Contraception and NFP struggle

[c_mcanall]

I have a weblog and I’m currently discussing contraception and NFP with some friends (all of whom are not Catholic and see nothing wrong with contraception). I feel like I’m hitting a brick wall, and was wondering if anybody could skim through the comments dialogue on my website and offer some advice. Here’s the original post:

quovadis82.blogspot.com/2004/10/downfall-of-much-of-western.html

And here’s the comments box where all of the discussion has been taking place:

tecknik.net/blogback/data/bb.php?blog=quovadis82&post=109737261942830769

Any and all thoughts will be appreciated. You’re also more than welcome to post some comments on my site as well.

In Christ,
Chris

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Chris,

I have read most of the posts you pointed to and skimmed the rest.

Recently I started a thread called “NFP Circular Reasoning” wherein I asserted the apparent contradiction to “being open” to the “scientifically effective” arguments I see juxtaposed in articles about NFP. The thread went for over 300 posts without resolution and then was closed by forum administrators. There are a couple threads now that are going “hot and heavy” on the topic of NFP v ABC.

Myself, I have recently accepted the Church as the teaching standard of morals and ethics. This is not because I have yet bought that she cannot err in those areas according to God the Father, because that simply has not been adequately demonstrated to me. The fact, is, some items of morals are based on faith – that is, there is no physical or logical evidence or you wouldn’t need faith. Therefore, to have an objective standard of “faith and morals” which cannot be proven scientifically is absurd, unless one chooses such a standard. Many have chosen the Church to be that standard, and so for sake of agreement I consent to that.

In other words, since the Church distinguishes between the conditionally moral NFP for not having babies from the “intrinsically evil” artificial contraception, then it is, in fact morally different because the Church says so. Logically, however, I doubt you can successfully get an argument by me that says it makes sense; on that I tend to side with the “Steve” in you log. Not only that, but I also challenge you to show me an absolute distinction which specifically defines when one is using the withdrawal method or not.

If I find a good way to refute some of the claims on your post, I’ll be on your side. The problem is, I think that when it gets down to it, the most important distinction is not one of physical fact or logical construct, but of faith in the Catholic Church’s teaching. It will be very difficult to pierce someone as good at arguing as Steve unless he believes the Church teaching is automatically and divinely inspired such that it trumps his own.

Alan

 

[renee1258]

Chirs, I got your PM and I posted.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Chris, I just looked at your posts and saw they were turning hostile against you. I don’t see you as being judgmental as they are characterizing you, so I posted on it.

That said, I want to call attention to one of the points you made in one of your posts on that other forum. I will make my point here instead of their so I don’t feed your “adversaries.”

As for two people who dislike having kids having a kid…my first question is why’d they get married in the first place? One of the primary purposes of marriage is to have children. If they have no interests in having kids at all, then perhaps marriage is not the direction they should be moving in life.

IMO you are leaving yourself wide open here with this argument. For one, as you found out, that automatically invokes the question of the morality of sterile couples getting married. Also, I wonder if you’re familiar with a passage I’ve never seen taught about in any article about marriage or birth control, or even Humanae Vitae itself:
1 Cor 7:1-6:

Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,” 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. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

Perhaps the primary purpose of marriage, as an institution, is to procreate. I believe that a married man and woman provide the best framework for bringing children into the world. As far as any given individual’s situation and how they should decide whether to stay single or get married, Paul seems to be recommending marriage for lust abatement without a mention of procreation in sight.

Does this answer your question about why people would get married without the issue with children? Doesn’t it seem that Paul is specifically giving license for those who would otherwise have trouble with lust to get married for that exact reason – if not an outright recommendation for those individuals so afflicted?

Alan

 

[c_mcanall]

Alan,

Thanks for replying! For the time being I can only respond to your question about 1 Corinthians 7. You say that you’ve never heard it taught about in any article about marriage or birth control. Have you read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body? I’m not expert, but he seems to go to great lengths in meditating upon it. Here are excerpts from the study guide a talk series by Christopher West titled A Crash Course in the Theology of the Body (Naked Without Shame, Second Edition). It outlines the Pope’s exegesis of the Corinthians passage.

