-d hasn't necessarily declared it a sin in Scripture?

Because if you, another follower of my Messiah, declare that certain activity is a sin, it implies that when I, another follow of Messiah, engage in it ... I'm falling out of union with G-d. That's something I take seriously as a Jew. (Of course there's grace, blah blah blah ... but you get my drift.)

By the way, I fully intend to re-read HV. I'm pretty sure it was required reading for my all-girls-Catholic-high-school-sex-ed-class. My gut reaction as a teenager was "Augustine's dualistic anti-sex fingerprints are all over this."
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.14.07 - 4:20 pm | #

"My gut reaction as a teenager was "Augustine's dualistic anti-sex fingerprints are all over this."

In which case I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. There is nothing remotely anti-sex in HV.

ABH,
Many sins are at best derivative of those named in Scripture, and in some cases the derivation is pretty remote and loose. I'm not sure where Scripture actually prohibits sex with children, for instance, at least not explicitly, though perhaps it does. But I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be too hard to locate acts we can agree are sinful but are enjoined by Scripture only in the most loose and indirect sense.
In any case, a proper exegeses of the Ten Commandments as well Christ's two commandments, allows for their application in many contexts and in many important ways.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 4:39 pm | #

Just a couple of brief comments here --

As to ABH's question of why the Catholic church follow this aspect of the Law or that aspect of it. Of course, you answer your own question in mentioning Galatians. Whether the Gentile-Christians were required to be circumcised and follow other aspects of the Law was THE major debate of the early Church, having been settled by Peter at the Council of Jerusalem after Paul argued against it.

As for Humanae Vitae -- Pope Paul was gifted in many ways, but one of those gifts was not the ability clearly and forcifully communicate the truths that were being taught (unlike Pope Benedict, who is a master teacher and communicator). As great as Humanae Vitae is, the truths contained therein are perhaps better and more clearly presented in other materials, such as later encyclicals by Pope John Paul II, various curial documents approved by JP2, various statements by Pope Benedict, and, of course, JP2's Theology of the Body and his prior Love and Responsibility (JP2 was a heavy influence on Pope Paul in the production of Humanae Vitae).
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 4:46 pm | #

As for behaviors "not specifically articulated as sinful in Scripture" --
Well, this raises the entire dispute with Protestantism over so-called sola scriptura, and the interplay of revelation and reason.
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 4:54 pm | #

"I agree that much of the writing from early Church thinkers, fathers, and saints were not especially friendly toward sexuality generally, and not reflective at all of its unitive aspect. But their views were never Church dogma as such, whereas HV is. While reading de Sales is instructive and enriching, Church teaching is more important."

What worries me, though, is that the Church is only justified in proclaiming dogma insofar as that dogma is in accord with the traditional teaching of the Church. I fear that a teaching that accepts any separation at all of the unitive and procreative functions of sexual desire is not so in accord.

In other words, if HV significantly departs from the understanding of the Fathers and the saints with regard to sexual morality and the lawfulness of regulating births by any means other than total abstinence (only permitted by dispensation, if my understanding is correct), might it not be in error? There are certainly groups of Catholic ultra-trads and schismatics who think so.

I hate to say this, as I don't want to agree with them, and certainly prefer the more modern understanding of sexuality, but I fear they may be right.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 5:08 pm | #

As for the broader questions of: Why does the Catholic Church teach X and why does it teach Y? Why do the popes and the Catholic believe and maintain A and why do they believe and maintain B?

In each and every case, the ultimate answer of why the Church teaches what she teaches is the same. All of Catholic moral teaching is reducible to the commandments which were discussed between the Jesus and the Pharisee -- and which were also recognized as being that which the entire Jewish Law is based on (and if you will please excuse me in fully writing this out) -- You shall love the Lord thy God will all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

All of Catholic moral teaching, and all of the Jewish Law (at least according to this Jewish scholar), are based on this. OK, that's nice -- so what does it mean, what does it mean to "love God"? Who/what is God? Well, quite simply, He is what He said to Moses, "I am." So, He "is." He is the "Is." He is reality itself; he is Truth itself. So to love God means, among other things, to love Truth. And we come to know and understand truth and Truth by both divine revelation and right reason.

