threej_lc said:
This post misses the point. If the “husband has an STD”, the couple should abstain. This culture has such an entitlement complex, it’s sick. Our sexuality is a gift from God. It is meant for a certain context. Our culture wants to take it out of that context and devalue it. Are you merely an animal? Are you uncapable of controlling your urges? If someone has an STD that is permanent, and are not yet married, I believe they should strongly consider consecrated celibacy. And this has nothing to do with dwelling on sins. It has to do with not committing new ones. When we “uninvite” God to the party, we are taking sex out of it’s proper context and making it sinful. I find it sad that this culture has such a hard time understanding that.
Catholic teaching on human sexuality is extremely negative. Sexuality is a basic need for most people, and few would be able to be celibate all their lives. Husbands and wives love each other, they are sexually attracted to each other, psychologists will tell you that a lack of a healthy sex life will damage a marriage.
The problem with Agnostics is that we live here in time. Your lack of ever making a decision ends up making the decision for you. Peter Kreeft uses the example: Romeo asked Juliet to marry him, and she responded, “I’ll tell you tommorrow”. The next day the same scenario played out, and the next day, and the next day, etc. At the end of her life, when Juliet has passed away without ever actually answering Romeo, what has Juliet’s answer been? NO! By not answering the question based on the evidence that we DO have, she has answered no. So goes it for the Agnostic. But that is departing from the point at hand.
You don’t understand Catholic teaching on human sexuality well enough to criticize it.
In every single point quoted directly above, you are in agreement with the Church.
No! This is very misguided. You argue from a modernist perspective, which fails to understand the foundation which the Catholic comes from. Whereas the modernist believes happiness means, “Feeling good”, the ancient philosophers argued that happiness is actually “Being good”. So, in answer to your question, if you mean happiness as in the former, the answer is no. The teachings are not there to promote human happiness in the sense of feeling good. Rather, the teachings are there to help us actually be good. The teachings care more about our end, what we are to become. A little dying to self, or suffering, if it helps me achieve my ultimate end is entirely acceptable. From you perspective, it wouldn’t be.
That’s because you don’t understand sexuality. There are more parts to moral choices than solely our subjective feelings. There is an objective reality as well, along with a relative situation in everything. Thus, while a person may attempt to “express love” subjectively, their objective actions can completely contradict this. For instance, if sex is supposed to communicate our marital vows and “re-consummate” them, then it would be wrong to use contraception. This is because our vows include that we come freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully to the marriage. Every time I have sex with my wife, I am re-communicating these vows to her. This is the part that expresses love. Love is not a feeling, it is a choice and an action. It is a total giving of self. It is not selfish. Thus, my primary end in sex cannot be to receive pleasure for myself. That is not loving. That is self-“love”, or lust. In other words, I am here because you make ME feel good. Thus, everytime, every sexual encounter with my wife, must speak all four of these vows.
I hope the above answers your questions.
Psychologists are full of ****. Trust me, I am one!
Actually, I am a Christian Counselor, but we serve similar purposes. Anyway, sexuality is not a “need”. That comes from a disordered perspective on sex, which you can’t help but have due to the media and saturation of sex in this culture. However, that does not make it anymore right. And a disordered sex life will do more damage than good for a marriage. It is true that a HEALTHY sex life can strengthen a marriage. However, this presupposes a healthy marriage as well. Sex is not a miracle worker. If you have an unhealthy marriage, God alone, not sex will be your savior. Thus, we need to make a distinction between what psychologists say and what actually reality is and statistics prove.
I couldn’t agree more. Sexuality is not evil in the slightest. Our disordered way of approaching sexuality is what is evil. Don’t mistake one for the other. Sex is a creation of God, and thus by it’s very nature is good, just as we are. However, when we take sex out of it’s proper context, and only accept part of this gift from God, we are essentially saying, “Thanks, but I only want this part”. That is evil. And I agree that sex is not solely for procreation. However, sex apart from an openness to procreation is wrong. Don’t put words in my mouth. Sex has a dual purpose: Unitive and Procreative. The fruit of sex in it’s proper context is a pleasure that fears no rejection (similar to Adam and Eve walking around naked before the fall, and then running for cover once they realized they were naked after the fall). And again, I never said enjoying sex is evil. Where could you have ever gotten that? Without giving any details, I rather enjoy the sexual relationship I share with my wife. It is wonderful! You certainly aren’t contradicting Catholic teaching with any of these comments.
I never did that. I just don’t separate sexuality from it’s proper context. An openness to life does not mean that every act of sex must produce a child. It just means I must be open to life in each marital embrace. There is a big difference.
I would say that feeling good and being good go hand in hand. Helping other people is good, helping other people also makes us feel good about ourselves. Doing things that harm others are bad, they also make us feel bad.
So what are you advocating? We preach the ideal. Are you going to stop teaching your kids to look both ways when they cross the street because they might not listen? Are you going to avoid telling people to not drink and drive because people do? OF COURSE NOT! That’s ridiculous. You teach the gold standard, and then you help the people that fall short. Nobody Catholic is telling people in Africa to have sex without condoms. We simply say, if you are concerned about STD’s, don’t have sex except with your spouse. If people attempted to follow by this simple way, STD’s would be irrelevant and eventually cease to exist.
God’s law cannot contradict itself. God has built the Law into our very natures. It is transgressing the natural law that brings harm, not following it.
