question

  • Thread starter Thread starter blortog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob_Crowley said:
I’m a former Protestant, but the church’s position on contraception, as opposed to abortion, in my opinion is bunkum. I think the contraceptive pill was given at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world. Go and tell the Chinese and Indians they should all have large families. But while you’re at it, if you’re going to be equally ethical, also tell them how to feed, educate, house and employ them, without starting an environmental catastrophe. The pill had Catholic researchers partly responsible for it.

**The church’s main argument is that the pill often causes fertilised ova to be flushed out of the uterus. What it doesn’t tell you is that God’s own natural system, designed by the Almighty Himself, flushed out at least a half of all fertilised ova itself, whether contraceptives are used or not. In my opinion He’s given us a precedent. If anything the church’s ruling on the pill gives abortionists more power, not less. **

The church is flogging a dead horse on this one. It’s patently obvious that in educated societies, most Catholic families are using contraception. The large catholic families of yesteryear are a byword. And don’t tell me they’re all using the rhythm method.

It’s just that they’ve got common horse sense which unmarried popes, bishops and priests haven’t, but since it doesn’t pay to confess it to a priest, they don’t. The pope, bishops and priests aren’t going to feed, house, educate, clothe, provide the infrastructure, or clothe a single child.
Click to expand...
First of all, there is a difference between a woman having a miscarriage through no fault of her own and a woman taking drugs that can induce a miscarriage. God most certainly is not “giving us a precedent.” He does not give us permission to commit murder. And it would not matter if every Catholic couple in the world used contraception, which they don’t. It still would not be right.
 
A woman without a uterus can still have sex with her husband, because she has not done anything to make it unfruitful. This is an unintended consequence of the surgery, and is different morally from purposely making it infertile.

And we cannot forget that sex is to be unitive as well as procreative. Both are important, and there is a big difference between having sex just for pleasure, and being open to the unitive aspect. When people have unmarried sex, they are not giving themselves fully to each other, just like they aren’t if they are married and contracepting. We know a lot about the effects of oxytocin on mother/child bonding, and it also reinforces the bonds between sexual partners, married or not. I’m sure we all know an immature couple that breaks up and makes up a zillion times, but sex seems to keep them together against their better sense.

Monogamous married people can be hormonally addicted to each other. I think of a certain couple I know who have been married for decades, far more than half their lives. There is no him without her and no her without him. I don’t know much about their sex lives (except that it is a very positive experience), but I can see that their whole marriage is deeply unitive, and even though they are past childbearing age, it is still deeply fruitful, because that union of persons, vows renewed each time they embrace, gives so much to the Church and her children.

All that to say that missing a uterus doesn’t mean sex can’t be unitive and procreative, just maybe not in the ways we think of first.
 
EvelynEVF said:
A woman without a uterus can still have sex with her husband, because she has not done anything to make it unfruitful. This is an unintended consequence of the surgery, and is different morally from purposely making it infertile.

And we cannot forget that sex is to be unitive as well as procreative. Both are important, and there is a big difference between having sex just for pleasure, and being open to the unitive aspect. When people have unmarried sex, they are not giving themselves fully to each other, just like they aren’t if they are married and contracepting. We know a lot about the effects of oxytocin on mother/child bonding, and it also reinforces the bonds between sexual partners, married or not. I’m sure we all know an immature couple that breaks up and makes up a zillion times, but sex seems to keep them together against their better sense.

Monogamous married people can be hormonally addicted to each other. I think of a certain couple I know who have been married for decades, far more than half their lives. There is no him without her and no her without him. I don’t know much about their sex lives (except that it is a very positive experience), but I can see that their whole marriage is deeply unitive, and even though they are past childbearing age, it is still deeply fruitful, because that union of persons, vows renewed each time they embrace, gives so much to the Church and her children.

All that to say that missing a uterus doesn’t mean sex can’t be unitive and procreative, just maybe not in the ways we think of first.
Click to expand...
Whatever. I thought sex was just for having children according to the Catholic Church.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
yes I do. Do you understand that if a woman had a hysterectomy for medical purposes, that she would not be able to have a baby?
Click to expand...
Why does the stork care what kind of medical procedures the woman has had? Are you suggesting storks don’t drop off babies?

Oh and you’re forgetting the “unitive” part…
 
It’s a fairly common misconception that sex is only for making babies. I remember in Chocolat, the movie, where the man prayed before impregnating his wife through a slit in the sheet, that this wasn’t for pleasure, but only to procreate. What an awful misrepresentation.
 
EvelynEVF said:
It’s a fairly common misconception that sex is only for making babies. I remember in Chocolat, the movie, where the man prayed before impregnating his wife through a slit in the sheet, that this wasn’t for pleasure, but only to procreate. What an awful misrepresentation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but you’re not supposed to do it for pleasure.:rolleyes:
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Whatever.
Click to expand...
You ask questions and are given a thorough, and accurate, answer and you reply “whatever.” Are you 12 years old and going through a disrespectful period? Or are you an adult who intends to converse in a logical and respectful manner?
CHRISTINE77 said:
I thought sex was just for having children according to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
That is not Church teaching. Several on this thread have already noted this in previous posts.

So, to clarify once again:

The Church teaches that there are two ends to the marital act: procreation and unity of spouses.

The Church also teaches that these two ends may never be separated.

Therefore, *all *acts of sexual intimacy between spouses must be ordered to both unity and procreation each time.

A couple who engages in completed acts of sexual intercourse maintains both the unitive and procreative elements of the marital act whether conception occurs or not as a result of that act.

If the couple themselves have taken no action to prevent the act from reaching its natural end, it is a procreative act even if no conception can occur through defect, disease, or age.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
You all are evading my question. If a woman has a hysterectomy for medical purposes such as cancer, she cannot have children as she has no uterus. Should she still have sex?
Click to expand...
The answer is yes she would still right in having sex with her husband. As her purpose in having the hysterectomy was not to prevent conception, she would then still open to baring children just no longer able to just as if she had gone through menopause.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Whatever. I thought sex was just for having children according to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Is it really charitable to just say “Whatever” ? We’re trying to help you understand that the willingness to procreate is just one aspect of sex.
 
Spirithound said:
Is it really charitable to just say “Whatever” ? We’re trying to help you understand that the willingness to procreate is just one aspect of sex.
Click to expand...
No offense, but the unity of spouses thing is kind of a given…
It’s the most intimate physical contact possible with another human, and contraception interrupts that. That’s one reason why it’s a sin.

Sex is also supposed to be open to procreation, and contraception obviously stops that as well. That’s another sin.
 
The unitive aspect is by no means a given. It is possible and more common that I like to think, that spouses use each other for release, more in lust than love.
 
TheWhoFreak said:
No offense, but the unity of spouses thing is kind of a given…
It’s the most intimate physical contact possible with another human, and contraception interrupts that. That’s one reason why it’s a sin.

Sex is also supposed to be open to procreation, and contraception obviously stops that as well. That’s another sin.
Click to expand...
Clearly it’s not a given, otherwise our sister Christine would have known that.

As you’ve pointed out, contraception blocks the unitive aspect, but surgical sterility can do that too. But this is different from natural menopause, or medically necessary surgeries, because it is not the intent to deny your spouse.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Yeah, but you’re not supposed to do it for pleasure.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Your profile says you are Catholic, but yet your posts don’t seem to reflect much knowledge of the Church’s teachings.

Have you checked out the Catechism?

Have you talked to your parish priest about any of these issues? Is he the one telling you that sex should not be enjoyed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top