Modern Times

[Elizabeth502]

You really have a low opinion of men.

You really have a low opinion of sexual pleasure, to wit…

the stigma of sexual pleasure must be removed.

I wonder when is the last time you read any Catholic material on the importance of sexual communication (pleasure) in marriage.

 

[edwest2]

I’m sure my friend the OP read all the documents. She is highly intelligent and I question why she has religion…that’s a story for another day.

I don’t see how we are ruining the world. Be freakin happy that you live in the good ole USA where you can practice any nonsense you want and not have to lay your life down for it. My friend merely questions things that others take as gospel.

How in the world is contracepting comparable to not changing the oil on a car? Oil changes and radiator fluid filling is prudent vehicle maintenance. Only an idiot would ignore those things. If they are not done, the car quits running. If you contracept, the world is not affected in a negative way. The god of your understanding may be angry…but let’s keep this to what our OP is saying. We modernize as we make new discoveries in our world. Procreation sex was beneficial when we needed children to support our farms and people in old age. Plus the earth didn’t have many people on it. Contrast that to now.

Very old and pointless argument. A man named Paul Ehrlich published a book titled The Population Bomb in 1968 in an attempt to freak people out. Here’s a link to the 1971, revised and expanded edition:

amazon.com/gp/product/0345021711/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

His premise was that we would run out of everything in a short period of time. He was wrong.

“I want lots of orgasms,” is neither modern or a new discovery. Self-control? That would be good.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ahs]

…The OP had to be trusting that you all were capable of making the inferences that only the bad things in ancient times would need to be done away with. Eating and working are vital to our survival. Abstaining from sex for pleasure was certainly not vital nor even good the way I see it.

The OP made no such inference. And I cannot assume what the OP means to say when the OP is not saying. Let the OP speak for her/himself.

I asked for clarification since the OP linked “fear of procreation” with “atrocities in the OT”. To which the OP responded:

Sex for procreation was common in past times. So was slavery. We ended one of those so why not the other?

Here, the OP makes it clear that “fear of procreation” is being made equal to “atrocities in the OT” on the basis that it “was common in past times”. If this is the only link the OP can show, then what I replied with is the next logical step:

Eating was common in past times as well. So was working. Shall we do away with those as well? If the only link is that it “was common in past times”…therefore we should do away with it, then there is no reason to also not make a case for abolishing that act of eating or working.

Since I DID in fact assume that the OP was more intelligent that this, I pressed further for a more logical argument:

Is there perhaps another way in which the “fear of pregnancy” and “slavery and other such atrocities in the OT” are related that would make a logical argument?

Whether abstaining from sex for pleasure is vital or not is not the argument the OP put forward and it’s a totally different topic unless the OP can speak up and make a logical connection. Perhaps you’d like to start your own thread where you can debate that topic?

 

[Qoeleth]

Since we did away with slavery and other such atrocities in the OT, why not go a step further and let married couples enjoy the act of intercourse without the fear of pregnancy? I realize first in order to do that, the stigma of sexual pleasure must be removed.

You are making a false connection- since something in the past was wrong (slavery), other things in the past (monogomy) must also be wrong.

It does not follow, that since some changes have been good, all changes must also be good. If we did away with all OT restrictions, murder and incest would also be pemitted.

Each issue needs to be considered on its own merits. Slavery, and contraception are not related issues.

 

[TEPO]

We modernize as we make new discoveries in our world. Procreation sex was beneficial when we needed children to support our farms and people in old age. Plus the earth didn’t have many people on it. Contrast that to now.

Do you honestly think that human beings procreate to help support people or farms or whatever…? Human beings procreate because they are to offer themselves for others -just like all the other animals do. To expand is the nature of life.

Negative consequences of inhibiting our natural inclination to procreate include mental disorders -usually beginning with sexual addictions and then expanding to selfish desires. Selfishness becomes like a cancer that can cloud the conscience, and seperate one from becoming the greatest possible version of himself.

 

[edwest2]

We’re not other animals. We are made in the image and likeness of God. And good point, procreation, regardless of time period, was/is a covenant between two people. What child does not want to be loved in all its dimensions? Hearing the words, “I love you.” Knowing that mom and dad will be there to help him in every way they can. Through illness and even disability.

Do you want to pop out a few kids? is not a good way to look at family life.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TEPO]

I know the doctrine. I just don’t see anything wrong with removing pregnancy from the equation.

To remove it completely is a completely selfish act.

I’ve had 3 out of 4 children using the withdrawal method. Alot of Catholics will consider that a form of “birth control”, however I believe it has little “control” over anything. It’s not modern, and was probably done long before 1968 (when humanae vitae was written).

Humanae vitae states “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. (16)”…

Well I don’t do what I do with the intent to “prevent” procreation at all. My purpose is merely to reduce the possibility while still allowing for the possibility of procreation. Besides that, the marital act itself, tends to naturally persuede one from not withdrawing --suggesting that perhaps the marital act was preprogrammed with full knowledge that there must be some sort of persuesion to prevent withdrawal at the end… Therefore this implies that there must be or have been a natural impulse to withdraw in the first place… So its all natural.

I’m not saying however that this is proper Catholicism at all… I just think it’s a lesser evil, for those of us who are much much less than perfect. Someday I hope to perfect myself… And I do believe and trust in the Church.