Protestant Sex

[manualman]

Rico,

It comes down to culture. We aren’t living in a culture that extols teh joys of lying. In practice, it happens a lot, but we still at least pay cultural lip service to honesty and integrity. Same goes for violence, stealing, adultery, etc.

But contraception is different. We live in a culture that celebrates it as a virtue. (See Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments!) Catholics in large numbers have simply failed to discern the cultural influence they are feeling on the matter.

On such counter-cultural matters there is LOTS of historical precedent. Catholics for centuries failed to see the inherent inhumanity of chattel slavery, many European catholics fell for eugenics in the early 20th century, the MAJORITY of catholics fell for the Arian heresy early in our history before the tide turned and it was eventually stomped out.

It is no impressive and heroic thing to stand with the church when the culture stands alongside. When the culture goes off the rails are the times when it gets tough to do what is right. Watch and see the next one: embryonic stem cells. In large part, I betcha the same catholics who vociferously assert the church to be WRONG on contraception will be the ones out there undermining her on what I prefer to call ‘human body part farming.’

 

[vera_dicere]

A Protestant friend of mine once asked me if I had accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour - despite her knowing I was Catholic. Long story short, I had to point out to her that most of the protestant churches were built out of sin - Henry deciding he wanted a divorce so to hell with the church he created his own, and general individuals not beleiving in Catholic teaching, or reinterpreting it.

As Catholic as my mum’s side of the family is, pretty much all of them, bar my cousin, use contraception! My cousin and his wife use NFP and are brave in their path to Heaven. My mum told me its a matter between the married couple and God. Which I thought was dodgey as by that logic, why not ignore Catholic teaching on aboriton and homosexuality, if its just a matter between God and the people involved?

It disgusts me that as an unmarried 27year old, so many people reckon I’m “getting a bit on the side” or “having one night stands” since I dont’ have a “boyfriend”. I don’t beleive in sex out of wedlock, both in obidence to God and from teaching from our Holy Church. And I sure as heck don’t beleive in contracpetion and sure as hell won’t be using it when I marry. I met a Protestant man (who aside from being a few sandwiches short of a picnic) told me that if we wed, to hell with prudish Catholic teaching, I would be using artifical BC if I liked it or not. As you can imagine that was the last conversation we had and I gave him the flick.

The path of abstience is a hard one. I’m 27! There were days when I thougth “Ah, to hell with it, if the opportunity arises, why not?” but through prayer and discussion with God, and readings from Catholic authors, I realised I’m not going to sell myself, or my future husband short.

I’m now at the time in my life where the thought of dying a virgin is no concern to me - what it’s led me to see is the foulness in this society! A society that treats me like a liar or a looser if I mention my beleif, or belittles me for having a respect for my self, my future marriage, my Church and most importantly my God.

I know so many Protestants who even laugh at me that i"m still a member of the V club at this age, Protestants who engage in premarital sex and justify it by saying “we didn’t go all the way” or “we’re getting married” or “God has bigger things to worry about”.

The Protestant churches have fallen away from the Catholic chruch and I think we are seeing the rotten fruits of this, couple this with an incredibly physically attractive and enticing secular society, you have a rather dangerous combination in the “Liberal” Protestatnt demoniations that are coming out.

 

[Good_Daughter]

–Each sexual act should not have to be procreative.

Why not?

Or, if you prefer, why do you think Catholicism teaches that each marital embrace must be procreative?

 

[Rico_S]

Hello Good Daughter!

Or, if you prefer, why do you think Catholicism teaches that each marital embrace must be procreative?

I am not certain…but how about this:

The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of Children (at least for the first 1900 years of the church or so).
The conjugal act is the culmination of married love, To remove the natural inclination of the act toward procreation is to strip the meaning of the act all together…for procreation is inseparable from the sacrament of married love.

Or maybe this…

By design, the conjugal act is one in which married couples transmit life within the bonds of sacramental marriage. To use it for another purpose by exluding the natural tendency to transmit life is a perviersion of God’s design.

I am sure there are much more philosophical answers to the question of why…but I assume most are rooted in the fact that marriage is procreative…the conjugal act by God’s design is primarily (or at least inseparable from) for the transmission of life.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

Rico,

It comes down to culture. We aren’t living in a culture that extols teh joys of lying. In practice, it happens a lot, but we still at least pay cultural lip service to honesty and integrity. Same goes for violence, stealing, adultery, etc.

