Protestant Sex

[Rico_S]

Newb:

Actually, the only ones that take issue with that, in the context it was stated, are those trying to justify ABC or other contraceptive acts.

i think you missed my point.

You said:

Exactly. It devalues the act. It has to, because it potentially (not always) makes the act less serious because consequence is removed.

Removing the consequences cannot make the act less serious. Surely you see how this has big implications for the groups of people I identified–I doubt they (or the Church) think that there conjugal act is less serious for them b/c they do so without “consequences.”

–Rico

 

[broski234]

TLM, why not give us a sample of the laundry list you are so against.

I think of our separated brethren as being rather rudderless and swaying to whatever the current whim of the culture is.

Many are called, few are chosen. If your path is easy, perhaps it is the incorrect path. If your path is hard, perhaps you are on the right track, no matter how hard it is.

I agree with you on this. Protestants tend to go with the “whim of the culture”. We often see this with the issue of contraception too.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Newb:

i think you missed my point.

You said:

Removing the consequences cannot make the act less serious. Surely you see how this has big implications for the groups of people I identified–I doubt they (or the Church) think that there conjugal act is less serious for them b/c they do so without “consequences.”

–Rico

But I think there is a huge difference in removing the consequences yourself, via Contraception, and the natural non-fertility that occurs, via nfp, infertility or menopause. In my opinion, when fertility is naturally “taken away” we are more keenly aware of the consequences of fertility. Those that choose to remove their fertility, don’t hold it in high esteem–I’m not sure I’m wording this exactly the way I want to. It’s the difference in attitude–fertility is a gift or fertility is something to supress and get away from…

 

[Numinous]

I agree with you on this. Protestants tend to go with the “whim of the culture”. We often see this with the issue of contraception too.

Of course. They lost their anchor long ago, and so the currents of the sea pull the boat wherever they want.

 

[Rico_S]

Let’s think of other sacraments and sacramentals…

I am certain to be way out of my league talking about the sacraments, so I won’t do much writing here, but isn’t marriage the sacrament? Intercourse is one aspect of the marital union, but it isn’t a sacrament. Also, raising kids is a primary purpose of marriage, yet the church gives little guidance on the proper way to do so. It seems that child rearing is clearly as important an aspect of marriage as intercourse is, yet the church turns it over to us with little instruction. Why is it that the church doesn’t see the marital sexual relationship in this way?

Because intercourse is a renewal of the marriage covenant,

Is this part of the CCC or something from TOB? I don’t really dispute it, and I have heard it before, but never really followed it to its source.

Because intercourse is a renewal of the marriage covenant, to alter the act is to make it invalid or illicit…the altering of the act has changed the act in a way that was not intended. When we try to separate the act, then we do the act harm.

What is the demonstrable harm/evil of separating the act? I know you and the church say it is so, but I don’t see the necessary harm. What is it?

Also…
Is using a condom with a few hole in the end of it to allow a bit of semen to escape into the woman an alteration of the way the act was intended? How is this not a blatant separation of the act!!! By reducing the amount of ejaculate we siginificantly reduce the possibility of.conception (read…contraception) and well, there is the whole nonunitive thing that everyone and their dog claims of all barrier methods. There is no way you believe that this is the way the act was intended to be…Yet it is okie dokie with the Church. Is the Church wrong here or do we just need to redefine procreative and unitive to fit this scenario?

The OP was is a difficult spot and my heart goes out to him. And you’re right, I would say that the teachings of the Church should be followed, even when it’s hard and doesn’t make sense and doesn’t seem fair. When we start saying, this is true, this is true and this is true, but you can ignore it for this exception, and this exception and this exception…what good is the truth, then?

I do agree that truth is truth. But I also I think the church has so narrowly defined its “truth” of human sexuality over the course of its history b/c it is an area where left unchecked, humanity can certainly run amuck. (and to by honest, I believe that mpartyuk in the contraception thread is correct that the truth has been born from a tradition of viewing sex as sinful). In doing so, the church leaves many out in the cold, like the couple in the thread we read. When the “casualties” of “the truth” start to add up, at some point we gotta look examine the vailidity of that truth. I know you can’t go there, and won’t…but still.

–Rico

 

[Rico_S]

Jennifer:

It’s the difference in attitude–fertility is a gift or fertility is something to supress and get away from…

C’mon. NFPers are running away from the gift of fertility just as quickly as those who are doing abc. NFPer take a different path than abc’ers while they are running, but they are running away nontheless.

–Rico

 

[newbetx]

Newb:

i think you missed my point.

You said:

Removing the consequences cannot make the act less serious. Surely you see how this has big implications for the groups of people I identified–I doubt they (or the Church) think that there conjugal act is less serious for them b/c they do so without “consequences.”

–Rico

I tried to explain it in the rest of the post. but I was coming at it from the “contraceptive mentality” rather than the “love/God” perspective.

