When Can Catholics Have Sex?

I know that there are many misunderstandings out there about the Catholic faith. I recently came across this article (I think it's actually a small book reproduced on the internet) addressing the Catholic teaching on sex, and while glancing through it as it printed out (I print out longer things like this because I find my eyes swim if I try to read them online, and it's impossible to highlight and write notes on the screen!), I found this paragraph which address a misunderstanding. So I decided to share. :)

The below is quoted from a much longer article 'Morals and Marriage: The Catholic Background to Sex' by T.G. Wayne. It has both the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, so it is free of doctrinal error. This is just the passage most relevant to the question:

MOTIVES

The morality of a human act is not only determined by a consideration of its general nature. The abstract must be made concrete. Consequently the personal motives for a particular action must also be taken into account. In this connection it may be asked: should husband and wife seriously intend to have a child whenever they have intercourse and should they try to restrict intercourse to those times when the conception of a child is possible?

The answer is negative. There are other valid reasons for intercourse besides procreation. These are the healthy expression of passion, the fostering of mutual love, the strengthening of the sacramental bond of marriage. These are worthy motives, implying the human love and devotion of marriage, including more than the mere appetite for pleasure, which is not a sufficient motive for any action. The intention of trying to have a child is not necessary as a regular motive.

All healthy married people who are capable of bearing and rearing children are under some obligation in the matter, but the command applies more directly to their married state than to each and every act of intercourse. There may be good reasons for intercourse, the bodily and spiritual welfare of them both, at times when conception is impossible or unlikely or undesirable. Of course they must reserve their impulses, for marriage does not legitimize sex indulgence in any form, but rather requires the exercise of purity as much as does a single life. On this supposition, however, the satisfaction of sex without the intention of procreating is according to the divinely-appointed nature of marriage, so long as the act is life-offering, serving to strengthen the sacramental bond and to assure the stability of family life on which the welfare of children in general depends.

St. John Climacus

“An angel fell from Heaven without any other passion except pride, and so we may ask whether it is possible to ascend to Heaven by humility alone, without any other of the virtues.” - from The Ladder of Divine Ascent

The Kinder Report Day 9

Adam and Eve took up most of the day, because, well, you have to go over the creation, and the kids had a *list* of animals they wanted to know if God created.

I got tired of it, and said, 'God created *all* the animals, even the platypus.' Which led to another discussion, because some of the kids didn't realize the platypus was a real animal. :)

Deb found a little coloring book of the story online that we made copies of and had the kids color and read the story from that.

Our Gospel was Mark 12: 38-44. I think the kids understood that it's not just when we have an excess or it's convenient for us that we need to give to God (and I'm certainly not talking about just money here, but time, attention, etc.), because it's *easy* then, but God's not asking us to only do easy things, but to obey Him at all times, even when it's tough.

Our word was 'Reconciliation', and that's what Deb suggested they write in their letters today. What they thought about the word, about the Sacrament, whether they were nervous about it, whether they were looking forward to it, just anything. Of course the kids don't *have* to write about what we suggest, but it does help them sometimes if we give them ideas.

Our random conversation involved whether it was better to use a hand grenade or a grenade launcher. This, of course, was a 'boy' conversation. :)

1st Annual Book Give Away

Okay, two things, before anyone points them out: a) It cannot actually be 'annual' until I've had more than one. I know this, but I'm using it anyway, because I like the sound. b) By 'annual', I actually mean whenever I feel like it, or my 'books I'm not keeping nook' gets fullish.

I have books I no longer want, for one reason or another. I wish to give them away. I could trade them in to a used bookstore, but since the end goal is a tightening and consolidating of my collection, and trading in means getting more books, I think this is the best way.

This is how it works:

1. Comment listing which books you want.

2. Email me which books you want and an address I can mail them to (sadly, my ability to mail outside of the states is on hold at the moment, so if you live anywhere but the US, unless you have someone in the US I can ship to who is willing to pass them on, I can't get the books to you) at akelios@ yahoo.com (remove the space). I'm having you comment so that others will know if the books are already taken, since this is a first come, first serve kind of thing.

3. I will email you back confirming the books and then mail them out as soon as possible. No charge, not even for postage, as I still have access to free domestic shipping.

And now for the books:

In the category of paranormal romance/chick lit, we have:

Happy Hour at Casa Dracula by Marta Acosta
Dragon Actually by G.A. Aiken
Witch Blood by Anya Bast
Tempt Me With Darkness by Shayla Black
The Accidental Human by Dakota Cassidy

In Mystery:

The Sacred Bones by Michael Byrnes
Murder in the Raw by C.S. Challinor

In the category of These Require Warnings:

Sea Dragon Heir (warning: consensual sibling incest)
Wraeththu (warning: hermaphroditism, homosexual sex, wonky magical doings)
The Thorn Boy (warning: all of the above) - all of these are by Storm Constantine

Sharks:

Jaws
White Shark - both by Peter Benchley

Random Chick Lit:

The Pretend Wife - Bridget Asher

Books That Are a Part of a Series & I wound up with two copies:

Blood Debt - Tanya Huff (vampire detective mystery)
The Mummy Case - Elizabeth Peters (Egyptology mystery! I *love* this series!)

