M
mlchance
Guest
As has been definitively demonstrated, you don’t understand Catholicism or Catholic teachings on sexuality well enough to offer an informed judgment.
– Mark L. Chance.
- Status
– Mark L. Chance.
M
magdelaine
Guest
I agree with this; I think that being open to life is a very important part of married life. I just don’t accept that a piece of latex can turn a loving sexual act into mutual mastrubation (and even then I have a problem with the Church’s teaching on mastrubation).
I also don’t see the difference between NFP and using a condom; I’ve not understood this for a long time. Both can result in preventing conception, both can result in an “accidental” pregnancy. Still thinking…
M
magdelaine
Guest
So, if I’m to understand you, the only sexual act that is possible for married couples to engage in without at the same time engaging in sin is ONLY penis inside vagina (given that their are no chemical or medicinal barriers to conception)? Do I have this right?
A
askeptic
Guest
I am pretty sure that Catholics say “spilling seed” is a sin.
(Which is a bit of a contradiction because I think they also so that it is permissible for a man to bring the woman to climax outside of the actual intercourse. But it has to be a part of a whole thing centered on intercourse.)
I think the official teaching is that each married act should be a “complete gift of self” (i.e. you can’t hold back your fertility) and that it should at once be open to life and unitive.
All this seems very technical to me, and somehow I think if popes/bishops/cardinals had families and sexual relationships they would have defined this differently.
M
magdelaine
Guest
Although I agree with the “technical” assessment, I don’t think that changing the celibacy of the clergy would have (would have had) an impact on this. I believe it goes much deeper than the personal experiences of the clergy.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Your logic here is circular. On the one hand, you’re telling us to prove the Church’s teaching on sexuality. On the other hand, you’re rejecting the Church’s ability or authority to teach this, because of this teaching. With that kind of logic, we will never make it anywhere. Just thought I’d point that out. Furthermore, I have already told you that I know lots of families, with plenty of “experience” (as evidenced by the amount of children they’ve had) that have seen tons of fruit from these teachings. Celibacy is a higher calling. It offers an awesome gift from God back to Him as a sacrifice to become closer to Him. That is such an awesome concept! Not all people are called to it, but to say that someone who is called to it is less because of it, or it’s simply because he has less “sexual experience” is not only incredibly ignorant but also completely false in many accounts. Finally, you are wrong about VII. This is an urban legend and an accussation thrown out there to discredit the Church.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Askeptic, I think it is you who are overly technical. I think it is you who does not understand sexuality. Despite your obvious wealth of experience, you don’t have a clue as to the point of our sexuality. I think you are terribly mistaken to believe that a vow of celibacy detracts from a priest’s ability to define a doctrine revealed by the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, your argument that it is a contradiction to let a woman to climax outside of the actual intercourse is ridiculous. As long as the climax happens in the “whole thing centered on intercourse” then the woman has not “spilled her seed”. Why? Because woman does not have seed! A woman’s fertility is not dependent on orgasm. I would expect someone with as much knowledge on sex as you to know this.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Well Magdelaine, while I don’t agree with where I believe you to be going, I can at least agree with what you said here.
A
askeptic
Guest
Well, I was just pointing out that it’s not necessary the best idea to have celibate men without any sexual or married experience defining what sexuality means for everyone else.
Does it make sense to you that someone who may have never had sex or ever been in love with a woman is telling everyone else what it’s all about?
Is it so surprising that sex solely for “pleasure” is seen as sinful? Maybe when those priests fall sexually they either go to prostitutes or masturbate while looking at porn, that is pretty selfish and dirty. Maybe they have no concept that this “pleasure” could actually be love, sexual intimacy, tenderness, closeness etc. not something that is evil and perverse, and that there is nothing wrong with having sex for that purpose alone, and that in fact this kind of “pleasure” is very beautiful and very important for the marriage.
