? about sex

[Jay2]

I have no clue why certain women can or cannot have orgasms from penetration only. Only God knows that. And only God knows why He made the clitoris so far away from the vagina. However, I do know that His design is always right, and sometimes we don’t quite understand it.

Well, not always right - but it works well!.. if you’ll indulge me in some secular amateur biology…
My understanding is that when we are conceived and very early on in the cell division process we are all basically female. Only after further development do the chemical & cell triggers happen that convert the “basic parts” into definite male or female organs. Hence the similarity of the penis head to the clitoris, and why both parts have incredible sensitivity. It’s also thought that a woman’s labia minora are what were to become a scrotum. The testes either descend or move into the body as ovaries, and what would become a penis inverts and becomes a vagina.

Why a woman’s most sensitive organ is an inch away from her vagina is probably because it will then get rubbed against a man’s pubic bone. It will only be stimulated/cause “lubrication”/dilation of the cervix when the man is fully inside her… giving his sperm the best chance possible to get up inside the uterus/tubes.

As far as toys, manual stimulation, oral stimulation, anal stimulation goes… whatever works for you & your wife. As long as your “union” (literal sense) is open to pro-creation, the man finishes inside the woman’s vagina, and you both agree to, enjoy, and willingly participate in whatever fore/during/after-play that works for you… go for it.

(I’ve always thought there were waaaayyy too many rules dictating this segment of marital life… especially a segment that is the only time where a man & woman are truly bonded, and physically connected to eachother… It’s no wonder why there’s so much “sexual dysfunction” prevalent… everyone’s going through a pre-flight checklist & approval process instead of just having good sex!)

 

[LittleDeb]

Hope you didn’t mind my breaking up your post, but it’s easier to reply that way.

Nope, not at all. Easier to understand that way.

And Yup. That is what I meant. Pleasure passes and emptiness remains. Joy is unceasing.

 

[LittleDeb]

Well, not always right - but it works well!..

His design is always right. It works extremely well when we understand it. Sometimes His design gets broken because of the fall and sin entering the world. Sometimes our understanding of it is broken too.

if you’ll indulge me in some secular amateur biology…
My understanding is that when we are conceived and very early on in the cell division process we are all basically female. Only after further development do the chemical & cell triggers happen that convert the “basic parts” into definite male or female organs. Hence the similarity of the penis head to the clitoris, and why both parts have incredible sensitivity. It’s also thought that a woman’s labia minora are what were to become a scrotum. The testes either descend or move into the body as ovaries, and what would become a penis inverts and becomes a vagina.

Why a woman’s most sensitive organ is an inch away from her vagina is probably because it will then get rubbed against a man’s pubic bone. It will only be stimulated/cause “lubrication”/dilation of the cervix when the man is fully inside her… giving his sperm the best chance possible to get up inside the uterus/tubes.

Yup, I agree with your biology here. I was doing some research because of this thread and some other things I am studying and got some more information. I knew every sexual organ and every reproductive organ had a complementary one in the opposite sex. I didn’t know for sure what the one was for the uterus. I did the research and discovered, sure enough, my hunch was right. The complementary reproductive organ to the uterus is the prostate! Similar size and shape, made from the same tissue. And it’s function of helping give the seed is complementary to the receiving done by the uterus. I got a good giggle today from a male friend of mine (early 20s) when he said, “You women don’t have prostates?!” I said, “it’s okay, until I was an adult I didn’t know that you did!”

As far as toys, manual stimulation, oral stimulation, anal stimulation goes… whatever works for you & your wife. As long as your “union” (literal sense) is open to pro-creation, the man finishes inside the woman’s vagina, and you both agree to, enjoy, and willingly participate in whatever fore/during/after-play that works for you… go for it.

I agree with you in theory here. It is the application of each thing that might be confusing. e.g. there is some disagreement about anal stimulation vs. anal penetration.

