Relationship in the gutter.

[newbetx]

I just wanted to respond to these two comments from a Catholic prospective.

A chance of abortificative is never a good thing for a fully practicing Catholic. If your girlfriend returns to Catholicism and become orthodox (as in holding onto the true teachings of the Church) anything that is abortacient is morally wrong. A child is an innocent being so the Catholic cannot use any method that objectively says no we refuse this child, especially so if death may occur.

If she becomes a practicing Catholic and stop using the pill for contraception, having marital relations with you would be fine if it is your choice and not hers for the condom. It’s a situation where she is being a faithful wife and not a situation of she choosing to contraceptive.

As for the second part of the comment, condoms fall under the barrier to love category. You would be accept her body and the pleasure from it without accepting her fertility. That’s an essential part of her being. The Church teachings that one makes love fully, faithfully, fruitfully, and freely. (1) Real sex only exists in the context of giving yourself fully and receiving your partner fully. (2) Real sex is always done as a faithful expression of love. There is no lies and no objectifying such as not caring for her but imaging someone else or her as a salve or toy for that end. (3) The love between the partners should bare fruit in the relationship as well as promote an love of life – in each other and in the beauty and gift of children. (4) And lastly, the partners give each other freely, not as payment nor through coercion. Let me note that NFP is meant to coexists with all four. Additionally, if it certainly alright if you have marital relations to comfort each other or to renew a love that would already be there in the marriage.

Persuader,

“would be fine” is correct from the point of view that the Catholic in this case is not sinning, directly. However, here too, there is a problem. Now Persuader may say it’s one of those religious guilt trip things but it’s really not, although it would appear on the surface to be that way. Let me try to explain.

Let me expand on the last paragraph a bit. Contraception starts out as a convenience. Giving a person a sense of control over the biological. And I might add, giving them a slightly distorted view of what “control of their bodies” means. Today, sex is considered “good” as long as no one gets an STD or pregnant. This is a very distorted point of view, especially for a married couple. But one embraced by non-marrieds and so, the sexual revolution is on. But what are they revolting from? Let’s see.

It’s not wrong to desire to have sexual relations. The church embraces such as a good thing. What She teaches is that it’s wrong to make sex a priority in the relationship over the love in the relationship. (It takes a while and sometimes much experience to understand this, so try to bear with us here.)

The woman will likely change her view of how the sexual aspects of the relationship are managed over time. Rarely are partners ever “in sync” with each other for extended periods of time. So, let’s say, your drive remains high, while her’s wanes a bit. She’ll start saying “no” more often. This leads you to believe that you aren’t loved any more. This makes you more insistent. This “demand” is viewed by her as an unreasonable request. You see it as “Hey, it’s not like you’re going to get pregnant or anything…” She sees it as “You think I’m what kind of woman?” Do you see the walls going up yet?

As the walls build, the animosity, associated with sex, grows. If she has pent up animosity about having sex with you, say, after a few years, what is your sex life going to be like? If your sex life goes, where will you be? You have a “right to sex” don’t you? (At least that’s the prevailing attitude in culture.) The love is gone from the act because the relationship of the act to both love and respect and “control of oneself” is gone. But, as the libbers will tell her, (and she may listen) she has the right to say “no” to you as often as she likes. Where does this leave you? So yet another “control of our bodies” myth joins pile of lies.

The Church knows and understands this. It’s not new. ABC has been around for a very long time. The priests know from thousands of years of experience that not fully understanding the meaning of sex, not respecting it’s seriousness, avoiding the responsibility of the act helps cause a rift between the couple.

Most Catholics don’t even understand this. They don’t understand the “why” behind the rules. Most know the rules. And a woman may not know why she feels this way, but she does. So if the act is not faithful, fruitful, total and free, it’s not because the Church teaches this that is the problem. It’s a problem because she knows inside that is what she really wants and if those aspects are missing, remorse and animosity (not guilt) will build. She may feel “guilty” because she hears the teachings, but it’s not because the teachings exist but they know it in their hearts that something is missing. The teachings exist because, over time, understanding the issues, it’s what is best for the couple.

