Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[underacloud]

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.

Perhaps start with reviewing your own logic. I have highlighted the great problem with your reasoning for you.

With NFP, there is no human manipulation (observation, but no manipulation). It is working in cooperation with nature, not against it.

Contraception manipulates fertility. Hopefully you can now see the difference, applying your own logic.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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”??

NFP only involves abstaining on certain days, nothing else. Are you suggesting that it could possibly be wrong, on a given day, NOT to have sex? How could the Church teach that?

Moreover, artificial birth control severs the connection between sex and reproduction. How does monitoring one’s fertility, and not having sex on given days, sever that connection?

 

[Thinking10]

NFP only involves abstaining on certain days, nothing else. Are you suggesting that it could possibly be wrong, on a given day, NOT to have sex? How could the Church teach that?

Moreover, artificial birth control severs the connection between sex and reproduction. How does monitoring one’s fertility, and not having sex on given days, sever that connection?

I would argue that sterilization severs the connection between sex and reproduction. It is still possible to get pregnant while using birth control.

 

[Thinking10]

I rarely hear in arguments supporting abstinence or NFP that those practices are done for anyone’s well being. It always seems to be argued that they are done because they meet the legal definition of sex, and that is why they are the only permissible sexual contact between husband and wife, not because those practices are good for anyone.

It is totally focused on working within a legal framework rather than on a human personal or societal frame of reference.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I rarely hear in arguments supporting abstinence or NFP that those practices are done for anyone’s well being. It always seems to be argued that they are done because they meet the legal definition of sex, and that is why they are the only permissible sexual contact between husband and wife, not because those practices are good for anyone.

It is totally focused on working within a legal framework rather than on a human personal or societal frame of reference.

You haven’t read many Church documents on family planning, then. They are all about the good of a family being responsible in bringing children into the world.

Moreover, the use of contraception on a national/global scale has led to the increase of divorce and promiscuity. So consequences are a HUGE reason the Church opposes contraceptives.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I would argue that sterilization severs the connection between sex and reproduction. It is still possible to get pregnant while using birth control.

It was still possible to get from East Berlin to West Berlin when the Berlin Wall was up, but nevertheless the Berlin Wall severed the connection between the two cities.

 

[Amandil]

Thinking10:

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.

Incorrect. Their only duty is to follow the will of God by remaining open to His creative action every time they come together. It is not their “duty” to have as many children as possible, their only duty is to obey God’s will.

Thinking10:

Why are any medical rpcedures allowed? They all modify function of our bodies from the way they were intended to work.

Again, incorrect. Properly moral medical procedures correct deficiencies or failures which our bodies suffer.

Birth control fools a woman’s body by flooding it with hormones to make it believe that it is in a state which it is not.

And the side effects are not negligible.

Thinking10:

What do you mean, “either-or?” There is time to procreate, and a time to focus on nurturing the children you have procreated. At some point, you have had as many children as you can care for, but your relationship with your spouse must remain strong so you can take care of your children.

You said:
Thinking 10:

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.

There’s no reason why both can’t be emphasized at the same time.

Parenting is not the problem in failed marriages, it is sin and the disconnect of the spouses. No one wants, even implicitly, to think that they are merely a tool or a means for some other end, which is precisely what artificial contraception does.

 

[Prodigirl]

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.

What, is there “good love” and “bad love”? Seriously? When is love a bad thing?

 

[underacloud]

What, is there “good love” and “bad love”? Seriously? When is love a bad thing?

When “love” of something - anything - draws you away from God. When “love” hurts other people and/or draws them away from God also. When “love” does not conform to the truth, revealed to us through Christ and His Church.

Have you never loved something or someone you knew was bad for you?

I have gay friends and I do not judge the choices they make. But for a Catholic, knowing full well what the Church teaches and the proper purpose of sexuality, such a choice can never be considered valid.