But contraception is different. We live in a culture that celebrates it as a virtue. (See Nancy Pelosi’s recent comments!) Catholics in large numbers have simply failed to discern the cultural influence they are feeling on the matter.

On such counter-cultural matters there is LOTS of historical precedent. Catholics for centuries failed to see the inherent inhumanity of chattel slavery, many European catholics fell for eugenics in the early 20th century, the MAJORITY of catholics fell for the Arian heresy early in our history before the tide turned and it was eventually stomped out.

It is no impressive and heroic thing to stand with the church when the culture stands alongside. When the culture goes off the rails are the times when it gets tough to do what is right. Watch and see the next one: embryonic stem cells. In large part, I betcha the same catholics who vociferously assert the church to be WRONG on contraception will be the ones out there undermining her on what I prefer to call ‘human body part farming.’

It is a good point, but I still think you are too quickly dismissing my position.

–Society thinks premarital sex is ok…but there is no major swell from catholics calling on the church to amend her teachings
–Society thinks the divorce is fine and acceptable…but there is no swell for the church to amend her teaching on divorce.
–Society thinks pornography is ok…but there is no swell for the church to amend her teaching on pornography.
–Society thinks that abortion is ok and should be an option for women…but there is no swell for the church to amend her position on abortion.

However, there is a huge contingent who think the chuch’s stance on contraception is wrong. Is it simply cultural influence like you maintain…certainly possible. But I would not be so quick to draw that conclusion when so many of today’s cultural influences are not drawing the same dissent…even on other “sexuality” based issues. That is my point…and I believe worth considering.

–Rico.

 

[PaulinVA]

Why not?

Or, if you prefer, why do you think Catholicism teaches that each marital embrace must be procreative?

Each marital embrace must be unitive and ordered toward procreation.

What that basically means is that it is a skin to skin contact that could result in pregnancy, if the timing is right.

Chemical birth control interferes with the result, even if the timing is right. Condoms interfere with skin to skin unity, and interfere with the “could result in pregnancy if the timing is right.” Other barriers allow the contact, but still thwart the results.

That’s why menopausal couples are still allowed to make love. They engage in relations which is skin to skin (unitive) and could result in pregnancy if the timing is right (procreative). The timing isn’t right, but if it were (one last egg released), a pregnancy could result.

Same with NFP. They meet all of the criteria, but the timing isn’t right, so a pregnancy doesn’t result. If the timing is right (unbeknownst to the couple) a pregnancy could result.

 

[Rico_S]

Each marital embrace must be unitive and ordered toward procreation.

Yes. But, I think Good Daughter is asking why the Church teaches that each act must be ordered toward procreation. You have explained what it means to be ordered toward procreation (fairly well I might add)…not why it must be.

Condoms interfere with skin to skin unity,

I don’t want to derail the thread…just want to point out that this not a problem for the church…as perforated condoms are just fine to use when trying to collect semen samples.

–Rico

 

[PaulinVA]

Yes. But, I think Good Daughter is asking why the Church teaches that each act must be ordered toward procreation. You have explained what it means to be ordered toward procreation (fairly well I might add)…not why it must be.

I think the reason is that you can’t put a value on how often it must be unitive and procreative without being subjective. 51%? 51% per month? Per year? Per marriage? It just wouldn’t work.

The only objective measure is Always.

I don’t want to derail the thread…just want to point out that this not a problem for the church…as perforated condoms are just fine to use when trying to collect semen samples.

–Rico

Rico, good point! Maybe the perforated condom provides for real contact through the holes, at least notionally.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Unitive doesn’t really mean skin to skin contact. It has more to do with the good of the spouses. (see catechism 2363) and fidelity.

I think the answer to why does the Church teach what she does about the Marital act can be found in the Catechism. Start at
#2360 and read on (really that whole section is great)…

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm
and also about marriage itself:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm

I’ll summarize what I think it means. The unaltered marital act is a sacramental. It is a recommitment to the relationship. It is a holy act. If you remember that marriage is an image of the Trinity, then it becomes a bit clearer why the Church takes this so seriously.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Rico, good point! Maybe the perforated condom provides for real contact through the holes, at least notionally.

The perforated condom is used for medical purposes to diagnose a problem. It is allowed because the perforation allows semen to escape. Unitive-wise, I would imagine it’s allowed because of the diagnotic tool? The act is performed in as licit a way as possible to allow medical diagnosis–avoiding the sin of maturbation to obtain a sample. Hmmm, I think a medical ethicist would be good to ask this question to.

