Protestant Sex

[newbetx]

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.

Let me say this. I can send you stuff. PM me if you would like it. I can point you to several TOB MP3’s that are free. I can also send you my spare copy of Naked Without Shame, a 10 CD set. And maybe I can put my hands on my TGNAS&M.

Brother. I understand. I made a big mistake many years ago and it darn near killed my marriage. I know you are having problems and the church rules look like a burden. I think that over the years, no one in the church “put it all together.” There was more concern about selfishness and perversion than there was about finding the love we are called to discover. That is why JP II’s TOB is so different. It uses scripture to define something the people before him could not.

I will grant you, it’s a perspective. But it is complete. No holes that I could find. We have our choice. Live this way, or don’t. It is really that simple. I have discovered I am so much better off following the “rules.” I’m free now, not from God, but from my own weaknesses.

 

[fix]

Anyone???

What is the point? That people get things wrong? Do Prostestant sects get things wrong on sex? The question answers itself.

 

[Rico_S]

What is the point? That people get things wrong? Do Prostestant sects get things wrong on sex? The question answers itself.

Hopefully mattie will come back and clarify…but …

I think mattie is saying that the message that the scrupulous view of sex so many Catholics have did not appear from their own conscience…but rather was institutionally propagated by the Catholic church over a long time period. Basically the “catholic” perspect of sexuality is much different now than in the previous 1900 years of the church, even if the official dogma has not.

He isn’t saying a couple of guys misunderstood the church’s teachings or that there are a couple of rogue priests that have screwed up the church’s message.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

Hopefully mattie will come back and clarify…but …

I think mattie is saying that the message that the scrupulous view of sex so many Catholics have did not appear from their own conscience…but rather was institutionally propagated by the Catholic church over a long time period. Basically the “catholic” perspect of sexuality is much different now than in the previous 1900 years of the church, even if the official dogma has not.

He isn’t saying a couple of guys misunderstood the church’s teachings or that there are a couple of rogue priests that have screwed up the church’s message.

–Rico

Based on what I’ve read, even today, there are detailed variations of what is allowed and what is not.

The key is that over time the world’s view of sex oscillates between conservative and liberal. Each cycle peaks at “body good, spirit, who cares” to “Spirit good, body bad.” These polarized views are both wrong. Spirit good, body good is what TOB brings to light. (Borrowed this from a CW CD)

There is still confusion over what this 3rd option is. While it maintians the Catholic dogma, it doesn’t bend so far as “anything goes.” So some folks think that it is restrictive. Just because God’s love knows no bounds, does not imply that we have no restrictions in how we derive pleasure. For it is the pursuit of pleasure that differentiates between the Catholic view and Protestant view. The Catholic view states clearly that sex isn’t something you just do. It is a sacraficial and sacramental act. It’s a major perspective difference.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Hello Good Daughter!

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

If those were the reasons I saw behind the Catholic teaching in question, I’d be skeptical too.

If I may dig a little deeper, why do you think God designed the conjugal act to be inseparable from the transmission of life? Does the conjugal act always transmit life?

 

[Good_Daughter]

TOB would have been considered scandalous by many ancient theologians who considered any pleasure experienced during sex to be sinful.

That’s quite a statement.

Can you back it up at all? (I’m curious about specifics, rather than generalizations.)

 

[Rico_S]

Hi Good Daughter:

If I may dig a little deeper, why do you think God designed the conjugal act to be inseparable from the transmission of life?

You may dig deeper, but I would keep your expectations pretty low.

I do not believe that the conjugal act is inseperable from the transmission of life. That is not to say that the transmission of life is not a primary, or the primary, component of the marital embrace.

If you are asking me why the church teaches that God designed the conjugal act to be inseparable from the transmission of life…I am not certain. Well, I have an idea, but judging from my answer to your question earlier in this thread (and your comment)…my understanding of the church’s teachings is faulty. So perhaps it would be more effective if you just helped me out and explained it for me.

I want you to know that I am not completely closed off on this issue. I am willing to listen. In fact, I even had a very nice conversation with my wife or this exact topic 2 days ago, as I have learned much since our last conversation on it. I even offered to pursue other options besides abc.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

That’s quite a statement.