Really, the Church doesn’t make this stuff up to “control people.” There is no “Catbert” in the Church trying to make life miserable for people. The Church, I’ve come to understand (and it’s taken some time) is here to lead people to be happy. Not the “live for today” kind of happy, but the “fulfillment of the soul” type happy.

I hope this helps you understand that such rules of the Catholic Church aren’t there only for Catholics. They are meant for the general welfare of everyone if they wish to listen. Very many of those practicing NFP are not Catholic. It has great advantages for the couple, religious or not.

 

[Persuader]

So let me try to figure this out. NFP is different from birth control because it does not interfere with the natural order of things as far as the actual sex act is concerned. It is not different as far as the intentions of the couple. The purpose in both cases is to avoid pregnancy. But then we are back to where we started, right? Why is it not alright to interfere with the natural order of things? If it’s a slap in the face to God because it’s intended to prevent pregnancy, but retain sexual pleasure, that would be the same for NFP.

I don’t understand why the difference matters. Let’s say we have Sue and Eve. Both Sue and Eve want to avoid being affected by UV-rays. Sue’s strategy consists of doing her best to stay out of the sunlight, while Eve’s strategy consists of putting on massive amounts of sun block. Both are doing their best to avoid UV-rays, but with different methods. So let’s say God is watching this, why would he think Sue is right, but Eve is wrong? My best guess would be to say that Eve is wrong because she is not experiencing his creation in the way it was intended (that would be enjoying the sun with all the natural consequences that entails), and that it would be better not to enjoy sunlight at all in that case.

For me, though, I just don’t understand why that matters. If the difference between NFP and birth control only consists in the tinkering with nature (i.e. the method by which you prevent pregnancy) , why is it alright to tinker with other things (as we are clearly doing). Liberanosamalo said it’s different because birth control is suppressing a healthy function, but there is plenty of other tinkering that suppress healthy functions to achieve some desired goal. Medicine for hyperactivity comes to mind, and the desired goal is to manipulate his/her personality so the person can have an easier time in navigating society. That is similar to what birth control does, and although that goal is primarily to prevent pregnancy (which is also the case with NFP), it also means a woman will have an easier time in navigating society (the sexual freedom of women have generally empowered women in society).

I’m trying to understand this, and be objective. Generally, I disagree with a lot of the basis for what you are all saying, but separating that from the issue, I am still struggling with understanding the catholic position on this. Strangely me and my gf never discussed this. I guess it’s because, by the time we were having sex, this wasn’t an issue for her anymore (or at least she didn’t want to admit it).

As far as birth control causing problems in the relationship by ruining love, I don’t know. Most couples use birth control, and most are fine. I don’t really think birth control is a common deal breaker or primary issue in most relationships. I would think it is other reasons for why people break up or love fades.

Newbetx asked whether or not I sleep with my gf at my parents house. Sure we do. Why not? My parents doesn’t have a problem with me having sex. They just tell me to practice safe sex, and have fun. You also mentioned a book for my gf. I haven’t bought it yet. Given the kinds of discussions she’s been having with her mother lately, I don’t think she would appreciate that kind of thing from me right now. Also, I suspect she feels (on some level) that I think she is weak because of her apparent reaction to losing her faith. So that could be misconstrued as an affirmation of that.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

The purpose in both cases is to avoid pregnancy. But then we are back to where we started, right? Why is it not alright to interfere with the natural order of things? If it’s a slap in the face to God because it’s intended to prevent pregnancy, but retain sexual pleasure, that would be the same for NFP.

Sex is not safe and not for “fun.” It’s not hopscotch. It’s dealing with the very transmission of human life and it goes to the very heart and soul of the people involved. There is no way ABC or a condom can protect the human heart. It’s “fun” for you, but eventually “fun” wanes.

If ABC was so great for couples, why has the divorce rate skyrocketed since it became prevalent in the mid-century? Sex unleashed from its life-transmitting potential became a travesty of itself. It became a recreational activity divorced from its significance and ability to unite the couple with each other and their Creator.

ABC is interfering with the natural order of things. We’re not to do that. For instance, we’re all going to die. That’s the natural order of things. But we are not to hasten that by jumping off a cliff.

