Premarital sex

[247cath]

No, that’s not what anyone said. To say that sex is ordered toward procreation and that the sexual act should reflect this simply means that, when sex is had, it should be had in a manner consistent with its procreative end, which means noncontraceptive marital intercourse terminating in intravaginal ejaculation.

Now for obvious reasons, sex also has a unitive component. That unitive component derives from its procreative aspect, i.e., because sex binds the couple together and so makes it easier for them to discharge their obligation to raise children resulting from their union. But the unitive is subordinate to the procreative for that very reason – i.e., if it weren’t intrinsically procreative, it wouldn’t be unitive. So yes, you can have sex for unitive reasons (i.e., love, passion, fun), but it must always retain that procreative function.

No, masturbation is off the table for the same reason fornication and contraception is – the sexual faculty is naturally ordered toward procreation, so its proper use is noncontraceptive, marital, intravaginal ejaculation.

One of the quandaries that the church deals with regarding sex is that its policies are muddled by the facts that it used to generate the policies.

Now the official policy is that the act of sex is this beautiful thing between man and wife that is performed with all respect due to both parties and with an intention to procreate. That is wonderful and meaningful.

However that was not always the case. originally it was thought that spilling sperm was spilling little babies out on to the ground. Man could dictate the conditions and the women was to be there, polygamy was OK in the OT and was a pleasure of the powerful.

Paul thought sex was really unnecessary since the earth was going to end in his generation and people with disabilities were not considered whole, not to mention the duties of slaves in the context of their inherent value as individuals.

But all these beliefs about sex that were codified are hard to walk back without denying some of the related reasonings for other holdings of the church. The have painted the church’s intentions - respectful sex, into a corner that really doesn’t make sense in the context of where the church says it came from, but make sense in the general context of why people want to enjoy the higher levels of total sexual enjoyment found in respectful relationships.

So just as NFP is a fiction that allows one to be open to procreation without wanting to have a baby, sort of like a screen with a hole in it, you know a fly may get in, but you are hoping it doesn’t find the hole in the screen. The church is now open to sex in a way it never had to address before, it obviously is part of God’s design of humans that enjoyment is as big a part of the act as is the possible outcome of children, but it is hard to pull away from the position it once had that sex was only for procreation.

Sex adds joy to relationships. An the most intense joy is when there is selfless respectful sharing of that joy with the person you love. Of course that is your spouse in the Catholic world, but the real test of a value is if it has universal application , and on that point the Church’s position regarding the wholeness of the relationship even applies in situations where the particular relationship may or not meet our concept of what is the correct catholic form of a relationship.

I think as catholics we sometimes get hung up on the mechanics of our beliefs when discussing issues that have a broader application in the world as a whole, and as a result the real important messages that we need to get through lose some of their salience.

 

[TurboLover336]

This is an issue I’ve struggled with.
Ive seen the old school interpretations, or misinterpretations and its a wonder we ever got born for all the restrictions being programmed into generations. Yeah there are some very valid rules of engagement in there amidst the tangle but oh so many had the consequence of carrying over into marriage, spoiling this wonderful God given gift.
It would seem of late that the stance has evolved into something a good bit healthier of late. and seem mostly in line with what I formed against my own morality after I threw off the old stance where it is almost always a sin and certainly crippled by guilt when it isnt.

by no means is there a way to justify swinging nor should it be. When we enter into that physical union certain bonds and attachments are formed which erode and cheapen with subsequent partners until it has little value at all.
one nighters and orgies are a fabulous way to squander the gift.