(I’ve always thought there were waaaayyy too many rules dictating this segment of marital life… especially a segment that is the only time where a man & woman are truly bonded, and physically connected to eachother… It’s no wonder why there’s so much “sexual dysfunction” prevalent… everyone’s going through a pre-flight checklist & approval process instead of just having good sex!)

JPII addresses that in Theology of the Body. It is our fallen nature that has made this list of rules. In seeking authentic marital love we seek how it was before the fall. It has been rightly pointed out in this theology that puritanism and pornography are just two sides of the same coin. Neither of which are what the Church teaches and both are impediments to authentic marital love.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I recently spoke to a priest about the issue of sexual activity between spouses without it ending up with actual intercourse. He said it “wasn’t a sin” but it was “a sin for others to say so”, and that it needn’t be confessed, and that it is between the married couple and God (and one can go to God with such instead of the confessional).

Needless to say, I’m completely confused. I’ve painstakingly read over these many posts, and I’ve read a lot of emotion and words, but very few actual sources -if any- given as to where the church has specifically said non-penetrating sexual activity between married couples are mortally sinful, and defines things like sexual touching at least to the point of female orgasm alone as the mortal sin of masturbation. Would anyone like to provide specific sources so if ever I bring this up to a priest again, I can hand him a copy if he says sexual activity without intercourse between married couples is a sin? I believe it is (well, unless there’s an unintended accident), but I just need the source.

 

[searching06]

I recently spoke to a priest about the issue of sexual activity between spouses without it ending up with actual intercourse. He said it “wasn’t a sin” but it was “a sin for others to say so”, and that it needn’t be confessed, and that it is between the married couple and God (and one can go to God with such instead of the confessional).

Needless to say, I’m completely confused. I’ve painstakingly read over these many posts, and I’ve read a lot of emotion and words, but very few actual sources -if any- given as to where the church has specifically said non-penetrating sexual activity between married couples are mortally sinful, and defines things like sexual touching at least to the point of female orgasm alone as the mortal sin of masturbation. Would anyone like to provide specific sources so if ever I bring this up to a priest again, I can hand him a copy if he says sexual activity without intercourse between married couples is a sin? I believe it is (well, unless there’s an unintended accident), but I just need the source.

I spoke with one priest about all of the frustrations and lack of overall intimacy with my wife partially because of a lack of sexual intimcy by following NFP. He said my wife and I should talk to see how we feel and go from there; that it should not be causing that much trouble. I took him to mean we needed to decide if we wanted to have sex - other than intercourse - during phase 1/3. Some priests are more liberal in this area than others. Others will cite church teachings strictly.

For me, this area is and has been a terrible struggle. We follow church guidelines, but it is in no way easy and is not helpful to intimacy. Others here will disagree, but everyone is different. It is good you are following your conscience and looking for the source.

The struggle I have, as I believe others have noted they do as well, is that even during sex where a couple does have intercourse and are open to life, it is not permissible to have the man reach orgasm again by other means. Or that in between fertile phases, when a couple is still open to life (but need to avoid pregnancy), it is not permissble to have sex at all to orgasm. I feel sometimes that there is nothing wrong in being sexually intimate for the purpose of intimacy - bringing each other to orgasm manually or orally - in between fertile phases, especially since we are in fact open to life during phase 3. It is incredibly giving of each other, for each other, if done with intimacy foremost in mind. But it is not what the church says so is not what we do. Some will debate that yes, we can have sex (intercourse) in between phases, but I disagree with that position - if we need to avoid pregnancy and are following church teachings, then no we cannot.

I was wondering this weekend if Catholics are the only ones who go to this “extreme”? What do other Christian denominations say about sex other than intercourse, whether following NFP or not? I know the whole point is Catholics are in the fullness of truth and so we follow church teachings. But you have to wonder. Well, I do for sure.

 

[searching06]

searching06, I really would like to answer your question. Can you please elaborate to help me understand? “Yes, but how” was in response to my “YES!” I went on to say that it comes from not removing the procreative and unitive.