You deliberately miss my point about NFP being a way to respect GOD’S design for human fertility. He didn’t make humans fertile 24/7. ABC is not a simple way to grease a woman’s path through society uninhibited by her ability to become a mother.

It’s not Ritalin. That is a ridiculous comparison. And many have issues with drugging normal active boys with Ritalin just to make them acceptable to teachers. That is an experiment we have yet to see the final outcome on. Just like it’s taken half a century to see what a failure ABC has been to families.

Again: NFP respects the integrity of every sexual act as God designed it. The act is carried out with no barriers, no chemicals, no post-coital chemicals. It is whole in and of itself. The only thing is that it respects God’s biological plan in that it occurs at a time that is infertile for the couple. Even allowing conception to occur sometimes when God allows it. The couple is saying with their bodies “We are not ready for children right now, but we know there is always the possibility of it occurring. We are not slamming the door in God’s face, putting locks and barriers up to his plan of life.”

The ABC couple is saying “Lock the doors. We don’t want God to enter this act as the Author of Life. We will change His creation, rendering fertile bodies infertile, setting up latex barriers to each other or inserting loops and wires and hormones to trick her body into being hostile to the possibility of new life.”

A far cry from giving a kid a tranquilizer. New life isn’t part of that picture. You aren’t interfering with God’s design for the transmission of life. And a hyperactive kid may not be entirely healthy. Maybe his brain is firing on too many cylinders. Bad metaphor.

You think this has nothing to do with you? Well, you’re still in the “honeymoon stage” and it’s only been a few months of your girlfriend drugging herself with toxic chemicals that cause depression and blood clots and strokes and other issues. She’s free to be your “fun” and it’s all very modern and “safe.” She’s pretending the act has no significance beyond "affection’ such as your parents taught you.

YOU THINK ABC doesn’t affect couples. Because… you’re 21 and know what women think? Again, there you go determining morality based on what YOU think. There are many many women who come to resent their sexual partners as the toll of being the one on the pills and implants adds up and they realize what a selfish thing it is… the man gives up nothing for her to be sexually available to him all the time. Yes, lots of marriages become cold and stale because of that growing resentment. Sexual satiation and boredom enter in. The woman becomes aware that she is being used. And she is using you. But there is no real commitment. The opposite of love is use.

You’ve taken God’s supreme act of union between a couple and trivialized it to fun and safe. If that’s all it means, like a handshake, then I’m sure you wouldn’t mind walking in on her and another guy doing it. You’d give them condoms, right? After all, it’s just fun. It means nothing much.

Right?

It’s not about a commitment or anything? There’s nothing at stake, right? It’s just a sterile exchange of skin and body fluids, right?

Since she can’t get pregnant by any guy, you wouldn’t mind, would you? Oh, wait. The idea another man could impregnate her would bother you, no? Because maybe that resulting child is evidence of the real meaning of sex. A literal embodiment of the love someone shared with her?

The Catholic Church looks at the world through the eyes of the Creator, not the eyes of the Created. It’s a little like a family’s rules being written by the adults or by the children. One has a clearer view of the big picture and the inevitable results of bad decisions. A four year old wants ice cream all day. He doesn’t understand why a diet of ice cream is bad for him. A sex saturated college student doesn’t understand why that’s bad either.

 

[newbetx]

So let me try to figure this out. NFP is different from birth control because it does not interfere with the natural order of things as far as the actual sex act is concerned. It is not different as far as the intentions of the couple. The purpose in both cases is to avoid pregnancy. But then we are back to where we started, right? Why is it not alright to interfere with the natural order of things? If it’s a slap in the face to God because it’s intended to prevent pregnancy, but retain sexual pleasure, that would be the same for NFP.

I don’t understand why the difference matters. Let’s say we have Sue and Eve. Both Sue and Eve want to avoid being affected by UV-rays. Sue’s strategy consists of doing her best to stay out of the sunlight, while Eve’s strategy consists of putting on massive amounts of sun block. Both are doing their best to avoid UV-rays, but with different methods. So let’s say God is watching this, why would he think Sue is right, but Eve is wrong? My best guess would be to say that Eve is wrong because she is not experiencing his creation in the way it was intended (that would be enjoying the sun with all the natural consequences that entails), and that it would be better not to enjoy sunlight at all in that case.