but we arn’t really talking about “bulk rate processing” here but rather dealing with this force of nature within an unmarried relationship.
its a very powerful thing that just seems to come out of nowhere and add lots of heat and pressure upon a couple.
you must, however difficult it may be, fight it off at least long enough to make a few determinations.
at the top of the list is determining if you can really live with all the liabilities this person will bring into the rest of your natural life. Get the feather duster out and wipe away as much of that glitter as you can manage cause those goofy little quirks are not banished by a wedding ring. Is the answer “yes”? … ask yourself again, you are placing your very soul into the hands of another as well as taking up theirs. is it still “yes”?
if the answer is NOT a stone solid yes, you two jokers have NO business getting married.
as such, it certainly isn’t time for love making since you will probably part ways anyhow.
But hey … we like a happy story from time to time, lets say we have what we believe to be a rock solid answer of “sir yessir in the affirmative SIR” to the above.
now its time to make a little projection … just how do you think the act will effect the relationship? do you think it will strengthen the bond? do you think the guilt will cause hardship?
If you truly think it’ll strengthen the bond, your not ready. that bond HAS to be ALL there.
if there may be guilt … nope someone has hidden reservations about the whole relationship.
there is a third answer Ill get to after we get through phase three.
“what will happen to us if we dont?”
will a sense of rejection diminish anything? will it raise suspicion of an affair?
a yes to either points to illusions about your relationships strength and an undercurrent of distrust.
so we have been through all these reasons to bolt for the door and you two jokers are still in the same room … back to question two’s other possible answer. you agree with your partner that it will neither harm nor help what you share though it might do a lot for the tension currently in the room. Furthermore avoiding it will have no long term effect as well and the decision could verywell be left to a coin toss. Discuss marriage and children for a while, thats where your probably headed and enjoy the evening … and the rest of your lives together … assuming no one passed out or bolted for the door as the mention of marriage and children, your probably doing fine

 

[manualman]

One of the quandaries that the church deals with regarding sex is that its policies are muddled by the facts that it used to generate the policies.

Now the official policy is that the act of sex is this beautiful thing between man and wife that is performed with all respect due to both parties and with an intention to procreate. That is wonderful and meaningful.

However that was not always the case. originally it was thought that spilling sperm was spilling little babies out on to the ground. Man could dictate the conditions and the women was to be there, polygamy was OK in the OT and was a pleasure of the powerful.
…
But all these beliefs about sex that were codified are hard to walk back without denying some of the related reasonings for other holdings of the church. …

So just as NFP is a fiction that allows one to be open to procreation without wanting to have a baby, sort of like a screen with a hole in it, you know a fly may get in, but you are hoping it doesn’t find the hole in the screen. The church is now open to sex in a way it never had to address before, it obviously is part of God’s design of humans that enjoyment is as big a part of the act as is the possible outcome of children, but it is hard to pull away from the position it once had that sex was only for procreation.
…

Well, that’s ONE way of looking at it. But it’s rather a faithless one. The whole post reeks of an attitude that seems to say that doctrine is just human ideas that have gradually formed over time as we’ve stumbled on good ideas and discarded dumb ones, not any sort of divinely revealed order to nature.

When reading it, I imagined an enlightened Jew 100 years or so before Jesus looking down on the superstitions of the Mosaic law with all its sillyness about ritual cleansing and prohibitions on perfectly valid forms of food. Said fellow, of course, proceeds to eat pork, finds it delicious when lightly cooked and dies of trychinosis! Sometimes divine revelation is rather ahead of our ability to fully comprehend it scientifically.

Catholic teaching on sexual morality is like this. We’ve always know that contraception is wrong, but have often struggled to comprehend why that is. Sometimes blind alleys of explanation HAVE been wandered down. That’s part of human living! But those mistakes don’t negate the truth of what was revealed.

And from your description, I’d guess you’ve never actually lived NFP. From the outside, it does look like a fictional distinction from contraception. But the difference isn’t in a heightened chance of pregnancy. The difference is in the mental attitude that results from contraception in which sex really has nothing to do with babies unless one wills it. In NFP, you have regular and frustrating reminders that sex has EVERYTHING to do with babies. Its a difference like an iceberg, it runs a lot deepers and holds a lot more power than it initially appears to. But like I said, we often don’t fully comprehend the totality of what God has mercifully revealed to us. It’s part of the human experience.

 

[stevekehl]

When we say “premarital sex” we don’t necessarily mean with different partners…it can be with one partner for the rest of one’s life, just not married (yet, or ever).
In that instance, it’s not like using someone else’s silverware, is it?
As we have said…it is possible for lifelong commitment to exist without getting married.

