Protestant Sex

[Rico_S]

Fix:

Because there are legitimate reasons not to become pregnant. Engaging in sex during non fertile times is perfectly natural in every sense of the word natural.

Engaging in sex, then frustrating one aspect is unnatural.

I (We) weren’t discussing this in light of the natural order argument. We were talking about the marital union as being a total gift of self, that holding anything back renders the act not unitive…that the trinity is reflected in the unaltered marital act.

-Rico

 

[Rico_S]

newb:

However, I don’t understand your comments about what the Church “doesn’t teach.” From TOB I see these things as teachings and from the CCC as well. So I’m afraid I don’t understand that last paragraph. Could you be more specific?

Basically, I am saying that the church does not officially teach that sex becomes passe, or less valued, if the consequences are removed. If it did so, it would place a whole subset of people (post-menopause, infertile, etc) in a pretty bad spot. Instead, they talk about keeping the act ordered toward procreation.

However, my opinion is that the church’s teachings are pretty much rooted in the “removing consequences devalues” sex, and “sex is primarily for making babies,”

I wish I had the official poll information. I find it a form of propaganda that people try to dismiss this.

Well, to each his own. I find it pretty incredible that any thinking person would look at those statistics and not realize that NFP is but a small part of a large set of variables that effect that outcome. “That Man is You!!” is a catholic program for men that used these types of statistics to prove various points, and I was not the only person who was irritated at the way they were used. It really left a bad taste in my mouth about the program and its founder. But, hey…if it helps bring people to the ultimate truth of the catholic faith, what’s the harm in a little misdirection?

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

newb:

Basically, I am saying that the church does not officially teach that sex becomes passe, or less valued, if the consequences are removed. If it did so, it would place a whole subset of people (post-menopause, infertile, etc) in a pretty bad spot. Instead, they talk about keeping the act ordered toward procreation. --Rico

I believe Humanae Vitae did. Do you not consider that “a church teaching?” Maybe they were figuring if you made it to menopause, you would then have enough respect for the act and each other (or lack of desire) to make the “lust” thing a mute argument. The church sees the unitive value significant but not so much to justify ABC.

However, my opinion is that the church’s teachings are pretty much rooted in the “removing consequences devalues” sex, and “sex is primarily for making babies,”–Rico

Definately the former, as my experience will validate. The latter has been a misunderstanding for a long time. We must recognize and respect that one of the major needs for sex is the propagation of the species and the faith. However, that is where the inseparable part comes in. It also helps the marriage with the unifing aspect. So those only having sex to make babies devalue the act as well. Conception is meant to be an act of love. As such, the result should not be considered a failure of something. We forget that sometimes.

Well, to each his own. I find it pretty incredible that any thinking person would look at those statistics and not realize that NFP is but a small part of a large set of variables that effect that outcome. “That Man is You!!” is a catholic program for men that used these types of statistics to prove various points, and I was not the only person who was irritated at the way they were used. It really left a bad taste in my mouth about the program and its founder. But, hey…if it helps bring people to the ultimate truth of the catholic faith, what’s the harm in a little misdirection?

–Rico

Oh, I hope not. Misrepresentation is never a means to justify the ends. Maybe the numbers are unbelievable because sometimes nothing is stranger than truth. I don’t know what they said, but I would like to see a valid poll. I would wager, the divorce rate jumps when a couple stops NFP. I don’t like quoting things that I don’t know what the (name removed by moderator)ut was, but it’s all I have.

 

[Rico_S]

I I don’t know what they said, but I would like to see a valid poll. I would wager, the divorce rate jumps when a couple stops NFP.

So if those numbers were available, and the divorce rate jumped when couples stop using NPF, what would that prove? Can we correctly presume then that NFP keeps couples together?

Perhaps practicing NFP caused so much turmoil and tension that the couples stopped using NFP and eventually divorced.

-Rico

 

[Jennifer_J]

However, this is not what the church teaches–it is not the elimination of consequences from removing the “procreative” aspect that is the problem. Otherwise post menapausal couples, infertile couples, even NFP couples…all of which have removed the consequences of sex…would be distorting the sexual gift from God amd making it less than what it was supposed to be. I know the church doesn’t teach this…and so the removal of the consequences is not the issue for the Church; in so much as their official theological doctrine.