Can you back it up at all? (I’m curious about specifics, rather than generalizations.)

It’s “scandalous” today to some people. The idea of manual stimulation as OK is more than some people think is proper. Many are still stuck in “Spirit good, body bad.”

I think TOB contributes to the debate about “anit-popes.” NFP, too. Many just can’t understand how it’s consistant with old church teachings. Therefore it must be wrong.

The deal with TOB is that it does challenge the Victorian view of the body. It also calls us to a higher appreciation of the act than the current culture. One has to see that it can stand on it’s own based on Scripture. It’s a beautiful work and perspective about the life God gave us.

 

[fbl9]

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.

Many of the earlier theologians came from a sinful past…it the hate of thier sinful past that would draw one to such conclusion…
For myself when i woke up a few yrs ago, in regards to the marital embrace i only wanted the act of procreation only ,no fooling around with each other.Why?because my past tainted that which was good

 

[Good_Daughter]

So perhaps it would be more effective if you just helped me out and explained it for me.

Noone ever seems to have a good explanation for this particular Catholic teaching (least of all me!). That’s why I was pleasantly surprized to find John Paul II talking about it so openly in Theology of the Body. He takes this passage from Genesis,

“God created man in his image;
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them” (NAB),

explaining clearly how God Himself is a communion of persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and, as male and female, we too have the ability to form a communion of persons through the marital embrace.

In the marital embrace then, we are able to image God. That’s the meaning and purpose of our creation as male and female. The nature of the Creator himself is inscribed on our bodies. The image however, is only authentic if our love is total and committed, and like God’s, life-giving (not necessarily “new” life-giving though). Contraception introduces an anti-life element to the marital embrace, distorting the image.

The marital embrace during times of infertility though, remains procreative, as it is still ordered toward procreation, and unitive, as it bonds the spouses. Most important though, regardless of fertility, the uncontracepted marital embrace still allows the couple to image the Trinity.

Another CAF poster sums up this teaching nicely with the phrase, “We are the analogy.”

I’ve barely scratched the surface of Theology of the Body, but I can already see that it contains some good answers to the “why’s” of Catholic teaching.

I want you to know that I am not completely closed off on this issue. I am willing to listen. In fact, I even had a very nice conversation with my wife or this exact topic 2 days ago, as I have learned much since our last conversation on it. I even offered to pursue other options besides abc.

You sound more open-minded than I ever was before I saw the wisdom of Catholic teaching on sexual morality. Do you and your wife have a copy of Toni Weschler’s book Taking Charge of Your Fertility? It’s a great (secular) resource on fertility awareness that helped convince me that tossing contraception was a good idea even before Catholicism clinched it for me.

 

[Rico_S]

Hi Good Daughter:

I have read bits and pieces of TOB, I have seen it incorporated into programs like “That Many is You!”, and I went to a dinner sponsered by the Family Life office where the guest speaker was a priest who wrote a book about JPII’s TOB. So I sort of get the gist of this teaching…but I am certainly no expert.

That’s why I was pleasantly surprized to find John Paul II talking about it so openly in Theology of the Body. He takes this passage from Genesis,

“God created man in his image;
in the divine image he created him;
male and female he created them” (NAB),

explaining clearly how God Himself is a communion of persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and, as male and female, we too have the ability to form a communion of persons through the marital embrace.

In the marital embrace then, we are able to image God. That’s the meaning and purpose of our creation as male and female. The nature of the Creator himself is inscribed on our bodies. The image however, is only authentic if our love is total and committed, and like God’s, life-giving (not necessarily “new” life-giving though). Contraception introduces an anti-life element to the marital embrace, distorting the image.

The marital embrace during times of infertility though, remains procreative, as it is still ordered toward procreation, and unitive, as it bonds the spouses. Most important though, regardless of fertility, the uncontracepted marital embrace still allows the couple to image the Trinity.

Another CAF poster sums up this teaching nicely with the phrase, “We are the analogy.”

I am going to be perfectly blunt…this simply does not resonate with me. It seems to be theological sophistry. Yes…I can actually hear the gasps of shock and horror from those reading that last statement through my internet connection. I will now be put on many ignore lists and the more devout will pray that the demon who has taken over me will leave my body. But, I am simply telling the truth.