How often does that happen? All the couples I knew in high school either got married or broke up. If they broke up the individuals went on to be in relationships with other people. Once someone has had a sexual relationship outside of marriage it is easier to be sexually active with another, and on, and on; and to be undisciplined in other situations. If a person has practiced being disciplined it is easier to be disciplined in other situations. There may be some couples who have met young and stayed together without marriage, but there are also people who have driven while drunk and made it home safely. That doesn’t make driving drunk ok. Incidentally, how many abortions do you think are a result of premarital sex and how many are a result of married sex?

 

[thewanderer]

When we say “premarital sex” we don’t necessarily mean with different partners…it can be with one partner for the rest of one’s life, just not married (yet, or ever).
In that instance, it’s not like using someone else’s silverware, is it?
As we have said…it is possible for lifelong commitment to exist without getting married.

Regardless of how many people manage to stay in such a relationship, the problem lies even deeper. The problem is that each and every person deserves to be able to give the gift of their sexuality within the context of a completely unconditional relationship. If a couple enters a sexual relationship without first making an explicit unconditional commitment to each other then essentially what is happening is each person is asking the other to enter into a sexual relationship without having any asssurance that this relationship is actually unconditional. Without an explicit gaurantee and promise of unconditional comitment from the other how can either person give themselves unconditionally to the other? It just is not a fitting context and each person deserves better!

Also, every child conceived deserves to be raised in a healthy intact family with its biological parents. This is yet another reason why each person has a responsibility to ensure they are making an unconditional commitment to the other before beginning a sexual relationship with them. And, I’ve got to be honest, if you truly recognize the importance of an unconditional commitment to your beloved, then why in the world would you not make such a comitment to them explicitly??? To me that is the most natural and obvious course of action to take. I truly do not understand how someone could truly understand the importance of such an unconditional comitment as context for the complete giving of self through a sexual relationship and not make it official through an explicit promise and unconditional comitment.

 

[247cath]

Well, that’s ONE way of looking at it. But it’s rather a faithless one. The whole post reeks of an attitude that seems to say that doctrine is just human ideas that have gradually formed over time as we’ve stumbled on good ideas and discarded dumb ones, not any sort of divinely revealed order to nature.

When reading it, I imagined an enlightened Jew 100 years or so before Jesus looking down on the superstitions of the Mosaic law with all its sillyness about ritual cleansing and prohibitions on perfectly valid forms of food. Said fellow, of course, proceeds to eat pork, finds it delicious when lightly cooked and dies of trychinosis! Sometimes divine revelation is rather ahead of our ability to fully comprehend it scientifically.

Catholic teaching on sexual morality is like this. We’ve always know that contraception is wrong, but have often struggled to comprehend why that is. Sometimes blind alleys of explanation HAVE been wandered down. That’s part of human living! But those mistakes don’t negate the truth of what was revealed.

And from your description, I’d guess you’ve never actually lived NFP. From the outside, it does look like a fictional distinction from contraception. But the difference isn’t in a heightened chance of pregnancy. The difference is in the mental attitude that results from contraception in which sex really has nothing to do with babies unless one wills it. In NFP, you have regular and frustrating reminders that sex has EVERYTHING to do with babies. Its a difference like an iceberg, it runs a lot deepers and holds a lot more power than it initially appears to. But like I said, we often don’t fully comprehend the totality of what God has mercifully revealed to us. It’s part of the human experience.

Faith is something we believe in without proof of its existence, faith is not contrary to truth or reality, but augments what we know .

To suggest that NFP is not a facade of any sort, however well intentioned , ignores reality. Because as another poster shared, a commitment is a critical part of the marriage and that entails a commitment to having children when one has sexual relations. NFP is like saying the lottery is your 401K program, sure we are committed to retiring if we win, but if we were really committed to having a sound retirement plan, it would not be the Powerball.

If we were using NFP to actually have babies, we would only have sex on days that we thought were fertile. After all the purpose of NFP is to use the knowledge of the body’s functions to determine when the most likely time having sex would result in becoming pregnant and then using that information in the way one thinks is the best way.

So if anyone avoids sex on a day when they may be fertile because they know the odds are higher they would get pregnant, then they by definition are not really committed to having children . Even the act of collecting all that bodily information for the purpose of not having a sexual event on a fertile day is contrary to the thought of sex happening primarily for procreation.

