Protestant Sex

[Jennifer_J]

Aside from the defs that don’t apply, I think defintion 4 of rejection is the only one that seems to differ significantly from withhold. And I think the only act that may correspond with defintion 4 (“to discard as useless or unsatisfactory”) is sterilization. Otherwise, I think the words can be used interchangeably in or discussion.

Your example seems attribute a permancy to “rejection,” which I don’t think is necessarily the case. Perhaps I have good cause to not eat cake (I need to lose weight), so when the birthday cake is rightfully offered, I reject the offer…but that does not mean next year (or next week on someone else’s birthday ) I will continue to reject it.

Similarly if I use contraception b/c I have just cause to avoid pregnancy and I reject her fertility, that does not mean I will not be willing to accept it sometime later…much like NFP.

–Rico

And I actually see the definitions as different. I don’t think you would use them interchangeably in many circumstances. But I do think you’ve hit the nail on the head…You reject the cake–in that act the cake is rejected…just like contraception–each act is rejecting the fertility. With NFP, you are saving the cake for later, so to speak and the act of eating it is not altered, just when you eat it. The cake is still enjoyed, but you wait until you have free points the next day (I’m doing weight watchers, lol). The act isn’t altered, just done at a different point. Fertility is withheld and not rejected…I think I’m being redundant, but the children are distracting me…

 

[Rico_S]

You reject the cake–in that act the cake is rejected…just like contraception–each act is rejecting the fertility. With NFP, you are saving the cake for later, so to speak and the act of eating it is not altered, just when you eat it.

I think this analogy is flawed b/c if cake=fertility, then with NFP or ABC, we are not eating the cake…until such time as we decide we are open to the transmission of life.

The analogy only goes so far.

I will try one last time.

The Church teaches that it is ok to avoid pregnancy without complete abstinence (with just cause).

The Chruch teaches that NFP is morally licit way of doing it.

The Church teaches that abc is morally illicit way of doing it.

I ask, why is abc morally illicit.

People answer…b/c abc is a rejection of fertility, that the conjugal union is a complete self giving and to close that off is to make the act selfish, and not what God intended

I say what!!! NFP is a rejection (or withholding…it doesn’t really matter) of fertility. We will only engage in intercourse when fertility is not there…how is that not a fundamental rejection of fertility.

People try to say that it is ok to have sex in infertile times…there is nothing to say that you ahve to have sex at certain times. Having sex in infertile times is morally licit.

I say, OK. That is fine…but there is a fundamental difference in simply having sex in infertile times, vs. intentionally avoiding fertile times and only engaging in intercourse when the women’s fertility is not present. How can that not be a fundamental rejection of fertility. It is as plain as the nose on my face to me. NFP intercourse in most certainly not a complete self giving exercise and shoudl be condemned in the same manner as abc IF ABC IS JUDGED ILLICIT B/C IT REJECTS/WITHOLDS FERTILITY AND RENDERS THE ACT SELFISH B/C IT IS NOT A COMPLETE SELF GIVING.

If we want to condemn abc based on some other measure ok, that is very possible. Newb and Good Daughter talked about messing with Gods processes…perhaps that is a justifiable reason. But if abc is condemned b/c rejecting fertility renders the act selfish and not a complete self giving encounter, then NFP must be jugded illicit by that same measure.

Also, I am still interested in your thoughts on the perforated condom issue I brought up.

–Rico

 

[Jennifer_J]

I think this analogy is flawed b/c if cake=fertility, then with NFP or ABC, we are not eating the cake…until such time as we decide we are open to the transmission of life.

The analogy only goes so far.

snip for length<<
Also, I am still interested in your thoughts on the perforated condom issue I brought up.

Yeah, the analogy is not perfect, but I still see the distinction. I’m at a loss because I can, so clearly, see the difference between rejecting fertility via contraception and withholding fertility via NFP and wish that I could clearly show the difference here. I, obviously, can’t . The intentions are the same but the methods are so vastly different.

I have to go back to look for the perforated condom issue…

As I said before, I think they are allowed because they are for medical diagnosis and seek to keep the congugal act as intact as possible AND get a sample. If you think about what occurs during a woman’s annual exam, you will agree that–morally speaking–having a person who is not your spouse messing around with your genitals is pretty much against purity and chastity, but it’s allowed because it’s a medical exam…maybe a lame example, but still relevant in some way.

 

[newbetx]

Yeah, the analogy is not perfect, but I still see the distinction. I’m at a loss because I can, so clearly, see the difference between rejecting fertility via contraception and withholding fertility via NFP and wish that I could clearly show the difference here. I, obviously, can’t . The intentions are the same but the methods are so vastly different.