Why is the sexual union the fullest way to image God…to mirror God? What about those who are single…and choose not to marry? Are they unable to fully image God? If I were called to be single I would feel pretty depressed that God did not intend for me to reflect the true image of the communion of God. I imagine that God’s image can be reflected in each and every relationship we have…how do we reflect that life-giving aspect God in those relationships…for without it how can that image be authentic? Now in actuality I believe that we can treat all in a life-giving manner; but that really is not dependent upon the transmission of life. Let’s say that that the conjugal union as directed by Catholic teaching is the fullest and most complete way to mirror God. Why is it necessarily true that if the total love and commitment in still present in the act, the the transmission of life is not…is the image completely distorted and evil. I mean I sometimes go to mass with a bad attitude, or preoccupied with some other event im my life…so that my communion with God is not as perfect as it is on other times. Should I not go b/c it does not fit the ideal or pinnacle of worship?

Furthermore, I do believe the language of our bodies tells us something about creation. The fact that humans engage in sexual intercourse outside of fertile times (and we are a huge exception to the rule in God’s animial kingdom) speaks volumes about the purpose of the conjugal union. We embrace in infertile periods, when the woman is already pregnant, post menopause, if we are sterile…etc. In fact, I think a very cogent argument could be made that the unitive aspect of the conjugal union is the primary one.

Anyway, I don’t claim to be an intelligent man…and my above comments are more or less off the cuff–so they are sure to be cut down pretty easily. But this is my reaction to the TOB premise. Perhaps I am too far along the path to faithlessness to recognize theological truth…perhpas I have simply closed my heart to the voice of God. I don’t know.

Do you and your wife have a copy of Toni Weschler’s book Taking Charge of Your Fertility? It’s a great (secular) resource on fertility awareness that helped convince me that tossing contraception was a good idea even before Catholicism clinched it for me.

We have not read it. I will see if my wife can check it out at the library. Thanks for the rec.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

Hi Good Daughter:

I have read bits and pieces of TOB, I have seen it incorporated into programs like “That Many is You!”, and I went to a dinner sponsered by the Family Life office where the guest speaker was a priest who wrote a book about JPII’s TOB. So I sort of get the gist of this teaching…but I am certainly no expert.

I am going to be perfectly blunt…this simply does not resonate with me. It seems to be theological sophistry. Yes…I can actually hear the gasps of shock and horror from those reading that last statement through my internet connection. I will now be put on many ignore lists and the more devout will pray that the demon who has taken over me will leave my body. But, I am simply telling the truth.

–Rico

No gasps, here and I’m a big believer in TOB’s concept. It’s hard to take all at once unless you see a need for it.

It’s almost like believing in God. Unless you feel a need for it, you may not.

One thing CW did in one of his books was say something like “Take all of it or none of it.” Basically, like being Catholic, you can’t pick and choose. Even though many try. Some things will be harder to accept on some levels than others. Now I’m no expert either but I found what is said about NOT following the concept to be true in my experience. So if I had never expericed these things, I probably could not recognize the Truths that TOB brings to focus.

TOB describes a way to live and love. There are other perspectives in which we can live and love, too. Some with great results, some with not so great results.

The thing about the perspective about the two purposes of sex being inseparatable, I think is true because, if you take away the potential consequence of the act (life) we loose the seriousness of the act. It can become passe. Less than what it was meant to be. It becomes casual.

Now many will say that is OK and for some it won’t lead to use, abuse and adultery. However, it seems to eventually create problems for a large percentage of married couples based on today’s divorce rate. Those practicing NFP have a drastically smaller divorce rate. And based on my experience of doing both ABC and NFP I can assure you it’s not just because they might be more religious than the rest of us. NFP forces communication and reinforces commitment. That is why the church sees it as good because they know that complete abstainance, when unnecessary, isn’t good either.

No one can do a great job in a few posts on a forum to explain it although some do a good job if they already “got it.” However, if you can get a hold of some TOB CD’s or book, it might make more sense taking the subject “from the beginning.” As CW also wrote “Don’t skip around. Start at the beginning and go all the way through.” This is because it’s a logical sequence that continues to build upon itself. One can not build a building starting on the 20th floor moving to the 3rd and back up to the 6th.

