Protestant Sex

[Sillara]

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!

As several others have posted, it is STILL an abuse of what sex is. If you cannot afford more children, then do not have sex. (Even if you simply avoid the woman’s fertile days, you are still abstaining from sex. Not wanting babies=no on-demand sex.)

Also, having to abstain in order not to have babies is more likely to give a clearer perspective on whether you truly CANNOT afford more babies.

 

[Rico_S]

Wow. This thread went south fast.

 

[Numinous]

Sex is a touchy subject since so many people want justification for abusing their sexuality. It’s a common problem, and people get plenty upset about it. It’s all “how are you this!” and “how dare you that!”

If people want support for their coitus interruptus sexual lifestyle, then they should be posting on wepullout.org, not here.

 

[Rico_S]

If people want support for their coitus interruptus sexual lifestyle, then they should be posting on wepullout.org, not here.

And so it continues to head south.

I am with you, if anyone doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings…or doesn’t understand them and actually defends an opposing view, the moderators should just ban them. This is a forum for Catholics who are in complete communion with the Church. It is Catholic Answers…not Cafeteria Catholic Answers!

–Rico

 

[Jennifer_J]

And so it continues to head south.

I am with you, if anyone doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings…or doesn’t understand them and actually defends an opposing view, the moderators should just ban them. This is a forum for Catholics who are in complete communion with the Church. It is Catholic Answers…not Cafeteria Catholic Answers!

–Rico

I know you are being facetious, but why do you think these threads go south? Is it that fact that people don’t like the answers they are given and others get defensive when the answers given are ignored? The people here are human and get snippy, apologize and move on…I just wish people who posted their questions were really looking for answers. Sometimes it seems they just want to hear themselves be defiant to the Church, which harms those who are really looking for answers…

 

[countertenor]

Yeah I’ve seen Protestant pastors online saying exactly that. (my godson asked me to watch it, because his girlfriend is protestant and had him watch it…he was a bit shocked…so was I).

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]

And so it continues to head south.

I am with you, if anyone doesn’t agree with the Church’s teachings…or doesn’t understand them and actually defends an opposing view, the moderators should just ban them. This is a forum for Catholics who are in complete communion with the Church. It is Catholic Answers…not Cafeteria Catholic Answers!

–Rico

They go south when posters state obsurd, sarcastic or just plain mean comments about other posters.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

A trap? No way, we’re all in this together! As you said, we’ve discussed this topic before, so this time, I’m trying to ask questions to better understand your point of view and make sure your assertions “hold water”. I actually find myself agreeing with you, in a way. Let’s examine your statement more closely:

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:

I see your point here, but I have questions.

If a couple is avoiding the marital embrace entirely, aren’t they withholding fertility just as much as the couple who make use of the less-fertile periods?

I’m pregnant at the moment. Are my husband and I withholding fertility in our marital embrace? If not, a couple must be capable of withholding fertility only when they suspect fertility. If a couple, due to illness, tiredness, or any reason other than pregnancy prevention avoid the marital embrace while they suspect fertility, aren’t they withholding fertility too?

So what does Catholicism actually teach about withholding fertility? It’s not always a bad thing.

A couple who selfishly decide to avoid pregnancy through abstinence, may be commiting a sin for withholding fertility. For couples with good reason to avoid pregnancy, withholding the fullness of fertility by periodic abstinence is allowed. Withholding fertility by withholding sex can be good and sacrificial.

Really, the only way to use birth control, which Catholicism allows, is by withhold fertility to some degree. Do you think that all withholding of fertility is necessarily a bad thing? Do you see this as an area where Catholic teaching is inconsistent?

 

[Rico_S]

Good Daughter:

Since we are kind of focusing in on fertility, I think we should define it so that we are on the same page. Here is the definition from an online dictionary:

1. the state or quality of being fertile.
2. the ability to produce offspring; power of reproduction

While there might be a slight difference in 1 or 2, I think either works for me.

I see your point here, but I have questions.

If a couple is avoiding the marital embrace entirely, aren’t they withholding fertility just as much as the couple who make use of the less-fertile periods?

Yes.

I’m pregnant at the moment. Are my husband and I withholding fertility in our marital embrace?

Congratulations! How many

No not really…but you aren’t really offering it either. You can’t offer or withhold that which you don’t have.

If not, a couple must be capable of withholding fertility only when they suspect fertility.

Yes I think this makes sense. Having sex on non-fertile days is not really withholding fertility, b/c you don’t have it to offer.

If a couple, due to illness, tiredness, or any reason other than pregnancy prevention avoid the marital embrace while they suspect fertility, aren’t they withholding fertility too?