I think what is contained on this home page sums it up well for me. www.theologyofthebody.net

I discovered that every single problem I had with the Church was rooted in a misunderstanding of what it really means to be human. All of my concerns: contraception, same sex relationships, all-male priesthood, fornication, authentic marital love, equality of men and women, the definition of masculine and feminine, etc. to infinity… were answered in Theology of the Body. My dignity as a woman was affirmed in the most amazing way. My respect for men has deepened in a huge way. My respect for my own sexuality has deepened more than I can describe. My husband and I often joke that we owe our wonderful sex life to a celibate pope in Rome. I pray often for his sainthood.

I am happy to share anything I can with you.

I’ll have to get the book. While my wife and I have talked recently about some things related to sex, it is a tough area for us.

 

[searching06]

No, but of course it isn’t. However, the focus on pleasure is hedonism and that’s not so much a sin as it is wrong anthropology. It reduces humanity to experience of pleasurable sensations or just simply views man through the perspective of sensations. That’s a bit limiting. Besides, pleasure is not what we live for. We deserve more.

Foreplay is a part of what centres around “the act”, so same goes for what pleasure it gives. However, focus on pleasure instead of persons is something I find unhealthy.

Yup. And joy is such a better word than pleasure, isn’t it? Besides, we’ll probably agree contraception detracts from the “fun part” when both contraception and the marital love are properly understood. Similarly, what’s degrading, disunitive or otherwise incompatible with the proper vision of marriage, that probably also detracts from the “fun”.

Yep. Besides, doesn’t that perspective lead to the focus on the “release” rather than anything else?

Hehe. True that. On the other hand, one should be careful with the hype, I believe. First there’s the expounding of marital love and the sexual dimension of it, as something perceivedly forbidden coming into the light of day and whatnot, then I hear people talking about sex as a sacrament, drawing parallels between sexual acts and the death of Our Saviour on the cross. You get the idea. It feels like some fertility cult from ancient times.

An interesting way of seeing it, hehe. Thanks.

If it is helping so much in the bedroom, WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON?!?

 

[notreallysure]

No, but of course it isn’t. However, the focus on pleasure is hedonism and that’s not so much a sin as it is wrong anthropology. It reduces humanity to experience of pleasurable sensations or just simply views man through the perspective of sensations. That’s a bit limiting. Besides, pleasure is not what we live for. We deserve more.

Foreplay is a part of what centres around “the act”, so same goes for what pleasure it gives. However, focus on pleasure instead of persons is something I find unhealthy.

Yup. **And joy is such a better word than pleasure, isn’t it? **Besides, we’ll probably agree contraception detracts from the “fun part” when both contraception and the marital love are properly understood. Similarly, what’s degrading, disunitive or otherwise incompatible with the proper vision of marriage, that probably also detracts from the “fun”.
Yep. Besides, doesn’t that perspective lead to the focus on the “release” rather than anything else?

Hehe. True that. On the other hand, one should be careful with the hype, I believe. First there’s the expounding of marital love and the sexual dimension of it, as something perceivedly forbidden coming into the light of day and whatnot, then I hear people talking about sex as a sacrament, drawing parallels between sexual acts and the death of Our Saviour on the cross. You get the idea. It feels like some fertility cult from ancient times.

An interesting way of seeing it, hehe. Thanks.

Taking the bolded points (emphasis mine) in turn:

Why does anyone really care if you find it “unhealthy”? Isn’t the only relevant question whether Church teachings address this issue and, if so, what is taught?

No word is inherently better than any other word.

But the base question is what is degrading or incompatible with the Church’s views on marriage.

In a proper discussion of Church teachings on the topics, sex cannot be divorced from marriage and, of course, marriage is a sacrament between baptized persons.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Correction:

I recently spoke to a priest about the issue of sexual activity between spouses without it ending up with actual intercourse. He said it “wasn’t a sin” but it was “a sin for others to say so”, and that it needn’t be confessed, and that it is between the married couple and God (and one can go to God with such instead of the confessional).