.

This is incorrect. This is the problem with the discussion. “rejection of fertility” isn’t the reason ABC is morally incorrect. The reason it doesn’t appear to be different is your looking at ONE aspect of the relationship without regard to the rest of the relationship.

With NFP, the INTENTION is to avoid sex to avoid conception. With ABC the intention is to HAVE sex and avoid conception. One is to sacrafice oneself for the benefit of the family, the other is to NOT sacrafice anything.

One has to get past the mechanics of the situation and move up to the next level of intimacy. We’re called by scripture to “take a break” from relations and to “use the time for prayer.” ABC promotes neither of these. And that is why it’s not a moral choice. ABC is about indulgence. Unrestricted indulgence is not good for the body, mind or soul. Using NFP to avoid is about discipline, communication, self reflection. ABC is about valuing a thing: Sex. NFP is about valuing a relationship: that being between the couple and God.

The analogy I hear over and over is… Grandma is sick. Do you let her die a natural death or kill grandma. The result is the same. But which is morally right? The result is not the judgement of the morality of the event. The method of action (or inaction) does make a difference in how to determine the morality of it.

 

[Rico_S]

I’m at a loss because I can, so clearly, see the difference between rejecting fertility via contraception and withholding fertility via NFP and wish that I could clearly show the difference here. I, obviously, can’t . The intentions are the same but the methods are so vastly different.

ABC and NFP are different. I can see that…I think you understand that I see that since you didn’t reiterate how the 2 are different again. While they are vastly different, I do not see how we can condemn one as evil b/c it rejects fertility and not condemn the other …b/c fundamentally both are a rejection of fertility…even if they reject/withhold it differently.

I have to go back to look for the perforated condom issue…

As I said before, I think they are allowed because they are for medical diagnosis and seek to keep the congugal act as intact as possible AND get a sample. If you think about what occurs during a woman’s annual exam, you will agree that–morally speaking–having a person who is not your spouse messing around with your genitals is pretty much against purity and chastity, but it’s allowed because it’s a medical exam…maybe a lame example, but still relevant in some way.

I think I will make a thread of this one issue sometime in the near future.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

This is the problem with the discussion. “rejection of fertility” isn’t the reason ABC is morally incorrect.

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).

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

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.

With ABC the intention is to HAVE sex and avoid conception.

Yes…this is correct.

One is to sacrafice oneself for the benefit of the family, the other is to NOT sacrafice anything.

Wouldn’t the best choice be complete abstinence then? If we are judging the goodness of the method by the sacrifice required, than absolute abstinence when trying to avoid conception is the ideal. Do you or the church recommend this as the ideal method. If not then why?

Unrestricted indulgence is not good for the body, mind or soul.

So, tell me. If my wife is pregnant, how many times per week may we engage in the marital embrace before we become over indulgent? Since unrestricted indulgence is not good, there must be some limitation as to how often I can “indulge” in the marital embrace in this situation before it becomes bad for the body, mind or soul.

NFP to avoid is about discipline, communication, self reflection.

NFP does promote discipline for certain (communication and self reflection–possibly) That is a good thing. I think NFP is a perfectly fine way to avoid pregnancy

ABC is about valuing a thing: Sex. NFP is about valuing a relationship: that being between the couple and God.

I told my wife that we should consider giving up the marital embrace as a Lenten sacrifice. She reacted quite negatively…I was a bit surprised. Do you think she did so b/c she is a sex consumed deviant that has to have her sexual desire fullfilled on a regular basis? (I will give you a hint…the answer is no). Why would she react so negatively? (aside from the obvious answer that I am irresistable)

Attributing motives to others’ actiona when they do not share your fundamental view is dangerous and wrong!

–Rico

 

[Contarini]

This is the irony of it all. The Puritan ethic is certainly not Catholic.

Well no. The Puritan ethic had a more positive view of married sexuality than the traditional Catholic ethic. Don’t be fooled by the silly way secular people use the word “Puritan.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If the reason abc is wrong is b/c it mess with God’s processes…well then that is a separate issue. But when abc is condemned b/c it fundamentally rejects fertility etc. etc…well NFP is right there.

–Rico

No, NFP doesn’t “fundamentally” reject fertility. By working with the natural process rather than against it, the NFP practitioner chooses not to conceive at this particular time but doesn’t try to write fertility out of the natural bodily cycle altogether. In other words, there may be a closer connection between the “natural process” question and the “rejecting fertility” question than you are recognizing.