By the way, if you or anyone else would like to purchase this set on tape or cd, you can order for practically free from the following website (of course, you can also make a donation with your order):

giftfoundation.org/

I highly recommend it. I’m a recent convert to the Catholic Church and this “Theology of the Body” has been by far one of the most illuminating and inspiring parts of the faith for me. Anyways, here are the excerpts–hopefully they will be of some help, and perhaps point you to some other sources to look into:

=======================

4. Doesn’t St. Paul “Allow” Concupiscence in Marriage?

It “is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot excercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Co 7:9).

• Is marriage only intended for those who “can’t handle” celibacy?
• This passage cannot be interpreted in isolation from Christ’s words about lust.
• Indulging concupiscence would also be a blatant contradiction of Ephesians 5 and the whole New Testament ethos concerning marriage.

4a. “If it is true that marriage may also be a remedium concupisceniae (see St. Paul: ‘It is better to marry than to burn’ – 1 Co 7:9) then this must be understood in the integral sense given it by the Christian Scriptures, which also teach of the ‘redemption of the body’ (Ro 8:23) and point to the sacrament of matrimony as a way of realizing this redemption” (Wojtyla, Person and Community: Selected Essays [trans. Theresa Sandok], p. 327)

4b. St. Paul “expresses in his striking and at the same time paradoxical words, simply the thought that marriage is assigned to the spouses as an ethos. In the Pauline words, . . . the verb ardere [to be aflame] signifies a disorder of the passions, deriving from the concupiscence of the flesh. . . . ‘Marriage,’ however signifies the ethical order, which is consciously introduced in this context” (348).

[CONTINUED>>>]

 

[c_mcanall]

CONTINUED>>>]

5. Does St. Paul Devalue Marriage?

“It is well for man not to touch a woman” (1 Co 7:1). “I wish that all were [celibate] as I myself am” (v. 7). “Do not seek marriage” (v. 27). Spouses will have “troubles in the flesh, and I would want to spare you that” (v. 28).

• John Paul asks if St. Paul might have a “personal aversion” to marriage, but concludes that a thoughtful reading of the text leads to another conclusion.
• The Pope insists that there is no reason to see symptoms of Manichaeism in Paul’s teaching.
• Many suggest that Paul’s perspective on marriage reflects a belief that Christ’s return was imminent.

5a. Saint Paul interprets Christ’s teaching about continence and marriage in a “style of this problem [that] is totally his own” (288). He interprets these vocations “in that very pastoral way that is proper to him, not sparing . . . entirely personal accents” (298).

5b. In St. Paul’s “realistic observation” about marriage and the troubles it brings “we must see a just warning for those who – as at times young people do – hold that conjugal union and living together must bring them only happiness and joy. The experience of life shows that spouses are not rarely disappointed in what they were greatly expecting.” If by Paul’s warnings about marriage “he intends to say that true conjugal love – precisely that love by virtue of which ‘…the two become one flesh’ (Gn 2:24) --is also a difficult love, he certainly remains on the grounds of evangelical truth” (290).

CONTINUED>>>]

 

[c_mcanall]

CONTINUED>>>]

6. The “Superiority” of Celibacy

He “who marries . . . does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (1 Co 7:38). “But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Co 7:7).

• Many have thought that if “celibacy is so good” marriage must be “so bad.”
• Or, if religious celibacy is the state of “perfection,” marriage must be the state of “imperfection.” This is absolutely not the mind of the Church!
• Celibacy is “exceptional” because marriage remains the normal calling in this life.
• It is “better” in the sense that heavenly “marriage” is better than earthly marriage.
• One must carefully and prayerfully discern which “gift” he or she has been given.

6a. “The ‘superiority’ of continence to matrimony in the authentic Tradition of the Church never means disparagement of marriage or belittlement of its essential value. It does not . . . mean a shift, even implicit, on the Manichean positions, or a support of ways of evaluating or acting based on the Manichean understanding of the body and sexuality, matrimony and procreation.” In Christ’s words “we do not find any basis whatever for any disparagement of matrimony” (275).