For me, though, I just don’t understand why that matters. If the difference between NFP and birth control only consists in the tinkering with nature (i.e. the method by which you prevent pregnancy) , why is it alright to tinker with other things (as we are clearly doing). Liberanosamalo said it’s different because birth control is suppressing a healthy function, but there is plenty of other tinkering that suppress healthy functions to achieve some desired goal. Medicine for hyperactivity comes to mind, and the desired goal is to manipulate his/her personality so the person can have an easier time in navigating society. That is similar to what birth control does, and although that goal is primarily to prevent pregnancy (which is also the case with NFP), it also means a woman will have an easier time in navigating society (the sexual freedom of women have generally empowered women in society).

I’m trying to understand this, and be objective. Generally, I disagree with a lot of the basis for what you are all saying, but separating that from the issue, I am still struggling with understanding the catholic position on this. Strangely me and my gf never discussed this. I guess it’s because, by the time we were having sex, this wasn’t an issue for her anymore (or at least she didn’t want to admit it).

As far as birth control causing problems in the relationship by ruining love, I don’t know. Most couples use birth control, and most are fine. I don’t really think birth control is a common deal breaker or primary issue in most relationships. I would think it is other reasons for why people break up or love fades.

Newbetx asked whether or not I sleep with my gf at my parents house. Sure we do. Why not? My parents doesn’t have a problem with me having sex. They just tell me to practice safe sex, and have fun. You also mentioned a book for my gf. I haven’t bought it yet. Given the kinds of discussions she’s been having with her mother lately, I don’t think she would appreciate that kind of thing from me right now. Also, I suspect she feels (on some level) that I think she is weak because of her apparent reaction to losing her faith. So that could be misconstrued as an affirmation of that.

There are probably a hundred threads on NFP vs ABC debate. Until one understands that “recreational sex” is different from “loving sex” the contraception debate can not be understood.

Sorry, I have to leave right now. I will be back to address this some more.

 

[agapewolf]

The ends don’t justify the means. Just because the intent is the same does not make the means of getting there the same.

We can kill grandma now, or wait till she dies naturally. Both stories end the same, but the way of achieving that end are 2 very completely different things.

 

[Consecrated]

So let me try to figure this out. NFP is different from birth control because it does not interfere with the natural order of things as far as the actual sex act is concerned. It is not different as far as the intentions of the couple. The purpose in both cases is to avoid pregnancy. But then we are back to where we started, right? Why is it not alright to interfere with the natural order of things? If it’s a slap in the face to God because it’s intended to prevent pregnancy, but retain sexual pleasure, that would be the same for NFP.

I don’t understand why the difference matters. Let’s say we have Sue and Eve. Both Sue and Eve want to avoid being affected by UV-rays. Sue’s strategy consists of doing her best to stay out of the sunlight, while Eve’s strategy consists of putting on massive amounts of sun block. Both are doing their best to avoid UV-rays, but with different methods. So let’s say God is watching this, why would he think Sue is right, but Eve is wrong? My best guess would be to say that Eve is wrong because she is not experiencing his creation in the way it was intended (that would be enjoying the sun with all the natural consequences that entails), and that it would be better not to enjoy sunlight at all in that case.

For me, though, I just don’t understand why that matters. If the difference between NFP and birth control only consists in the tinkering with nature (i.e. the method by which you prevent pregnancy) , why is it alright to tinker with other things (as we are clearly doing). Liberanosamalo said it’s different because birth control is suppressing a healthy function, but there is plenty of other tinkering that suppress healthy functions to achieve some desired goal. Medicine for hyperactivity comes to mind, and the desired goal is to manipulate his/her personality so the person can have an easier time in navigating society. That is similar to what birth control does, and although that goal is primarily to prevent pregnancy (which is also the case with NFP), it also means a woman will have an easier time in navigating society (the sexual freedom of women have generally empowered women in society).

I’m trying to understand this, and be objective. Generally, I disagree with a lot of the basis for what you are all saying, but separating that from the issue, I am still struggling with understanding the catholic position on this. Strangely me and my gf never discussed this. I guess it’s because, by the time we were having sex, this wasn’t an issue for her anymore (or at least she didn’t want to admit it).