I think this is the flaw in your argument. These things do not “remove” anything–it is the natural state of the person (menopause, infertility, natural infertile times). Contraception seeks to step in and actually REMOVE the fertility. Using the infertile period is vastly different. Sure, the intent is the same, but the intent is not (neccessarily) sinful. The controlling or regulation of births is not against Church teaching, if it was then the Church would mandate WHEN we have sex and not allow any abstaining, but that’s not the case. So if it’s not the intent, it’s the means that we use for that intention that needs to align with the sacramental nature of the marital embrace and the Church’s view of the act…

I hope that made sense…

 

[newbetx]

Perhaps practicing NFP caused so much turmoil and tension that the couples stopped using NFP and eventually divorced.

-Rico

I can assure you that NFP can cause anxiety. But if the relationship ended in divorce as you indicate, then ABC didn’t help it, did it?

So if those numbers were available, and the divorce rate jumped when couples stop using NPF, what would that prove?

-Rico

Tough call for sure. This would have to be a long term survey. And of course divorce is a thing that comes about over a long period of time. So cause and effect would be tough to prove. But, of course, being difficult to prove seems only to apply to NFP stats. No one is able to prove that ABC doesn’t cause harm, either. There seems to be a cause and effect. Why do we believe that an increase in contraceptive use is not a cause of a higher divorce rate when so many are willing to agree that global warming is man made? Both are difficult to prove directly and both have skewed data.

Can we correctly presume then that NFP keeps couples together?

-Rico

The answer, surprisingly, is no. NFP doesn’t keep a couple together. NFP is a tool, not “glue.” And we know that some NFP couples divorce anyway. So what is it? It’s the things that NFP helps the couple promote. Respect for each other, proper and timely communications with each other, value as a person rather than an object or “employee.” Hopefully, it does promote a stronger faith. It should. So helping to build a better faith adds to the strength of the marriage.

So lets look at the ones that don’t divorce. ABC doesn’t guarantee a divorce. Couples can still respect each other, communicate, stay dedicated and maybe even have a good faith life. (Let see if I get shot for that…) The key isn’t that ABC forces one to fail at those things, it’s just an enabler. Just as watching soap operas or Desparate Housewives doesn’t force infedelity, but it doesn’t encourage fedelity, either. Some women might rather have their husbands “get it somewhere else” than have sex with their husbands. While it may work, it doesn’t make it right.

So it isnt’ that NFP is some sort of miracle and you are right, those using it might be less prone to divorce because they do have a better faith life. So what? What is the value of marriage, then? Is it not worth going down the path that leads away from sin vs. taking the chance with something that might lead to sin? I can tell you, I’ve walked that latter path and it’s no fun, not good for me, nor my family.

To take it back to the OP’s statement:

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.

The rules are fine tuning as people have tried to skirt the issues and in the process can decieve themselves. But who is it that can claim going in that they too won’t succumb to the consequence of sin?

 

[Good_Daughter]

I know we have been down this road before in an earlier thread, but I am going to go ahead and revisit it, b/c I think the church’s position is inconsistent.

In your above comment I know you are referencing the act itself…but I don’t think you can divorce the meaning of the act from its intentions. Practicing NFP is aboslutely withholding fertility…it is undeniable. You are choosing to avoid the marital embrace on days in which you are fertile…and to only engage in the conjugal act when you are sure you are infertile. How is that not changing the expression love if the conjugal union is supposed to be a total self giving. How are we not holding something back when we say…I will have perfectly ordered sex with you, but only when you can’t become pregnant? Sure the act looks the same, but (wink, wink) we know we are in the clear! That is total self giving?

I’m looking forward to revisiting this topic, and I’ll start with a question:

If NFP involves withholding fertility, how does a couple *not *withhold fertility?

 

[Rico_S]

I But if the relationship ended in divorce as you indicate, then ABC didn’t help it, did it?

Oh, but I never made the claim that ABC causes lower divorce rates.