Is being aware of reality faithless? No, it is truthful and does nothing to diminish the beauty and reality of respectful loving relationships between a man and wife. To suggest that truth should take a lesser position in one’s relationship to falsehoods begs too many questions to be answered here.

What Jesus taught stands up to reality and my faith in Him prevails because of that reality, not in spite of reality. Maybe it is because I see the reality of treating even the least like they may be He in the guise of the least as a truth, not because I could ever achieve that kind of perfection in my own actions, but because it is a standard that if we all followed, I believe, would result in a world of so much goodness and the types of lives being lived that Jesus taught us to live… …We see real examples of that everyday when we do the right thing for others or have the right thing done in our behalf or witness others treating people as they should be treated. I find that when I discover that what Jesus taught gains credibility when exposed to reality, that makes my faith in what He taught stronger. Is there some other standard I should be using?

 

[bilop]

Faith is something we believe in without proof of its existence, faith is not contrary to truth or reality, but augments what we know .

To suggest that NFP is not a facade of any sort, however well intentioned , ignores reality. Because as another poster shared, a commitment is a critical part of the marriage and that entails a commitment to having children when one has sexual relations. NFP is like saying the lottery is your 401K program, sure we are committed to retiring if we win, but if we were really committed to having a sound retirement plan, it would not be the Powerball.

If we were using NFP to actually have babies, we would only have sex on days that we thought were fertile. After all the purpose of NFP is to use the knowledge of the body’s functions to determine when the most likely time having sex would result in becoming pregnant and then using that information in the way one thinks is the best way.

So if anyone avoids sex on a day when they may be fertile because they know the odds are higher they would get pregnant, then they by definition are not really committed to having children . Even the act of collecting all that bodily information for the purpose of not having a sexual event on a fertile day is contrary to the thought of sex happening primarily for procreation.

Is being aware of reality faithless? No, it is truthful and does nothing to diminish the beauty and reality of respectful loving relationships between a man and wife. To suggest that truth should take a lesser position in one’s relationship to falsehoods begs too many questions to be answered here.

What Jesus taught stands up to reality and my faith in Him prevails because of that reality, not in spite of reality. Maybe it is because I see the reality of treating even the least like they may be He in the guise of the least as a truth, not because I could ever achieve that kind of perfection in my own actions, but because it is a standard that if we all followed, I believe, would result in a world of so much goodness and the types of lives being lived that Jesus taught us to live… …We see real examples of that everyday when we do the right thing for others or have the right thing done in our behalf or witness others treating people as they should be treated. I find that when I discover that what Jesus taught gains credibility when exposed to reality, that makes my faith in what He taught stronger. Is there some other standard I should be using?

There is no Church teaching that marital sex must be “primarily for procreation”.

There is no Church teaching that you have to be “committed to having children” each time you have sex with your spouse.

The Church teaching is simply that each act of marital sex be open to procreation.

The Church teaching is that a married couple can have or not have sex on any day they choose, as long as they don’t abstain completely for long periods without good reason.

God Bless

 

[TurboLover336]

Faith is something we believe in without proof of its existence, faith is not contrary to truth or reality, but augments what we know .

To suggest that NFP is not a facade of any sort, however well intentioned , ignores reality. Because as another poster shared, a commitment is a critical part of the marriage and that entails a commitment to having children when one has sexual relations. NFP is like saying the lottery is your 401K program, sure we are committed to retiring if we win, but if we were really committed to having a sound retirement plan, it would not be the Powerball.

If we were using NFP to actually have babies, we would only have sex on days that we thought were fertile. After all the purpose of NFP is to use the knowledge of the body’s functions to determine when the most likely time having sex would result in becoming pregnant and then using that information in the way one thinks is the best way.

So if anyone avoids sex on a day when they may be fertile because they know the odds are higher they would get pregnant, then they by definition are not really committed to having children . Even the act of collecting all that bodily information for the purpose of not having a sexual event on a fertile day is contrary to the thought of sex happening primarily for procreation.