As far as birth control causing problems in the relationship by ruining love, I don’t know. Most couples use birth control, and most are fine. I don’t really think birth control is a common deal breaker or primary issue in most relationships. I would think it is other reasons for why people break up or love fades.

Newbetx asked whether or not I sleep with my gf at my parents house. Sure we do. Why not? My parents doesn’t have a problem with me having sex. They just tell me to practice safe sex, and have fun. You also mentioned a book for my gf. I haven’t bought it yet. Given the kinds of discussions she’s been having with her mother lately, I don’t think she would appreciate that kind of thing from me right now. Also, I suspect she feels (on some level) that I think she is weak because of her apparent reaction to losing her faith. So that could be misconstrued as an affirmation of that.

You think hyperactivity (by this I assume you mean ADD, ADHD, etc.) is a healthy function?

 

[flyingfish]

I’m trying to understand this, and be objective. Generally, I disagree with a lot of the basis for what you are all saying, but separating that from the issue, I am still struggling with understanding the catholic position on this.

The Church teaches that it’s not okay to interfere with the nature of sex, but is okay to interfere with the nature of many other things.

Why is one okay but not the other? It comes down belief that this is the will of God, in the Bible human beings are told to be fruitful and multiply, a man is punished for using the withdrawal method.

The theology against birth control was developed before NFP even existed, and maybe part of the reason that it doesn’t make sense for one to be okay and the other not is that the initial teachings weren’t developed with NFP in mind.

One thing that’s often brought up as regards sex is the idea of a “complete gift of self”, which is not complete if you are withholding your fertility. With NFP, it’s not there to withhold.

Also, I suspect she feels (on some level) that I think she is weak because of her apparent reaction to losing her faith. So that could be misconstrued as an affirmation of that.

Is she doing better now?

 

[Liberanosamalo]

maybe part of the reason that it doesn’t make sense for one to be okay and the other not is that the initial teachings weren’t developed with NFP in mind.

Well… not quite. You’ve got it backward. NFP was developed with the initial teachings in mind, not the other way around. Truth isn’t developed. Truth is. We are subject to natural law. Just like the law of gravity wasn’t developed with the idea of airplanes in mind, our understanding of morality did not develop based on new technology. New technology and new understanding of biology either contradicted or worked with the reality of the human person. Just like rocket propulsion and jet propulsion technology developed later based on the principles of physics that we are all subject to.

Ensuing technology has nothing to do with the theology behind the sacredness of the act. Back in Roman times there was a knowlege of using herbs and chemicals to induce miscarriage and abortions. The teaching about the sacredness of the act and the inability to separate sex into its component parts was irrespective of man’s technical know-how. It was condemned back then also.

I would posit that the later scientific ability to split the atomic unity of life-giving/love-giving dimensions of sex was as disastrous for mankind morally as the splitting of the atom was for man’s physical safety.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Who knows what world of grief you’re unleashing.

The initial teachings of the Church always were about the morality of actions. ABC is an immoral act. Abstaining from sex is not an immoral act.

The intent not to conceive a child can be a neutral intent. Or a moral intent (if your nation is at war and your home is blown to pieces, now is not a good time to bring a new life into the world.) Persuader has it backward. He is saying because the ABC couple and the NFP couple have the same intent in mind, their actions are no different. An action is made moral or immoral based on its context and the methods used to do it. Sex inside marriage is in a moral context. It is a source of unity and God’s sacramental grace. Outside of marriage it is a pale reflection of what it could be. It is sinful because it is taking something that does not belong to us… the body of another. It is making a lie with our bodies saying words our mouths have not said: I give myself entirely to you now and forever exclusively and irrevocably. Persuader says that to all the girls! So how can it be true. Unless to him it’s just a barnyard fun activity. Problems arise when one person says that with his body meaning he’s treating her like a cat in heat and she is saying it with her body because she thinks they’re soulmates united forever. Those two opposing views eventually will come on a collision course as the couple realizes that for them, sex was two different languages. It doesn’t usually end well.

The Church teaches that it’s not okay to interfere with the nature of sex, but is okay to interfere with the nature of many other things.