I’ve got some good supporting information on TOB that is free if you want the pointers. But I think the best thing is to get one of the TOB books and run through it. Harder parts may take better explaination and the fine folks here can point you to more info.

TOB is based on scripture and scripture is what Christianity is based on. You are right on when you point out our differences from animals. It is significant. And that is what can save us from the culture we live in, today.

 

[mark_a]

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.

Do these “balanced” separated brethren include those who “marry” gay couples?

 

[Good_Daughter]

Why is the sexual union the fullest way to image God…to mirror God? What about those who are single…and choose not to marry? Are they unable to fully image God? If I were called to be single I would feel pretty depressed that God did not intend for me to reflect the true image of the communion of God.

The sexual union is not the fullest way to image God, please forgive me if that was in any way implied. What I said, in a nutshell, is that the reality of the Trinity is imaged physically by the marital embrace.

Those who are single, particularly for the sake of the kingdom, may be able to image God even more fully than those of us who are married. St. Paul expressed a wish that all could be as he was, not because marriage is bad but because it is so good that sacrificing it is truly selfless. I think if we’re looking for the fullest way to image God, it can be summed up in a word- sacrifice. There is ample opportunity for sacrifice both inside and outside of marriage.

I imagine that God’s image can be reflected in each and every relationship we have…how do we reflect that life-giving aspect God in those relationships…for without it how can that image be authentic? Now in actuality I believe that we can treat all in a life-giving manner; but that really is not dependent upon the transmission of life.

By “transmission of life”, I take it you mean “new” life?

I’m in agreement with you here. Every kind of love, should be life-giving because God, the source of love, is life-giving. The transmission of new life, of course, is not a factor outside of sexual love.

Let’s say that that the conjugal union as directed by Catholic teaching is the fullest and most complete way to mirror God. Why is it necessarily true that if the total love and commitment in still present in the act, the the transmission of life is not…is the image completely distorted and evil. I mean I sometimes go to mass with a bad attitude, or preoccupied with some other event im my life…so that my communion with God is not as perfect as it is on other times. Should I not go b/c it does not fit the ideal or pinnacle of worship?

As I said earlier, the conjugal union is not the fullest and most complete way to mirror God.

The transmission of (new) life is ultimately up to God and the absence of that transmission from the conjugal union does not necessarily distort the image or make it evil. 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.”

Furthermore, I do believe the language of our bodies tells us something about creation. The fact that humans engage in sexual intercourse outside of fertile times (and we are a huge exception to the rule in God’s animial kingdom) speaks volumes about the purpose of the conjugal union. We embrace in infertile periods, when the woman is already pregnant, post menopause, if we are sterile…etc. In fact, I think a very cogent argument could be made that the unitive aspect of the conjugal union is the primary one.

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.

 

[mark_a]

bump

 

[Rico_S]

newb:

One thing CW did in one of his books was say something like “Take all of it or none of it.” Basically, like being Catholic, you can’t pick and choose. Even though many try.

Of course this is the bottom line, and where it all eventually leads. Either you accept the authority of Christ’s church or you do not. Unfortunately, if you are trying to convince someone that the procreative aspect of sex is inseparable from the unitive, this is not a particularly persuasive argument for those who are not Catholic, or those whose faith in the church is already wavering. “Believe because you have to!”

The thing about the perspective about the two purposes of sex being inseparatable, I think is true because, if you take away the potential consequence of the act (life) we lose the seriousness of the act. It can become passe. Less than what it was meant to be. It becomes casual.

To be honest, I really think that this is at the heart of the church’s stance, even if it does not fit within its theological positon on the issue. Contraception…stripping the act of its procreative aspect…will indeed make it more attractive to misuse the gift of sex. Premarital sex, extramarital affairs, etc. are all made easier once we strip the consequences from the act. I fully agree the end result is a general lowering of the value of sex…and debasing its meaning.

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.

Those practicing NFP have a drastically smaller divorce rate. And based on my experience of doing both ABC and NFP I can assure you it’s not just because they might be more religious than the rest of us. NFP forces communication and reinforces commitment. That is why the church sees it as good because they know that complete abstainance, when unnecessary, isn’t good either.