Needless to say, I’m completely confused. I’ve painstakingly read over these many posts, and I’ve read a lot of emotion and words, but very few actual sources -if any- given as to where the church has specifically said non-penetrating sexual activity between married couples are mortally sinful, and defines things like sexual touching at least to the point of female orgasm alone as the mortal sin of masturbation. Would anyone like to provide specific sources so if ever I bring this up to a priest again, I can hand him a copy if he says sexual activity without intercourse between married couples isn’t a sin? I believe it is (well, unless there’s an unintended accident), but I just need the source.

 

[notreallysure]

Correction:

No responses?

 

[LittleDeb]

I spoke with one priest about all of the frustrations and lack of overall intimacy with my wife partially because of a lack of sexual intimcy by following NFP. He said my wife and I should talk to see how we feel and go from there; that it should not be causing that much trouble. I took him to mean we needed to decide if we wanted to have sex - other than intercourse - during phase 1/3. Some priests are more liberal in this area than others. Others will cite church teachings strictly.

For me, this area is and has been a terrible struggle. We follow church guidelines, but it is in no way easy and is not helpful to intimacy. Others here will disagree, but everyone is different. It is good you are following your conscience and looking for the source.

The struggle I have, as I believe others have noted they do as well, is that even during sex where a couple does have intercourse and are open to life, it is not permissible to have the man reach orgasm again by other means. Or that in between fertile phases, when a couple is still open to life (but need to avoid pregnancy), it is not permissble to have sex at all to orgasm. I feel sometimes that there is nothing wrong in being sexually intimate for the purpose of intimacy - bringing each other to orgasm manually or orally - in between fertile phases, especially since we are in fact open to life during phase 3. It is incredibly giving of each other, for each other, if done with intimacy foremost in mind. But it is not what the church says so is not what we do. Some will debate that yes, we can have sex (intercourse) in between phases, but I disagree with that position - if we need to avoid pregnancy and are following church teachings, then no we cannot.

I was wondering this weekend if Catholics are the only ones who go to this “extreme”? What do other Christian denominations say about sex other than intercourse, whether following NFP or not? I know the whole point is Catholics are in the fullness of truth and so we follow church teachings. But you have to wonder. Well, I do for sure.

I’ll have to get the book. While my wife and I have talked recently about some things related to sex, it is a tough area for us.

This first part wasn’t directed toward me, but the second part that was to me answers the questions in the first part.

I just got back into town and have been praying on a response to you. I hope I can keep it short, but that is nearly impossible for me with this topic. Everything I say here is with as much respect and love as possible. I have read many posts from you and you seem to be true to your name. You appear genuine in your search.

NFP is a tool. Nothing more. It is a tool designed by God, written on our very bodies. NFP is not the problem, but since it is rooting out the problem it gets the blame. This is probably a rhetorical question and is very blunt, but I will ask it anyway. Do you really think that your life will be improved by more orgasms? If I were to tell you that a deep understanding of your sexuality and your spouse’s will bring a deeper connection, would you believe me? I don’t know if you would, but I hope you will believe Pope John Paul the Great.

If I told you that sexual intimacy is so much better when it happens God’s way, would you believe me there? Because I can tell you that and I will. So called “oral sex” is a total let down when you have God in the picture. It is, for lack of a better term, “the sexual flunky.” The Church has not given us a list of “do’s and don’ts.” The Church is giving us God’s way to be in procreative unity. When we really bring God into our sexual union the desire for sexual intimacy is on His terms. Oral sex will be boring. Life-giving, unitive intercourse is all you will desire. Oral stimulation will have more meaning because you KNOW where it is going and it always goes one place: directly to each other with God in complete agreement.

 

[LittleDeb]

Abstinence is not a problem. It does however, root out other problems. It can be a struggle. But the real question is WHY is it a struggle? Is it a struggle because you really wish you could be making babies? Or is it a struggle because you really are glad you aren’t making babies? This is something to deeply examine. Are you and your spouse on the same page? If you are, is it the same page as God?