Is being aware of reality faithless? No, it is truthful and does nothing to diminish the beauty and reality of respectful loving relationships between a man and wife. To suggest that truth should take a lesser position in one’s relationship to falsehoods begs too many questions to be answered here.

What Jesus taught stands up to reality and my faith in Him prevails because of that reality, not in spite of reality. Maybe it is because I see the reality of treating even the least like they may be He in the guise of the least as a truth, not because I could ever achieve that kind of perfection in my own actions, but because it is a standard that if we all followed, I believe, would result in a world of so much goodness and the types of lives being lived that Jesus taught us to live… …We see real examples of that everyday when we do the right thing for others or have the right thing done in our behalf or witness others treating people as they should be treated. I find that when I discover that what Jesus taught gains credibility when exposed to reality, that makes my faith in what He taught stronger. Is there some other standard I should be using?

well the church accepts NFP methods which would seem to be contrary to the overall spirit of the above quoted post…
that is evidence of the contorted interpretations I had mentioned earlier.
there have been worse, so much so its a wonder any of us managed to be born.

the way I see it is when my wife and I see fit to enjoy eachothers company, we will do so. if God sees fit to drop by he’s welcome, But for all the damage done by opinions of others … the rest of you jokers can stay out of our bedroom … or whatever other room we decide upon

 

[manualman]

To suggest that NFP is not a facade of any sort, however well intentioned , ignores reality. Because as another poster shared, a commitment is a critical part of the marriage and that entails a commitment to having children when one has sexual relations. NFP is like saying the lottery is your 401K program, sure we are committed to retiring if we win, but if we were really committed to having a sound retirement plan, it would not be the Powerball.

You’re arguing from a faulty premise. You seem to be operating from the point of view that sexual intimacy is only for the purpose of makin’ babies and that any other function is nearly irrelevant in comparison. This is NOT the catholic position. Some try to say that it is, and can even quote Augustine out of context to make it seem so. But Augustine wasn’t talking to modern Americans, he was refuting people who believed it was EVIL to bring new life into being! Rather a different situation…

The catholic church teaches that sexual intimacy was created to have BOTH a unitive and a procreative function and that there is no moral imperative to limit that intimacy to times known to be fertile. However, there IS a moral imperative not to take action to render a time that God made fertile into an infertile encounter because that action alters the very nature of the experience so that it is neither procreative NOR unitive.

But you haven’t actually lived NFP, have you? You make the classic mistakes of perspective of one who has never viewed it from experience rather than theory. Those who charge that NFP is no different than contraception betrary their hypocrisy by never being willing to live by NFP rather than contraception (presuming just cause to defer pregnancy). The very reasons people don’t want to use NFP are the reasons that it doesn’t change the nature of intimacy. Even in infertile times, NFP sex still remains very much about makin’ babies. Contraception users gradually sever the two ideas in their minds almost entirely.

 

[TurboLover336]

pay attention folks … if this guy don’t get it, hes close enough

 

[247cath]

You’re arguing from a faulty premise. You seem to be operating from the point of view that sexual intimacy is only for the purpose of makin’ babies and that any other function is nearly irrelevant in comparison. This is NOT the catholic position. Some try to say that it is, and can even quote Augustine out of context to make it seem so. But Augustine wasn’t talking to modern Americans, he was refuting people who believed it was EVIL to bring new life into being! Rather a different situation…

The catholic church teaches that sexual intimacy was created to have BOTH a unitive and a procreative function and that there is no moral imperative to limit that intimacy to times known to be fertile. However, there IS a moral imperative not to take action to render a time that God made fertile into an infertile encounter because that action alters the very nature of the experience so that it is neither procreative NOR unitive.

But you haven’t actually lived NFP, have you? You make the classic mistakes of perspective of one who has never viewed it from experience rather than theory. Those who charge that NFP is no different than contraception betrary their hypocrisy by never being willing to live by NFP rather than contraception (presuming just cause to defer pregnancy). The very reasons people don’t want to use NFP are the reasons that it doesn’t change the nature of intimacy. Even in infertile times, NFP sex still remains very much about makin’ babies. Contraception users gradually sever the two ideas in their minds almost entirely.