6b. In Christ words about continence “there is no reference to the ‘inferiority’ of marriage with regard to the ‘body,’ or in other words with regard to the essence of marriage, consisting in the fact that man and woman join together in marriage, thus becoming ‘one flesh.’ . . . Christ’s words on this point are quite clear.” Christ proposes continence not “with prejudice against conjugal ‘union of the body,’ but only ‘for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’” (276).

6c. Marriage and celibacy do not “divide the human (and Christian) community into two camps [as if it were] those who are ‘perfect’ because of continence and those who are ‘imperfect’ or ‘less perfect’ because of the reality of the married life” (276).

6d. “Perfection of the Christian life . . . is measured with the rule of charity.” This means that “perfection is possible and accessible to every man, both in a ‘religious institute,’ and in the ‘world.’” In fact, a person who does not live in “the state of perfection” can nonetheless “reach a superior degree of perfection – whose measure is charity – in comparison to the person who does live in the ‘state of perfection’ with a lesser degree of charity” (277).

6e. In both “the one and the other vocation . . . there is operative that ‘gift’ that each one receives from God that is, the grace” of God. But everyone must remain “faithful to his gift” (297). If “anyone chooses marriage, he must choose it just as it was instituted by the Creator ‘in the beginning.’ . . . If on the other hand anyone decides to pursue continence for the kingdom of heaven, he must seek in it the values proper to such a vocation” (280).

CONTINUED>>>]

 

[c_mcanall]

CONTINUED>>>]

And Christopher West goes on in this chapter of his study guide with 3 more sections:

7. Complementarity of Marriage and Celibacy
8. Celibacy Expresses the Nuptial Meaning of the Body
9. Joseph and Mary’s Marriage / Spiritual Fruitfulness

If I had more time, I’d give you all of those too. Let me know if you’re interested, and I’ll try to put them up some other time down the road. Of what I did give you though, I think section 4 pertains most to your question.

BTW, the Pope does speak about 1 Corinthians 7 in other areas too I believe. Though I’m not sure where, since I’ve just started reading the book, it sounds as though he will deal with it in Love and Responsibility (written in the late 1950s, before Humanae Vitae). Have you checked that book out yet? As I said, I’m just starting to read it, but I find it to be phenomenal, and it might help with some of your questions.

I’ll try to get to your questions eventually, but it could be a while. Thanks for all of your thoughts, as well as your help.

In Christ,
Chris

p.s. I did want to ask you one question about your emphasis on logic (which is good!). When you speak of “logic” and “scientifically proven”, do you include or exclude philosophy, particularly metaphysics? You speak of physical fact and logical construct, and frankly, I began to worry that you put a bit too much emphasis on the material, over and against the metaphysical, but I could be way off in my understanding here.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

c_mcanall:

If I had more time, I’d give you all of those too. Let me know if you’re interested, and I’ll try to put them up some other time down the road. Of what I did give you though, I think section 4 pertains most to your question.

Section 4 is a bit scholarly for me, but if I’m getting it at all the gist of it seems to be that marriage is a remedial measure for a lust problem, which is what I thought it sounded like too. It sounds like it helps to advance my point that the decision for any given couple to be married isn’t necessarily based on having children. Is that what you get out of it?

BTW, the Pope does speak about 1 Corinthians 7 in other areas too I believe. Though I’m not sure where, since I’ve just started reading the book, it sounds as though he will deal with it in Love and Responsibility (written in the late 1950s, before Humanae Vitae). Have you checked that book out yet? As I said, I’m just starting to read it, but I find it to be phenomenal, and it might help with some of your questions.

Thanks for the reference. I’m not familiar with it.

p.s. I did want to ask you one question about your emphasis on logic (which is good!). When you speak of “logic” and “scientifically proven”, do you include or exclude philosophy, particularly metaphysics? You speak of physical fact and logical construct, and frankly, I began to worry that you put a bit too much emphasis on the material, over and against the metaphysical, but I could be way off in my understanding here.

My point is that there a logical, mathematical and scientific concepts that are universally proven, or accepted as axiomatic to most informed people. There are matters that are not subject to discovery and proof using these tools.

