Humane Vitae, human nutrition, and sugar-free gum

[St_Francis]

Thanks for your invitation for a further response, St Francis. I think if you are going to tell people that spacing their family, or protecting against infection by using condoms is ‘grave matter’, you should be able to explain it in a straightforward way. It would be one thing if the church just said ‘it’s a mystery, we have always thought this, we don’t have an explanation, but it is part of faith’. But the Church does not say this. Through philosophy (the end does not justify the means, ‘natural law’) it constructs an elaborate ‘explanation’ which as far as I am aware has never convinced anyone outside Christianity and almost no one outside the Church. Your relativity response exposes this approach. You are telling me that a simple analogy between the pleasure and purpose of eating, and the pleasure and purpose of sex is invalid, but for reasons I could only fathom if I knew as much about theology as scientists do about relativity. if there is a God, and he did want the church to explain this teaching, I am sure he would want explanations simple folk could understand.

The thing is, sometimes things *are *complex but not mysterious! And the Catholic Church *likes *to be able to explain things like morality because we believe in a reasoned faith and not a blind faith.

The other thing to consider is that we are “constructing” an explanation for something handed down by God. The earliest Christians wrote against artificial birth control. St Thomas looked at many different writings and teachings and kind of put it all together like a puzzle–and he was not always correct, for example, he was against the idea of the Immaculate Conception by which Mary was conceived without original sin.

Finally, I have discussed this issue with many people, and you are right, they don’t get it. It makes no sense to them. And to me, that is where that gap of knowledge, because part of that gap, when it comes to Church teaching, is not merely a lack of mathematical knowledge, as in my analogy, but also experiential knowledge. a klutzy person like me might be able to explain how to put up a door and doorframe but totally fail when doing it myself–do you see what I mean?

And so, we have to have some knowledge of God, of His Immensity, of His Creative ability, of Life, of His Authority, … before this teaching can be fully assimilated.

But the important thing for you ought to be that we do *have *an explanation, not that we refuse to simply tell you that it’s a mystery and you should just accept it. A lot of people complain when they are told *that! *A lot of older Catholics complain about the fact that their priests did not explain things to them.

You do not understand the explanation, but that is just an accident of circumstance, not that we willy-nilly dream things up–instead, the Catholic teaching on abc is *consistent *with everything else She teaches.

ETA: I also did not mean to imply by my analogy that it would take *as much *learning to understand the Catholic view of abc as for me to understand the math involved in the Theory of Relativity. I still don’t understand the latter, but came to understand the former over the course of a few months after returning to the Church, with some deepening of my understanding afterwards.

 

[St_Francis]

Hokomai,
Your sig line says: I take part in CAF because I am interested in belief. If I challenge or raise questions it is not because I want others to stop believing. It is because I want to understand belief.

Understanding belief is very difficult without practicing it. It’s kind of like understanding why people like to ski unless you have done it. (And even then, you need to have the right equipment, etc. Like trying to ski in the summer would *not *help you understand why people like to ski!)

What I would suggest would be to take a leap and act as if you were a believer. Obviously, you would still avoid the sacraments, but in other ways, act as if you believe. Pray every day, offering up your day to Him, giving Him glory and thanksgiving, telling Him you are sorry for your sins and asking His help in avoiding them in the future, in fact, asking for His help for *everything *you do, and trying to discern His will for you that day. Go to Mass on Sundays and just put your attention on the Mass and what you are acting as if you believe is happening. Pray for other people. Read the Scriptures as if you believed. Get a bio or two of saints, a Catholic book about our beliefs, something like Spiritual Combat.

Just do that for, say, 30 days. And see what happens.

 

[Lochias]

Hokomai,
Your sig line says: I take part in CAF because I am interested in belief. If I challenge or raise questions it is not because I want others to stop believing. It is because I want to understand belief.

Understanding belief is very difficult without practicing it. It’s kind of like understanding why people like to ski unless you have done it. (And even then, you need to have the right equipment, etc. Like trying to ski in the summer would *not *help you understand why people like to ski!)