It’s like that in all things. We can put Rover to sleep if he’s old and sick. We can’t do it to Grandpa.

We can cut the limbs off the tree outside, but we can’t cut off our kid’s foot.

We can neuter our dog, but it’s wrong to neuter ourselves or our children.

You can take an old sick horse out to the pasture and shoot him. Don’t try that with your spouse.

If you don’t understand the notion of a hierarchy of values, nothing makes sense. Some things are sacred and inviolate. A dog is not a pig is not a monkey is not a man. In fact, when humans are not behaving in accord with their place in the hierarchy of things, we compare them to lesser beings. We call it “tomcatting” or “rutting like a barnyard animal.” We instinctively know we are called to a higher order.

And there are orders of things we are not to tamper with, being mere humans. Some things are the right of God Himself. Life and death are HIS to decide. Not ours. To think otherwise is based on a false notion of autonomy that man has grasped for himself as his scientific knowlege expanded. He has taken upon himself the power to decide that belonged only to God… the sin of Adam and Eve… eating from the tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil they would be like gods. When he did that, paradise ended for him.

Now, Persuader can think he has all the answers. He can do what he darn well pleases. He’s been doing that for 9 months. How well has that worked for him? How happy has it really made that lovely girl he was so captivated with?

Or maybe he can operate according to the Manufacturer’s instructions.

He won’t. He’s too smart to read the directions on the box. I invite him at any time to come back here and tell us how it all crashed and burned. Because like with physics, if you think it doesn’t apply to you, you will crash and burn. Same with the natural law we were all created with and which Catholic morality is based on. Ignore it and eventually you will crash and burn. Sure, we’re clever enough to put off the day of reckoning for a while and delude ourselves that we are exempt. But history and biographies and society show that eventually what you have is heartbreak and chaos and confusion when you do that.

Many of our lives are testimony to living twice as long as Persuader, our self-appointed expert at life. We have seen in our lives what happened when people arrogated to themselves the idea that they could decide what was right or wrong for them based on their feelings and imposed that on everyone around them. It destroys families. It breaks hearts. It scars people for years.

But he’ll argue his way is best. Whistling in the graveyard, I say.

 

[flyingfish]

Well… not quite. You’ve got it backward. NFP was developed with the initial teachings in mind, not the other way around. Truth isn’t developed. Truth is. We are subject to natural law. Just like the law of gravity wasn’t developed with the idea of airplanes in mind, our understanding of morality did not develop based on new technology. New technology and new understanding of biology either contradicted or worked with the reality of the human person. Just like rocket propulsion and jet propulsion technology developed later based on the principles of physics that we are all subject to.

Our understanding of the law of gravity didn’t always exist, and is still fundamentally incomplete. Physicists are still trying to develop a complete theory of gravity.

Our understanding of human relationships and sexuality has come a long way. If you read the older Church documents, the primary emphasis when it comes to marriage and sex is procreation. There isn’t much about the unitive purpose of sex. With NFP the emphasis is on the unitive purpose of sex. Its purpose is to give couples a way to enjoy sex without risking increasing their family size.

Or look at Catholic teaching on female submission, in the past it was the traditional “be quiet and do what the man tells you”. Now it has been reinterpreted as mutual submission.

It’s still consistent with past teaching, but the interpretation and practical implications are quite different.

 

[agapewolf]

Or look at Catholic teaching on female submission, in the past it was the traditional “be quiet and do what the man tells you”. Now it has been reinterpreted as mutual submission.

.

Can you show me where the church ever taught this officially?

and by the way, the wife still must submit to her husbands, and the husband is still head of the wife.

 

[flyingfish]

Can you show me where the church ever taught this officially?

and by the way, the wife still must submit to her husbands, and the husband is still head of the wife.

I don’t know what you mean by “officially”, read the papal encyclicals of past popes and compare them to JPII. (vatican.va/holy_father/index.htm) The description of submission is very different. I don’t remember the particular encyclicals, but it’s anything to do with family and marriage. You can click on them and search “wife” or “woman” if you’re interested.

I am not saying the teaching has changed, I am saying it has been reinterpreted and different aspects are emphasized. Man is still the head of the wife, but he is now a mutually submissive head who sacrifices for his wife and works for her best interest as opposed to commands her.

