Protestant Sex

[Good_Daughter]

More total self giving…everything I have… even a reference to dying to self. I do not see how it is not clear as day that if this is the defining principle…the moral light in which the conjugal union is viewed, how does intentionally withholding fertiltiy from the marriatal act, by making sure you only have intercourse when fertility isn’t present, objectionable. How is intentionally withholding fertility a total self giving?

–Rico

Total self giving is an act of the here and now. On our infertile days we are our total selves.

Total self giving while withholding fertility is impossible. NFP separates the two.

Have you PMed Little Deb to comment on this?

 

[newbetx]

Post 166

:doh2: sorry, missed it.

While it may not be the only one, it is one that used often here on CAF…and if I am not mistaken is actually in the CCC (cannot confirm right now).

Sorry, I must not have noticed. “Rejection of fertility” seemed new to me.

With NFP, the INTENTION is to avoid sex to avoid conception.

 

[TLM08]

Again you fail to understand.

Granted, the church has come a long way in understanding “seed” vs. scientific fertility cycles. But to say “ABC’s alright” OR “no BC at all” is a bipolar view. Many people can only see black or white and when something that seems grey comes along, they reject it. It’s a shame, but it’s their right.

If you want it that way, fine. You are free to believe it. No one is holding a gun to your head. But no one that sides with “popular” view can be considered a great theologian. TOB is based on scripture, not popular concepts or ignorance or “control.” TOB validates HV. Take it or leave it. The choice is always yours. If you want to understand, we’ll try to explain it. Just stop coming here to bad mouth it.

You continue to come here to spread the seed of doubt through countless threads on this subject. We explain it, but your mind is made up and you refuse to accept it. I’ll continue to address the issues as I can with my understanding of the teachings because many here have the same legitimate questions. But for you, I think prayer is the only recourse.

Look, I’m not talking about teenagers in the back seat of dad’s car… or the dual income professional couple who simply doesn’t wish to be “burdened” with the hassles of raising a family. I believe that the primary purpose of sex is for procreation within the covenant of marriage.

What about the massive suffering and starvation of millions children due to famine, war, disease, extreme poverty and lack of medical care in third world countries? Since they don’t have to worry about finding time in between soccer practice and dance class to cook dinner, they’ll surely have time to read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body For Beginners”


What’s the greater sin? Allowing millions of babies to be conceived knowing full well that they will suffer miserably and die of disease or starvation before their sixth birthday? …or giving these people a means to moderate the number of children they can properly provide for given the desperate living conditions they cannot escape from.

Our separated brethren (protestants) seem to have gotten this almost a hundred years ago! In this ecumenical era, one would think that the Church would have realized this also.

 

[Good_Daughter]

What’s the greater sin? Allowing millions of babies to be conceived knowing full well that they will suffer miserably and die of disease or starvation before their sixth birthday? …or giving these people a means to moderate the number of children they can properly provide for given the desperate living conditions they cannot escape from.

Our separated brethren (protestants) seem to have gotten this almost a hundred years ago!..

The Catholic doctors who first taught me about NFP had previously spent time in third world countries also teaching NFP. They reported that the women there understood the system easily and practiced it with greater success than they were seeing in Canada.

You’ll be glad to know some Catholics seem to have “gotten this” too.

 

[Rico_S]

During contracepted sex, couples engage in the very act that summons fertility, while ensuring that fertility is cast out. Sometimes contraception is practiced by ejecting fertility in anticipation of the act where it will be summoned.

What other healthy bodily function do we try to thwart in this way?

I can’t think of any body pocesses that are really comparable to the sexual union. So if you are asking if there is another body process which serves 2 purposes where we want to use that process for only one of the purposes while supressing the other…then I don’t know if there is one. I will give it some more thought.

I think the duration of the rejection is irrelevant. What’s more signifigant, I think, is the reasoning behind it.

Neither my diabetic friend nor my Jehovah’s Witness friend are going to dig into a piece of my birthday cake anytime soon. My diabetic friend refrains not because cake is bad, but because cake is bad for his health. My JW friend refrains because she believes the celebration of birthdays to be an evil thing, in other words, she thinks the cake is bad.