My later post which you quoted , was in response to an earlier poster commenting on my original post which was not an argument against the church’s present position on the value of sexual relationships in the context of marriage, but was a comment on how the church’s understanding of the completeness of all the relationships in a healthy marriage has evolved.

But instead of considering whether that idea has any value, you have decided to draw a conclusion - our use or not of NFP, without any factual information at all,( perhaps our set of Irish twins might take issue with your conclusion ) which amounts to a character assassination that neither supports your position nor adds any credibility to what you may conclude after the ad hominem attack.

In case you missed my original post I’ll summarize: The church’s position of the value of the sexual act has evolved because the church has a fuller understanding of both the physiology of the human body and a better understanding of the sacrement of marriage as being best exemplified in the form of a relationship between two co-equal partners. As a result, the sexual experience is now seen as being a more complete expression of the unitive nature of marriage.

So now the church more frequently emphasizes both the importance of the need for all the components of a marriage to reflect what Jesus taught ,and for our marriages to exhibit a healthy balance among all the components of our relationships with our spouses. As a result our marriages are not only more likely to flourish in a personal nature , but also will better reflect the wisdom of Jesus’ message.

But to get there, the church has had to appear to be not back tracking on previous positions, which over the ages may have not been so clearly in support of the present idea of marriage as being such a complete all encompassing union . So we have some constructs of language that have enough ambiguity to satisfy those that may be uncomfortable with the church changing any positions , while at the same time allowing others to more fully agree with the church’s position from a logical standpoint as meeting Jesus’ teachings about the need for all of our relationships to be respectful as well as loving.

I think that the evolution of the church’s teachings on the subject are not only important for those of child bearing age, but to bring the whole of the church congregation to a fuller understanding of how maintaining respectful and loving relationships in all stages of our marriages is critical to making healthy joyous marriages more enduring. In fact I would suggest that truly respectful joy is a pretty good sign that a marriage is on the right track within the context of Jesus’ teachings.

 

[manualman]

My later post which you quoted , was in response to an earlier poster commenting on my original post which was not an argument against the church’s present position on the value of sexual relationships in the context of marriage, but was a comment on how the church’s understanding of the completeness of all the relationships in a healthy marriage has evolved.

But instead of considering whether that idea has any value, you have decided to draw a conclusion - our use or not of NFP, without any factual information at all,( perhaps our set of Irish twins might take issue with your conclusion ) which amounts to a character assassination that neither supports your position nor adds any credibility to what you may conclude after the ad hominem attack.

You made declarative statements alleging absurdity in catholic teaching on NFP and how it does NOT violate either the unitive or precreative natures of human sexuality. I have no problem with people who allege that church teachings have advanced unevenly at times in both comprehension and clarity. I myself would agree that doctrine on the proceative nature of sexuality advanced far earlier than that on its unitive function and at times may even have seemed to eclipse the latter. But I stand by my observation that the way you describe this process sounds supsiciously like you believe these are merely human constructs and that it is pride alone that prevents repudiation of historic teachings.

I also should admit that I leaped to a conclusion via a hunch based on my other experiences with people taking similar positions to your own. Your Irish twins, however, don’t constitute an answer. Would you care to enlighten us if you’ve ever actually practiced NFP as a means to avoid conception, even for a modest amount of time? It matters because those who rationalize the use of contraception as being the same thing generally have never been willing to experience the difference (a telling indication that there IS something different after all!). On the other front, Providentialists who critique NFP have generally never lived it either, so they don’t necessarily recognize the ways in which that interior link is maintained either.

Far from being the result of human pride and unwillingness to back down from previous positions, the church is faithful to God’s plan on this matter. Contraception gradually leads to a total mental divorce between intimacy and babies in the minds of those who use it repeatedly. NFP never does. It always retains that crucial interior link and awareness that this intimacy is tied up in the way we most clearly reflect God’s image: the creation of new life from an act of love.

 

[billcu1]

Not exactly. The Church recognizes one of the benefits of the sexual act is the drawing closer of the couple through the act. It is a most intimate sharing even when it does not result in pregnancy.

Using artificial means of preventing pregnancy is a sin as it disorders the sexual act by frustrating the possibility of the act’s naturally ordered end. Being aware of a woman’s fertile and non-fertile time, and then practicing abstinence from the sexual act during a fertile period is the approved (i.e. non-sinful) method of family planning.