Richard Sharpe Adventure Series (all by Bernard Cornwell):

Sharpe's Eagle
Sharpe's Sword
Sharpe's Company
Sharpe's Gold
Sharpe's Fortress
Sharpe's Trafalgar
Sharpe's Triumph
Sharpe's Tiger
Sharpe's Prey
Sharpe's Escape
Sharpe's Waterloo
Sharpe's Siege
Sharpe's Enemy
Sharpe's Havoc

~~~~

Oh! Does anyone know how to do the strike through on text? I don't know how, and I'd like to use it to cross books off if they get claimed... Sanil has solved my problem. Thanks Sanil! :)

~~~~

On a note vaguely related to books, I have discovered that I like large, manly men with beards. This confuses me, as previously I was not a fan of beards. And I'm not talking Gerard Butler kind of men, just...men. Big men, not twiggy things. Not that there's anything wrong with skinny little guys. I'm just saying, if I can bend them in two, we better have deep, deep mental things to talk about.

Gossip

Edit: I realized that I managed to gossip in a post about gossip being bad. *headslap* So, I've removed that part.

Essentially, I've become more aware of the propensity in myself and others to gossip, and it's begun to bother me, which it never has before.

I've been listening to OLiC Archives, specifically a 6-part series on Lent, and the Prayer of St. Ephraim. For those unfamiliar with this prayer, here's the text:

O Lord and Master of my life,
Grant not unto me a spirit of idleness,
of discouragement,
of lust for power,
and of vain speaking.

But bestow upon me, Thy servant,
the spirit of chastity,
of meekness,
of patience,
and of love.

Yea, O Lord and King,
grant that I may perceive
my own transgressions,
and judge not my brother,
for blessed art Thou
unto ages of ages.
Amen.

The hosts are going through the prayer, delineating every vice, and then all of the virtues will follow. Of course, as they go through, they're including *lots* of quotes from the Fathers, which is another reason I wish they were able to have all the production notes up. It'd mean I could find all the quotes they use!

I did, however, find one of them. It's from a longer homily by St. John Chrysostom.

7. Of how many evils are we now full, without being conscious of them? We bite one another, we devour one another, in wronging, accusing, calumniating, being vexed by the credit of our neighbors.

And see the difficulty. When a man wishes to undermine the reputation of a neighbor, he says, 'Such an one said this of him; O God, forgive me, do not examine me strictly, I must give account of what I have heard.' Why then do you speak of it at all, if you dost not believe it? Why do you speak of it? Why do you make it credible by much reporting? Why do you pass on the story which is not true? Thou dost not believe it, and you entreat God not to call you to strict account? Do not say it then, but keep silence, and free yourself from all fear.

But I know not from whence this disease has fallen upon men. We have become tattlers, nothing remains in our mind. Hear the exhortation of a wise man who says, "Have you heard a word? Let it die in you, be bold; it will not burst you." Sirach 19:10 And again, "A fool hears a word, and travails, as a women in labor of a child." Sirach 19:11 We are ready to make accusations, prepared for condemning. Even if no other evil thing had been done by us, this were sufficient to ruin us, and to carry us away to Hell, this involves us in ten thousand evils. And that you may know this certainly, hear what the prophet says, "Thou sat and spoke against your brother." Psalm 50:20

But it is not I, you say, but the other [who told me]. Nay rather, it is yourself; for if thou had not spoken, another would not have heard: or even if he should hear it, yet thou wouldest not have been to blame for the sin. We ought to shade over and conceal the failings of neighbors, but you parade them under a cloak of zeal for goodness. Thou becomest, not an accuser, but a gossip, a trifler, a fool. O what cleverness! Without being aware of it, you bring disgrace upon yourself as well as on him.

And see what great evils which arise from this. You provoke the wrath of God. Do you not hear Paul saying about widows, "they not only" (these are his words) "learn to be idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, wandering about from house to house, and speaking things which they ought not." 1 Timothy 5:13 So that even when you believe the things which are said against your brother, you ought not even in that case to speak of them; much less, when thou dost not believe them.