 

[agapewolf]

Again, where does it say before that the man should command his wife? You are making assertions here that I have a hard time believing, and the burden of proof is on you.

 

[flyingfish]

Again, where does it say before that the man should command his wife? You are making assertions here that I have a hard time believing, and the burden of proof is on you.

I’m just telling you what I remember reading, I am going to try to find some of it again but I won’t spend more than 10 minutes.

1930, Pius XI Casti Connubii (papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM)

1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

In the same link Pius XI quotes Leo XIII:

1. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: **“The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; **but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”[30]

I’m just saying the emphasis has changed. You won’t find talk of mutual submission of the man and woman in the past, it’s pretty clear cut who rules and who obeys.

Since then the man’s authority is viewed differently, not as someone who rules, but someone who submits by sacrificing.

 

[agapewolf]

I’m just telling you what I remember reading, I am going to try to find some of it again but I won’t spend more than 10 minutes.

1930, Pius XI Casti Connubii (papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM)

In the same link Pius XI quotes Leo XIII:

The impression you are giving and what these are saying can be two very different meanings.

This is simply stating that the husband is spiritual head of the household.

 

[flyingfish]

The impression you are giving and what these are saying can be two very different meanings.

This is simply stating that the husband is spiritual head of the household.

I don’t know, I don’t see the word “spiritual head” anywhere in there. What does that mean anyway? That he leads the family in prayer and charity? It’s meant to talk about married life generally, that the man commands the wife (as long as his commands are not sinful/inappropriate), it doesn’t mean just spiritually, it means about the running of the household and other behavior too.

This is also pretty consistent with the attitudes people held about the roles of men and women at the time (remember those quotes are from about ~100 years ago). Women didn’t vote, and may have been considered the legal property of their husbands (I’m not sure when they started letting married women own property independent of their husbands and all that).

Now those kinds of attitudes are extremely unpopular (and not just among secular women), so you won’t see those types of statements. Now talk about husband as the head of the family is about reducing the authority the husband had in the past. Now it’s self sacrifice, spiritual head, mutual submission, not the “king of his home”.

 

[ryecroft]

Perhaps I’m trying to find some good in something that doesn’t look like a great situation. Perhaps seeing your girlfriend with faith and without has lead you to believe that life can be better with faith. Perhaps you were attracted to your girlfriend’s faith (as someone else already posted) without realizing that’s what you were attracted to. Perhaps if you tried to do some things that you knew she used to do when she was full of faith, you might find not only her but also yourself desiring to investigate the whole idea of faith and religion more.
God Bless (even if you don’t believe in Him)
Rye

 

[ryecroft]

I’m just telling you what I remember reading, I am going to try to find some of it again but I won’t spend more than 10 minutes.

1930, Pius XI Casti Connubii (papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM)

Quote:
26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

I don’t know about any other women out there, but I never said “obey” when I took my vows - I said love honor and chrerish. I made sure prior to the marriage that the Priest did NOT say obey!
God Bless
Rye

 

[newbetx]

For me, though, I just don’t understand why that matters. If the difference between NFP and birth control only consists in the tinkering with nature (i.e. the method by which you prevent pregnancy) , why is it alright to tinker with other things (as we are clearly doing). Liberanosamalo said it’s different because birth control is suppressing a healthy function, but there is plenty of other tinkering that suppress healthy functions to achieve some desired goal. Medicine for hyperactivity comes to mind, and the desired goal is to manipulate his/her personality so the person can have an easier time in navigating society. That is similar to what birth control does, and although that goal is primarily to prevent pregnancy (which is also the case with NFP), it also means a woman will have an easier time in navigating society (the sexual freedom of women have generally empowered women in society).

Like I said, you don’t (and can’t) understand this without first understanding the basis behind sex. Would you agree that what you and your gf call “making love” is really mutual gratification? Each gets something from the other? Something each of you could get from someone else if you choose? No commitment implied? Remember, I use to be this way too. I do understand this.

I’m trying to understand this, and be objective. Generally, I disagree with a lot of the basis for what you are all saying, but separating that from the issue, I am still struggling with understanding the catholic position on this. Strangely me and my gf never discussed this. I guess it’s because, by the time we were having sex, this wasn’t an issue for her anymore (or at least she didn’t want to admit it).