No, masturbation (at any time) is a perversion of the sexual act that denies the procreative end of sexual release. It is considered a grave matter and is intrinsically evil (always a sin).

I’d just like to add here concerning masterbation and this is a perfect post in a good thread is that “moral culpability” is also considered when it comes to the grave matter of masterbation. There are times it can be “venial” or not a “sin unto death” as the bible puts it or mortal sin. Maturity, habit, stress, and other factors are considered in the seriousness of the grave matter of masterbation.

Bill

 

[247cath]

.

Manualman: “Far from being the result of human pride and unwillingness to back down from previous positions, the church is faithful to God’s plan on this matter. Contraception gradually leads to a total mental divorce between intimacy and babies in the minds of those who use it repeatedly. NFP never does. It always retains that crucial interior link and awareness that this intimacy is tied up in the way we most clearly reflect God’s image: the creation of new life from an act of love.”

---

Since the church has changed its thoughts and teachings on the completeness of the sexual experience in marriage, it has evolved away from previous positions. That is just reality. It is a fact .That doesn’t take away from what the church now holds. It just shows that our church has the maturity gained from centuries of evaluating how best to incorporate the teachings of Jesus into our lives with advances in science and the God given human abilities to advance learning.

Specifically what I alluded to was the way the church changed from the old sex is bad, dirty and shouldn’t be discussed position to one that more openly recognizes its value in all married relationships, even those that were, in the past ,by definition disordered ie between sterile catholics, between handicapped or disfigured or between the vital elderly who have no chance of conceiving.

Your two other conclusions about ABC and NFP are just generalizations not based on facts. They may bring comfort to you if you feel they are true or support some standard you may hold, but that doesn’t make them real. Which places me between a rock and a hard place, since I agree with the church’s position of sex between married spouses is one of ultimate expressions of our commitment to each other. But if in actuality, it is based on your reasoning , which is a false generalization, do I have to discard my belief in the church’s position because if I use your reasoning which is false I know my conclusion might be false as well?

That is the problem with using generalizations and other methods of argument that stretch the truth, they may lead people to conclude that if the reasoning is false, the conclusion is false as well. That method of argument may not matter so much with people who share the views in your generalizations, but if people are trying to formulate an initial position or gain a greater understanding of how to implement the values of Jesus into their lives, then perhaps resorting to generalizations may not be the best way to help them.

 

[manualman]

We seem to communicate in different ways and have trouble understanding each other. I’ll try to address your points as I understand them, but forgive and correct me if I’ve understood you incorrectly.

1. The church has NEVER formally taught that sex is dirty, distasteful or repugnant. This is a ridiculous assertion, made worse by the fact that you don’t even remotely attempt to support it (other than repeating your assertions and demanding that they be acknowledged as fact). I’m sure you can trot out dozens of old nuns and priests who may have taught something to this effect in the past, but I hope you realize the difference between what actual church teachings are and what individual priests and nuns may have taught. All kinds of nut jobs have held teaching positions in the church over the years (google the former Fr. Matthew Fox if you’d like an example). But the collar or habit does not confer infallible teaching authority. Your assertion requires hard documents and good luck finding them. I won’t argue that western civilization hasn’t gone through periods, such as the Victorian, where sexuality was not appreciated or considered a negative trait, but you’ll of course note that neither Puritan nor Victorian society were catholic. Don’t mistake the legacy of American protestantism you grew up immersed in for genuine catholic teaching.
2. The church always works hard to reconcile revelation with reason. As human science has advanced, our ability to apply revelation to biological processes has advanced as well. I don’t dispute that. I also don’t dispute that there has been uneven progress and at time unbalanced emphasis on some areas to the point of neglect of others (procreative vs unitive, for example). But if you are going to assert (as a “fact”) that there has been backtracking on formal moral teaching on human sexuality, some examples would rather bolster your case, if you can find any. And if you go looking, I strongly suggest that you read in context, not just find and repeat a dissenter’s manifesto of charges without investigating. Every citation that looked “bad” at first that I’ve ever looked up has a context that makes a LOT more sense when you comprehend it.
3. Generalities are absolute necessities in reason and philosophy. I don’t even understand your point here. It’s a generality to assert that telling someone a lie betrays the trust that should exist between you and that person and damages that level of trust in the relationship in the future. So? It’s a TRUE generality! The same goes for human nature in regards to sexuality. God made us the way he made us. In the church, he has revealed certain insights into ways that people are tempted to damage their marriages without meaning to and warned us against it. That’s what sin IS: an action that inherently damages our ability to give and receive love. I’m not engaging in wild speculation here saying that sexual sin damages marriages. It’s absolutely basic! So I’m unsure where you find me “stretching the truth.” Perhaps elaborate?
4. I’m afraid I utterly fail to understand your second to last paragraph. Can you reiterate in different words? How does understanding that sexual intimacy is fundamentally linked to making babies deny the fact that it is also unitive? There is no conflict there. The conflict only arises if you assert that the unitive dimension is unaffected by willful contraception. It is. That’s WHY it’s a sin. Not because it’s on some arbitrary list, but because of the damage it does. If it caused no harm, it wouldn’t be a sin! (Unless, of course you’re one of those who knows better than the Church and are convinced that it is not a sin. If so, good luck with that…)