But thou [forsooth] lookest to your own interest? Thou fearest to be called to account by God? Fear then, lest even for your tattling thou be called to account. For here, you can not say, 'O God, call me not to account for light talking': for the whole matter is light talking. Why did you publish it? Why did you increase the evil? This is sufficient to destroy us. On this account Christ said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." Matthew 7:1

But we pay no regard to this, neither are we brought to our senses by what happened to the Pharisee. He said what was true, "I am not as this Publican" Luke 18:11, he said it too in no man's hearing; yet was he condemned. If he were condemned when he said what was true, and uttered it in no man's hearing, what fearful [punishment] shall not they suffer, who like gossiping women, carry about everywhere lies which they do not even themselves believe? What shall they not endure?

8. Henceforward let us set "a door and a bolt before the mouth." Sirach 28:25 For innumerable evils have arisen from tattling; families have been ruined, friendships torn asunder, innumerable other miseries have happened. Busy not yourself, O man, about the affairs of your neighbor.

But you are talkative and hast a weakness. Talk of your own [faults] to God: thus the weakness will be no longer a weakness, but an advantage. Talk of your own [faults] to your friends, those who are thorough friends and righteous men, and in whom you have confidence, that so they may pray for your sins. If you speak of the [sins] of others, you are nowise profited, neither have you gained anything, but hast ruined yourself. If you confess your own [sins] to the Lord, you have great reward: for one says, "I said, I will confess against myself mine iniquity to the Lord, and Thou forgavest the impiety of my heart." Psalm 32:5

Do you wish to judge? Judge your own [sins]. No one will accuse you, if you condemn yourself: but he will accuse if you do not condemn; he will accuse you, unless thou convict yourself; will accuse you of insensibility. You have seen such an one angry, irritated, doing something else out of place? Think at once, even thou on your own [faults]: and thus you will not greatly condemn him, and wilt free yourself from the load of your past transgressions. If we thus regulate our own conduct, if we thus manage our own life, if we condemn ourselves, we shall probably not commit many sins, and we shall do many good things, being fair and moderate; and shall enjoy all the promises to them that love God: to which may all attain, by the grace and loving kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, power, honor, now and for ever and world with end. Amen.

*sigh* As the hosts so often, say, 'ouch'.

I am determined not to be this person anymore.

Menstruation and Communion

Right, so, this is a 'girly' post. I don't *think* I have any male readers, or at least none who comment, but if I do, I expect that we can all be mature, yes? Cause if we can't and we comment, I have a delete button, and I'm not afraid to use it. I truly and completely believe that this will not be a problem, but I say this in the extreme 'just in case'. :)

I've started the next chapter in B&W, W&O, and it's on baptism. The author starts the chapter by briefly mentioning that there is a tradition in the Orthodox church of the mother being absent from church for 40 days after birth, and then there being a special ceremony for mother and child welcoming them into the church after that point. He doesn't go into any detail, really, he mentions it, very briefly, as well as 'other traditions regarding menstruation' that get misunderstood.

So, being me, I want to know what those 'other traditions' are. The 'women are more sinful than man' because of a bodily function that God designed in! thing really bugs me, so, um, yeah. I was curious. I do want to say, before I go on, that I in no way was thinking that that was the Orthodox point of view. I know better than that by this point. I'm just saying that it's a topic that interests me because of this backwards view point that I've come across before.

I also hesitated to post because I know that I don't have a grasp on Orthodox teachings on this matter, or sexuality, which is tied in. But I'm posting with the caveat that this is what I've learned in a couple of hours of reading on the internet from Orthodox websites. So anything I say should be taken with a block of salt.

The only tradition that I have come across consistently is that it is a pious tradition for women who are menstruating to refrain from taking Communion. Pious tradition, as I understand it, means that it is a good thing, with roots in the early church, but that it is not dogmatic law. Therefore, as with other things, it is a matter between the woman and her spiritual father. So some women may choose to take Communion while others may not, and both are acceptable.

So, if a woman is no more impure than a man, what's the thinking behind this?

From what I have found, the tradition actually encompasses and extends to 'nocturnal emissions', and bleeding wounds. So a man who has an emission the night before should refrain from the Eucharist, as well as any person who has a wound that is bleeding, or may start bleeding. (On one thread -here-, the question of people who were in the hospital came up, because they may have wounds and be near death, and should they be denied Communion because of that? And the answer was that there are, of course, exceptions, and impending death is clearly one of them...)

The clearest explanation of the 'no bleeding' rule that I have come across is this: 'the Eucharist unites you to Christ's body and blood; you become one with it; if you menstruate you are "losing" Christ's blood. Now before anyone starts talking about mysogeny, a priest with a cut is not supposed to celebrate liturgy, a layman with a cut is not supposed to commune, and if you get cut after communing it is a pious custom to bury or burn the bandage with the blood in it.' This was posted by Fr. Anastasios on the above thread, and other posters (including, I believe, another priest, confirmed this reasoning, as opposed to the continuation of Levitical rules of clean/unclean.