The whole divorce rate among NFP couples as one of the benefits tactic is a gross piece of propaganda. It is completely disingenuous to maintain that practicing NFP is why their divorce rate is so small vs typical couples. It is quite obvious that fundamental beliefs couple have that lead them to choose NFP, are the same fundamental beliefs that lead them to shun divorce (or pick a suitable spouse). To reference the disparity in the divorce rates and suggest that NFP is reason is pure propaganda, and quite frankly weakens their position…the so called position of “truth.”

Can NFP have a positive impact on marriage?..sure! I have read enough anecdotes here on this board that support this notion. But there is no way the church and proponents of its position should try to not so subtly maintain that NFP is the reason for this divide. Also, while the church may see the benefits of NFP on a marriage, it is merely a side benefit and are not justification for its standing as morally licit…at least as far as I can tell.

No one can do a great job in a few posts on a forum to explain it although some do a good job if they already “got it.” However, if you can get a hold of some TOB CD’s or book, it might make more sense taking the subject “from the beginning.” As CW also wrote “Don’t skip around. Start at the beginning and go all the way through.” This is because it’s a logical sequence that continues to build upon itself. One can not build a building starting on the 20th floor moving to the 3rd and back up to the 6th.

I’ve got some good supporting information on TOB that is free if you want the pointers. But I think the best thing is to get one of the TOB books and run through it. Harder parts may take better explaination and the fine folks here can point you to more info.

Yes, I am sure that TOB is quite dense and does not lend itself to be explained well in 2 or 3 paragraphs. It is probably unwise for me to believe that it can be explained to me here on this forum. I’ll be honest, I am not sure I could actually wade through the actual TOB text (acutal series of talks) myself…but at the same time, I am not so keen on having somebody dumb it down so that I can understand it. Suggestions…keeping in mind that I will not be lapping it up, but rather looking at it through a fairly critical eye?

–Rico

Edit to add:

As a side note, why is TOB always referenced as the answer to all of the why’s about the church’s position on sex? From my limited understanding, it isn’t considered an infallible teaching (yet). Is there nothing that explains the why’s (as opposed to the what’s) of the church’s teaching on sex prior to TOB?

 

[Rico_S]

Intentionally witholding fertility though, does distort the image. What does God withhold in the expression of His love?

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?

 

[fix]

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?

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.

 

[newbetx]

newb:
Quote:
One thing CW did in one of his books was say something like “Take all of it or none of it.” Basically, like being Catholic, you can’t pick and choose. Even though many try.
Of course this is the bottom line, and where it all eventually leads. Either you accept the authority of Christ’s church or you do not. Unfortunately, if you are trying to convince someone that the procreative aspect of sex is inseparable from the unitive, this is not a particularly persuasive argument for those who are not Catholic, or those whose faith in the church is already wavering. “Believe because you have to!”
That never flies with us “doubting Thomas’s” I can assure you, I don’t take things at face value. I, for one, have to be slapped upside the face. I don’t blindly follow. Hence, I still consider myself a “cafeteria Catholic” much to the contrary of how I may seem.

That’s not what is meant by the statement. In fact the opposite. Take it all or leave it. Belief is up to you. TOB is complete. It is a perspective on how to live and love. This way or however you want. It is not forced upon you. TOB isn’t Catholic as much as it is scriptural. It is based on quotes from books not in the Protestant bible. It doesn’t assume the Catholic stance and base things on it.

Quote:
The thing about the perspective about the two purposes of sex being inseparatable, I think is true because, if you take away the potential consequence of the act (life) we lose the seriousness of the act. It can become passe. Less than what it was meant to be. It becomes casual.
To be honest, I really think that this is at the heart of the church’s stance, even if it does not fit within its theological positon on the issue.
???

Contraception…stripping the act of its procreative aspect…will indeed make it more attractive to misuse the gift of sex. Premarital sex, extramarital affairs, etc. are all made easier once we strip the consequences from the act. I fully agree the end result is a general lowering of the value of sex…and debasing its meaning.
Exactly.
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.
Maybe, the “ordered to procreation” definition is more along these lines. See if this post makes more sense.

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?