 

[247cath]

We seem to communicate in different ways and have trouble understanding each other. I’ll try to address your points as I understand them, but forgive and correct me if I’ve understood you incorrectly.

1. Generalities are absolute necessities in reason and philosophy. I don’t even understand your point here. It’s a generality to assert that telling someone a lie betrays the trust that should exist between you and that person and damages that level of trust in the relationship in the future. So? It’s a TRUE generality! The same goes for human nature in regards to sexuality. God made us the way he made us. In the church, he has revealed certain insights into ways that people are tempted to damage their marriages without meaning to and warned us against it. That’s what sin IS: an action that inherently damages our ability to give and receive love. I’m not engaging in wild speculation here saying that sexual sin damages marriages. It’s absolutely basic! So I’m unsure where you find me “stretching the truth.” Perhaps elaborate?

So every marriage that has used NFP is better than every marriage that has used ABC ? No people who have used ABC have avoided the pitfalls that you mention? And everyone that uses NFP has never attempted to not get pregnant with the moral failings that result from such an intention? OK, I guess I got to go with your facts. My bad.

 

[manualman]

My numbers added for clarity:

1. So every marriage that has used NFP is better than every marriage that has used ABC ?
2. No people who have used ABC have avoided the pitfalls that you mention?
3. And everyone that uses NFP has never attempted to not get pregnant with the moral failings that result from such an intention? OK, I guess I got to go with your facts. My bad.

1. Not hardly. Nowhere in my posts did I assert that contraception is the only sin that can damage marriages. We humans are a sad lot and cause each other harm in thousands of ways. We just happen to be arguing about the inherent sinfulness of THIS one right now, not it’s relative standing among the litany of misery that human sin can and has caused.
2. Allow me to turn your question back around on you. Are you asserting that there are times when sin is committed and no actual harm results from it? Consider this: what could be less harmful than simply taking a bite from an apple? Yet look what THAT did in Adam and Eve’s case! By definition, sin does harm. Nowhere did I assert that ABC is the utter worst of all imaginable sins. That’s you evading, not anything I said.
3. If I gave that impression then I humbly apologize and retract! NFP CAN be abused and misused to the point of divorcing sex and babies in the mind of the couple. But it’s a LOT harder to do. The NFP folks every month live a period where they question REAL hard their reason for abstaining. You have to be nearly schitzo to fail to remember the inherent connection. Having to remember to pop a pill in the morning hardly compares as a reminder… God made us in His image and both our biology and our minds are ordered towards reflecting His image. We meddle with His design for self-regulation at our peril.

As you can tell, I get charged up when I perceive people challenging the line that divides good and evil. It’s not personal and I don’t mean to attack you personally. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[choose_to_love]

Preach on, brother manual!

247: it would be helpful if you could respond to manual’s points with the same number system. He’s trying really hard to help you understand, but it seems to me the goalposts keep moving when you do not respond to all his points.