If you wish to “convince” me of something so that I understand it or at least believe that I have “seen” proof of it, then you must start from mutually agreed upon premises and work using mutually agreeable operations to derive at your conclusion. Another way is to show that we can take an assertion that what you want to prove is false, and show that assertion leads to an absurdity. This way does not require “faith” but mathematical rigor.

What requires faith is when you ask me to accept as fact something that is not subject to logic or scientific observation. I may or may not accept it based on faith alone. I may tentatively accept it if it appeals to my sense of reasoning even if it has some gaps, or if it seems to be philosophically sound. As long as I accept something without its having been proven, faith is my proof.

I think this is backwards of what a lot of people think. Without doubt, there can be no faith because if there is no possibility of something being incorrect then it doesn’t require faith to believe it.

I’m not sure what you mean about placing too much emphasis on material and not enough on philosophical and metaphysical. I’m interested in arguments on all levels. If you can give me a little more idea what you’re asking I’ll try to do better at responding.

Alan

 

[c_mcanall]

AlanFromWichita:

Section 4 is a bit scholarly for me, but if I’m getting it at all the gist of it seems to be that marriage is a remedial measure for a lust problem, which is what I thought it sounded like too. It sounds like it helps to advance my point that the decision for any given couple to be married isn’t necessarily based on having children. Is that what you get out of it?

Not entirely. From this, and also from other readings and talks, I find that true Catholic teaching says the sexual act has three finalities: 1) procreation; 2) the unitive love of the spouses; 3) remedy for concupiscence (lust is entailed in this last one).

Now, it’s not a matter of either/or. Rather it’s both/and logic. All three go together. Obviously, if someone is infertile, then the first finality is no longer there (simply by force of nature), but the second two are.

Basically though, just because St. Paul emphasizes sex within marriage as a remedy for lust does not mean that the other two finalities are not important. Clearly, this would go against and contradict the rest of what Paul says about sex in Scripture, not to mention the rest of Scripture in general. To speak of marriage is to speak of redemption in all three of these areas, not just one. Paul simply emphasizes one of the three in this 1 Corinthians 7 text.

To me, this is the most coherent understanding of this passage within its context, and including the rest of Biblical thought concerning sex. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

c_mcanall:

Not entirely. From this, and also from other readings and talks, I find that true Catholic teaching says the sexual act has three finalities: 1) procreation; 2) the unitive love of the spouses; 3) remedy for concupiscence (lust is entailed in this last one).

Now, it’s not a matter of either/or. Rather it’s both/and logic. All three go together. Obviously, if someone is infertile, then the first finality is no longer there (simply by force of nature), but the second two are.

Basically though, just because St. Paul emphasizes sex within marriage as a remedy for lust does not mean that the other two finalities are not important. Clearly, this would go against and contradict the rest of what Paul says about sex in Scripture, not to mention the rest of Scripture in general. To speak of marriage is to speak of redemption in all three of these areas, not just one. Paul simply emphasizes one of the three in this 1 Corinthians 7 text.

To me, this is the most coherent understanding of this passage within its context, and including the rest of Biblical thought concerning sex. Does that sound reasonable?

Dear Chris,

Your argument sounds reasonable, and I am glad to see this subject does have some coverage. I have not seen much from Paul, though, other than this on the subject of sex so I can’t right off the bat agree with you on the other Pauline contexts. I have not ever seen your “third” reason for sex even acknowledged in Humanae Vitae except that I had assumed that somehow the “unitive” aspect was some sort of code word that covered that aspect as well – but with this I had been giving HV the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I have been to generous in this aspect.

My children have been taught a great deal about What The Church Teaches About Sex in Catholic middle school and Catholic high school and they are only familiar with Paul’s clear teachings in 1 Cor because of my showing it to them. It never came up. They are taught all about what’s wrong with contraception, and all these subtle details about how the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate – leaving, of course, an explanation needed for why it is then OK for sterile couples to marry at all.