What I would suggest would be to take a leap and act as if you were a believer. Obviously, you would still avoid the sacraments, but in other ways, act as if you believe. Pray every day, offering up your day to Him, giving Him glory and thanksgiving, telling Him you are sorry for your sins and asking His help in avoiding them in the future, in fact, asking for His help for *everything *you do, and trying to discern His will for you that day. Go to Mass on Sundays and just put your attention on the Mass and what you are acting as if you believe is happening. Pray for other people. Read the Scriptures as if you believed. Get a bio or two of saints, a Catholic book about our beliefs, something like Spiritual Combat.

Just do that for, say, 30 days. And see what happens.

This.

 

[Lrning]

I feel an analogy with celibacy and eating bitter herbs coming on. Surely by this logic, celibacy would lead to an argument that sexual pleasure and procreation could be separated?

How so? Eating unpleasant things can show the separation of eating pleasure and nutrition. How does celibacy show a separation of sexual pleasure and procreation? That would be like saying fasting separates eating pleasure from nutrition.

 

[Hokomai]

Hokomai,
Your sig line says: I take part in CAF because I am interested in belief. If I challenge or raise questions it is not because I want others to stop believing. It is because I want to understand belief.

Understanding belief is very difficult without practicing it. It’s kind of like understanding why people like to ski unless you have done it. (And even then, you need to have the right equipment, etc. Like trying to ski in the summer would *not *help you understand why people like to ski!)

What I would suggest would be to take a leap and act as if you were a believer. Obviously, you would still avoid the sacraments, but in other ways, act as if you believe. Pray every day, offering up your day to Him, giving Him glory and thanksgiving, telling Him you are sorry for your sins and asking His help in avoiding them in the future, in fact, asking for His help for *everything *you do, and trying to discern His will for you that day. Go to Mass on Sundays and just put your attention on the Mass and what you are acting as if you believe is happening. Pray for other people. Read the Scriptures as if you believed. Get a bio or two of saints, a Catholic book about our beliefs, something like Spiritual Combat.

Just do that for, say, 30 days. And see what happens.

Hmmm. An experiment. Interesting. Tell me more about this very interesting hypothesis (or is it theory) that belief develops through doing rather than, or necessarily as well as, through thinking. Is this a part of catholic ‘belief about belief’, or a technique?

 

[Lochias]

Hmmm. An experiment. Interesting. Tell me more about this very interesting hypothesis (or is it theory) that belief develops through doing rather than, or necessarily as well as, through thinking. Is this a part of catholic ‘belief about belief’, or a technique?

Muscles don’t develop without exercise. Knowledge doesn’t develop without learning. You can be as well-intentioned and wanting to seek God as you want, but without regular application, without the doing, such faith will eventually wither and die.

God looks at our actions, not at our emotions. Do you think Jesus was operating purely on emotion when He allowed himself to be crucified?

 

[fix]

I have been trying to understand (as I have now for several decades) the Church teaching on contraception. I have read the teaching itself, in encyclicals and the CCC, and several books and websites, as well as following what is said on CAF about it since 2004. Obviously, as an unbeliever, I do not accept the teaching merely because it is taught. I have noted that this is the position adopted by some Catholics who,like me, cannot see the logic of it. To illustrate the illogical as I perceive it, I have done a little thought experiment comparing what an encyclical might have said about the use of sugar-free gum (with no nutritive value) with what is actually said about contraception. I am doing this in the hope that it will help me understand more about the underlying logic which seems so apparent to some believers. Humane Vitae is a normal type face; my gum encyclical is in the other color:

Observing the Natural Law
11. …The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

…each and every act of eating must retain its intrinsic relationship to the nurture of human life.

Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

…is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the enjoyment of eating significance and the nutritive significance which are both inherent to the act of eating.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the act of eating, while giving enjoyment to the eater, also nurtures life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the enjoyment and the nutritive, is preserved, the use of eating fully retains its sense of enjoyment and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of staying alive to which man is called.