Sexual intimacy has almost nothing to do with quantity. It has everything to do with who is making the quality. God’s version of sex is quality. Man’s version tries to fill the lack of depth with sheer numbers. With that I speak from experience. No one would argue with me that when I was fornicating that I wasn’t doing things “God’s way.” But during that time, I kept thinking that if I just "found the right person, " or “just learned to relax and do it better” I would discover happiness. Obviously fornication wasn’t the answer at all, so nothing I did was going to make it work.

The same goes for married couples. If it is not according to God’s plan, it just won’t work, plain and simple. It may look like it is working for others, but I can promise you it is not. If you really know someone well ask them. You have seen in this very thread people defending it. But again the phrase, “methinks that doth protest too much” comes to mind. The “how dare you tell me that my sex life is lacking!” is apparent. It is lacking. Plain and simple. There is God’s way for marital intimacy. Anything less IS lacking.

The Church is charged with defending Truth. Anything less from Her isn’t Truth. Anything not procreative and not unitive is going to be empty. Filling empty sex with more empty sex puts a couple into negative numbers. More orgasms aren’t the answer. They will still be empty. There will just be more of them. The problem just gets bigger.

Seek out deep physical intimacy. That is the stuff you do outside your bedroom in front of your kids. Discover what real emotional intimacy is about. It will make your marital life better and it will teach your kids the real meaning of marriage. If that kind of intimacy is lacking, you will see the repercussions of it for many generations.

The phrase we learned in NFP class was very helpful. “Where is the best place to make love?” Answer: “In the kitchen in front of your kids.” If that answer sounds sick, then you need to reorganize your priorities.

God bless you in your continual search. I admire your adherence to Church teaching even when you don’t totally agree. Get into Theology of the Body. It might make all the difference in the world. It did for me.

 

[LittleDeb]

I recently spoke to a priest about the issue of sexual activity between spouses without it ending up with actual intercourse. He said it “wasn’t a sin” but it was “a sin for others to say so”, and that it needn’t be confessed, and that it is between the married couple and God (and one can go to God with such instead of the confessional).

Needless to say, I’m completely confused. I’ve painstakingly read over these many posts, and I’ve read a lot of emotion and words, but very few actual sources -if any- given as to where the church has specifically said non-penetrating sexual activity between married couples are mortally sinful, and defines things like sexual touching at least to the point of female orgasm alone as the mortal sin of masturbation. Would anyone like to provide specific sources so if ever I bring this up to a priest again, I can hand him a copy if he says sexual activity without intercourse between married couples isn’t a sin? I believe it is (well, unless there’s an unintended accident), but I just need the source.

Yes the source is the Church herself. It is defined nicely in the Catechism. If you need, I can look up the number for you, but I think it would be good if you did a search on it in the Catechism and found it yourself. It might mean more that way. Using a computer search of the Catechism, look for the term “in anticipation of.” It will be a good start. Of course the easiest term to search there is “procreation.” It is a term coined by the Church and therefore defined by Her.

Much of what the priest might be thinking is that since it does not involve a contraceptive device, then it isn’t contraception. He is mistaken. It is also rooted in the “spilling of Onan’s seed.” He might be strongly influenced by the modern incorrect Protestant interpretation of that particular passage. Spilling seed has always been a sin unto death. Post 1930 Protestants have reinterpreted that verse to mean that God killed Onan because Onan spilled a “potential baby,” but that it no longer applies because we now know the baby isn’t in the man’s seed alone. Since God has always known how babies are made this interpretation makes no sense. The other erroneous interpretation is that God killed Onan because he refused to keep up the lineage. This also makes no sense since in another part of Scripture it clearly states what the punishment is for not keeping up the lineage. It involves slapping him with a shoe. THAT is certainly not death.

I am not sure why a priest is telling you something different than Church teaching. His “liberalness” is just a plain misunderstanding. The Church says that anything that blocks procreation is sinful. Where the confusion might be with what this priest said about sinfulness is in understanding judging sin objectively.