Paul’s advice in 1 Cor is clearly colored with his own personal opinion, but one paragraph out of it makes more sense about the purpose of marriage from the perspective of any given believer trying to make a decision on his/her vocation than all of HV and NFP teaching I’ve seen, combined. Maybe in the sense of the creation and Genesis, marriage was instituted so that people could bear children, but considering animals procreate just fine without marriage (as well as unmarried humans) it is obvious that marriage and procreation are not tied together by any physical or biological laws. We teach all this high level stuff to our children, but offer precious little practical advice on how to deal with the urges they obviously are having other than told to “just say no.” On the other hand, Paul’s advice clearly speaks to biological realities and their practical implications for any given person making life decisions. If teenagers were actually taught that marriage was for sex and not primarily for cranking out babies with any other reason a distant second, maybe they would look forward to it a little more and gather some connection to the hormonal urges they are starting to feel with their eventual vocational decision.

I appreciate your research, because it is the first Catholic document I’ve seen among many that have been shown to me that actually addresses Paul’s teachings. Unfortunately, it remains doomed for the time being to the domain of scholarly intellectual writing that don’t get taught to Catholics on any reasonable scale. Of course, my most direct experience is within our diocese.

Alan

 

[goravens]

If your friends are Protestants, look into getting them a copy of “Open Embrace” by Sam and Bethany Torode. It is one of the best books on why couples should use nfp I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a lot.) It approaches using nfp from the perspective of someone who believes in Christ and has faith, but may never have considered or heard of nfp because they’re not Catholic. It’s very practical and a fairly short book so it’s an easy read.

 

[c_mcanall]

Glad to finally hear back from you Alan! I hope we can keep this conversation going now, since you’ve raised some new points I want to address…

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Chris,

Your argument sounds reasonable, and I am glad to see this subject does have some coverage. I have not seen much from Paul, though, other than this on the subject of sex so I can’t right off the bat agree with you on the other Pauline contexts. I have not ever seen your “third” reason for sex even acknowledged in Humanae Vitae except that I had assumed that somehow the “unitive” aspect was some sort of code word that covered that aspect as well – but with this I had been giving HV the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I have been too generous in this aspect.

Okay, first of all, these three points have been the official teaching of the Church for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, just the other day I was reading a bit of Introduction to the Devout Life by St. Francis de Sales, and if I remember correctly, he talked about all three (and this was written back in 1619).

Anyways, I believe the official defining of these three reasons for conjugal love goes back at least to St. Thomas Aquinas (somebody correct me if I’m wrong), though they are clearly stated in Scripture. (I’ll work on compiling for you a full summary of Paul’s views regarding marriage and sex.)

In regards to your question as to why the third point is not emphasized in Humanae Vitae, I think it’s clearly stated in the 3rd paragraph of the section “To Christian Husbands and Wives,” while it’s implied throughout the entire document. However, perhaps part of the reason it’s not as explicit (i.e. having a section named after it like the other two ends) is because of all the ends of marriage, it is the least primary, since it is merely a riddance of the bad habits remaining in us, whereas the other two ends are actually increases in good habits of virtue.

This is why John Paul II, as Karol Wojtyla, wrote in his book Love and Responsibility that the primary end is procreatio, the secondary end is mutuum adiutorium, and apart from these two is a tertiary end, remedium concupiscentiae. The first two build up love and the good, whereas the last (because of the fall) is simply repairing what is broken. While still important, this clearly seems to be on a different level from the other two (and also was not necessary “in the beginning”). Of course, as you note, it’s still important to know and discuss.

 

[Convert97]

Lust has nothing to do with the Catholic teaching on marriage. John Paul II clearly teaches that using another person to satisfy one’s lust is not acceptible even in marriage since it attacks the dignity of the spouse. All human persons are created for their own sake, we are to serve and not to use each other. Christ condems lust. We are to live in the spirit and not in the flesh. Our one-flesh unity reflects the unity of the Holy Trinity and in that union there is room only for love, and not for using another.

 

[c_mcanall]

Continuing with your last response…

AlanFromWichita:

My children have been taught a great deal about What The Church Teaches About Sex in Catholic middle school and Catholic high school and they are only familiar with Paul’s clear teachings in 1 Cor because of my showing it to them. It never came up. They are taught all about what’s wrong with contraception, and all these subtle details about how the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate – leaving, of course, an explanation needed for why it is then OK for sterile couples to marry at all.