As a secondary effect, yes. But it is not the same as avoiding the embrace primarily to withhold fertility. I may miss mass due to being sick and in effect, withhold my worship of God, but that is much different than skipping mass b/c I don’t want to worship God.

So what does Catholicism actually teach about withholding fertility? It’s not always a bad thing.

A couple who selfishly decide to avoid pregnancy through abstinence, may be commiting a sin for withholding fertility. For couples with good reason to avoid pregnancy, withholding the fullness of fertility by periodic abstinence is allowed. Withholding fertility by withholding sex can be good and sacrificial.

I think this certainly contrasts with what I am told is the reason each act must be procreative. I ask why must each act be procreative, and I hear that withholding fertility taints the act…makes it less than it should be. That without a complete self-giving the marital embrace becomes less than it was intended and necessarily wrong and evil.

Earlier in this thread you said

Intentionally witholding fertility though, does distort the image. What does God withhold in the expression of His love? Nothing. Then He tells us, “Love one another as I have loved you.”
…
Unity is impossible when any thing is withheld from the marital embrace. That’s why the procreative element must be in place before unity can flow from it.

Others have said similar things in past threads, so I am not just looking to disagree with your view.

I fully understand that the act itself during non-fertile times is not withholding of fertility (namely becasue we don’t have it to offer); and I fully understand that contracepted sex CAN be an absolute withholding/rejection of fertility. (I say can b/c I established we don’t have fertility to offer on our non fertile times). I see the difference between the two.

But it is clear that by practicing NFP our decision to avoid the marital embrace during fertile times is an absolute rejection/withholding of fertility. It is rejection by refusal to act vs. rejection by changing the act—I understand…but it a whole hearted 100% rejection of fertility…it cannot be denied.

This is why I have a tough time with the idea of “a complete self-giving” or holding anything back makes in non-unitive.

Do you think that all withholding of fertility is necessarily a bad thing?

No…not at all.

Do you see this as an area where Catholic teaching is inconsistent?[/qutoe]
Yes.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

I Is it that fact that people don’t like the answers they are given and others get defensive when the answers given are ignored? I just wish people who posted their questions were really looking for answers. Sometimes it seems they just want to hear themselves be defiant to the Church, which harms those who are really looking for answers…

I agree with this a lot Jennifer. But you have to look at it from the other side too. Many who are answering from the Church’s viewpoint aren’t really listening to the objections of the dissenter’s posts. They simply ignore their issues and retort with the typical canned response.

TLM is saying that he disagrees with the chruch teaching and doesn’t see why it is selfish to do X. To say that there are other options beside X that are licit, so why do X when it is illicit is to ignore the sheer fact that he doesn’t agree with it being illicit!!! That is just as frustrating as those who ignore the answers/opinions given and continue just spouting their disagreement.

Is TLM really looking for answers…I doubt it. But is that really bad? He can present his disagreements here and you can challenge those positions. Others can read and glean something from the discussion. The best threads are not the one where one person is looking for the church position, a few respond with it, and the op says "wow…that is great " You may like it b/c everyone ends up agreeing with no dissention…but I think the board would be significantly less valuable if all threads were like that.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

TLM is saying that he disagrees with the chruch teaching and doesn’t see why it is selfish to do X. To say that there are other options beside X that are licit, so why do X when it is illicit is to ignore the sheer fact that he doesn’t agree with it being illicit!!! That is just as frustrating as those who ignore the answers/opinions given and continue just spouting their disagreement.

Is TLM really looking for answers…I doubt it. But is that really bad? He can present his disagreements here and you can challenge those positions. Others can read and glean something from the discussion. The best threads are not the one where one person is looking for the church position, a few respond with it, and the op says "wow…that is great " You may like it b/c everyone ends up agreeing with no dissention…but I think the board would be significantly less valuable if all threads were like that.

–Rico

Let me try something seemingly rediculous…

Story goes like this… three businessmen go to the hotel and want to share a room. They are told the price of the room is $30. They each pay ten and go to the room. After a while the desk figures out the room was supposed to be $25 so the desk gives the bell hop 5 one dollar bills and send him up to the room to refund the difference. While in transit, the bell hop figures he’ll give a dollar each to the men and keep two for himself to save the problem of how to divide 5 by 3. He does so. So each of the guys ultimately pay $9 for the room or $27 dollars. The bell hop kept $2 making a total paid, now only $29. Where did the other dollar go (no fair saying TARP funds )

OK, this is a perspective thing, for sure. If you look at the individual situation in detail, it may not make sense. 3x$9+$2= $29 If you look at it from the hotel’s accounting, it’s all balanced and equal. $30 -$5 = $25… we’re fine.