Faithfulness to God’s Design
13. …an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

…an act of eating which impairs the capacity to nurture life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of eating, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

… But to experience the gift of eating while respecting the laws of nutrition is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically digestive faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the maintenance of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Unlawful Eating Methods

14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after eating, is specifically intended to prevent nutrition—whether as an end or as a means. The faithful, and all men of good will, may not, therefore, chew sugar-free gum.

Why assume eating has a twofold purpose that may never be separated?

 

[PJM]

=Hokomai;9522738]I have been trying to understand (as I have now for several decades) the Church teaching on contraception. I have read the teaching itself, in encyclicals and the CCC, and several books and websites, as well as following what is said on CAF about it since 2004. Obviously, as an unbeliever, I do not accept the teaching merely because it is taught. I have noted that this is the position adopted by some Catholics who,like me, cannot see the logic of it. To illustrate the illogical as I perceive it, I have done a little thought experiment comparing what an encyclical might have said about the use of sugar-free gum (with no nutritive value) with what is actually said about contraception. I am doing this in the hope that it will help me understand more about the underlying logic which seems so apparent to some believers. Humane Vitae is a normal type face; my gum encyclical is in the other color:

Observing the Natural Law
11. …The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

…each and every act of eating must retain its intrinsic relationship to the nurture of human life.

Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

…is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the enjoyment of eating significance and the nutritive significance which are both inherent to the act of eating.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the act of eating, while giving enjoyment to the eater, also nurtures life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the enjoyment and the nutritive, is preserved, the use of eating fully retains its sense of enjoyment and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of staying alive to which man is called.

Faithfulness to God’s Design
13. …an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

…an act of eating which impairs the capacity to nurture life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of eating, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will.

But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

… But to experience the gift of eating while respecting the laws of nutrition is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically digestive faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the maintenance of life, of which God is the source. “Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact,” Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. “From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.”

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Unlawful Eating Methods

14. …Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after eating, is specifically intended to prevent nutrition—whether as an end or as a means. The faithful, and all men of good will, may not, therefore, chew sugar-free gum.

WAY TOO MUCH THOUGHT AND WAY TOO TOO LITTLE FAITH.

EITHER GOD AS OUR CREATOR IS IN CHARGE OF OUR LIFES OR WE ARE AND THE RESPONSIBILITY CAN’T BE SHARED.[READ: ISA.43: VRS.7 AND 21]

THE BILBE IN BOTH THE OT AND THE NT GIVES EXAMPLES OF GOD’S DIRECT INTERVETION TO CAUSE BIRTH: ABRAHAM AND SARAH AND JOHN THE BAPTIST; AS WELL AS THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST HIMSELF ARE BUT A FEW EXAMPLES.

CLEARLY GOD HAD A PLAN FOR BIRTH REGULATION. NOT EVERY
“UNPROTECTED” SEXUAL ACT RESULTS IN A PREGNANCY…WHY NOT???

BECAUSE HE CREATED WOMEN WITH BITH FERTILE AN INFETRTILE PERIODS. THAT FRIEND IS GOD’S WAY. CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IN GOD GOD OR YOUR “SUGAR-FREE-GUM” WHICH IF HELD BETWEEN THE KNEENS TOO MAY WORK:shrug:

CUTE; BUT NOT ALLOWING GOD TO “BE GOD!”

GOD BLESS,
PAT/PJM

 

[EasterJoy]

To illustrate the illogical as I perceive it, I have done a little thought experiment comparing what an encyclical might have said about the use of sugar-free gum (with no nutritive value) with what is actually said about contraception. I am doing this in the hope that it will help me understand more about the underlying logic which seems so apparent to some believers.

To correct your analogy, NFP is more like having recourse to reduced-calorie foods because there is a need for weight loss, while contraception is like bulima: that is, tasting the food, but then spitting it out or inducing vomitting so as to entirely separate the pleasure of eating from the natural process of digestion. You are separating the pleasure from the normal function that made the pleasure biologically valuable to the organism or, in the case of a married couple, to the relationship. NFP is available when there is a necessity, but when there is not, it is better to, as it were, simply eat normal food in normal quantities.