So, in short, all Catholic moral teaching is grounded in and must comply with these two pillars of Love and Truth. It is not a matter of opinion, it is not a matter of the Pope having the power to impose his own personal preferences. The Pope and the Church are bound in their teachings by Love and Truth. And in discovering and advancing these teachings, we believe as a matter of faith -- as explicitly stated to us by Jesus as reported in scripture -- that the Pope and Church are guided by the Holy Spirit so as to remain consistent with Love and Truth.

Now, in exercising their own reason, folks might come to different conclusions than do the Pope and the Church, but do not let it be said that the Pope and Church do not ever and always seek and endeavor to remain faithful to those pillars of Love and Truth.
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 5:27 pm | #

alias,
There is an important distinction, I think, between what is taught by various Church leaders and what is Church teaching. It is true that many leading and important Catholic teachers indeed taught that only total abstinence is permitted, but many such Catholic teachers taught limbo too. I think if one carefully researches the Magisterium one will see development rather than inconsistency. Perceived inconsistency in Church teaching is almost always the result of comparing new teaching, not with old teaching, but with unwarranted inferences drawn from old teaching. Widely held and widely taught beliefs do not equal Magisterium.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 5:28 pm | #

And AC, Catholic ultra-trads, rad-trads, and schismatics say and think a lot of silly things. It is usually best to simply disregard them.
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 5:29 pm | #

This conversation has been very informative in terms of Church dogma, scripture, etc. However, I would like to focus on some pragmatics, because I still sense a few ships passing in the night in this chain. I go back to ycw's honest and helpful remarks that a husband has a need that only his wife can appropriately fill.

It seems to me that men and women have differing appetites for sex and these vary over time. During the earlier years of marriage, there may be a better equilibrium. However, in the child-rearing years, those appetites can become quite disparate. While there are many occasions of mutually pleasing sex, there will also be many occasions where the wife would just as soon sleep longer (with good reason-- raising children or working and raising children is difficult). If the husband is the one pursuing the wife, he is well advised to ask nicely and not be demanding. If she complies (even though she would prefer not due to being tired or distracted), that's called "giving of herself."

While couples may not discuss this explicitly, the husband is hopefully smart enough to realize how much his wife loves him and can reciprocate by doing things he might rather not do. He can spend an extra time listening to her concerns of the day (even though they might seem quite trivial to him). He can spend time helping her straighten up the house. Better yet, he can spend 10 minutes each day praying with her (or for her). He can even take ballroom dancing with her-- whatever rings her bell. It is best for a man to do these things even when his wife isn't as helpful as she could be in the bedroom. A husband should take the lead and start the circle of love. He is obligated to "love his wife as Christ loves the Church." Eph 5:15.

This is not to say that a man should accept his wife going through the motions most of the time. If her head is chronically not in what she doing, then he's somehow missing the boat.

This may offend some who believe that sex when only one party has their head in the game is a bad thing. I think it can be a very good thing for two people who love each other and are sensitive to each other's needs.

SKK
Sam | 08.14.07 - 5:51 pm | #

"And AC, Catholic ultra-trads, rad-trads, and schismatics say and think a lot of silly things. It is usually best to simply disregard them."

Sadly, I agree on both counts. It would be an act of charity to try to engage them with fraternal correction, but in general they are predictably, and perhaps understandably, hostile to such efforts. Most of us can find far more productive uses of our time.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 5:57 pm | #

What Sam said.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 6:05 pm | #

"As for the broader questions of: Why does the Catholic Church teach X and why does it teach Y? Why do the popes and the Catholic believe and maintain A and why do they believe and maintain B?"

Bender, I don't know if this particular comment was directed to me, but if it was, you are preaching to the converted. I am not in any doubt about the fact that Popes cannot alter doctrine to suit their whims, or even to suit what they perceive is a need.

What concerns me is that in their development of doctrine regarding the use of a woman's infertile period, they have actually strayed from the Church's original teaching on sexuality.