I would say you are doing an admirable job of sticking with us here. I think in your heart, you know there is something terribly right with sex and you may think that most religious folks are pretty prudish and “victorian” in their thinking about sex. Such is not the case here.

You gf wasn’t likely told about “Theology of the Body” and why her body was so important to her and her future husband (if that is her vocation.) We know you weren’t. I certainly wasn’t and your gf’s parents probably never heard of it either. TOB can’t be taught in a few hours. To understand it takes quite a bit of time. To teach it, much more. I hope to go through the training when it’s made available to me. Also, you must put aside two concepts: 1) body good, spirit bad (or non-existant) and 2) body bad, spirit good. Both are wrong. TOB is door #3 (from Let’s Make a Deal). Its the third option that says both body and spirit is good. Sex is good just like wine is good, just like drugs are good, when used appropriately and in moderation. Sex, BTW, is a drug. Meant to be that way. Orgasms are a great high. But like all drugs, they can be misused, abused and can affect you in a wrong way. It can cloud your mind, affect your judgement, etc.

As far as birth control causing problems in the relationship by ruining love, I don’t know. Most couples use birth control, and most are fine. I don’t really think birth control is a common deal breaker or primary issue in most relationships. I would think it is other reasons for why people break up or love fades.

And here we are…I can attest to the impact that long term use of contraceptive sex. Having done both, one is a time bomb. But stats on how it affects people are difficult to prove. However, those Catholics using ABC have about the same divorce rate as non-Catholics. About 50%.
NFP users have a much lower divorce rate… less than 1%. Why? Religion? Well, maybe, but don’t the contracepting Catholics have that too? That’s a significant difference. Why? They know something. Most here do, too. But you don’t. And to be quite honest, when I lived like you, I wouldn’t have been interested. I was getting what I wanted. I wish I would have known what I do now. It would have saved my girlfriends from a lot of unnecessary grief and bitterness. And I would have become a better person. But that, is conjecture. And I digress.

 

[newbetx]

Newbetx asked whether or not I sleep with my gf at my parents house. Sure we do. Why not? My parents doesn’t have a problem with me having sex. They just tell me to practice safe sex, and have fun. You also mentioned a book for my gf. I haven’t bought it yet. Given the kinds of discussions she’s been having with her mother lately, I don’t think she would appreciate that kind of thing from me right now. Also, I suspect she feels (on some level) that I think she is weak because of her apparent reaction to losing her faith. So that could be misconstrued as an affirmation of that.

Well, it’s like this as near as I can tell. If a married couple uses contraception, their chances of staying married is about 50-50. If they don’t their chances of sticking through it is about 99%. So only half the folks on ABC are affected by “a less than ideal concept of sex.” But those that understand the significance of sex have a much higher rate of staying together.

I’d say historically, we’ve done a bad job of promoting the right kind of sexual relationship. The culture had done a great job of promoting the wrong kind of relationship. “Sex in the City,” “Desperate Housewives”, any daytime soap, and (even if I did enjoy it at the time) Playboy did enough promotion of women as objects for sex as anyone. I think MTV has taken over this spot, though.

So yes, the denial of the power of sex and the chauvinistic effect on women in the early part of the last century was awful. But feminism didn’t elevate women, IMO it lowered them to the same level as many men they were condemning at the time. Conquests and affairs became more of the mode of operation. So what happens to the respect people have for each other when they view them as prey? Something to be obtained, used and discarded when they no longer can provide what another can?

I really do appreciate you trying to figure this out. I think you will become a better person for trying. There is a better perspective out there about what sex is all about. I hope you can hang in there and understand it.

Oh, and about the book… well, you could start reading it yourself.

 

[flyingfish]

I don’t know about any other women out there, but I never said “obey” when I took my vows - I said love honor and chrerish. I made sure prior to the marriage that the Priest did NOT say obey!
God Bless
Rye

Oh, I am not arguing for that position. I was just using it as an example of how the Church’s understanding of a particular thing has evolved. The view about sex has evolved too, with the unitive purpose of sex becoming recognized as a significant part of what it’s about.