Also from a purely naturalistic point of view, when you separate the choice to have sexual relations entirely from the prospect of parenthood, you are changing the male from the mindset of a monogamous male to that of a harem male. The monogamous male is choosy about partners and dedicated to his one partner, because he has a long-term biological investment in the outcome. The harem male, in contrast, tries to mate as often as possible, because his innate orientation is to get his gametes into as many females as possible before a competitor inevitably drives him off. This is not conscious, but simply the orientation animals with various mating strategies have. Since humans are biologically intermediate in this regard compared to other animals, that is no small thing. You can’t make a harem species into a monogamous animal or a monogamous animal into a harem species, but intermediate cases are something else again.

I do not mean to say that you automatically engage these various responses, but rather that it is reasonable to expect that contraception is going to have an effect on the relationship, and that compared to a contraception-free relationship, the effect of having sex knowing that contraception has been used will be disengaging rather than enhancing mutual engagement. I think the world-wide experiment since the invention of artificial contraception has not been one that shows a positive outcome on the relational quality between the sexes. There is no reason to believe that individual choices to use contraception does not have a societal effect on male-female relationships. What “they” are doing “out there” does make a difference in individual male-female relationships, absolutely.

 

[harding]

Hokomai:

You are not the first person to compare procreation and food: St. Augustine did it sixteen centuries ago, and St. Thomas ran with it a few centuries after that, as evident from this passage in the Summa Theologica:

“Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): “What food is to a man’s well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race.” Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.”

newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm

Eating gum can certainly be a sin, if it is done with “an inordinate desire.” But it is desire for pleasure that counts, not the number of calories. (Quote source: newadvent.org/summa/3148.htm)

Again, with intercourse, it is the inordinate desire for pleasure that counts, not the particular act. What I think you’re missing is that anyone who uses contraception to avoid the normal consequences of intercourse must inordinately desire the pleasure.

Why inordinately? Because the ordinary consequence of intercourse is possible fertilization, and a person with ordinary desires will only want to have intercourse when they’re ready to have a baby.

-Dave

 

[St_Francis]

Hmmm. An experiment. Interesting. Tell me more about this very interesting hypothesis (or is it theory) that belief develops through doing rather than, or necessarily as well as, through thinking. Is this a part of catholic ‘belief about belief’, or a technique?

Suppose I wanted to understand what being a carpenter was like. I could read about carpentry, I could watch a carpenter at work, but I would never really know what is was like until I actually felt the jar of a hammer hitting the nail, the frustration of being 1/8th of an inch off, the grittiness of skin after working in a hot day,…

There are some things which you can only learn so far by reading or watching. There are some things which you can only truly understand through experience.

Imagine a God Who loves you so much that He would die for you, a long and painful death. Imagine a God Who loves you so much that He would allow you to go through bad things for your own good, as a mother allows her children to go through the pain of a vaccination. Imagine a God Who would do absolutely anything for you, as long as it was good for you.

Then pray to Him and try the experiment. Contemplate His Passion and death on the cross. Consider the immense compression of God’s fitting Himself to a human body in the womb. Meditate on the self-resurrection.

Yes, this is in part a Catholic belief from the earliest days of Christianity: lex orandi lex credendi: the law of praying is the law of believing.

But it is also a common everyday aspect of our human nature: feelings follow actions, or fake it til you make it. If all you want to do at the end of the day is go home and relax, but you must attend a party, you go, you slap on a fake smile, and eventually you realize you are having a good time, right?

It is not, however, a trick. One choses what to do, which way to go. If you truly want to understand belief, you need to experience it, so this is what you should do to accomplish your stated goal.

 

[Hokomai]

Thanks for the increasingly interesting responses.

Lochias:

Muscles don’t develop without exercise. Knowledge doesn’t develop without learning. You can be as well-intentioned and wanting to seek God as you want, but without regular application, without the doing, such faith will eventually wither and die.

Lochias, is it possible that such practices **replace **logic and rational thought?