Mike, you say "It is true that many leading and important Catholic teachers indeed taught that only total abstinence is permitted, but many such Catholic teachers taught limbo too." This example is not one to give me confidence. Limbo was ultimately rejected on the grounds that there was no scriptural justification for it. It seems to me that HV might ultimately be rejected on the same grounds, although here there is also no direct contradiction of scripture because it did not address the question directly. So there may be enough of a teaching "gap" in there to justify the reversal of centuries of Catholic understanding of the uses of sexuality. As I said, I fear the rad-trads (NOT the schismatic sede-vacantists) may be right about this. I just do not know.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 8:09 pm | #

Alias,
It is important to remember that Limbo was NEVER part of the Magisterium. HV is. And the rejection of Limbo was not simply because it was not grounded in Scripture. Please remember that "centuries of Catholic understanding" is a pretty loose concept. What is commonly taught or understood simply isn't automatically true or part of Tradition in the proper sense.
Mike Petrik | 08.14.07 - 10:01 pm | #

AC -- actually the comment was more directed to ABH's ponderings, but if you or anyone else finds it helpful . . .

Regarding the teaching of Humanae Vitae and scriptural justifications, as JP2 explains, better than did Pope Paul, we must start "in the beginning" -- in Genesis, which explains the truth about the human person, that is, the person is body and spirit, male and female, and the unitative and procreative truth about sexuality, the original unity of man and woman (male and female He created him, Eve created out of Adam), and their fertility (be fruitful and multiply). And sex, as with all things, must be consistent with truth in order to be a "good."

As for the development of doctrine in this area, it bears noting that, before the modern age, medical science was not very precise with respect to a woman's fertile periods and non-fertile periods, and, of course, there was no chemical means of contraception. Moreover, before the modern age of relative wealth and well-being, children were much more desired in order to help provide for the family. In short, it is only fairly recently that we have become a contraceptive, sex-as-recreation society. As such, prior to the modern day, there was not as great a need for the Church to greatly develop its teaching in this area of human sexuality. Even so, as I read history, the Church's teaching has remained consistent throughout the centuries.
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 10:15 pm | #

Mike Petrik, I do know that Limbo was not part of the Magisterium. And that HV is. But I find the grounds upon which it was made a part of the Magisterium foggy and vague. HV doesn't appear to agree with Tradition, which, where direct scriptural instruction is lacking, is supposed to be an important basis for later decisions regarding moral teaching. That is what worries me about it.

I am not being stubborn or obscurantist here. I am seeking information. I have not been sufficiently well-informed about this matter and it may be that I'm mistaken, but if so, I'd like to know where to look for greater understanding.
alias clio | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 10:16 pm | #

With respect to history, I apologize if this has been raised earlier, but The Roman Catechism (1566), as ordered by the Council of Trent and edited under St. Charles Borromeo, states in the chapter on matrimony, "married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime."
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 10:37 pm | #

One final word, from me anyway (yay! cheers and whistles) --

Regarding the Church's teaching on human sexuality, Pope Benedict (I love that man) reminds us that we should not present it as a bunch of "thou shall nots," but as the positive that it is. "Christianity, Catholicism, is not a collection of prohibitions: it is a positive option. It is very important that we look at it again because this idea has almost completely disappeared today. We have heard so much about what is not allowed that now it is time to say: we have a positive idea to offer, that man and woman are made for each other, that the scale of sexuality, eros, agape, indicates the level of love and it is in this way that marriage develops, first of all as a joyful and blessing-filled encounter between a man and a woman, and then, the family, which guarantees continuity among generations and through which generations are reconciled to each other and even cultures can meet. So, firstly, it is important to stress what we want. Secondly, we can also see why we do not want some things. I believe we need to see and reflect on the fact that it is not a Catholic invention that man and woman are made for each other so that humanity can go on living: all cultures know this."
Bender | Homepage | 08.14.07 - 11:17 pm | #

The original question presupposes an "us vs. them" or "husband vs. wife" view of things. All the discussion about whether or not a wife must or should "give in" to her husband's wants or needs, as well as what she owes him and he owes her is a result of looking at the whole issue from a somewhat dangerous and destructive point of view. Perhaps this is necessary in a marriage in which there are problems or in which one or both spouses are immature, but it's still not a very healthy approach.

When you have sex in marriage (assuming no problems and a mature view of both sex and marriage), you are giving yourself entirely to your spouse. When your spouse comes to you and asks to give himself or herself to you, a rejection without a very good reason is a rejection of the gift of self. There are certainly times (whether it be NFP-related, fatigue-related, or whatever) when there is a sufficiently good reason to request a "rain check." However, both husband and wife need to be careful that such occasions don't end up being a barrier between them and causing problems. It is very easy for even these necessary occasions to be seen as a rejection of that gift of self, especially if they happen frequently.