From an objective point of view I can state that “anything that blocks procreation is sinful.” I am not sinning by stating such. I would be sinning if I were to tell you personally that *you *are in a state of sin at any given moment. I do not know your heart. I am not God. If I were to tell you that you personally were in a state of sin, then I would be sinning. The furthest I can freely go is to tell you that you might be in a state of sin and that the confessional is the answer.

If a priest is telling you that you don’t need to go to confession about this, please ask him to clarify. This also makes no sense. He might just be mistaken.

 

[johntkd]

NFP is a tool. Nothing more. It is a tool designed by God,

Sorry I have to jump in here as you know how I feel about contraception and NFP to me they are one in the same.

Since I have been a Catholic I hear some of the same things over and over again, “God will never give you more than you can handle” then within a few sentences I will hear the same person promote NFP, to me this is absurd, if God wont give you more than you can handle there is no reason for NFP now is there?
I will here “Its all in Gods great Plan” and again iN same conversation from same person I will here mention of NFP,
sorry Gods Great Plan, and Not being given more than we can handle have NO buisness being in same conversation because they are opposite of each other,
you either believe what you tell others That God will never Give you more than you can handle, Or you dont have that belief and you tell people how to use a process to not be open to life and to help you not conceive.
with using NFP where is that belief you wont be given more than you can handle???
what If its in Gods great Plan to conceieve this month and not 3,6 24 months from now?are you stopping His will by practicing NFP ?
are you truly being open to life when you practically know 100% when you are fertile so you avoid intimate relations with your spouse? only to start up as soon as fertility is absent
to me that is actually being less open to life than someone using ABC whom dont spend countless hours monitoring themselves just to make sure they do not conceive, they assume that risk blindly, I see promotion of NFP as "its as or more effective than the pill effective for what oh being unopen to life…

I believe in NFP, no family Planning! leave it in Gods hands thats his will in my opinion,
saying he designed NFP for us to use is simply an excuse to allow its use, he gave us brains as well which we can use to figure out ABC methods some could consider that his design as well now couldnt they?

I hear from the NFP people ohhh it makes you much closer to your spouse, yet I know men whom love NFP because thier spouses dont mind them going out ,staying away to help them get past that so called hump every month, care to know what many of these men are doing thats right they finding another source of intimacy , thats really getting them closer, I have heard of couples even on this forum who use separate bedrooms during fertile times Just so they dont slip, thats getting closer for sure.
I have also heard of many divorces by couples over the NFP issue, there are tons of various reasons for that , many of them is when ABC was used one of the people suddenly got the urge to follow church teaching and is forcing it on the other.
to me none of the above should be an issue, if you feel like being close be close who cares what time of the month it is.
if a conception is made from that feel you have been blessed and move on.
you have to pick something to believe in right?
I choose to believe that I will never be given more than I can handle in life. because that implies my whole life not just a sexual part of it, I wont pick and choose various parts of my life to believe in certain things…

Ok i have said my peace thank you

No as far as abstinence goes, there are so many reasons to avoid the “act” instead of being upset about it look at the anticipation aspects of it, kind of like wedding night all over again, with a huge difference, you know each other far better.and the bond between you should also be far stronger and tighter.

on another note I have no buisness in anyones bedroom, they have none in mine,
what you do in your bedroom is between you, your spouse, and God. Noone and Nothing else, not the neighbors, parents, church,friends etc…you dont have to answer to the Church when you leave this world you have to answer to our lord.

Ok again I have went and done it,
Now I am sure I will have a gazzillion messages in my mail box within hours, at least have the decency to keep them clean and not rude and I will reply if wanted…

John

P.S. Deb wasnt picking on you in particular just used a part of your post because you actually called it as it is a Tool…

However your total posting was excellent and informative

 

[LittleDeb]

John,
You are still confusing means and intention. NFP is a moral means. ABC is an immoral means. What you are describing here is a contraceptive intention.

A couple can be contraceptive without using any devices or tools. Contraception means: “against the beginning” or “against creation.” Contraception is a mental mindset first.