Technically, I should have said:
Exactly. It can devalue the act. It has **good potential **to, because it potentially (not always) makes the act less serious because consequence is removed.

Make no mistake, we are all suseptable to being less than holy. The issue is, of course, is that we are prone to sin and lust can make it’s way into our activities. With much work and the help of the seriousness of consequence, we can get into the good habits of how we are to feel about the act rather than acting on lust.

The difference is that each and every act may not be “lust-free.” No matter what our state of fertility might be, lust induced action isn’t good for us in the long run. And those post-fertile or infertile are no less suseptable.

If I might reword your response just slightly:

Removing the consequences should not make the act less serious.

I think, actually, we might be in “violent agreement.”

 

[newbetx]

Jennifer:

C’mon. NFPers are running away from the gift of fertility just as quickly as those who are doing abc. NFPer take a different path than abc’ers while they are running, but they are running away nontheless.

–Rico

IF you beleive that NFP is “just Catholic Contraception” then I can see why you will say that. However, it’s really not. Others have better posts on this subject but I’ll try this…

It isn’t about being fertile or not. It’s about corrupting the process that God created. The fertility process is HIS process that He gave us. When we avoid sex during the fertile time (or if the spouse is sick, etc.), it is with the spirit of sacrafice and Self-denial which we are called to emulate. When one uses contraception instead, you are NOT sacraficing but instead indulging for yourself AND corrupting God’s process simultaneously.

Now, that is not to say that for less than holy reasons a NFP couple couldn’t be of a “Contraceptive mentality.” However, NFP couples generally will still sacrafice themselves for a while but the ABC couple wouldn’t need to consider it.

Does that help?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer:

C’mon. NFPers are running away from the gift of fertility just as quickly as those who are doing abc. NFPer take a different path than abc’ers while they are running, but they are running away nontheless.

–Rico

I don’t find that to be the case and I dare say those who use NFP don’t feel they are running away from their fertility. We are currently using NFP to space, but we do it on a month to month (okay, it’s really moment to moment ) basis. We prayerfully try to figure out what the plan is for our family–do we go a head, knowing I could be fertile or do we wait. When I was on the pill, believe me, this wasn’t ever discussed–we would have kids at some point in the future, maybe. I didn’t know the gift I had in my fertility, just that we weren’t “ready” to have children. Do I get worried about adding to our family, certainly. Who in their right mind has 6 (+) children? We pray for guidance and the means to take care of our family. However, now, we see our fertility as a gift, as something to be cherished. I’m not saying you can only do this without contraception, but I think it helps, because it’s a mindset that is not prevelant in society at large. Children are not seen as a blessing–esp if you have more than 2.1–by the world at large (and even those within the Church!).

 

[Dchsknight]

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. 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.

 

[Rico_S]

I don’t find that to be the case and I dare say those who use NFP don’t feel they are running away from their fertility.

The truth is the truth. We don’t judge the truth of something by how it makes us feel!!!

Look, yes, those who use NFP to space children are on average, more likely to be open to life…and if you interpret that as being more accepting of the gift of fertility, that it fine, I accept that. But it is beside the point, and only serves to confuse the issue. The point I have made time and time again is quite simple.

Once a couple decides they have just cause to avoid pregnancy and begin practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy, they then and there reject fertility–it is unambiguous!!!. They are no longer willing to engage in the marital embrace when the gift of fertility is offered—the opposite of accepting an offer is rejecting it… It is rejected. Fertility is rejected…the NFPers do not want to share it with each other. Rejection, rejection rejection. It is plain no matter how much fuss is made about openness to life, or sacrifice, or respect for fertility (which I don’t necessarily deny), fundamentally practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy is a rejection of fertility.

Yes, I understand that rejection through avoiding fertile times is different than rejecting it by altering fertility. The act isn’t changed when we reject fertility by NFP, but it is with abc. I get it. You aren’t messing with the act.

The problem is that ABC is condemned b/c it is a rejection of fertility!! It is condemned b/c the marital embrace is a complete self-giving and to hold fertility back is selfish and is contrary to the selfless, unifying act of the marital embrace. But wait!!! Fundamentally NFP is rejecting fertility as well…it is intentionally holding back fertility, with a willingness to only engage in the marital union if fertility is not present and cannot be offered. NFP should be condemned as well if this is why abc is condemned.

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

 

[newbetx]

Look, yes, those who use NFP to space children are on average, more likely to be open to life…and if you interpret that as being more accepting of the gift of fertility, that it fine, I accept that. But it is beside the point, and only serves to confuse the issue. The point I have made time and time again is quite simple.
I guess we don’t agree here. It’s NOT "besides the point. "
Once a couple decides they have just cause to avoid pregnancy and begin practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy, they then and there reject fertility–it is unambiguous!!!.
No. They don’t reject it. They make prudent application of it. There is a difference.