 

[LongingSoul]

I rarely hear in arguments supporting abstinence or NFP that those practices are done for anyone’s well being. It always seems to be argued that they are done because they meet the legal definition of sex, and that is why they are the only permissible sexual contact between husband and wife, not because those practices are good for anyone.

It is totally focused on working within a legal framework rather than on a human personal or societal frame of reference.

I don’t know if you’ve been married long or have started to raise a family but I feel it is a blessing that I can pass onto you, the experience of my hyper Catholic family history. Being Catholic is a constant lesson in dying to the self and learning to want the beatitude of living in the spirit.

Contraception is an abuse of natural and divine law and therefore harmful to our species and harmful to the Communion of Saints. Our lives aren’t about ultimate self satisfaction but about being part of a higher purpose both natural and divine. You are wrong to say that NFP and temperance in the sexual appetite is only about legalities at the expense of the relationship.

Man is intrinsically gifted with the awareness of his higher calling to both natural and divine purpose. This is why we value ritual commitments like marriage and sexual taboos. They situate us to seek beyond our base urges and direct them to our eternal destiny.

It is true that some people don’t get that or even want to get that, but it is misleading to imply that Catholic sexual morality is a negative aspect of relationships. Although I’ve experienced 26 years of Catholic marriage, it isn’t even my experience that gives me hope in Catholic teaching… it is the experiences of my parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents as Catholic examples that assures me of the true beauty of Catholic sexual morality.

 

[Prodigirl]

When “love” of something - anything - draws you away from God. When “love” hurts other people and/or draws them away from God also. When “love” does not conform to the truth, revealed to us through Christ and His Church.

Have you never loved something or someone you knew was bad for you?

I have gay friends and I do not judge the choices they make. But for a Catholic, knowing full well what the Church teaches and the proper purpose of sexuality, such a choice can never be considered valid.

I have never LOVED someone who was bad for me. I have made bad decisions. I have been dependent and/or co-dependent. I have been needy. But I have not loved someone who was bad for me.

I’m talking about love, not about these things. Not about dysfunctional relationships, where the parties are ill-suited or incompatible, violent, disloyal, untruthful. I believe all real love conforms to any of “God’s descriptions of love”, not as interpreted by man with a manufactured agenda, but as given to the world by the Entity Itself.

You DO judge your gay friends. You proclaim their choices to be invalid.

 

[underacloud]

I’m talking about love, not about these things. Not about dysfunctional relationships, where the parties are ill-suited or incompatible, violent, disloyal, untruthful. I believe all real love conforms to any of “God’s descriptions of love”, not as interpreted by man with a manufactured agenda, but as given to the world by the Entity Itself.

“ill-suited or incompatible” would be a pretty good way of defining homosexual relationships, with regard to God’s natural law.

“Disordered” is another term - one that the Church uses. You don’t seem to think that the Church teaches truth in this regard, but instead has a “manufactured agenda”. It’s a shame you see it that way.

You DO judge your gay friends. You proclaim their choice to be invalid.

Invalid in an objective sense. But I do not judge whether they sin in doing so. That is up to God.

 

[Joseph6279]

Here’s the quick answer.

You need to separate between official Catholic teaching (what is found in papal encyclicals, Vatican approved catechisms, and constant unanimous teachings of the bishops since the early Church) and what is the realm of moral theologians opinions who seek to be obedient to the magisterium. (moral theologians who think they can upend Catholic teaching are disqualified and are living in a dream world). The Church has never pronounced anything on oral (or anal) activity as foreplay withing marriage, and probably never will.

While most moral theologians may have condemned oral stimulation as foreplay in marriage in the past (I don’t believe this was unanimous among them) it was never a part of official Catholic moral teaching. It has only existed in the realm of theologians best opinions. Opinions on oral stimulation began to change around 1940s or 50s in the world of moral theology.