Quote:
Those practicing NFP have a drastically smaller divorce rate. And based on my experience of doing both ABC and NFP I can assure you it’s not just because they might be more religious than the rest of us. NFP forces communication and reinforces commitment. That is why the church sees it as good because they know that complete abstainance, when unnecessary, isn’t good either.
The whole divorce rate among NFP couples as one of the benefits tactic is a gross piece of propaganda. It is completely disingenuous to maintain that practicing NFP is why their divorce rate is so small vs typical couples. It is quite obvious that fundamental beliefs couple have that lead them to choose NFP, are the same fundamental beliefs that lead them to shun divorce (or pick a suitable spouse). To reference the disparity in the divorce rates and suggest that NFP is reason is pure propaganda, and quite frankly weakens their position…the so called position of “truth.”
I wish I had the official poll information. I find it a form of propaganda that people try to dismiss this. I personally can attest, after doing things both ways, that there IS something significant about practicing NFP. There are more than the religious practicing NFP. Many couples that don’t wish to mess with their bodies have embraced this independent of faith. What I’ve been told is, if you take those practicing NFP, going to Mass regularly AND praying together, the divorce rate number is 0.09%. So there is the religious component.

NFP is a tool. I tell people to practice it from the day they are married. It forces communications. Good communications always helps marriages.
Can NFP have a positive impact on marriage?..sure! I have read enough anecdotes here on this board that support this notion. But there is no way the church and proponents of its position should try to not so subtly maintain that NFP is the reason for this divide. Also, while the church may see the benefits of NFP on a marriage, it is merely a side benefit and are not justification for its standing as morally licit…at least as far as I can tell.

 

[newbetx]

Quote:
No one can do a great job in a few posts on a forum to explain it although some do a good job if they already “got it.” However, if you can get a hold of some TOB CD’s or book, it might make more sense taking the subject “from the beginning.” As CW also wrote “Don’t skip around. Start at the beginning and go all the way through.” This is because it’s a logical sequence that continues to build upon itself. One can not build a building starting on the 20th floor moving to the 3rd and back up to the 6th.

I’ve got some good supporting information on TOB that is free if you want the pointers. But I think the best thing is to get one of the TOB books and run through it. Harder parts may take better explaination and the fine folks here can point you to more info.
Yes, I am sure that TOB is quite dense and does not lend itself to be explained well in 2 or 3 paragraphs. It is probably unwise for me to believe that it can be explained to me here on this forum. I’ll be honest, I am not sure I could actually wade through the actual TOB text (acutal series of talks) myself…but at the same time, I am not so keen on having somebody dumb it down so that I can understand it. Suggestions…keeping in mind that I will not be lapping it up, but rather looking at it through a fairly critical eye?

You are much more in tune with actual scripture than I, so, from what I’ve heard, Love and Responsibility might not be a dry for you as it might be for me. I haven’t read that one, yet. Many here, have and find, since it’s written by the source, it should be more substitive than the “dumbed down” versions by other authors. I find TOB to be very rich. I do have a pointer to a web site that claims to have all the specific talks. I’ve marked it but not investigated it yet. I don’t know if you would find it helpful or not.
–Rico
Edit to add:

As a side note, why is TOB always referenced as the answer to all of the why’s about the church’s position on sex? From my limited understanding, it isn’t considered an infallible teaching (yet). Is there nothing that explains the why’s (as opposed to the what’s) of the church’s teaching on sex prior to TOB?/quote]

TOB is groundbreaking. No one ever put it all together before. The work was done in response to Humane Vitae. I can’t say it was like the Warren Commission (“Go investigate and BTW, here is your answer”) I trust the man to have done the work without predjudice, especially since some of the outcome was far from conservative.

I find TOB to be a consistant, although sometimes difficult approach to life. The contrast is that TOB includes the need for sacrafice, even death, for the way to live and love properly. In today’s culture, I quite understand that such an aspect is treated with great resistance. I arrogantly resisted the concept for decades.

But I find it reinforced in the concept of “he would swim through an ocean of sharks to bring her a lemonade.” While less than romantic sounding, it is something that the concept of true love might manifest. Of course for us, we are reminded that Christ’s death on the cross was the ultimate in showing love for us. Wouldn’t sacrafice for one’s spouse, acceptance of risk, and submission to ones state be an appropriate parallel to such an act?