It's interesting, and to be honest, I don't have a problem with it. I think, to me, it makes a certain level of sense, though I'm not sure I can articulate the reasoning behind it at this point. Maybe it's just that I *like* the idea, though again, I couldn't tell you why.

B&W, W&O Chapter 7: Icons & the Incarnation

Two chapters in two days? Control your shock! :)

To be fair, they were short chapters, and there's something about the 'off day light savings time' that makes me more energetic. Cool-ish weather!

So, I've done a couple of posts dealing in general terms with icons before: nyah and nyah. (Also, less importantly, here, here and here. Not that any of my posts are *important*, per say...)

Moving on...

"Icons are art for the heart."

To the mind, an icon is so tall, by so wide, done on such and such material, in such and such way, by this person, in this school, and it is worth so much money on the market at the moment. We define the art given our knowledge of the subject (or lack thereof, the author points out). Our mind, as with everything else, sees it and compares it to other icons, or other pieces of art, and qualifies it and ranks it in that manner.

The heart, however, simply resonates with the spiritual reality portrayed upon the icon's surface.

Western art tries to evoke emotion from its viewer, or make them think (in the case of some of the more avant garde art I've seen...). In contrast, icons do not make this attempt. What the icon does is invite the viewer (and to an even greater extent the *believer*), to dive more deeply into the mystery. An icon is not meant to be an exact image of a person or an event. They are meant to represent the deeper truth, the 'real reality'. So an icon of a Saint, or Jesus, or Mary is in no way meant to exactly show what they looked like in life.

Icons can be seen, in a fashion, as guards against heresy. It has arisen, from time to time in the church, the belief that the world, flesh, etc. is *evil* and nasty and to be punished and scourged and 'done away with' as much as possible, because it's the spirit that matters and is good, not the flesh. This belief in the 'evilness' of the physical leads to a desire to distance the Creator from His creation. And while yes, God is above His creation, He also chose to become a part of it. In the beginning, He declared it *good*. And what God has declared good, who has the right to call it evil?

"The whole notion that God is completely separate from His creation, and that matter is inherently less than perfect and therefore to be avoided as much as possible, is entirely alien to Orthodox Christian tradition, and the icon bears significant silent witness to this fact. The words of the Gospel are uncompromising: 'In the beginning was the Word...and the Word became flesh.' Not only does the Word become flesh, but He is also the agent of creation: 'all things were made through Him' (John 1:1, 3, 14). This is the Word of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, who was in time to become Jesus. Perfect God, but also perfect man, Jesus is no secondary creative power necessitated by the application of a theory, but God-made-man, the theanthropic Savior.

"(It is interesting to note that the word which describes Jesus becoming a human being is given a slightly different sense in the Western languages [affected by Latin] from that which is understood in the languages of Orthodoxy. The Latin word incarnatio [from which we get 'incarnation'] actually means something like 'enfleshment.' The Greek word that incarnatio translates is enanthropoisis, or 'enhumanment.')

"Thus, by extension, the existence of icons as supporters of our spiritual life proclaims the Incarnation of Christ. The Word made flesh fills all of creation with His presence, and thus the physical world starts its long transformation into the Kingdom."

Once we've seen that God is willing and able to enter into the world He Himself created, rather than stand outside and observe it, then we have to face the ability of matter to be 'God-bearing', and not only in some symbolic fashion.

In the Divine Liturgy (or Mass, if you're a Catholic), at some point during the service, before Communion, the bread and wine on the altar are transformed from mere representations of Christ's body and blood into His *actual* Body and Blood. There're no explosions, no giant flashes of lights, no choir of angels (that we can see...) announcing the moment. It simply happens. Not even with a whimper, but silently. Prior to that moment, they are icons.

An icon is a God-bearing piece of creation. A creation made by God in the first place, but distorted by the Fall. However, since God became man, this same material, through the work of the individuals whose labor goes into the physical aspects of the icon, is returned to the fullness of its spiritual origins in a way that most physical objects are not.

"In Orthodox tradition we are not encouraged to star at icons, to contemplate them. When used in prayer, they are not the objects of devotion, but simply a center of presence. The devotion belongs beyond the icon, and the veneration of the icon is always veneration of the person or event depicted on it.

"Once prepared and blessed, the icon remains a protrusion of eternity, of the Kingdom, into the present world. The icon, unlike a human person, cannot ever be less than it is - an icon cannot sin, nor can it mar its own image of God in the same way that human beings can do so readily. Icons, then are a guarantee, in a sense, of the relationship between God and the world."

This is an icon of the Life of St. John the Forerunner (Or St. John the Baptist, or John the Baptist, depending on your Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant stand).

And here's one of him holding his own severed head. See, this is what I mean about the icon not meant to represent actual reality...