Condemnation of anal intercourse as part of foreplay between married couples has been more gravely condemned among theologians. Beginning around the same time some orthodox theologians have grudgingly said it’s OK, but even this has always been very controversial. Personally, I think one can easily deduce that such activity is contrary to nature and therefore is sinful, but I cannot pronounce this with complete confidence because, once again, the Church at this point has not defined the matter. As far as married couples, the Church has only defined that contraceptive acts within marriage are objectively sinful.

The Church’s teaching and Sacred Scripture, however, has been explicit and clearly defined that homosexual acts are objectively gravely sinful in any circumstance. This has clearly gone beyond the realm of mere theological opinion. You can read about in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (don’t have the number on hand but easily found in the index).

So one needs to distinguish between Church teaching and honest theologians who do their best to explore the implications of the Church’s moral teachings. One is infallible and permanent and the other can shift around a bit.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here’s the quick answer.

You need to separate between official Catholic teaching (what is found in papal encyclicals, Vatican approved catechisms, and constant unanimous teachings of the bishops since the early Church) and what is the realm of moral theologians opinions who seek to be obedient to the magisterium. (moral theologians who think they can upend Catholic teaching are disqualified and are living in a dream world). The Church has never pronounced anything on oral (or anal) activity as foreplay withing marriage, and probably never will.

While most moral theologians may have condemned oral stimulation as foreplay in marriage in the past (I don’t believe this was unanimous among them) it was never a part of official Catholic moral teaching. It has only existed in the realm of theologians best opinions. Opinions on oral stimulation began to change around 1940s or 50s in the world of moral theology.

Condemnation of anal intercourse as part of foreplay between married couples has been more gravely condemned among theologians. Beginning around the same time some orthodox theologians have grudgingly said it’s OK, but even this has always been very controversial. Personally, I think one can easily deduce that such activity is contrary to nature and therefore is sinful, but I cannot pronounce this with complete confidence because, once again, the Church at this point has not defined the matter. As far as married couples, the Church has only defined that contraceptive acts within marriage are objectively sinful.

The Church’s teaching and Sacred Scripture, however, has been explicit and clearly defined that homosexual acts are objectively gravely sinful in any circumstance. This has clearly gone beyond the realm of mere theological opinion. You can read about in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (don’t have the number on hand but easily found in the index).

So one needs to distinguish between Church teaching and honest theologians who do their best to explore the implications of the Church’s moral teachings. One is infallible and permanent and the other can shift around a bit.

Thanks – this looks like an excellent overview of the “historical moment”. I guess my thought is that the rationale for the Church’s position on homosexual activity is much stronger if the Church isn’t saying that the very same actions are fine within marriage – because saying that amounts to saying that unity of persons can be achieved through these acts. If that’s the case, then it would seem that gay people *could *get married, despite not being able to procreate – since they could unify, in a marital way.

 

[Thinking10]

I don’t know if you’ve been married long or have started to raise a family but I feel it is a blessing that I can pass onto you, the experience of my hyper Catholic family history. Being Catholic is a constant lesson in dying to the self and learning to want the beatitude of living in the spirit.

Contraception is an abuse of natural and divine law and therefore harmful to our species and harmful to the Communion of Saints. Our lives aren’t about ultimate self satisfaction but about being part of a higher purpose both natural and divine. You are wrong to say that NFP and temperance in the sexual appetite is only about legalities at the expense of the relationship.

Man is intrinsically gifted with the awareness of his higher calling to both natural and divine purpose. This is why we value ritual commitments like marriage and sexual taboos. They situate us to seek beyond our base urges and direct them to our eternal destiny.

It is true that some people don’t get that or even want to get that, but it is misleading to imply that Catholic sexual morality is a negative aspect of relationships. Although I’ve experienced 26 years of Catholic marriage, it isn’t even my experience that gives me hope in Catholic teaching… it is the experiences of my parents, aunts and uncles and grandparents as Catholic examples that assures me of the true beauty of Catholic sexual morality.