So lets look at the ones that don’t divorce. ABC doesn’t guarantee a divorce. Couples can still respect each other, communicate, stay dedicated and maybe even have a good faith life. (Let see if I get shot for that…) The key isn’t that ABC forces one to fail at those things, it’s just an enabler. Just as watching soap operas or Desparate Housewives doesn’t force infedelity, but it doesn’t encourage fedelity, either. Some women might rather have their husbands “get it somewhere else” than have sex with their husbands. While it may work, it doesn’t make it right.

So it isnt’ that NFP is some sort of miracle and you are right, those using it might be less prone to divorce because they do have a better faith life. So what?

I more or less agree with this view, newb , but I am sure the church does not. You see watching soaps…or drinking alcohol (also an enabler), or money (another enabler) are not intrinsically evil according to the church, but abc is.

The rules are fine tuning as people have tried to skirt the issues and in the process can decieve themselves. But who is it that can claim going in that they too won’t succumb to the consequence of sin?

Well, I can assure you I am drenched in sin. I am surprised my posts don’t glow a toxic red to warn potential readers to be wary. And I fully acknowledge that it is possible that I am deceiving myself in my attempt to “skirt the rules” But it doesn’t make sense to me and so I fight on.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

Well, I can assure you I am drenched in sin. I am surprised my posts don’t glow a toxic red to warn potential readers to be wary. And I fully acknowledge that it is possible that I am deceiving myself in my attempt to “skirt the rules” But it doesn’t make sense to me and so I fight on.

–Rico

So am I brother, so am I.

What I liked about TOB for Beginners and TGNAS&M was the logical, methodical approach to explaination. You really do need to start at the beginning and work your way through. We have a choice in how we live. I encourage you to go get a good book on TOB, take it from the beginning and walk you way through it. And then make your decision to fight on or not.

 

[Rico_S]

If NFP involves withholding fertility, how does a couple *not *withhold fertility?

I feel like I am walking into a trap! But, since I am not too bright, and I like you…I will take the bait.

So how does a couple not withhold fertility? By taking part in the marital embrace without intentionally altering the act to make it nonfertile and by taking part in the marital embrace without intentionally avoiding those times when she is fertile.

How’s that:thumbsup:

 

[newbetx]

I feel like I am walking into a trap! But, since I am not too bright, and I like you…I will take the bait.

So how does a couple not withhold fertility? By taking part in the marital embrace without intentionally altering the act to make it nonfertile and by taking part in the marital embrace without intentionally avoiding those times when she is fertile.

How’s that:thumbsup:

:hypno:

 

[fbl9]

I more or less agree with this view, newb , but I am sure the church does not. You see watching soaps…or drinking alcohol (also an enabler), or money (another enabler) are not intrinsically evil according to the church, but abc is.

Well, I can assure you I am drenched in sin. I am surprised my posts don’t glow a toxic red to warn potential readers to be wary. And I fully acknowledge that it is possible that I am deceiving myself in my attempt to “skirt the rules” But it doesn’t make sense to me and so I fight on.

–Rico

One thing that is known is that NFP is definately not 100%,in that the woman can still concieve at God’s will…ABC on the other hand pits man against God’s will,Not one of us were willed into being by ourselves or by our parents.

There are many times that i share that same sentiment you have expressed in your last thoughts.

 

[Sillara]

Perhaps this is not any use, but here goes.

First, the caveat. NFP can be used improperly. We are not to use it for selfish reasons.

Now, my point. Sex can be misused, twisted, what-have-you, through ABC or other means. Sex is too important to be thus abused. In fact, (and here I am assuming you agree, as you seem to, with the Church’s teaching on extra-marital sex), abusing sex is sacrilegious because marriage is, indeed, a sacrament. But it is NOT a sin NOT to have sex. NFP is periodic abstinence. Abstinence is not a sin.

 

[mark_a]

First, the caveat. NFP can be used improperly. We are not to use it for selfish reasons.

Now, my point. Sex can be misused, twisted, what-have-you, through ABC or other means. Sex is too important to be thus abused. In fact, (and here I am assuming you agree, as you seem to, with the Church’s teaching on extra-marital sex), abusing sex is sacrilegious because marriage is, indeed, a sacrament. But it is NOT a sin NOT to have sex. NFP is periodic abstinence. Abstinence is not a sin.