Here’s something else about this:
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/treatment.htm

 

[PaulinVA]

Jennifer,
Without skin to skin contact, there really is no union, is there? That was my point. The act of the union is good for the spouses.

 

[1ke]

So, where is the OP?

 

[fbl9]

As Catholic as my mum’s side of the family is, pretty much all of them, bar my cousin, use contraception! My cousin and his wife use NFP and are brave in their path to Heaven. My mum told me its a matter between the married couple and God. Which I thought was dodgey as by that logic, why not ignore Catholic teaching on aboriton and homosexuality, if its just a matter between God and the people involved?

It disgusts me that as an unmarried 27year old, so many people reckon I’m “getting a bit on the side” or “having one night stands” since I dont’ have a “boyfriend”. I don’t beleive in sex out of wedlock, both in obidence to God and from teaching from our Holy Church. And I sure as heck don’t beleive in contracpetion and sure as hell won’t be using it when I marry. I met a Protestant man (who aside from being a few sandwiches short of a picnic) told me that if we wed, to hell with prudish Catholic teaching, I would be using artifical BC if I liked it or not. As you can imagine that was the last conversation we had and I gave him the flick.

The path of abstience is a hard one. I’m 27! There were days when I thougth “Ah, to hell with it, if the opportunity arises, why not?” but through prayer and discussion with God, and readings from Catholic authors, I realised I’m not going to sell myself, or my future husband short.

I’m now at the time in my life where the thought of dying a virgin is no concern to me - what it’s led me to see is the foulness in this society! A society that treats me like a liar or a looser if I mention my beleif, or belittles me for having a respect for my self, my future marriage, my Church and most importantly my God.

I know so many Protestants who even laugh at me that i"m still a member of the V club at this age, Protestants who engage in premarital sex and justify it by saying “we didn’t go all the way” or “we’re getting married” or “God has bigger things to worry about”.

The Protestant churches have fallen away from the Catholic chruch and I think we are seeing the rotten fruits of this, couple this with an incredibly physically attractive and enticing secular society, you have a rather dangerous combination in the “Liberal” Protestatnt demoniations that are coming out.

good one
May God bless and keep you.

 

[manualman]

It is a good point, but I still think you are too quickly dismissing my position.

1. Society thinks premarital sex is ok…but there is no major swell from catholics calling on the church to amend her teachings
2. Society thinks the divorce is fine and acceptable…but there is no swell for the church to amend her teaching on divorce.
3. Society thinks pornography is ok…but there is no swell for the church to amend her teaching on pornography.
4. Society thinks that abortion is ok and should be an option for women…but there is no swell for the church to amend her position on abortion.

However, there is a huge contingent who think the chuch’s stance on contraception is wrong. Is it simply cultural influence like you maintain…certainly possible. But I would not be so quick to draw that conclusion when so many of today’s cultural influences are not drawing the same dissent…even on other “sexuality” based issues. That is my point…and I believe worth considering.

1. Society still knows premarital sex is wrong, but chooses to sweep it under the rug. After all, THAT situation rectifies itself once folks decide to ‘settle down.’ It is easy to sidestep Church teaching because most catholics in America today simply don’t give a rip about the Church during their single years. They generally start coming back and getting more involved when they are married and their kids are born. It is MUCH easier to assent to Church teaching once it is a moot point, no?
2. I think you’re wrong here too. The bulk of catholics out there in America today could not tell you the difference between a divorce and an annullment. Again, it is easy to assent to Church teaching on divorce when everybody who wants to be is an exception to the rule.
3. I don’t think most people in general society find porn as acceptable as you assert. Imagine if you met someone at a respectable dinner party, asked and found out she was a porn actress. What’s your reaction? How is she treated if it is generally known? Does an OBGYN who daily prescribes dozens of birth control pill prescriptions get such a reaction? Of course not. Porn has reached the status where it is embarassingly tolerated, but still somewhat shamefully. Everybody still knows it is wrong, but some do it anyway. Contraception doesn’t even embarrass anybody.
4. Same thing as #3 above. Is a doctor that prescribes contraception embrassed to admit it in social functions? How about an abortionist? Methinks there is still a big difference. People still KNOW abortion is wrong and shameful, even many who vote to keep it legal.

Your point IS worth considering. But I’ve considered them before and decided contraception is different because it is an everyday reality for so many people. You can’t daily do something that is wrong unless you first beat down your conscience. Nobody gets an abortion every day or divorces every day and they are generally done with the premarital sex before they return to the Church. Porn is a tricky one as I think it involves addiction for most who use it heavily. In my experience, those who get the addiction do so before they have a serious conversion experience.