Look through posts on this website from people who have health conditions making pregnancy possibly fatal. It is pure legalism when these people are told that they must be procreative when it would actually could be deadly for them to conceive.

I agree with the idea of keeping married couples’ sexual relations must be connected with procreation. When people are absolutely inflexible to accommodating personal circumstances when making decisions regarding use of birth control, even to the point of irrationality, such as telling a person for whom pregnancy would be harmful that they must be procreative, the basis for the argument is no longer sound principle, but strict legalism. Whether it is for health or other reasons that a couple considers using birth control, the individual circumstances of each couple should be taken into account, rather than only what the law says.

**legalism

1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, especially to the letter rather than the spirit. **

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Look through posts on this website from people who have health conditions making pregnancy possibly fatal. It is pure legalism when these people are told that they must be procreative when it would actually could be deadly for them to conceive.

You may have a point here. But I am concerned that your point – which addresses one very specific case involving the danger of death – shouldn’t be used as a carte blanche to say that “married couples, in general, can morally use ABC”.

 

[Thinking10]

You may have a point here. But I am concerned that your point – which addresses one very specific case involving the danger of death – shouldn’t be used as a carte blanche to say that “married couples, in general, can morally use ABC”.

My point is that there should be room for exceptions made to the rule that married couples must be procreative with every sexual act. It is like eating a healthy diet. A person eats a large enough proportion of healthy food, so as to support proper function of their body, but that does not mean that they must never, under no circumstances, eat ice cream or cookies.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Thanks – this looks like an excellent overview of the “historical moment”. I guess my thought is that the rationale for the Church’s position on homosexual activity is much stronger if the Church isn’t saying that the very same actions are fine within marriage – because saying that amounts to saying that unity of persons can be achieved through these acts. If that’s the case, then it would seem that gay people *could *get married, despite not being able to procreate – since they could unify, in a marital way.

Have you read Casti Connubii?

1. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,”[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”[20]

That’s the definition of the primary end of marriage - procreation as a conception intent.

For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

The secondary ends are not forbidden to consider so long as** they are subordinated to the primary end** …

In other words the primary end is procreation - the conception intent, the rest is not necessary. This does not imply that the unitive aspect is required as it is in HV.

According to CC the homosexual couples can not achieve the primary end.
It appears the NFP is not OK according to CC as well. NFP couples are not fulfilling the primary end of the marriage.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My point is that there should be room for exceptions made to the rule that married couples shouldn’t have to be procreative with every sexual act. It is like eating a healthy diet. A person eats a large enough proportion of healthy food, so as to support proper function of their body, but that does not mean that they must never, under no circumstances, eat ice cream or cookies.

But your point about using ABC to keep a woman alive doesn’t establish that. The Church doesn’t teach that “ABC is usually bad for you”, like, say, smoking is. The Church teaches that ABC distorts the relationship between husband and wife.

In your hypothetical, it doesn’t distort that relationship; it preserves it, since the wife stays alive. But in ordinary circumstances where people choose ABC to avoid pregnancy, it still distorts the relationship.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Have you read Casti Connubii?

That’s the definition of the primary end of marriage - procreation as a conception intent.

The secondary ends are not forbidden to consider so long as** they are subordinated to the primary end** …

In other words the primary end is procreation - the conception intent, the rest is not necessary. This does not imply that the unitive aspect is required as it is in HV.

According to CC the homosexual couples can not achieve the primary end.
It appears the NFP is not OK according to CC as well. NFP couples are not fulfilling the primary end of the marriage.

False. The primary end of being in a car is transportation. It does not follow that every moment spent in a car must be spent moving.

A couple who uses NFP to NEVER have children is sinning.

But a couple who uses NFP to inform their responsible decisions about childbearing (while being open to life) is not sinning. It is not a sin to decline to have sex on a certain night.

This is all consistent with your comments about Casti Conubbii.