Fix;

Why assume eating has a twofold purpose that may never be separated?

Fix, the question here is really: why assume that sex has a twofold purpose that may never be separated? Some people in the thread have attempted to demonstrate this, but I am not yet convinced that there is anything fundamentally different in the separation of pleasure and purpose.

PJM:

WAY TOO MUCH THOUGHT AND WAY TOO TOO LITTLE FAITH.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I guess my view is that the one leads to the other! I guess that’s your view too.

Easter Joy:

To correct your analogy, NFP is more like having recourse to reduced-calorie foods because there is a need for weight loss, while contraception is like bulima: that is, tasting the food, but then spitting it out or inducing vomitting so as to entirely separate the pleasure of eating from the natural process of digestion. You are separating the pleasure from the normal function that made the pleasure biologically valuable to the organism or, in the case of a married couple, to the relationship. NFP is available when there is a necessity, but when there is not, it is better to, as it were, simply eat normal food in normal quantities.

Hmmm - for the sake or argument, let’s accept that I have a supply of gum with no nutritive value whatsoever. Pleasure is separated from - as you put it - “the normal function that made the pleasure biologically valuable to the organism”.

I do not mean to say that you automatically engage these various responses, but rather that it is reasonable to expect that contraception is going to have an effect on the relationship, and that compared to a contraception-free relationship, the effect of having sex knowing that contraception has been used will be disengaging rather than enhancing mutual engagement. I think the world-wide experiment since the invention of artificial contraception has not been one that shows a positive outcome on the relational quality between the sexes. There is no reason to believe that individual choices to use contraception does not have a societal effect on male-female relationships. What “they” are doing “out there” does make a difference in individual male-female relationships, absolutely.

Easter Joy, you are arguing here that sex without contraception is better than sex with. You may be right. What i am engaging with is the Catholic position that sex with contraception is wrong.

Harding:

Hokomai:

You are not the first person to compare procreation and food: St. Augustine did it sixteen centuries ago, and St. Thomas ran with it a few centuries after that, as evident from this passage in the Summa Theologica:

Quote:
“Hence Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xvi): “What food is to a man’s well being, such is sexual intercourse to the welfare of the whole human race.” Wherefore just as the use of food can be without sin, if it be taken in due manner and order, as required for the welfare of the body, so also the use of venereal acts can be without sin, provided they be performed in due manner and order, in keeping with the end of human procreation.”

newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm
Eating gum can certainly be a sin, if it is done with “an inordinate desire.” But it is desire for pleasure that counts, not the number of calories. (Quote source: newadvent.org/summa/3148.htm)

Again, with intercourse, it is the inordinate desire for pleasure that counts, not the particular act. What I think you’re missing is that anyone who uses contraception to avoid the normal consequences of intercourse must inordinately desire the pleasure.

Why inordinately? Because the ordinary consequence of intercourse is possible fertilization, and a person with ordinary desires will only want to have intercourse when they’re ready to have a baby.

-Dave

Dave thanks for that. Most interesting. It is good to be in great compacy, at least in so far as the subject matter goes! But could I not say that the ordinary consequence of eating is nutrition, and that therefore any chewing of my nutrient-free gum is inordinate?

St Francis

Suppose I wanted to understand what being a carpenter was like. I could read about carpentry, I could watch a carpenter at work, but I would never really know what is was like until I actually felt the jar of a hammer hitting the nail, the frustration of being 1/8th of an inch off, the grittiness of skin after working in a hot day,…

There are some things which you can only learn so far by reading or watching. There are some things which you can only truly understand through experience.

Imagine a God Who loves you so much that He would die for you, a long and painful death. Imagine a God Who loves you so much that He would allow you to go through bad things for your own good, as a mother allows her children to go through the pain of a vaccination. Imagine a God Who would do absolutely anything for you, as long as it was good for you.

Then pray to Him and try the experiment. Contemplate His Passion and death on the cross. Consider the immense compression of God’s fitting Himself to a human body in the womb. Meditate on the self-resurrection.