If you have the gift to be able to sing, it does not mean you have to sing EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME.

If God gives us land with a forest we don’t have to cut down every tree in it to make proper use of it.

They are no longer willing to engage in the marital embrace when the gift of fertility is offered—the opposite of accepting an offer is rejecting it… It is rejected. Fertility is rejected…the NFPers do not want to share it with each other. Rejection, rejection rejection. It is plain no matter how much fuss is made about openness to life, or sacrifice, or respect for fertility (which I don’t necessarily deny), fundamentally practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy is a rejection of fertility.
The church is quite clear that we are to make prudent use of our talents/gifts. They shouldn’t be wasted, nor should they kept to ourselves. We are given free will on when to apply our talents and gifts. We can acknowledge them without HAVING to use them as long as we are doing so in an unselfish manner.

Yes, I understand that rejection through avoiding fertile times is different than rejecting it by altering fertility. The act isn’t changed when we reject fertility by NFP, but it is with abc. I get it. You aren’t messing with the act.

Exactly. The act itself is a gift.

The problem is that ABC is condemned b/c it is a rejection of fertility!! It is condemned b/c the marital embrace is a complete self-giving and to hold fertility back is selfish and is contrary to the selfless, unifying act of the marital embrace. But wait!!! Fundamentally NFP is rejecting fertility as well…it is intentionally holding back fertility, with a willingness to only engage in the marital union if fertility is not present and cannot be offered. NFP should be condemned as well if this is why abc is condemned.

You are correct in the fact that NFP withholds the use of fertility at that time. But we are allowed. Otherwise once a month every man would have to return to the bed to try to conceive. That is taught no where.

Women aren’t meant to be “baby factories.” We are guided by the church to be prudent with our fertility. That doesn’t mean we reject it if we choose not to use it that month, year, decade. It shows we respect it as a gift but are saving it for a more appropriate time or if health and other factors indicate it would not be prudent to use it going forward.

If the couple was avoiding for selfish reasons, then, yes, I would agree in a sense that they are “rejecting” the gift. If a couple would rather have a yaht, than a kid, for instance, or other selfish desires, this would be a good analogy. However, I hesitate to say anyone using NFP to do so would execute it that way. They’d likely go straight to ABC because they want to be sure by not “chancing it.”

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.

NFP doesn’t reject fertility, it honors it. ABC clearly does reject it, at least temporarally while the act is free to continue. But it’s no longer the same act.

I’m sorry if you are upset. I will take part of the blame as I wasn’t sure where this “withholding fertility” discussion was going to go and I didn’t speak up sooner.

Peace
–Rico

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good Daughter:

I forgot to address this. I think it is pretty clear that women go through periods where they are fertile…able to conceive… and periods where they are infertile.

Or at least that’s how it appears. Many women with “normal” fertility signs struggle with infertility. From experience, I don’t believe a woman’s cycle has times of infertility. Less-fertile, sure, but no one is guaranteed 100% infertility unless their sexual organs have been removed.

Sure there is likely fuzzy areas where women transition from one to another where I would grant that fertility is present, but at a lower level, or at least less then optimal, but I think to present fertility as continually present, and only the “level” changes seems quite a stretch.

That’s a personal conclusion based on my own experience and my reading of fertility awareness materials. Ultimately, it has little bearing on any discussion of NFP and Church teaching. It was just something I chose to share, take it or leave it.

However, I do see the benefit of looking at it like this, b/c it makes NFP becomes a more justifiable proposition.

I hope that statement wasn’t directed at me personally. I don’t start from the viewpoint that NFP is right, or the Church is right and adjust my thinking accordingly. I look for things that make sense.

I have no desire to justify the use of NFP by Catholics or anyone else. As a method of family planning, NFP stands or falls on its own merits. If someone presents a logical argument as to why NFP use is a bad idea in general or how it contradicts Catholic teaching on sexual morality, I am open to changing my mind. So far, no one has even come close.

 

[Good_Daughter]

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.

This isn’t “my” conversation but I’d like to add that from what I’ve seen, Catholic teaching is concerned with the way abc messes with God’s processes. That’s a complete argument against abc use in and of itself. (Also lends itself well to the non-religious case against abc.)

Do you think withholding is always the same as rejecting?

 

[Rico_S]

I hope that statement wasn’t directed at me personally. I don’t start from the viewpoint that NFP is right, or the Church is right and adjust my thinking accordingly. I look for things that make sense.

Good Daughter:

No, it wasn’t meant to be a indictment of your motives. Sorry if it came off as such. I just meant that if we accept fertility as always present than we can say that practicing NFP is not a rejection of fertility. Anyway, I do believe that you do not necessarily start from the point that the church is always right and then shape you thinking from that. I would also like you to know that I don’t start from the point that the church is always wrong and ajust my thinking from there.