To personalize it a bit, there have been times when my wife has wanted to be with my and I have been so tired that I simply could not (women aren't the only ones who get exhausted). There have been other times when I may not have "been in the mood" or been tired enough that I would have preferred to get to sleep earlier instead. At those times, however, I try to remember what it is she wants and what it is she's actually offering (the complete gift of herself) and then accept that gift by pushing off the fatigue or whatever else is in the way, and be with her anyway. I know she has done the same thing for me, as well. It's a sacrifice, but in some ways that makes the act even more meaningful. What is love, after all, without sacrifice? And as is often the case, the sacrifice brings with it all kinds of rewards, both transient and long-lasting, that end up strengthening the relationship.

If both spouses remember that sex in marriage isn't about scratching an itch, but rather about the complete gift of self, things become a lot clearer.
c | 08.15.07 - 1:42 pm | #

I find the grounds upon which it was made a part of the Magisterium foggy and vague.

This probably won't help your conundrum, Alias Clio, so I don't meant to direct this specifically to you, but maybe the Holy Spirit was leaving room for some future development.


The way NFP was explained to me there was the caveaat that the couple always had to be open to the possibility of new life, not that they had to actively try to maximize their chances of conception every time. Since the peak and minimal times of fertility weren't well known in antiquity, addressing the unitive and procreative aspects separately might have been unthinkable back then. While abstaining only during more fertile times in order to space children out doesn't come out of the most intuitive reading of Scripture or other early writings, there was still room for it.
Ed Pie | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 2:23 pm | #

C,

That's beautiful. Thank you.

Kate
Kate | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 5:34 pm | #

What's wrong with scratching an itch??? Why must sex be overspiritualized? I'm totally on board with Dawn's basic idea that you can't detach your emotions from sex and whore around like Carrie Bradshaw ... but seriously, people! You're married, you're horny, there are worse things in life that you could do ... stop stressing about it and expecting it to be perfectly spiritual/emotional/pleasurable/unitive/ procreative all the time and just do it!

In the end, by "just doing it" (in marriage) and cutting away all the moralizing and stress, wouldn't we end up fulfilling the command to "be fruitful and multiply"?

Sorry if I sound rude, but I can't give much credence to the views of celibate men on the topic of marital sex. Rabbis have sex ... and lots of it. It's a mitzvah, a blessing, and a thing of beauty. Don't stress! Just do it!
AvoidingBillableHours | 08.15.07 - 8:29 pm | #

Stop expecting it to be perfect?

But we are called to perfection, ABH. As human persons, we are called to love other another, not merely to use one another to scratch each others itches, as do animals. We are called to love each other, and especially our spouses, as Christ the bridegroom loves His spouse, the Church, or if you will, as the Lord thy God loves His people Israel. To love each other, to give as He gives, and not to treat the other merely as a means to our own enjoyment.

(Sorry, I know I said that I had previously given my final word and here I am gabbing again. OK, shutting up now.)
Bender | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 9:52 pm | #

OK, this is my final word:

ABH, when it gets right down to it, we want MORE than "just doing it." Sex is a good thing. More than that, this creation of God called sex is a very good thing; it is a great thing. So great in fact, that it deserves to be treated like a great thing, not like a common thing; it needs to be elevated to the spiritual, not lowered into primal animalism.

Just doing it? Yeah, that's fun. It can be a lot of fun and enjoyable -- to a limited extent. But we want more than that. And we are no longer willing to settle for less.
Bender | Homepage | 08.15.07 - 10:01 pm | #

Most religions seem to do a beautiful job of describing the conditions for as-perfect-as-possible sex, if an atheist can admiringly comment!
Jody Tresidder | 08.15.07 - 11:12 pm | #

ABH,

I'll tell you this: when husband and wife are united in seeking the most perfect sexual unity, it is the furthest thing from stressful I can imagine!

Stressful would be suspecting that you are only the back scratcher used to scratch an itch. Praise God that I don't have that worry!

Sure, we all fall short of the ideal sometimes. But would it be better to never strive and never know the heights you can attain?

ac, I appreciate your quest for answers. I don't have much to add to the discussion except the vague recollection that you might like what St. John Chrysostom had to say about married love.
Kate | Homepage | 08.16.07 - 11:09 pm | #