NFP is a window we look through. Monitoring one’s body is not evil. Otherwise watching our weight and nutrition would be sinful. Do you just put whatever food in your mouth that appears in front of you? Do you teach your children about a balanced diet? Charting is not evil. It is deliberate abstinence that is to be used for only serious reason. It is the purposeful blocking of fertility while still participating in the marital act that is intrinsically evil. A condom itself is just a thing. The devices themselves just exist. A contraceptive device just is. It is contraception that is intrinsically evil.

Please remember, the original contraception was withdrawal, AKA “spilling seed.”

Contraception uses the marital act while thwarting its primary purpose. I don’t see you arguing that it is ok to use the marital act and thwart its secondary purpose, unity.

The sacrifices involved with abstinence seem glossed over. If NFP and contraception are the same then why doesn’t everyone use NFP? Because NFP would be totally different! They are not the same.

Abstinence is the key to understanding the difference. It is your focus on charting that is causing confusion. It is evil to seek pleasure at the expense of the purpose. Abstinence is a sacrifice. Contraception is not. Sacrifice brings us closer to each other and closer to God. Indulgence does not.

As I pointed out to searching06 those couples who divorce do not do so because of NFP. It is a tool, and that tool brought a deeper problem, usually selfishness, to the surface. I repeat, does the answer simply lie in more orgasms? Would that have fixed those couples problems? I certainly hope you don’t think so.

 

[johntkd]

John,
You are still confusing means and intention. As I pointed out to searching06 those couples who divorce do not do so because of NFP. It is a tool, and that tool brought a deeper problem, usually selfishness, to the surface. I repeat, does the answer simply lie in more orgasms? Would that have fixed those couples problems? I certainly hope you don’t think so.

I totally agree that NFP is not the sole problem in the majority of divorces that claim its the cause.selfishness would be first, as I stated I know many men that Love NFP because it gives them the freedom to mess around without questions as far as the rest of the theory goes you have your feelings I have mine. to me all that charting is plotting against conception and therefore not open to lifeyou asked if its no different than ABC why use it? thats simple because so many people strictly adhere to church teaching they think it will give them a free ride to heaven that they follow that.it is much safer for the Woman without doubt,
as for calling it a sacrifice that totally bogus as well and you know it, that so called act of sacrifice is a true act of selfishness, how many would abstain every single month like that if they really didnt have to, to not conceive, in other words if science ever figuires out the exact hour etc how many would abstain for days?
A true sacrifice has no good for the person doing the sacrifice, as an example lets say you made 500 dollars a month and a friend needed 500 dollars for something and you went ahead and gave them your monthly pay check leaving you nothing,
thats a sacrifice for a good intention you got nothing out of it.
the abstinence “sacrifice” as you call it what do you get out of it, you dont have to get up and feed a baby, be pregnant, etc care for the possible child for years and years, again not a sacrifice and that really bugs me when people try to scam an act of total selfishness as a sacrifice.
when is NFP a sacrifice when you truely want a baby and due to various medical reasons cannot have one so you have to make sure you do not conceive, whats the sacrifice obviously having the baby, but its not a two way street

I totally admit there are those that have to and need to use NFP to protect themselves from greater danger, but to use it to not conceive just because not ready or dont want a baby is selfishness and not being open to life
John

 

[fix]

The debate never ends. Why is it hard to grasp that avoiding conception is not always evil? It depends on intention and means as is true for any moral activity.

People seem to want to claim a good end may be achieved by any means. They also want to make all means equivalent because they will not accept that altering the sexual act is intrinsically wrong. Not having intercourse does not alter the act.

 

[johntkd]

The debate never ends. Why is it hard to grasp that avoiding conception is not always evil? It depends on intention and means as is true for any moral activity.