Well, that’s a truly a shame, but I encourage you to not simply complain, but to try and get them to do more of what is right. If you really think this argument sounds reasonable, why not look into it a bit more? Perhaps it will be worth your while. Then maybe you’ll want to try to get the school to even start teaching this “theology of the body” stuff. BTW, there are numerous good resources out there on it, even for teenagers.

Paul’s advice in 1 Cor is clearly colored with his own personal opinion, but one paragraph out of it makes more sense about the purpose of marriage from the perspective of any given believer trying to make a decision on his/her vocation than all of HV and NFP teaching I’ve seen, combined. Maybe in the sense of the creation and Genesis, marriage was instituted so that people could bear children, but considering animals procreate just fine without marriage (as well as unmarried humans) it is obvious that marriage and procreation are not tied together by any physical or biological laws. We teach all this high level stuff to our children, but offer precious little practical advice on how to deal with the urges they obviously are having other than told to “just say no.”

Okay, first of all, I need to ask, do you hold to the doctrine that Scripture is God-inspired and inerrant? If any of Paul’s personal opinion is evident in this Scripture, it is in complete accord with the will of God. Agree?

As for this 1 Cor 7 verse making more sense about the purpose of marriage than all of HV and NFP, I again strongly encourage you to start reading this “theology of the body.” I think it could help you a lot. Many theologians think that it is going to be one of the most impactful movements in the history of the Church, as in the past when St. Augustine adopted the good of Plato into the faith, and when St. Thomas Aquinas adopted the good of Aristotle into the faith.

Moving on, I totally agree with you that the “remedy for concupiscence” idea makes plain sense, but keep in mind what it’s pointing to: higher things. We need to see with the eyes of faith. You speak of the original intention of marriage in Genesis, well, this is what we’re also called to! Christ died on the cross not so that we’d remain the same in our state of sin; no, he actually wants to make us holy, and not just in heaven, but even right now here on earth! This is the reality of Catholic Christianity.

You mention how animals get along fine without marriage, but let’s be serious Alan – there’s clearly a difference between us and the animals. If we look at sex as simply biological and physical, it’s real easy to have the pessimistic attitude you have regarding the Church’s teaching; it’s also real easy to have a difficult time arguing against contraception and even other sexual deviations (like homosexuality).

But just as there’s something more to human persons than there is to animals, there’s something more to the human act of sex. It’s metaphysical and personal – it helps bring about the existence of a new person! This is a profound act, not to be treated lightly. I’m sure you’d agree, being a father yourself.

 

[Convert97]

There are several other things to say about your original posting. It might have been unintentional, but you sounded as if you were advocating large families to keep undesirables from overcoming us Americans. The proper point to make is this: contraception and abortion turn sex from a giving act to a selfish act. This has been documented by social scientists. I have read that selfishness and a loss of a sense of sacrifice led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Selfishness is the death of marriage so it is no wonder that divorce spiked during the years the pill came into use. NFP users divorce at a fraction of the rate of contracepting couples, Catholics included. Contraception is against life, and bringing new life into the world is a proper goal of marriage. Intending to have children is one of the requirements of Catholic marriage. Finally, everyone approaches NFP as if it were Catholic birth control. That is false. It can be used to space births, but it can also help couples get pregnant, it can serve as a way for women to monitor their reproductive health and it brings the husband into the management of fertility so it’s not the sole responsibility of the wife. This makes both responsible for a pregnancy, planned or not. When contraception falls, blame is placed on the woman’s shoulders. As the pope says in his encyclical on the dignity of women, “It’s the woman alone who suffers, and the woman who suffers alone.”

 

[c_mcanall]

Lastly…

AlanFromWichita:

On the other hand, Paul’s advice clearly speaks to biological realities and their practical implications for any given person making life decisions. If teenagers were actually taught that marriage was for sex and not primarily for cranking out babies with any other reason a distant second, maybe they would look forward to it a little more and gather some connection to the hormonal urges they are starting to feel with their eventual vocational decision.