You see no difference between NFP and contraception for several reasons:
You are short sighted on several fronts:
This is simply not the case. Sometimes it feels good to do good, but there are a lot of times where doing the right thing calls for us to suffer. Sometimes, it doesn’t feel good. However, we are called to DO good anyway. Feeling good is just a bonus, but it cannot be the end we seek. If it is, not only will we be disappointed a lot, we also miss the point. Everything we do becomes about us and our selfish desire to obtain a “feeling”.
I couldn’t agree more. Nobody is arguing this here.
You can’t measure the blue print by those that execute it. Humans are imperfect, and thus humans are inevitably going to fail to live up to the gold standard. This doesn’t mean the blue print is wrong. It just means humans are wrong. And I disagree that it is unreasonable. People have done it for centuries upon centuries. Your idea of marriage is extremely new (only developed within the last 50-70 years). But your point is well taken. There are a lot of Catholics that fail to understand the beautiful teachings of their Church. I don’t, however, believe this discredits the teaching in the slightest, for I have seen the fruit of this teaching in the families that practice it.
If you are “avoiding” pregnancy, it is wrong. There is a difference though. With NFP, we don’t send God an “uninvite letter” to the Wedding. We leave it open so that if He should show up to the party, we would be delighted. And as far as your last statement here, you have once again created a false dichotomy. It is never objectively charitable to lie to your wife. Period! Thus, in the case where there is a risk to your wife, you would need to abstain. Besides that, abstinence is the only 100% effective method.
I don’t want to get into this convo right now, nor on this thread. But briefly, besides the fact that science has yet to find any solid and replicated proof for a genetic link in homosexuality, even if there was it wouldn’t prove anything. For instance, alcoholics have actually been shown to have a chemical called T.H.I.Q in their brain that sets off a physical craving. We say this makes them genetically predisposed to Alcoholism or Drug Addiction. Despite the fact that they may have this predisposition does not mean we tell them, “Go ahead, it’s natural. You were created that way, so live it up”. No! We understand that this behavior would be harmful to them, despite their predisposition, so we help teach them how to deal with this issue. Same thing for the disorder of homosexuality. Whether there is a biological factor or not (again, there is no proof), does not make any action acceptable. BTW, animals don’t have an intellect, rational thought, or the ability to know right or wrong. This is a poor analogy.
Why do you find it important then? If you are agreeing based on my previous posts, then I fail to see how you conclude that it is “loving” to EVER have sex without an openness to life. If every act does not reflect these vows, then the acts that don’t reflect them are lies. It is not unreasonable, and seeing how I am living this openness, I am living proof that it does not “harm lives of human beings”. You are mistaken. And women are not victims here. If they choose not to have children, then they either need to choose to not be married or to abstain with their husband. You keep making false dichotomies, and it is leading to false conclusions.
No, it is not a basic need. Food and water are basic needs. Sex is not.
And millions of people disprove this daily.
It might, it might not. This is debatable, as many people who cannot have sex (such as disabled persons) still have healthy, loving marriages after they are no longer able to have sexual activity as part of that marriage.
No one has said that human bodies or sex are evil, nor has anyone said that there is anything evil about sex or that it is only for procreation.
No one has done so in this thread.
Psychologists are full of it. Trust me, I am one!
I couldn’t agree more. Sexuality is not evil in the slightest. Our disordered way of approaching sexuality is what is evil. Don’t mistake one for the other. Sex is a creation of God, and thus by it’s very nature is good, just as we are. However, when we take sex out of it’s proper context, and only accept part of this gift from God, we are essentially saying, “Thanks, but I only want this part”. That is evil. And I agree that sex is not solely for procreation. However, sex apart from an openness to procreation is wrong. Don’t put words in my mouth. Sex has a dual purpose: Unitive and Procreative. The fruit of sex in it’s proper context is a pleasure that fears no rejection (similar to Adam and Eve walking around naked before the fall, and then running for cover once they realized they were naked after the fall). And again, I never said enjoying sex is evil. Where could you have ever gotten that? Without giving any details, I rather enjoy the sexual relationship I share with my wife. It is wonderful! You certainly aren’t contradicting Catholic teaching with any of these comments.
I never did that. I just don’t separate sexuality from it’s proper context. An openness to life does not mean that every act of sex must produce a child. It just means I must be open to life in each marital embrace. There is a big difference.
I find procreation to be important because it is the way for human beings to survive. We will become extinct if no new children are born.
It is mutual masturbation not because it is not open to life (although due to this fact, it is therefore immoral under two conditions.)
No, it doesn’t teach that. Are you reading all of my posts, or just pieces? If so, I don’t really understand why you keep re-asserting the same thing over and over again without addressing what I said. It stems from what our marital vows are and that sex is a renewal of our marital vows. Why does openness to life have to be every time? Well, let’s put it this way. Why does sex have to be with your spouse every time? If I just do it with my spouse most of the time, am I communicating the “faithfulness” part of my vows honestly? No! By your logic, I would have to say yes. No matter how much you want to make truth subjective, you will ultimately have to acknowledge some sort of objective part to it as well, or lose everything. For instance, you talk about intimacy, love, etc. What do these terms mean to you? In using these terms, which I am quite certain we define differently, you are subjectifying this issue, when we aren’t discussing the subjective part of it at all. You are questioning something Catholics believe to be objective truth. You must address objective truth as it is.
It is hard for me to believe that Catholicism has a divine origin. Catholic teachings on sexuality in particular are precisely what one would expect from celibate men with no family or sexual experience. If I’m not mistaken until Vatican II the “unitive” components of sex were not even acknowledged by the Church.
The World Health Organization says that the decrease in the spread of AIDS in Uganda is because of a dramatic increase in condom use (up to 85% in the cities). who.int/inf-new/aids2.htm