I wish I shared your optimism, but it is encouraging to see. I cannot say I agree with all of your points, perhaps because I do not see clearly enough, perhaps because I have insufficient faith in mankind, but I do at least understand why you believe it.I am enormously optimistic that if we love heroically, all our “problems” will diminish greatly, in our neighborhoods first. The devil tempts us to ocean boiling worrying.
Rayvin, generously and well said. I’ve enjoyed and have been challenged with our good exchange. You impress me, and have raised many excellent points. See you around these forums hopefully.I wish I shared your optimism, but it is encouraging to see. I cannot say I agree with all of your points, perhaps because I do not see clearly enough, perhaps because I have insufficient faith in mankind, but I do at least understand why you believe it.
I don’t have much faith in mankind…but I do figure with God’s help all will work out.I wish I shared your optimism, but it is encouraging to see. I cannot say I agree with all of your points, perhaps because I do not see clearly enough, perhaps because I have insufficient faith in mankind, but I do at least understand why you believe it.
I’m not going to argue with that, it’s very true. But the point remains that the people who need this food aren’t getting it. While they aren’t getting it, they give birth to children and watch them starve.There is no evidence to suggest that over population is a causing any type of resource shortage globally. Here is but one example of the world’s excess capacity. In 2012 ( a drought year) the US produced 500billiin pounds of corn. We took close to 40% of this and turned it into ethanol ( an extremely idiotic government program, but another topc). Hypothetically, that corn could have been used to produce an additional 40 billion pounds of poultry meat. We had 1 billion hungry people in the world on 2012. That would be 40 pounds of meat per hungry person. That would go a long ways to alleviating the problem. Not a proposed solution, just an illustration of how much excess capacity exists in just our country ( a realatively small percentage of world land mass).
I have no great optimism for mankind. Outside of the technological realm, I see little evidence of progress if mankind in recent history. But I fail to see how adopting a despairing approach and giving up on mankind will help. If we had 1/2 the people in the world today, I believe it likely the same percentage ( or worse) would be hungry. In an absolute basis, I suppose world wide suffering might be less, but achieving that readily would be horrific. It does seem like your position boils down to: people suffer, so it would be better they didn’t exist.I’m not going to argue with that, it’s very true. But the point remains that the people who need this food aren’t getting it. While they aren’t getting it, they give birth to children and watch them starve.
My will to argue has gone out of this somewhat, as per Edward’s argument a couple of posts up. I suppose I would consider the optimism you have for mankind naive, and you would consider my cynicism unhelpful. But at least I understand now why the Church thinks the way it does (assuming Edward’s position is typical).
Quite possibly that’s true - I suppose I might also state that the more people there are, the more intensely the suffering is felt.I have no great optimism for mankind. Outside of the technological realm, I see little evidence of progress if mankind in recent history. But I fail to see how adopting a despairing approach and giving up on mankind will help. If we had 1/2 the people in the world today, I believe it likely the same percentage ( or worse) would be hungry. In an absolute basis, I suppose world wide suffering might be less, but achieving that readily would be horrific. It does seem like your position boils down to: people suffer, so it would be better they didn’t exist.
Pope was speaking to situation hypothetically…saying in certain instances, like where male prostitutes are spreading AIDS. Recall some secular females in this country called for chemical castration of serial rapists …as a possible solution to letting them out of prison & back on streets.Er no. What I’ve seen since beginning here is you and Edward consistently trying to duck the apparently rather awkward point I’m making - which is that preaching the Catholic message about sex; a message that we believe is for everyone, would cause utter devastation if followed everywhere.
And to be honest, maybe I could have chosen better examples.
Here’s one: telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html
So the Church itself changed it’s policy in Africa, even outside of marriage. Because people were dying and it was causing much suffering. There’s your precedent.
Felatio would have to be out altogether then. Would that be considered “contraceptive”. Felatio is not open to life at all.If it is open to life (i.e. you’re not contracepting, etc.) then you’re fine.
But you cannot simply grab someone as Eddie Albert did in Green Acres and say “You are my wife.” People have to agree to Marry. What does this say to do with the sex urge for people who can’t/don’t get married?I took that to be refering to what St Paul said: “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”.
That is, marriage *is *the morally acceptable way to satisfy the sex urge.
Noting that yes we still need to be chaste within marriages; eg not lust after our own spouses, not seek sex at the expense of other duties.
To climax, yes, it is not open to life. To deliberately seek climax in that fashion is not open to life. But God gives us many means to use, which when used together over a period of intimacy, can make our spouse feel loved as no other.Felatio would have to be out altogether then. Would that be considered “contraceptive”. Felatio is not open to life at all.
How does one have sex without trying to enjoy it? Does that mean every time my wife says, “can you do X?” she is sinning, because she’s trying to make it more enjoyable for herself? And vice versa if I ask her to do Y?Well it really shouldn’t even be for MUTUAL pleasure. If our intention is what it should be there should be no expectation or drive whatsoever for our own pleasure. This is perhaps pushing a point too hard…but we need to be on guard in our marriage for any sign off “needs to be mutual…reciprocal…my turn”.
Well, enjoyment comes when both husband and wife are so attentive to the needs of the other and so intent on making them feel loved that they both get so carried away in pursing the good of the other…and, generally, there’s either an explosion in the bedroom, OR a load of generous laughter and great tenderness.How does one have sex without trying to enjoy it? Does that mean every time my wife says, “can you do X?” she is sinning, because she’s trying to make it more enjoyable for herself? And vice versa if I ask her to do Y?
I guess we’re talking semantics here then. It is necessary to be present and engaged. However, certainly, no spouse should make another into an object to be used, if that’s what you’re getting at.Well, enjoyment comes when both husband and wife are so attentive to the needs of the other and so intent on making them feel loved that they both get so carried away in pursing the good of the other…and, generally, there’s either an explosion in the bedroom, OR a load of generous laughter and great tenderness.
No…to help a spouse learn how one works is not to sin…it’s helping them to love!
I have no idea what you think I said in order to respond with “it is necessessary to be present and engaged”…and for that matter the rest of what you said.I guess we’re talking semantics here then. It is necessary to be present and engaged. However, certainly, no spouse should make another into an object to be used, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Well, trying being “present” and “engaged” while not thinking at all about one’s own pleasure during the act. That would be difficult.I have no idea what you think I said in order to respond with “it is necessessary to be present and engaged”…and for that matter the rest of what you said.
Maybe go back and pick up the thread in a different light or mindset.
Ah…it makes more sense now…sorry.Well, trying being “present” and “engaged” while not thinking at all about one’s own pleasure during the act. That would be difficult.
But that’s not what the church teaches…the Church Doesn’t teach sex is only for pro-creation.I don’t at all even remotely believe (as many apparently do) that God merely intended sex not to be enjoyable and to be used ONLY for procreation. Sex between a married couple serves other powerful purposes apart from the mere propagation of species.
Or your spouse might want more… and now. it is just about being attentive and generous.Ah…it makes more sense now…sorry.
Right, being very attentive to your spouse, and self-forgetting tends to slow things down. Can take practice and sacrifice, all part of love.
And that can be fine too. The point is that over time both spouses grow to be self donating…and it’s this unique combination of other giving - without “counting the cost” - that God normally rewards with great joy to both.Or your spouse might want more… and now. it is just about being attentive and generous.