Is it so surprising that celibate men who’ve never had families are so insensitive to the tremendous physical and psychological strain pregnancy places on many women, and that birth control might actually be a good idea when it comes to the well being of women?
A
askeptic
Guest
Yes, but the woman experiences climax outside of intercourse. Why shouldn’t a man experience climax outside of intercourse? It’s not as though sperm are fertilized embryos, they’re just cells, and a man can always make more sperm for later intercourse.
A
askeptic
Guest
R
richiejm3
Guest
I don’t believe the “spilling of the seed” was the sin, it was the actions of Onans will that God struck him dead for. He perverted one of Gods great and sacred gifts.
One way that helped me make sense of all this was by looking at other good things in life that God has given us. Food would be one. We all enjoy food but if we eat just because we enjoy it there are concequences that we can physically see. Well with sex we may not always see physical or spiritual ruin when we seek only the pleasure of sex but it’s still wrong. God made sex very pleaserable and it does strengthen our love as husband and wife. Mabe it’s a glimps of how pleaserable it was for God when He was ceating life in the begining, when He first created human life.
One way that helped me make sense of all this was by looking at other good things in life that God has given us. Food would be one. We all enjoy food but if we eat just because we enjoy it there are concequences that we can physically see. Well with sex we may not always see physical or spiritual ruin when we seek only the pleasure of sex but it’s still wrong. God made sex very pleaserable and it does strengthen our love as husband and wife. Mabe it’s a glimps of how pleaserable it was for God when He was ceating life in the begining, when He first created human life.
M
magdelaine
Guest
Now THIS makes sense. The technical aspects of this as outlined by others does not.
S
Sacramentalist
Guest
Suffice it to say that the Church, to my knowledge, has never authoritatively pronounced on the matter of using condoms during sexual intercourse for non-contraceptive reasons.
In fact, I wager such might be alright by virtue of the principle of double effect.
In fact, I wager such might be alright by virtue of the principle of double effect.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Are you reading? Again, a woman’s fertility is not tied to her orgasm. A man’s fertility is. When a man climaxes outside of intercourse, he has separated the unitive act from the procreative act, and therefore distorted it. You have then made intercourse about self instead of about your partner. It is this act that is disordered. Making your partner a means to an end is always wrong. Human beings are always the end in themselves. What ends up happening when we treat our spouses this way is that we begin to treat them crudely, like they are just a way for us to gratify ourselves. The fact that both people use each other for this purpose does not make any better. In fact, it makes it worse. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Very good post! My question is, HOW did Onan “pervert” one of God’s greatest gifts in this instance?
B
Brendan
Guest
.
And exactly how is this going to ‘protect’ her. All that is going to do is reduce the chance of infection.
If he was really interested in protecting his wife, exactly why is he doing an act that has the chance of infection at all?
R
Redbandito
Guest
What are the “technical aspects” you are referring to? You would agree that when evaluating whether something is right or wrong that we must appeal to more than just the subjective?
R
Redbandito
Guest
And exactly how is this going to ‘protect’ her. All that is going to do is reduce the chance of infection.
If he was really interested in protecting his wife, exactly why is he doing an act that has the chance of infection at all?
Well said Brendan!
B
Brendan
Guest
Nope, Humanae Vitae is perfectly clear. The use of contraceptives in the marital act is intrinsically evil. That mean’s evil under every circumstance.
And that alone rules out the first condition of the Principle of Double Effect, that the act itself not be a moral evil.
The marital act is intented by God to be the most unitivae act mortal can accomplish.
It is a complete giving of one’s self to one’s spouse and a reception of your spouse’s gift of themselves.
To introduce contraception into that is a complete denial of that self giving. One is saying to one’s spouse " I recieve the gift of you willingly, EXCEPT FOR YOUR FERTILITY, I DON’T WANT THAT PART OF YOU, I REJECT IT"
Yea, really unitive there.
An uncontraceptive martial act, on the other hand, is a complete acceptance of the spouse as God created them, exactly as God created them.
- Status