Right. The pill wasn’t invented to avoid pregnancy, it was invented to avoid abstinance.

 

[PetersKeys]

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?

Thats funny, considering many protestant churches allow things like divorce, abortion, fornication, sex outside of marriage, re-marriage and even gay marriage.

Dosen’t seem too in tune with the teachings of the gospel. And how would someone take those 2 commandments to the extreme? They pretty much say what they say

 

[TLM08]

Thats funny, considering many protestant churches allow things like divorce, abortion, fornication, sex outside of marriage, re-marriage and even gay marriage.

Dosen’t seem too in tune with the teachings of the gospel. And how would someone take those 2 commandments to the extreme? They pretty much say what they say

So What? There are more than a few liberal theologians and clergy within the Catholic Church that are in favor of these things as well.

It’s obvious that human sexuality is a moral issue, but considering that there was lack of understanding of biology, psysiology, hormonal and human neurological systems, the well meaning celibate men of the middle ages were at a serious disadvantage when it comes to setting moral standards for human sexuality.

 

[TLM08]

Perhaps this is not any use, but here goes.

First, the caveat. NFP can be used improperly. We are not to use it for selfish reasons.

Now, my point. Sex can be misused, twisted, what-have-you, through ABC or other means. Sex is too important to be thus abused. In fact, (and here I am assuming you agree, as you seem to, with the Church’s teaching on extra-marital sex), abusing sex is sacrilegious because marriage is, indeed, a sacrament. But it is NOT a sin NOT to have sex. NFP is periodic abstinence. Abstinence is not a sin.

I cannot for the life of me see why wearing a condom, “pulling out”, or getting a vascectomy when a husband and wife have six hungry children and a very modest income could possibly be considered selfish and immoral.

Bringing more children into the world that you cannot properly provide for should be considered immoral and irresponsible!

 

[mlchance]

I cannot for the life of me see…

A failure in your vision doesn’t change the facts about what you’re failing to see. If I go see a movie without my glasses, I can holler all I want about the film being out of focus, but no amount of noise will change the fact that the film’s just fine.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[newbetx]

I cannot for the life of me see why wearing a condom, “pulling out”, or getting a vascectomy when a husband and wife have six hungry children and a very modest income could possibly be considered selfish and immoral.

Bringing more children into the world that you cannot properly provide for should be considered immoral and irresponsible!

You apparently also can’t see going without sex. That, sir, is called an addiction. Not love. Not sacrafice.

Why go without? Modern science will step in for you and SAVE you from the awful, repressive church! But not from anything else. Others have left the church over this. Christopher West almost did, too. If one can’t sacrafice himself for his family, then one is left with two options. Leave the Church and go to a faith that allows you to “live guilt free.” Or realize you can’t do what is expected and throw yourself to His mercy. I’ll pray your priest can guide you.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I cannot for the life of me see why wearing a condom, “pulling out”, or getting a vascectomy when a husband and wife have six hungry children and a very modest income could possibly be considered selfish and immoral.

Bringing more children into the world that you cannot properly provide for should be considered immoral and irresponsible!

Do you know why it’s selfish?? Because there are LICIT ways to not get pregnant–total abstinence and NFP. To use these other, illicit means is to devalue the act. You seem to think that the alternative to illicit family planning is having MORE children. That’s not the case. Total abstinence is always a choice, albeit a difficult one. Periodic abstinence via NFP is also a choice, which can also be difficult. But since when were we promised an easy road? Often things that are worth it take an effort or are difficult. However, these licit means require a dying to self, a total self giving and patience. It’s not an easy fix like the illicit methods, huh?

Additionally, the methods you list all have a failure rates…so lets say the couple you mention is in dire straights and use one of your illicit methods from the list and STILL get pregnant, what then? The method failed, they are pregnant and poor, what might the couple do?
Really and truly-- if times were that bad and a pregnancy and a baby would be a true burden what would have been the most unselfish thing to do–go ahead and have sex or just abstain?