People seem to want to claim a good end may be achieved by any means. They also want to make all means equivalent because they will not accept that altering the sexual act is intrinsically wrong. Not having intercourse does not alter the act.

ahh My example stated clearly that most people who abstain are abstaining for one reason to avoid conception, if there was zero chance of conception they wouldnt abstain so the intent is to abstain from intercourse to achieve the means of not conceiving.
as far as whats different between ABC and NFP to me the only difference is the monetary price per month,all accomplish thier goal of non conception with man made products
put my theory to the test tell a new couple that knows nothing about any forms of conception control to use NFP and send them home , dont teach them a thing , no paper to chart no thermometers etc, see if they ever can figure it out on thier own.
babies dont need charts, schools, paper etc to learn to breathe, and go potty, thats natural, they didnt need to be taught to cry,scream or coo or to smile thats natural, its been proven many many times that a couple needs no prior knowledge of intercourseto engage in its natural, same with mothers and breast feeding, taking care of a baby etc its all natural in other words you could slide a couple on an island as infants assuming they could survive they would be able to do all the above in time without any knowledge of any of it because its natural.
so the first word in NFP is very misleading it takes many man made products to accomplish,man made equals not natural…

anyways thats how i feel lucky for all of you my opinion means zip huh
John

 

[fix]

ahh My example stated clearly that most people who abstain are abstaining for one reason to avoid conception, if there was zero chance of conception they wouldnt abstain so the intent is to abstain from intercourse to achieve the means of not conceiving.

And such an intention is not always wrong. To abstain to avoid conception can be morally acceptable.

as far as whats different between ABC and NFP to me the only difference is the monetary price per month,all accomplish thier goal of non conception with man made products

The point is not about man made products. The point is the act is altered by contracepting and unaltered by NFP.

put my theory to the test tell a new couple that knows nothing about any forms of conception control to use NFP and send them home , dont teach them a thing , no paper to chart no thermometers etc, see if they ever can figure it out on thier own.

What does that prove?

babies dont need charts, schools, paper etc to learn to breathe, and go potty, thats natural, they didnt need to be taught to cry,scream or coo or to smile thats natural, its been proven many many times that a couple needs no prior knowledge of intercourseto engage in its natural, same with mothers and breast feeding, taking care of a baby etc its all natural in other words you could slide a couple on an island as infants assuming they could survive they would be able to do all the above in time without any knowledge of any of it because its natural.

You are confusing natural as in biological with natural as in natural moral law.

so the first word in NFP is very misleading it takes many man made products to accomplish,man made equals not natural…

It has nothing to do with natural like organic or natural as in instinct. Natural refers to our nature in reference to a rational moral being.

 

[DailyBread]

ahh My example stated clearly that most people who abstain are abstaining for one reason to avoid conception, if there was zero chance of conception they wouldnt abstain so the intent is to abstain from intercourse to achieve the means of not conceiving.
as far as whats different between ABC and NFP to me the only difference is the monetary price per month,all accomplish thier goal of non conception with man made products
put my theory to the test tell a new couple that knows nothing about any forms of conception control to use NFP and send them home , dont teach them a thing , no paper to chart no thermometers etc, see if they ever can figure it out on thier own.
babies dont need charts, schools, paper etc to learn to breathe, and go potty, thats natural, they didnt need to be taught to cry,scream or coo or to smile thats natural, its been proven many many times that a couple needs no prior knowledge of intercourseto engage in its natural, same with mothers and breast feeding, taking care of a baby etc its all natural in other words you could slide a couple on an island as infants assuming they could survive they would be able to do all the above in time without any knowledge of any of it because its natural.
so the first word in NFP is very misleading it takes many man made products to accomplish,man made equals not natural…

anyways thats how i feel lucky for all of you my opinion means zip huh

John

For a clear philosophical understanding on the difference of NFP and contraception, please read Dr. William May’s section on it in his book “Catholic Bioethics.” Avoiding conception btw is not a means as you state, but an end which itself is morally neutral end (meaning it depends on how its done and the circumstance in which it is done). The means for contraception is a seperate act that purposefully renders the marital act infertile. NFP is an action that one takes to know when one is fertile to avoid intercourse during those times. They do not make the marital act itself infertile. CLEARY, the means are different and for this reason have differences of which is morally right and wrong.