Overall, the Church’s perspective is ballanced. When one looks at a particular detail with a different perspecitive, one can easily convince oneself that things come up short. That is why the “take all of it, or take none of it” thing. It’s really not “voodoo economics.”

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes I think this makes sense. Having sex on non-fertile days is not really withholding fertility, b/c you don’t have it to offer.

As a secondary effect, yes. But it is not the same as avoiding the embrace primarily to withhold fertility. I may miss mass due to being sick and in effect, withhold my worship of God, but that is much different than skipping mass b/c I don’t want to worship God.

I think this certainly contrasts with what I am told is the reason each act must be procreative. I ask why must each act be procreative, and I hear that withholding fertility taints the act…makes it less than it should be. That without a complete self-giving the marital embrace becomes less than it was intended and necessarily wrong and evil.

Earlier in this thread you said

Others have said similar things in past threads, so I am not just looking to disagree with your view.

I fully understand that the act itself during non-fertile times is not withholding of fertility (namely becasue we don’t have it to offer); and I fully understand that contracepted sex CAN be an absolute withholding/rejection of fertility. (I say can b/c I established we don’t have fertility to offer on our non fertile times). I see the difference between the two.

But it is clear that by practicing NFP our decision to avoid the marital embrace during fertile times is an absolute rejection/withholding of fertility. It is rejection by refusal to act vs. rejection by changing the act—I understand…but it a whole hearted 100% rejection of fertility…it cannot be denied.

This is why I have a tough time with the idea of “a complete self-giving” or holding anything back makes in non-unitive.

No…not at all.

<Do you see this as an area where Catholic teaching is inconsistent?>
Yes.

–Rico

I think I hear what you’re saying…maybe Your argument is that non-abortifacent contraception is morally equivalent to NFP because you see that NFP is withholding fertility in a similar way to the contraceptive, is that right?

Okay, but what about total abstinence? You left that out of your equation. This is withholding fertility, yet, completely moral–whether the couple is knowlingly fertile or not. The thing is, the Church doesn’t specifiy WHEN we have sex. These are prudential judgements made between the couple and God. Choosing to not act can be a sin of omission, but would depend on the circumstances and the intent (hiding someone from a deranged killer and omitting the fact that you know where the person is, is not sinful)…In this case we have no obligation to have sex at any particular time, so choosing not to have relations during the fertile time is certainly licit–called abstaining. Choosing to have relations during nonfertile times is certainly licit. There is no sin in with-holding fertility using licit means because you aren’t with-holding the procreative nature of the act. Withholding fertility, infact could be a moral good or at least neutral, if the result of the act–pregnancy–would be harmful to the mother or family.

 

[Rico_S]

Jennifer:

Thanks for the response. I haven’t given your post due consideration b/c I don’t have tons of time…but wanted to respond at least partially really quickly.

The thing is, the Church doesn’t specifiy WHEN we have sex.

I don’t think this is right. Can I choose to use NFP from the time I get married until the time my wife enters menopause to avoid pregnancy? Afterall, I am simply choosing when I engage in teh marital embrace. Of course not…at least not without grave and serious reason. So in reality the church does have a say in when we have sex.

If the church views sex during non fertile times the same as sex during fertile times…than why do I need a serious reason to avoid it?

Anyway, I think more about your post later, but wanted to put down a couple of thoughts while I had the time.

–Rico

 

[mlchance]

Can I choose to use NFP from the time I get married until the time my wife enters menopause to avoid pregnancy? Afterall, I am simply choosing when I engage in teh marital embrace. Of course not…at least not without grave and serious reason.

Notice how by adding the contradicting qualifier underlined above you answered your own question in the affirmative?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Rico_S]

Notice how by adding the contradicting qualifier underlined above you answered your own question in the affirmative?

– Mark L. Chance.

You missed the point.

She said the church doesn’t specify when we have sex, yet clearly it does. Unless there is serious reason, we cannot intentionally choose to avoid fertile times. Seems that the church does get involved in when we can (or cannot) have sex. Does this mean that sex during infertile times is less than or different than sex during fertile times even if it looks the same?

–Rico

 

[mlchance]

She said the church doesn’t specify when we have sex, yet clearly it does.

I’ve not missed any points. The Church doesn’t specify when anyone must have sex. Instead, the Church provides the guidelines. It is up to me to apply those guidelines to my particular situation.

No one in the Vatican is keeping some sort of master sex schedule.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The Church doesn’t say every couple must have relations 14 days from the woman’s last period, or every Tuesday, or even 1 time a month–this is what I meant by saying the Church doesn’t have rules over when sex happens in a marriage. The Church does say that entering in the sacrament of marriage means that sex at some point is a given and children are an expected outcome–all things being equal. Should NFP or abstinence be the default in marriage, NO, not without that qualifier you added–serious/grave/just reasons should be used. But then again, the Church hasn’t come up with a checklist of reasons, because each couple’s situation is different. What might be grave for one family, might not be for another. Prayer, discernment and spiritual advice should be used.