Yes, this is in part a Catholic belief from the earliest days of Christianity: lex orandi lex credendi: the law of praying is the law of believing.

But it is also a common everyday aspect of our human nature: feelings follow actions, or fake it til you make it. If all you want to do at the end of the day is go home and relax, but you must attend a party, you go, you slap on a fake smile, and eventually you realize you are having a good time, right?

It is not, however, a trick. One choses what to do, which way to go. If you truly want to understand belief, you need to experience it, so this is what you should do to accomplish your stated goal

.

Thanks for your thoughts. I experienced Catholic belief as a child, adolescent and young adult, and then for quite some time I think I was a sort of ‘negative believer’ in which my rejection of my previous belief became itself a form of belief. I have now moved on to an effort to avoid what I think is our natural tendency to believe and to restrict my mind to concluding things from facts and observations. So i learn a lot n these forms about the different ways people come to belief. incidentally, St Francis, were you a professional writer before you were a homeschooling Mum? Or as well as? You are good at it! :tiphat:

 

[harding]

[C]ould I not say that the ordinary consequence of eating is nutrition, and that therefore any chewing of my nutrient-free gum is inordinate?

Ah, but if you were to say that, Hokomai, you’d be mixing acts: eating and chewing aren’t the same thing, and the pleasure in eating does not come from chewing.

I don’t know why other people chew gum, but I’ve mainly chewed it for hunger suppression and dental hygiene. In your analogy to intercourse, gum seems to be the equivalent of a cold shower with soap.

-Dave

 

[Hokomai]

Ah, but if you were to say that, Hokomai, you’d be mixing acts: eating and chewing aren’t the same thing, and the pleasure in eating does not come from chewing.

I don’t know why other people chew gum, but I’ve mainly chewed it for hunger suppression and dental hygiene. In your analogy to intercourse, gum seems to be the equivalent of a cold shower with soap.

-Dave

I’m still chewing that over.

 

[St_Francis]

…snip…St Francis .

Thanks for your thoughts. I experienced Catholic belief as a child, adolescent and young adult, and then for quite some time I think I was a sort of ‘negative believer’ in which my rejection of my previous belief became itself a form of belief. I have now moved on to an effort to avoid what I think is our natural tendency to believe and to restrict my mind to concluding things from facts and observations. So i learn a lot n these forms about the different ways people come to belief.

I often wonder about people who were raised Catholic but then left the Church. I myself was baptized but not raised Catholic, and was raised with a kind of negative attitude towards the Church as my mother had left. Having found the Faith as an adult, and having found it to be so wonderful, I wonder why people leave!

incidentally, St Francis, were you a professional writer before you were a homeschooling Mum? Or as well as? You are good at it! :tiphat:

Thank you very much! I have to admit that I think my best stuff is better than what I myself can manage and that those times I have Help from Above

 

[EasterJoy]

Easter Joy:

Hmmm - for the sake or argument, let’s accept that I have a supply of gum with no nutritive value whatsoever. Pleasure is separated from - as you put it - “the normal function that made the pleasure biologically valuable to the organism”.

Easter Joy, you are arguing here that sex without contraception is better than sex with. You may be right. What i am engaging with is the Catholic position that sex with contraception is wrong.

No, by making an analogy between sex with contraception and eating that involves binging and purging, I’m saying that in this case this particular means of enjoying the sexual faculty is inherently damaging to the individual and to the couple.

Besides, you do not chew gum as a way of going on a hunger strike. If your gum chewing were to have an adverse effect on your ability to digest your real food, you’d need to give it up.

Also, keep in mind that while analogies can be very useful in demonstrating relationships, all analogies break down eventually. The question eventually has to be treated by itself, on its own ground. In this case, discussing acceptable behaviors with a thing (food) as a stand-in for discussing behaviors that express an intimate relationships with another person can only be taken so far.

 

[Hokomai]

Thank you very much! I have to admit that I think my best stuff is better than what I myself can manage and that those times I have Help from Above

Hey! No fair!

 

[St_Francis]

Hey! No fair!

:lol: