Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

“If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.”

The purpose of a marriage is procreation. Pleasurable sex can occur within a procreative relationship, but only because it may be for the good of the couple’s relationship, which is already procreative.

The Church has taught, for milennia, that sodomy isn’t good for the couple’s relationship. Nor is it procreative.

I would argue that a couple with a good relationship, who provides their children with a good upbringing, and sometimes uses contraception is more open to life than a couple who begrudgingly has many children that they cannot care for.

I thought that marital unity was manifested in the openness to fecundity. Taking a birth control pill is not an act that is consistent with such openness.

Abstaining from sex is. Parents who have too many children to take care of are guilty of not abstaining appropriately (or of not managing money or resources properly, depending). But parents who both abstain when appropriate and avoid birth control are living out the theology of the body, and glorifying God in and through their bodies.

An illustration of this is simple: when you say that ABC is OK, there’s no reason why not to say that anal and oral sex, even to orgasm, are OK. After all, those actions are no more or less procreative than contracepted vaginal sex.

I think promotion of marriage and procreative relationships would go much more smoothly if we promoted healthy relationships between married couples and their children rather than spending most of our efforts directed toward marriage on opposing condom use.

It’s not an either/or, though. And honestly, I don’t see many families that have too many children to take care of. Do you?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It isn’t the right of the married couple, it is their duty. If they have five children, who are you to say they haven’t had enough? Does it matter whether they use artificial means or NFP? They are having sex with the same intentions, for the same purpose whether they use NFP or a condom.

Sure they are. But what intention do they have when they put on the condom? The only possible intention is to contracept.

There is no equivalent contraceptive action in NFP.

 

[underacloud]

If the goal is unity, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy promotes unity too, so it should be allowed.

If the goal is pleasure, then loving same-sex couples can claim that their sodomy is pleasurable too, so it should be allowed.

In the end, whatever justifies marital sodomy can be used to justify non-marital sodomy.

The Church teaches that the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex cannot be separated (by man’s initiative, as opposed to by nature).

Sex is unitive for the married couple in order to bond them together, which in turn relates to their role as parents of offspring arising from the procreative dimension of their sex. The unitive dimension serves the essential purpose of uniting the husband and wife as the foundation of the family. This is God’s design.

The problem with your extending this logic to homosexual couples is that they are not meant to be united in the first place. While sex may serve a similar unitive dimension for them, it is not God’s design that it does. It is, as the Church teaches, disordered.

The same is true of an unmarried heterosexual couple - they are not meant to be united in that way. Sex may serve this purpose for them, but it is not God’s design that it does. God’s design is for the unitive dimension of sex to strengthen marriages - only in marriage is it properly ordered.

Thus, the question is not whether homosexual acts effect unity between the two persons, but whether they should. The Church’s clear answer is no.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I am talking about any sexual activity that is done outside the framework set up by the church. Not any one kind in particular.

Tell me what other bodily function we use only for its utilitarian purpose? Eating, Drinking, etc. If you are going to say that all but one way of having sex are always off limits because those ways are not the primary function of sex, what reason is there not to apply this same logic to eating or drinking? Don’t go to the extreme of “well, yes, eating and drinking can be a bad thing if you make yourself throw up so can eat more food” almost no one does that, and it is way out of proportion to the comparison with limited contraceptive use by a married couple.

St. Alphonsus Liguori wrote the following when explaining gluttony:

"Pope Innocent XI has condemned the proposition which asserts that it is not a sin to eat or to drink from the sole motive of satisfying the palate. However, it is not a fault to feel pleasure in eating: for it is, generally speaking, impossible to eat without experiencing the delight which food naturally produces. But it is a defect to eat, like beasts, through the sole motive of sensual gratification, and without any reasonable object. Hence, the most delicious meats may be eaten without sin, if the motive be good and worthy of a rational creature; and, in taking the coarsest food through attachment to pleasure, there may be a fault."

If the problem is that artificial contraception is an artificial method of doing something our bodies already can do, we shouldn’t be using cars either. We have a natural method of transportation, walking, but we have no problem substituting this natural method of transportation with man made alternate means of getting around.

If the problem is that artificial contraceptive deliberately avoids pregnancy, well so does NFP (and if NFP is not deliberately avoiding pregnancy, then what is it doing? If you weren’t trying to avoid pregnancy, why do you spend so much time charting and planning when to have sex?)

the BC pill and NFP use rather different means, in the former case man uses artifice to attempt to thwart procreation, in the latter he exercises restraint at certain times.

 

[Thinking10]

In what way does abstaining provide for the well being of a married couple? In what way does abstaining work in the best interests of their already living children? (They have to be open to the life they have already created, not just the life that does not yet exist)

 

[Thinking10]

1 Corinthians 7: 1-9

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 **Do not deprive each other **except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Church teaches that the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex cannot be separated (by man’s initiative, as opposed to by nature).

Sex is unitive for the married couple in order to bond them together, which in turn relates to their role as parents of offspring arising from the procreative dimension of their sex. The unitive dimension serves the essential purpose of uniting the husband and wife as the foundation of the family. This is God’s design.

The problem with your extending this logic to homosexual couples is that they are not meant to be united in the first place. While sex may serve a similar unitive dimension for them, it is not God’s design that it does. It is, as the Church teaches, disordered.

The same is true of an unmarried heterosexual couple - they are not meant to be united in that way. Sex may serve this purpose for them, but it is not God’s design that it does. God’s design is for the unitive dimension of sex to strengthen marriages - only in marriage is it properly ordered.

Thus, the question is not whether homosexual acts effect unity between the two persons, but whether they should. The Church’s clear answer is no.

Are you under the impression that I am opposing Church teaching?

Did you read the conversation before that point?

At any rate, I agree that it is not God’s design that oral/anal sex (gay or otherwise) unite people. That’s why I’m saying that God made such sex non-procreative.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In what way does abstaining provide for the well being of a married couple? In what way does abstaining work in the best interests of their already living children?

In exactly the way you have claimed that using artificial birth control works in their best interest.

(By “abstaining”, by the way, I don’t mean being celibate. I mean not having sex in apparently fertile periods).

 

[Thinking10]

In exactly the way you have claimed that using artificial birth control works in their best interest.

(By “abstaining”, by the way, I don’t mean being celibate. I mean not having sex in apparently fertile periods).

Abstaining prevents sexual deprivation and lack of physical intimacy?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1 Corinthians 7: 1-9

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 **Do not deprive each other **except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Wow, that is almost a perfect description of NFP. But it’s not a description of birth control. And the early Church consistently condemned birth control.

 

[Thinking10]

Wow, that is almost a perfect description of NFP. But it’s not a description of birth control. And the early Church consistently condemned birth control.

You missed this part in your quote: 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Abstaining prevents sexual deprivation and lack of physical intimacy?

The Lord made it so that healthy women can have sex without conceiving at least 3-4 days every 30 or so. That’s not sexual deprivation. :nope:

As for a lack of physical intimacy, you ought to try abstaining sometime. It builds passion and intensity and desire like nothing else. It’s like being engaged again, with all the sexual tension and longing involved.

 

[Thinking10]

Wow, that is almost a perfect description of NFP. But it’s not a description of birth control. And the early Church consistently condemned birth control.

Its a warning against abstaining for too long, not instructions to abstain.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You missed this part in your quote: 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Addesssed in post 251.

 

[underacloud]

Are you under the impression that I am opposing Church teaching?

You were making a case that the unitive dimension of sex would apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. I am pointing out that it does not.

Did you read the conversation before that point?

I have been following and participating in this thread.

At any rate, I agree that it is not God’s design that oral/anal sex (gay or otherwise) unite people. That’s why I’m saying that God made such sex non-procreative.

This is not at all what I said.

I said - to paraphrase myself - that sex should not unite people who are not meant to be unitied (eg homosexuals, the unmarried). I made no mention of the particular acts involved - that is a separate discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You were making a case that the unitive dimension of sex would apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples. I am pointing out that it does not.

I have been following and participating in this thread.

This is not at all what I said.

I said - to paraphrase myself - that sex should not unite people who are not meant to be unitied (eg homosexuals, the unmarried). I made no mention of the particular acts involved - that is a separate discussion.

Sorry for mischaracterizing you.

Sex does unite the unmarried, by the way. As for the rest, I’ll just leave it, for now. I’m tired, and I don’t vehemently disagree with the points you’ve made.

 

[Thinking10]

The Lord made it so that healthy women can have sex without conceiving at least 3-4 days every 30 or so. That’s not sexual deprivation. :nope:

As for a lack of physical intimacy, you ought to try abstaining sometime. It builds passion and intensity and desire like nothing else. It’s like being engaged again, with all the sexual tension and longing involved.

A quote from this Catholic Answers user who eventually left the church.

My wife was on serious anti-depressants, she has counseling (and still do), we consulted doctors up to ying yang. We also contacted our NFP instructors, who were very un helpful, and I went as far as trying to get in touch with the national body of the NFP methods we were following….they didn’t even get back to us.
We don’t have family anywhere near us to assist. We didn’t have enough money for regular babysitting, being new immigrants. The parish didn’t help even though we went to them asking for assistance and even posted our requests in the Sunday bulletin for a while.
Not to mention the prayers and the rosaries I said for our situation, imploring Mary and Jesus, our patron saints, etc.
All the time living in fear of another pregnancy that could send our tedious balancing act tumbling over the edge. When we had that many closed doors, I start walking the other way.

There are other users on this site, I don’t want to name them specifically, who have posted more recently about very bad situations resulting from following NFP. Take a look for those. The insistence that a couple must try to conceive even when they can’t take care of another child can be very harmful.

 

[underacloud]

Sex does unite the unmarried, by the way.

Yes, as I said, it does unite them. The question, however, is whether it should.

Same question regarding homosexuals: not whether sex does unite them, but whether it should.

 

[Prodigirl]

Oral sex is still considered a form of sodomy if it is the end-goal of the sexual act. Nothing about the Church’s teachings on this subject has changed substantially, the man still has to finish in the woman, and it still has to be unitive and geared towards procreation.

If this is doctrine, why then does the Church endorse natural family planning? Shouldn’t this be a total abomination because it sidesteps openness to life, as a human manipulation of fertility? Shouldn’t Catholics simply be prepared to “receive what God gives them”??

I view this with great cynicism. It’s this kind of talking out of both sides of the mouth that drives me to feelings of deep disgust with the duplicity of the teachings of the Church.

I am ready. Bring on the apologists and the great big broom to sweep logic under the rug.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A quote from this Catholic Answers user who eventually left the church.

There are other users on this site, I don’t want to name them specifically, who have posted more recently about very bad situations resulting from following NFP. Take a look for those. The insistence that a couple must try to conceive even when they can’t take care of another child can be very harmful.

The human community abandoned the couple you quoted. That always has bad consequences. When the community abandons you, it’s a disaster, not dissimilar to when a hurricane strikes. I can’t judge someone who acts to protect their family in such a situation, though I also can’t endorse their decision to leave the Church. I don’t know the situation fully, however. I can’t judge anyone.

But the way it’s supposed to work is that Christ gives us a burden, and the Church helps us carry the burden. When it works that way, we can thrive. Otherwise, all we can do is pray and put our hand out for a lifeline.