I have no desire to justify the use of NFP by Catholics or anyone else. As a method of family planning, NFP stands or falls on its own merits. If someone presents a logical argument as to why NFP use is a bad idea in general or how it contradicts Catholic teaching on sexual morality, I am open to changing my mind. So far, no one has even come close.

I am curious, why do you engage me in this conversation? (no sarcasm or malicious intent here, just an honest question). If it is just for sake of scintillating conversation, that is ok .

This isn’t “my” conversation but I’d like to add that from what I’ve seen, Catholic teaching is concerned with the way abc messes with God’s processes. That’s a complete argument against abc use in and of itself. (Also lends itself well to the non-religious case against abc.)

Yes, indeed. I agree. But this thread hasn’t gone down that road yet b/c we followed the “abc is bad b/c it rejects fertility and is not a complete self-giving experience, etc. etc.” which, imo is not a convincing explanation and puts NFP in cross hairs of such a condemnation.

Do you think withholding is always the same as rejecting?

Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing.

definition of reject:

1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff: The other children rejected him. The publisher rejected the author’s latest novel.
4. to discard as useless or unsatisfactory: The mind rejects painful memories.
5. to cast out or eject; vomit.

defintion of withhold:

–verb (used with object) 1. to hold back; restrain or check.
2. to refrain from giving or granting: to withhold payment.
3. to collect (taxes) at the source of income.
4. to deduct (withholding tax) from an employee’s salary or wages.
–verb (used without object) 5. to hold back; refrain.

–Rico

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good Daughter:

No, it wasn’t meant to be a indictment of your motives. Sorry if it came off as such. I just meant that if we accept fertility as always present than we can say that practicing NFP is not a rejection of fertility. Anyway, I do believe that you do not necessarily start from the point that the church is always right and then shape you thinking from that. I would also like you to know that I don’t start from the point that the church is always wrong and ajust my thinking from there.

I’m glad we’re on the same page here.

I am curious, why do you engage me in this conversation? (no sarcasm or malicious intent here, just an honest question). If it is just for sake of scintillating conversation, that is ok .

Coming from differing points of view, we can still talk about Catholic sexual morality without biting each other’s heads off. On this forum, I think that counts as scintillating, don’t you?

Yes, indeed. I agree. But this thread hasn’t gone down that road yet b/c we followed the “abc is bad b/c it rejects fertility and is not a complete self-giving experience, etc. etc.” which, imo is not a convincing explanation and puts NFP in cross hairs of such a condemnation.

Let’s make sure we are talking about the same thing.

definition of reject:

1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff: The other children rejected him. The publisher rejected the author’s latest novel.
4. to discard as useless or unsatisfactory: The mind rejects painful memories.
5. to cast out or eject; vomit.

defintion of withhold:

–verb (used with object) 1. to hold back; restrain or check.
2. to refrain from giving or granting: to withhold payment.
3. to collect (taxes) at the source of income.
4. to deduct (withholding tax) from an employee’s salary or wages.
–verb (used without object) 5. to hold back; refrain.

–Rico

Your definitions reenforce my thinking that contraceptive use is a rejection of fertility (esp defs.1,3 and in some cases 5), while avoidance NFP is withholding fertility (esp. defs.1 and 2).

There is such a difference between the two words. It seems perfectly acceptable to withhold a good until the right time, while rejecting a good never seems right.

For example, in my house we withhold birthday cake until it’s somebody’s birthday. Even on the day we finally indulge, cake is withheld until all family members have eaten a good meal. This is very different from rejecting birthday cake, which others may do (ie. Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not see celebrating birthdays as a good).

Smoking, on the other hand, we feel free to reject because it is not a good. (No one in our house is nicotine dependant.)

What do you think?

 

[newbetx]

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. 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.

You’ll love Theology of the Body, then. This is exactly what it describes!

 

[Dchsknight]

You’ll love Theology of the Body, then. This is exactly what it describes!

I am really sorry… Am i wrong in saying that, or is that a Good veiw point?

 

[newbetx]

I am really sorry… Am i wrong in saying that, or is that a Good veiw point?

I’m very possitive about TOB. The popes, priests and one’s relatives SHOULDN’T be in the bedroom.
But GOD should be and TOB explains why.

If I could rephrase your post it would look something like this.
*

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. Men were designed for

women, and Women for men. It 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 it, Children. so again If the Couple is Following God, Bedroom. is only for Husband, Wife, and God to witness no one else, *

Hope that helps

 

[Rico_S]

What do you think?

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.

For example, in my house we withhold birthday cake until it’s somebody’s birthday. Even on the day we finally indulge, cake is withheld until all family members have eaten a good meal. This is very different from rejecting birthday cake, which others may do (ie. Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not see celebrating birthdays as a good).

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