Caveat: I do not in fact practice the Catholic Church’s teaching on this point, and I tend to think that Catholics make too much of a small distinction here. But the position is coherent and logical, even if somewhat nit-picking.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

All i know about , And i am not Married yet. is a Wonderful and beautiful thing that God designed between a man and a woman. AS long as the couples follow the bible and believe that their Love is right and Following God, then stay out of their bedroom.

So you duck into the bedroom and check that they are following the Bible, and then immediately withdraw with an embarrassed look on your face? This makes no sense. If married sexuality has to follow the Bible, then the Church is involved, because the Church is the community to which the Bible was given. (Note that I am not a Roman Catholic and am not speaking exclusively of the Roman Communion here.)

Men were designed to enjoy women, and Women enjoy men. is supposed to something that Husband and wife do to grew closer together and closer to God. And one of the most precious gifts from God, Comes out of , Children. so again If the Couple is Following God, Then stay out of their Bedroom. is only for Husband, Wife, and God to witness no one else, Not Pope, Priest, pastor, friend, brother, sister any one. Only the Husband, wife, and God.

Wrong. (OK, in a literal sense you are right, but you obviously aren’t speaking of literally “witnessing” the marriage act.) Marriage is a sacramental act, and so sex is an act in which the whole Church is involved. That’s why Christians have always been weird about sex. It’s very inconvenient, but it seems to be an important part of this faith we have received from strange ancient people who didn’t think about things the way we do. And perhaps we should pay attention to some of the stranger aspects of our faith rather than shuffling them aside with embarrassment.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

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

The highly legalistic approach may be specifically Catholic, but the discomfort with physicality is not. It’s common in vary conservative Protestant circles as well. Certainly it’s influenced my family and my upbringing–we come from the “Holiness” movement, which admittedly is far more ascetic than some other forms of Protestantism.

The whole “Joy of Sex” stuff that you hear from evangelicals in the past few decades is a very self-conscious rejection of an older, much more ascetic approach.

Edwin

 

[Jennifer_J]

This is incorrect. This is the problem with the discussion. “rejection of fertility” isn’t the reason ABC is morally incorrect. The reason it doesn’t appear to be different is your looking at ONE aspect of the relationship without regard to the rest of the relationship.

With NFP, the INTENTION is to avoid sex to avoid conception. With ABC the intention is to HAVE sex and avoid conception. One is to sacrafice oneself for the benefit of the family, the other is to NOT sacrafice anything.
.

I hate to disagree but the intent of both is to control births–which is not against Church teaching.

From Humanae Vitae
<<Recourse to Infertile Periods

1. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. >>
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[newbetx]

I hate to disagree but the intent of both is to control births–which is not against Church teaching.

From Humanae Vitae
<<Recourse to Infertile Periods

…

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. >>
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Like I said… this is how the intention is different.

It is through sacrafice that they achieve the goal. That is, they are intentionally willing to do without to attain the goal with NFP. With ABC they indicate that they are not willing to do without.

And that is the significant difference. You claim it is only method. My claim is that the intent IS different by nature of the method.

It’s one thing to buy a present for someone. It’s significanlty different to MAKE a present for someone. In the end they get a present, true. But the intended effort is different and obvious to the receiver and it’s value is appreciated by the giver as well.

Granted it is a subtle difference when viewed “objectively.” But there is a significant difference in actual result.

 

[TLM08]

Theologians can twist words around all they want, but at the end of the day, the goal of NFP is to avoid conception. It still separates the marital act from it’s *(according to the church) *primary purpose.

The Church fumbled the ball back in 1968 and NFP was seen as a way to recover it.

 

[Rico_S]

Here it is again…in the “Thoughts on Contraception” thread"

littleDeb says

To fully image God requires male and female. To be masculine means-‘to give.’ To be feminine means-‘to receive.’ I have a feeling that this might get way too deep for you very quickly, so I am not sure how far to take you. Yes, I am one of those Theology of the Body zealots. I confess whole-heartedly. Every single thing I ever misunderstood about Church teaching was answered in TOB. Furthermore, I am one of those annoying ones who actually reads the original document. (Heck I have to read it. I was only a child when it came out.)

To be consummated (note that word, it is important) requires a complete and total giving and receiving of self. To consummate we must fully give everything we are and receive everything given to us.Why do I make this bold assertion? Because another very, very important time that word was used, was by our Lord, on the Cross. “It is consummated.” and then He died. What??? The Church uses the same word to describe what happens in a couple’s bedroom as to what happened on the Cross? How dare she!