I am not quite sure I understand your point. Are saying that to use abc is to think fertility is bad? Well, I guarantee that a higher percentage of abc’ers think of feritlity as bad than NFPers, but I disagree that it is necessarily so. I certainly don’t, whether you judge my actions to speak otherwise or not.

Others devalue their fertility and try to thwart it when having sex. Contraceptives involve such things as “barriers” (against the “enemy”?), “spermicide” (we kill things we reject, not withhold), and “getting fixed” (does fertility indicate brokenness?). Most of the people I know treat fertility like a disease, I’ve done it myself.

I don’t even want to engage you on this line of thought. Perhaps it isn’t so much that the person who chooses to use abc devalues their fertility as much as it is they value the bond and intimacy that the sexual union with their spouse creates.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

Total self giving is an act of the here and now. On our infertile days we are our total selves.

Yes, we are. But this goes back to my structuring argument earlier that apparently isn’t very convincing. Having sex on fertile days is ok. Having sex on infertile days is ok. Monitoring fertility and purposefully avoiding fertile days and engaging in the union only on infertile days is fundamentally different than simply have intercourse on infertile days.

If we judge abc based on the whole complete self giving…yada yada yada yada yada yada.

Have you PMed Little Deb to comment on this?

Good Heavens, No! Have you read her comments in that thread toward mparty? I don’t think mparty has been rude or uncharitable, he is simply arguing a point that conflicts with church teaching, and of course littleDeb’s. Several of her responses were unsufferably arrogant!! .I have no desire to have an exchange with her.

–Rico

 

[JG77]

This is not accurate and you know it. **NFP is not abstinence **and you know it. It is having sex if and only if her fertility is not there to offer.

This is actually not true. There are a number of couples who have problems conceiving and actually use NFP to find the fertile days so that they have better chances of doing so.

 

[newbetx]

What about the massive suffering and starvation of millions children due to famine, war, disease, extreme poverty and lack of medical care in third world countries? Since they don’t have to worry about finding time in between soccer practice and dance class to cook dinner, they’ll surely have time to read Christopher West’s “Theology of the Body For Beginners”

What about them? Even Christ said there will always be poor. We have enough food to feed the world. That’s more of a distribution problem with dictatorships. That’s not solved by rubbers.

So poor peoples babies should be killed? Why not? Easier on our taxes, eh? Exactly what Pelosi is saying! She brings a new meaning to “Stimulus package.”

Let’s see… we can force countraceptives on people in order to get food. That’s real generous.
I can’t find the post that sited a reaction from some poor central american women that, in exchange for food, they would be given instructions on using contraception. But the response was clearly translated as “Stupid Americans.” The poor aren’t calling out for abortion or BC. The RICH are.

What’s the greater sin? Allowing millions of babies to be conceived knowing full well that they will suffer miserably and die of disease or starvation before their sixth birthday? …or giving these people a means to moderate the number of children they can properly provide for given the desperate living conditions they cannot escape from.

Do you work for the government?

Our separated brethren (protestants) seem to have gotten this almost a hundred years ago! In this ecumenical era, one would think that the Church would have realized this also.

Yeah, the got it alright. A higher divorce rate, more pedifiles, gay marriages. (Sarcasm on)When will the Catholic Church see the light and recognize that democracy, not God, should rule? (Sarcasm off.)

 

[Good_Daughter]

I can’t think of any body pocesses that are really comparable to the sexual union. So if you are asking if there is another body process which serves 2 purposes where we want to use that process for only one of the purposes while supressing the other…then I don’t know if there is one. I will give it some more thought.

Regardless of how many or few bodily processes you’re suppressing, contraception tries to undo natural, healthy fertility.

I can’t think of any other advances in human history that seek to “break” something that works perfectly.

I am not quite sure I understand your point. Are saying that to use abc is to think fertility is bad? Well, I guarantee that a higher percentage of abc’ers think of feritlity as bad than NFPers, but I disagree that it is necessarily so. I certainly don’t, whether you judge my actions to speak otherwise or not.

I don’t think contraceptive use necessarily indicates a person thinks fertility is bad. It does indicate that a person thinks their fertility is wrong at that time. If you don’t think there’s something wrong with your fertility, why seek to change it?