 

[fbl9]

Porn is a tricky one as I think it involves addiction for most who use it heavily. In my experience, those who get the addiction do so before they have a serious conversion experience.

In a way it is the “cause” for one’s conversion.by getting fed up with the digusting way to live one’s life,in or out of marriage…
good points in the rest of the post too.

 

[Genesis315]

I knew a Protestant in college who was super puritanical about pre-marital contact (no kissing, etc.) but believed once you got married it was essentially a free-for-all–as long as it was just you and your wife, no matter sexual perversions or depravities you two could come up with, it was a-ok as long as both consented.

I found that hardly “balanced.”

 

[newbetx]

Whenever I hear our separated brethren discussing sexual matters, it seems that their attitude toward sexuality is so much more balanced and in tune with the teachings of Jesus.

The 6th commandment regarding adultry concerns having real sexual relations with someone who is not your wife, or having sex with another man’s wife. The 9th commandment regarding the coveting your neighbor’s wife means exactly that. If she’s married, she’s not available to you! The “adultry of the heart” that Jesus spoke of is not the same act as an affair with the your bosses secretary.

These commandments seem to be supporting the idea of monogamy, the stability of the family and society; and have nothing to do with the laundry list of rules that catholics must follow.

During the middle ages the celibate men of the church used the 6th and 9th commandments to such a seemingly rediculous extreme in an attempt to choke all non-reproductive sexuality out completely of existence.

I have to wonder if their lack of understanding regarding biology and physiology didn’t play a part in creating a great fear of such a powerful and pleasurable aspect of humanity?

I can see there is much you are frustrated with based on the number and type of threads you have started on this issue. I, too, thought the Church “restricted sex” too much. I found out that it was I that had a restricted view of sex. Have you looked into TOB? It has a very different perspective about sex I found quite liberating.

 

[TLM08]

I can see there is much you are frustrated with based on the number and type of threads you have started on this issue. I, too, thought the Church “restricted sex” too much. I found out that it was I that had a restricted view of sex. Have you looked into TOB? It has a very different perspective about sex I found quite liberating.

TOB would have been considered scandalous by many ancient theologians who considered any pleasure experienced during sex to be sinful. My gut feeling is that in matters of sexuality, the church is probably right about 80% of the time.

One look up and down the Moral Theology forum shows that it isn’t just me that is really having a tough time with church teachings on sexuality.

Few God fearing people question church teachings on issues such as lying, stealing, cheating, violence, abortion and such other sins. Who could question with any degree of credibility that these things are wrong?

But for the unemployed and nearly bankrupt father of five who is about to lose his house to forclosure to be forced to live celibate or risk impregnanting his wife doesn’t make sense.

NFP? That’s a whole different issue. It seems to me that avioding pregnancy through NFP looks a lot like the illegal practice of “insider trading” in the stock market. Both instances you are “getting away” with the goods.

It took centuries for the church to take a different stance on “heretics”. Those folks we used to burn alive at the stake, we now call “separated brethren”.

I am a big fan of the catholic church. It just seems that culturally she has been slow to move on matters of sexuality.

 

[Rico_S]

NFP? That’s a whole different issue.

No…it really isn’t. NFP and the “do’s and don’ts” of the marital embrace…all flow from the church’s teachings of the conjugal union. It is quite likely that if you disagree with the church on some of its stances of certain aspects of the conjugal act, then you disagree with the church’s fundamental view of sex----which is also the foundation for the church’s teaching on NFP (and the condemnation of contraception).

Let’s pretend and say you think it is ridiculous that the church teaches that each and every “marital embrace” must end with the man finishing inside his wife. If this is your take, then you must reject the foundational church teaching that each and every act must be procreative (that is ordered toward procreation, not necessarily fertile). Once you reject this teaching, the condemnation of contraception goes…Poof!!

So, imo, NFP, contraception, teachings on the marital embrace are basically the same discussion.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

All of these, in my opinion, reflect a uniquely “Catholic” set of scruples, mindset, discomfort, and attitude toward physicality within marriage.

I’m not saying that the Church dogmatically teaches any of these. But attitudes and opinions like these didn’t arise in a vacuum – they would seem to have developed out of an institutional mindset that has historically been, at best, uncomfortable with the physical aspects of marriage.

Anyone???