I must admit, Rico, that you are really making me think today! Thanks for that! Being home with small children can take a toll on my brain cells. It’s nice to exercise them! You are a very thoughtful poster and are really trying to get to the heart of this teaching…God bless,

 

[Rico_S]

The Church doesn’t say every couple must have relations 14 days from the woman’s last period, or every Tuesday, or even 1 time a month–this is what I meant by saying the Church doesn’t have rules over when sex happens in a marriage.

I understand your point…I know the church doesn’t make every couple must have sex when they are fertile. But I don’t think you can fall back on “the church doesn’t tell us when to have sex” when justifying NFP…because the church actually does have a say in when we have sex.

Furthermore, one of the 2 primary goal/mission/reasons of marriage (as stated by the CCC) is the transmission of life and the education of children. If this is the case, how can abstinence be a moral choice in all situations? I am sure it can be moral in certain circumstances, but as a matter of course, I don’t see how abstinence fits with the primary goal of marriage as defined by the CCC.

–Rico

 

[Jennifer_J]

I understand your point…I know the church doesn’t make every couple must have sex when they are fertile. But I don’t think you can fall back on “the church doesn’t tell us when to have sex” when justifying NFP…because the church actually does have a say in when we have sex.

Furthermore, one of the 2 primary goal/mission/reasons of marriage (as stated by the CCC) is the transmission of life and the education of children. If this is the case, how can abstinence be a moral choice in all situations? I am sure it can be moral in certain circumstances, but as a matter of course, I don’t see how abstinence fits with the primary goal of marriage as defined by the CCC.

–Rico

I don’t think anyone has said that abstinence is a moral choice in ALL situations…one must have a just/serious/grave reason to use either total abstinence or periodic abstinence. Neither should be done lightly. However, when those just/serious/grave reasons exist, then either total abstinence or periodic abstinence is the only morally licit way to go. Maybe I’m missing your point?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Hi Rico,

Thanks for the congrats, this baby makes number five for us.

I’ve been over your last post a number of times trying to see where you’re coming from so be patient with me if I’ve missed the mark, okay?

I ask why must each act be procreative, and I hear that withholding fertility taints the act…makes it less than it should be. That without a complete self-giving the marital embrace becomes less than it was intended and necessarily wrong and evil.

Maybe it is more accurate to say that Catholicism teaches withholding fertility specifically *during the sexual act * taints the act. Does that make a difference?

I fully understand that the act itself during non-fertile times is not withholding of fertility (namely becasue we don’t have it to offer); and I fully understand that contracepted sex CAN be an absolute withholding/rejection of fertility. (I say can b/c I established we don’t have fertility to offer on our non fertile times). I see the difference between the two.

I think we do have fertility to offer during less-fertile times, it’s just naturally very low. It’s the level of fertility with which God (nature) has endowed us at a given time. We don’t have maximum fertility to offer in less-fertile times.

Contracepted sex IS an absolute withholding/rejection of fertility. It’s in the intention. The intention of contraception is to treat each sexual encounter as potentially fertile. Users of contraception suspect fertility 24/7.

But it is clear that by practicing NFP our decision to avoid the marital embrace during fertile times is an absolute rejection/withholding of fertility. It is rejection by refusal to act vs. rejection by changing the act—I understand…but it a whole hearted 100% rejection of fertility…it cannot be denied.

I’m trying to agree with this, but having a hard time. If I decide to avoid relations with my husband during a more-fertile time, am I really rejecting his fertility or respecting it? If I have beautiful dishes that I bring out on special occasions for family dinners and I keep them in a glass front cabinet most of the time, am I rejecting those dishes, or treating them as valuable?

This is why I have a tough time with the idea of “a complete self-giving” or holding anything back makes in non-unitive.

This is what I’m struggling to understand. Catholicism teaces us not to withhold fertility from the marital embrace. We agree that when the marital embrace takes place during a less-fertile time (as in “avoidance” NFP), fertility is not withheld from the marital embrace.

We also agree that a couple can only withhold fertility during times of suspected fertility. At these times (in “avoidance” NFP), the marital embrace is also withheld, so again, fertility is not withheld from the marital embrace.

The teaching seems consistent to me. If you have time, would you summarize the inconsistencies from your point of view? Probably a tall order, I know. If you don’t have the time or mental energy now, we could always get to it in future.

I agree with Jennifer J, thanks for the discussion and for making me think.