My other question: If you are seeking to change your fertility, why? What exactly is wrong with it?

I’m not trying to judge your actions but to look at them objectively. I’ve had to ask myself the same the same questions because I still struggle (not always successfully) with the temptation to contracept. Ultimately though, I don’t think it’s rational to change my natural, healthy fertility to infertility.

I don’t even want to engage you on this line of thought. Perhaps it isn’t so much that the person who chooses to use abc devalues their fertility as much as it is they value the bond and intimacy that the sexual union with their spouse creates.

We might not conciously devalue our fertility, but when we contracept, we try to completely change something that’s been perfectly created by God. That sends a clear message whether we mean to or not. When is the last time you tried to completely change something you thought was good?

Yes, we are. But this goes back to my structuring argument earlier that apparently isn’t very convincing. Having sex on fertile days is ok. Having sex on infertile days is ok. Monitoring fertility and purposefully avoiding fertile days and engaging in the union only on infertile days is fundamentally different than simply have intercourse on infertile days.

I’m still considering your structuring argument, so don’t knock it just yet! Currently it makes my poor pregnant brain hurt, so it may take some time for me to think about it.

Good Heavens, No! Have you read her comments in that thread toward mparty? I don’t think mparty has been rude or uncharitable, he is simply arguing a point that conflicts with church teaching, and of course littleDeb’s. Several of her responses were unsufferably arrogant!! .I have no desire to have an exchange with her.

Your feelings are duly noted.

Objectively, I find LittleDeb to be well informed on a range of Catholic issues. She’s a whiz with TOB. Spiritually, I consider her a dear friend.

In the end though, not eveybody’s chemistry works together.

 

[newbetx]

Good Heavens, No! Have you read her comments in that thread toward mparty? I don’t think mparty has been rude or uncharitable, he is simply arguing a point that conflicts with church teaching, and of course littleDeb’s. Several of her responses were unsufferably arrogant!! .I have no desire to have an exchange with her.

–Rico

You can learn much from Little Deb. I know I have. I’m sorry if you feel intimidated. It’s difficult to have a thorough conversation through written word. I can assure you that some of your posts come off as appearing as flipant and smug. Little Deb takes seriously the need to defend the faith. She does so with much passion.

I’m called arrogant, too. I try hard, but I am a mear mortal. We all have to remember that there is much good content here and not let tone blind us to the truth.

Peace.

 

[newbetx]

Rico, (and anyone else)
Have you considered reading any of the TOB books? Or the Wednesday Addresses from which it is the basis? They are based on scripture, so TOB should be good for all Christians. I can’t recommend it highly enough.

Some people don’t buy it, or don’t want to. It’s our choice, but it does lay out the concepts in a very logical order. At the end, we may choose to reject or accept it. My experience says this view of humanity is the way to go. It’s a high calling and we all will fall short somewhere along the line, but it is well worth looking into.

 

[Rico_S]

Regardless of how many or few bodily processes you’re suppressing, contraception tries to undo natural, healthy fertility.

I can’t think of any other advances in human history that seek to **“break” **something that works perfectly.

I don’t think contraceptive use necessarily indicates a person thinks fertility is bad. It does indicate that a person thinks their fertility is wrong at that time. If you don’t think there’s something wrong with your fertility, why seek to change it?

My other question: If you are seeking to change your fertility, why? What exactly is wrong with it?

I’m not trying to judge your actions but to look at them objectively. I’ve had to ask myself the same the same questions because I still struggle (not always successfully) with the temptation to contracept. Ultimately though, I don’t think it’s rational to** change my natural, healthy fertility to infertility**.

We might not conciously devalue our fertility, but when we contracept, we try to **completely change **something that’s been perfectly created by God. That sends a clear message whether we mean to or not. When is the last time you tried to completely change something you thought was good?

I have bolded a few of your words. Do you not think your word choices here are extreme? I mean, does wearing a condom “completely change”, “break”, or “undo” our fertility? If we were strictly talking about sterilization, then I think all of your comments would fit just fine…heck, even if i might even say that they more or less fit for hormonal birth control (althought I am not really 100% on board with that). But I don’t think those views really fit for condoms, diagphrams, etc.