Of coures we don’t ignore the biological realities of the sexual urge for example, but I think you’re making some bad assumptions about Paul’s beliefs. Again, I’ll have to cite all of Paul’s words on sex and marriage to show this, something I’ll be doing shortly.

Some of the things you bring up in this last part raise a whole host of new issues. I’ll do my best to address them all in my next post (after the one on Paul’s words on sex and marriage), where I’ll attempt to summarize what I think to be a sound Catholic philosophical analysis (based upon Wojtyla’s work in Love and Responsibility) on the meaning of the sexual urge, why it points to marriage, procreation and union, and anything else relevant. Hopefully, this will give you another perspective to consider that is also quite reasonable.

BTW, it might be a couple of days before I get that written.

I appreciate your research, because it is the first Catholic document I’ve seen among many that have been shown to me that actually addresses Paul’s teachings. Unfortunately, it remains doomed for the time being to the domain of scholarly intellectual writing that don’t get taught to Catholics on any reasonable scale. Of course, my most direct experience is within our diocese.

Alan

Again, I strongly emplore you to get your hands on some of this “theology of the body” and “philosophy of the body” stuff. You’ve already said that it sounds reasonable. Why not keep exploring it? I only encourage you because it’s had such a profound impact on my life. In addition to my other posts, I’ll try to make a good list of free resources to get you started.

Alan, thanks again for the good thoughts that have helped continue this dialogue! I hope you’ll continue to share.

Peace in Christ,
Chris

 

[c_mcanall]

Convert97:

Lust has nothing to do with the Catholic teaching on marriage. John Paul II clearly teaches that using another person to satisfy one’s lust is not acceptible even in marriage since it attacks the dignity of the spouse. All human persons are created for their own sake, we are to serve and not to use each other. Christ condems lust. We are to live in the spirit and not in the flesh. Our one-flesh unity reflects the unity of the Holy Trinity and in that union there is room only for love, and not for using another.

Right on, Convert!

There are several other things to say about your original posting. It might have been unintentional, but you sounded as if you were advocating large families to keep undesirables from overcoming us Americans. The proper point to make is this: contraception and abortion turn sex from a giving act to a selfish act.

Thanks for saying this too! Yeah, I completely agree. I didn’t get into that in my original posting on the blogsite. Perhaps I should have, but my original thought was that I’d try to “shock em” and then once I’d gotten their attention, I’d go more in depth. However, that was at the same time misleading.

Anyways, if you take the time to read the hours of dialogue in the comments box, you’ll realize that I do bring it up. I had a difficult time convincing my friends though. They seem to think that it’s not necessarily always selfish and is therefore justifiable.

BTW, that discussion has really died off, but I’m planning on reviving it with a new post on my blog in a couple of days. I’ll definitely post a link to it on this thread (if it’s still going, or if not, perhaps a new one) on the forum. Feel free to join me in that discussion too, if you have the time and patience. It’s me dialoguing with 3-4 friends of the opposing view, so I could use another on the Catholic side (plus you could keep me in check).

Thanks again for the thoughts!

 

[c_mcanall]

goravens:

If your friends are Protestants, look into getting them a copy of “Open Embrace” by Sam and Bethany Torode. It is one of the best books on why couples should use nfp I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a lot.) It approaches using nfp from the perspective of someone who believes in Christ and has faith, but may never have considered or heard of nfp because they’re not Catholic. It’s very practical and a fairly short book so it’s an easy read.

Thanks for the idea goravens! Actually, 2 of my 5 friends responding on the thread do profess to be Protestant Christians, though I don’t know how serious they are in their faith. Still, I’ve heard good things about this book, and I think the Torodes have even read the Pope’s “theology of the body.” Well, I just might have to purchase it now, since the 2 will both be home for Thanksgiving break.

 

[c_mcanall]

Actually Convert, I just quickly skimmed through the entire thread with my friends, and sadly realized that I only mention the “gift of self” idea once, and not until near the very end. I actually talk about bringing it up very early on in the discussion, but get side tracked a great deal dealing with the issue of natural law and what is natural sex. How disappointing on my part!

Well, it looks like I know what the focus of my new blog post needs to be. Thanks again for the pointers!