No, no, no! We have to fix that! If what our Lord said on the Cross is watered down to “It is finished,” then maybe those unwashed masses won’t get the connection. We have to keep them thinking that sex is just for recreational purposes and that it isn’t a total giving and receiving of self. We can’t let them know that to be truly married (to any spouse, human or heavenly) that we must die to self!

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

 

[newbetx]

Theologians can twist words around all they want, but at the end of the day, the goal of NFP is to avoid conception. It still separates the marital act from it’s *(according to the church) *primary purpose.

The Church fumbled the ball back in 1968 and NFP was seen as a way to recover it.

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.

 

[newbetx]

Here it is again…in the “Thoughts on Contraception” thread"

littleDeb says

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

I guess the only thing I can say is risk. When using ABC you are doing something that intentionally removes the risk and thus alters the act. There is a sense that you are NOT totally self giving. When using NFP, you accept the risk, that God might have other plans. While, again, it’s subtle, that remains the main difference.

But I have to reiterate. There is a larger view in which all these things stand together. It is with this larger view that all these individual issues make complete sense.

Debating at this level is like saying… we don’t really need to go to Mass every week, or there is no real presence in the Euchurist, or we need not confess our sins or… It’s the WHOLE of the experience that matters. The bigger picture. As CW says of TOB, embrace it all or embrace nothing. We are given that choice.

Rico, you can not judge the forest by one tree. Many times we’ve explained portions of the bigger picture to you and you say “I get that.” Those are pieces to the larger picture puzzle. One needs to see all the pieces. It would be like debating scripture based only on the book of Revelation. One needs to have the background of the other books in order for it to make sense.

In order to understand at the high level, one needs to follow the logical progression of the theology. That was the gift JP II gave us in TOB. The progression of concepts that validates what the church teaches. I urge you to take that journey. It really did turn my life around. And I so needed that.

Peace.

 

[Rico_S]

I guess the only thing I can say is risk. When using ABC you are doing something that intentionally removes the risk and thus alters the act. There is a sense that you are NOT totally self giving. When using NFP, you accept the risk, that God might have other plans. While, again, it’s subtle, that remains the main difference.

I just choose to use the cheap brand of condoms to introduce risk into the act. If risk is the main difference…then I think I am covered. I don’t think you will find much support for this position from the other posters in this thread.

Why have you ignored my questions in my prior post to you?

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

I just choose to use the cheap brand of condoms to introduce risk into the act. If risk is the main difference…then I think I am covered. I don’t think you will find much support for this position from the other posters in this thread.

Why have you ignored my questions in my prior post to you?

–Rico

I must have missed them… which post? Sometimes I think you ignore me, too, but I suspect you just missed it or got working on a different post.

No it is risk. That is what happens when you totally give yourself to someone. You risk yourself. A condom is a condom. withdrawing is withdrawing… all lesson the risk of conception but when you engage this way you aren’t really risking yourself. It’s a half-hearted act. Again, big difference.

 

[Rico_S]

I must have missed them… which post?

Post 166

 

[Good_Daughter]

Aside from the defs that don’t apply, I think defintion 4 of rejection is the only one that seems to differ significantly from withhold. And I think the only act that may correspond with defintion 4 (“to discard as useless or unsatisfactory”) is sterilization. Otherwise, I think the words can be used interchangeably in or discussion.

With the use of any birth control from abstinence to sterilization, a couple withholds fertility. Such withholding, Catholicism says, is not necessarilly wrong.

With abstinence (total or periodic), fertility is withheld as a result of the marriage act being withheld. This may be done out of either respect for or rejection of fertility.

With contraception, fertility is withheld more directly. It is not simply left out of the equation or avoided. 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?

Your example seems attribute a permancy to “rejection,” which I don’t think is necessarily the case. Perhaps I have good cause to not eat cake (I need to lose weight), so when the birthday cake is rightfully offered, I reject the offer…but that does not mean next year (or next week on someone else’s birthday ) I will continue to reject it.

Similarly if I use contraception b/c I have just cause to avoid pregnancy and I reject her fertility, that does not mean I will not be willing to accept it sometime later…much like NFP.

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 find similar distinctions can be made between couples using birth control. Some, while having good reason to avoid pregnancy, value their fertility enough to work with it, withholding it by withholding the marriage act.

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.

Anyone who uses NFP out of fertility rejection may have a “contraceptive mentality”. It is impossible though to contracept without rejecting fertility, at least for the duration of contraceptive use.

Catholicism teaches we may have good reasons or selfish reasons for withholding fertility and that we should avoid using the selfish ones. Similarly, the means for that withholding can involve respect for healthy fertility or rejection of it. We are encouraged to choose respect.