Yes, I understand that we fundamentally reject fertility for the given act(s) while we are contracepting…so I am not trying to sugar coat anything. But at the same time, my rejecting fertily by wearing a condom is not a complete change to my fertility, nor am I breaking my fertility (or hers). To cast it in that light is to ascribe an intent/meaning that is significantly more negative than is actually there.

If you don’t think there’s something wrong with your fertility, why seek to change it?

My other question: If you are seeking to change your fertility, why? What exactly is wrong with it?

Why must I necessarily consider something wrong with my fertility if I choose to avoid it? Sometimes after mass, I alter my exit route so that I will not pass the majority of parishoners b/c I am not in the mood for conversation…does that necessarily mean I think there is something wrong with those people, or that conversing with them is bad for some reason? I don’t think anything is wrong with my wife’s or my fertililty…we have simply decided that we don’t want to have another baby right now and so we choose to withhold/alter/reject fertility for the time being.

We might not conciously devalue our fertility, but when we contracept, we try to completely change something that’s been perfectly created by God. That sends a clear message whether we mean to or not.

I am glad that we do agree that contracepting is not necessarily a conscious devaluation of our fertility. As far as the message that is sends…I dunno. Does my wife send that same message when she covers her face (God’s perfect creation) with make up, or has her leg hair removed by lasers, or pierces here ears and colors her hair?

When is the last time you tried to completely change something you thought was good?

Is the answer going to be different if I ask “When was the last time you completely avoid something like the plague that you thought was good?”

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

Objectively, I find LittleDeb to be well informed on a range of Catholic issues. She’s a whiz with TOB. Spiritually, I consider her a dear friend.

In the end though, not eveybody’s chemistry works together.

I have no doubt that she is intimately familiar with TOB and the church teachings and is a great defender of the faith. And, I imagine that she is a great person in real life.

It seems very often that those who have posted for awhile are very quick to judge other’s intent and respond with generic “talking points” stuff. I am sure it is easy to do and I should be less harsh in judging the old guard.

You know, CAF is kind of funny…you would think it would be a great source of strenght and support for faith. And while it can be, I have found it to be an obstacle as well. All I have to do is go read the Traditional Catholic forum and any pull toward my Catholic faith disappears quite quickly.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

You can learn much from Little Deb. I know I have. I’m sorry if you feel intimidated.
Peace.

Just to be clear, I am not intimidated by LittleDeb.

I can assure you that some of your posts come off as appearing as flipant and smug.

I would describe my style as sarcastic…perhaps occassionally smug.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

Rico, (and anyone else)
Have you considered reading any of the TOB books? .

It was my intention to get one this weekend, but I was so busy, I did not get a chance to do it. Still undecided about which one to get…but I am pretty sure I don’t want the Wed addresses themselves, as I doubt I could make it through them.

 

[newbetx]

It was my intention to get one this weekend, but I was so busy, I did not get a chance to do it. Still undecided about which one to get…but I am pretty sure I don’t want the Wed addresses themselves, as I doubt I could make it through them.

I have my favorites, but as many posters here will tell you there are many good options out there. I haven’t found TOB stuff at the local Borders. Much on faith, but not TOB. I order mine through Amazon.

I’ve heard JP II’s Love and Responsibility can be on the dry side. But it might be better for someone like yourself… I haven’t read that one. If I read, I generally fall asleep, so the book has to move along for me to stick with it. I have made it throught Christopher West’s TOB for Beginners and TGNAS&M… They are much more specific to the sexuality side of TOB. But that was the area I orignially was looking into, so it was a great place for me to start. From there I went to various free or inexpensive CD’s and MP3s for a wider view of TOB. I’ll be pleased to provide the pointers when/if you desire them.

 

[newbetx]

It was my intention to get one this weekend, but I was so busy, I did not get a chance to do it. Still undecided about which one to get…but I am pretty sure I don’t want the Wed addresses themselves, as I doubt I could make it through them.

I know what you mean. I’ve just started those, myself. The whole thing was 4 years of weekly addresses, so that will take a long time… And some will tell you the JP II didn’t say some of the things CW will say… Then I found out there were some of the addresses that weren’t addressed in public because of the personal and discriptive nature of them.

 

[Rico_S]

bump.

Did you give up on me Good Daughter?