Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

Incorrect, NFP is the practice of only having sex on certain days of a woman’s cycle, this can be either done to dramatically boost the chance of pregnancy or dramatically decrease it. There is nothing immoral about engaging in sex on certain days of a woman’s cycle even if you decide to abstain on her fertile days.

 

[Thinking10]

False. The use of condoms has led to the increase of single pregnancies, the increase of sexual promiscuity, the increase of STDs, the increase of divorce, and so on.

You missed this part:** within a marriage.**

 

[Thinking10]

Show me a quote where the Church says every sexual act should have the intent to produce a child.

What is the point of having sex in the procreative manner every time?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You missed this part:** within a marriage.**

You missed this part: the increase of divorce.

But think about it. The plain reason many girls and boys don’t have sex as teenagers has NOTHING to do with the fact that they’re not married. They don’t have sex because they’re afraid of pregnancy or disease. When contraception is available, they lose this reason to be chaste. Do you consider that a serious problem?

Once you answer, we can go from there.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Sure. So you tell me: why is there a command not to have sex with (or marry) people of the same sex? Is that command arbitrary, or was there a reason for it?

Because they would never be able to procreate at all, I guess.
God is the author. He knows the best.

 

[Thinking10]

You missed this part: the increase of divorce.

But think about it. The plain reason many girls and boys don’t have sex as teenagers has NOTHING to do with the fact that they’re not married. They don’t have sex because they’re afraid of pregnancy or disease. When contraception is available, they lose this reason to be chaste. Do you consider that a serious problem?

Once you answer, we can go from there.

What evidence do you have that condoms are related to divorce?

I will add more on the subject in a post later, but what we can do is promote healthy marriages and focus on creating a social environment that is supportive and encouraging of marriage rather than sex outside of marriage. Promoting marriage would do much more good toward stopping premarital sex than banning condoms.

Focus on just promoting marriage, and not controlling small details of how married people have sex.

 

[Thinking10]

Because they would never be able to procreate at all, I guess.
God is the author. He knows the best.

Right. Marriage is a procreative relationship. Homosexual relationships, by their nature, are entirely disconnected from procreation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Incorrect, NFP is the practice of only having sex on certain days of a woman’s cycle, this can be either done to dramatically boost the chance of pregnancy or dramatically decrease it. There is nothing immoral about engaging in sex on certain days of a woman’s cycle even if you decide to abstain on her fertile days.

Does a married couple try to conceive and fulfill the primary end when they have sex on infertile days? I can not imagine who would say yes in this case. That would be a lie.

It seems the NFP couple trying to avoid pregnancy acts against CC teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Because they would never be able to procreate at all, I guess.
God is the author. He knows the best.

God *made *them unable to procreate. Your answer is circular.

I agree that God knows best. He creates the world rationally, and He created our rational minds with the ability to discern good and evil.

Look, you have two options here: (1) Take an anti-intellectual approach, and just insist that God’s rules are right because they are God’s rules, or (2) Seriously seek the Truth, in humility and the belief that your current views might be wrong.

It’s up to you which choice you make.

 

[Jaaanosik]

God *made *them unable to procreate. Your answer is circular.

I agree that God knows best. He creates the world rationally, and He created our rational minds with the ability to discern good and evil.

Look, you have two options here: (1) Take an anti-intellectual approach, and just insist that God’s rules are right because they are God’s rules, or (2) Seriously seek the Truth, in humility and the belief that your current views might be wrong.

It’s up to you which choice you make.

Well, let’s talk the intellectual approach.
Please, how would you intellectually justify the double standard mentioned in my post #288.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, let’s talk the intellectual approach.
Please, how would you intellectually justify the double standard mentioned in my post #288.

A car is not an unnatural way of transportation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

A car is not an unnatural way of transportation.

Well, it’s so natural that Adam and Eve had one.
Right. There ends the intellectual talk …

 

[Prodigirl]

False. The use of condoms has led to the increase of single pregnancies, the increase of sexual promiscuity, the increase of STDs, the increase of divorce, and so on.

"When used consistently and correctly, condoms prevent pregnancy 97% of the time … In ‘typical use’—that is, when use is not consistent or always correct—the effectiveness rates for condoms is 86% …

"In a summary report of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) workshop, researchers concluded that** latex condoms effectively prevent the spread of HIV, gonorrhea (in men) and possibly other STDs.**Literature published since the NIH workshop supports stronger and broader statements about condoms’ effectiveness in preventing other STDs. According to “prevention messages” developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), **‘the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.’ **The CDC report further states that ‘latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis.’ It also indicates that when used consistently and correctly (‘when the infected areas are covered or protected by the condom’), they can decrease the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. The report also notes that latex condom use is associated with a reduced risk of HPV-associated diseases, such as cervical cancer.

"Greater proportions of very conservative parents than of liberal parents believed that condoms are not at all effective in preventing STDs (21% vs. 3%) and pregnancy (12% vs. 3%), and that no teenagers are capable of correct condom use (10% vs. 4%)."

~ guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3605004.html

“In June 2000, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) organized a review of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The review concluded that condoms were effective in protecting against transmission of HIV to women and men and in reducing the risk of men becoming infected with gonorrhoea. Evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing other STIs was considered to be insufficient. We review[ed] the findings of prospective studies published after June 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs. We searched Medline for publications in English and included other articles, reports, and abstracts of which we were aware. These prospective studies, published since June 2000, show that condom use is associated with statistically significant protection of men and women against several other types of STIs, including chlamydial infection, gonorrhoea, herpes simplex virus type 2, and syphilis. Condoms may also be associated with protecting women against trichomoniasis. While no published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection,** two studies reported that condom use was associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of cervical HPV infection in women and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men.** Research findings available since the NIH review add considerably to the evidence of the effectiveness of condoms against STIs. Although condoms are not 100% effective, partial protection can substantially reduce the spread of STIs within populations.”

~ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15356939

And these studies were done almost 15 years ago.

I can find no correlation between condom use and an increase in divorce in the United States.

There is no intelligent discussion without the facts. I appreciate that you want your statement to be true, but it simply is not.

***"Look, you have two options here: (1) Take an anti-intellectual approach, and just insist that God’s rules are right because they are God’s rules, or (2) Seriously seek the Truth, in humility and the belief that your current views might be wrong.

It’s up to you which choice you make."***

 

[fpt]

Before the wedding, during the fiançailles and during the preparation of marriage, the great talks, between the engaged persons (the fiancée and the fiancé) on the modus operandi of the marital act, should be done in order to avoid some problematics of conjugal sexuality. That is helpful, useful and very prudential. The subtopics are:

The the right, the obligation and the duty of and to the conjugal sexual cooperation for each one;
The right on the body, the right of the body, the right to the body for each one;
The constitutive elements of the conjugal sexual rights, of the conjugal sexual duties and of the conjugal sexual obligations;
The foreplay and the sexual foreplay;
The fact of being a passive lover and the fact of being an active lover for each one;
The “how” of the donation and of the reception of sexed bodies;
The conjugal erotism of the marital act and the function of the Song of Songs within the catholic couple;

ETC.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

"When used consistently and correctly, condoms prevent pregnancy 97% of the time … In ‘typical use’—that is, when use is not consistent or always correct—the effectiveness rates for condoms is 86% …

"In a summary report of a National Institutes of Health (NIH) workshop, researchers concluded that** latex condoms effectively prevent the spread of HIV, gonorrhea (in men) and possibly other STDs.**Literature published since the NIH workshop supports stronger and broader statements about condoms’ effectiveness in preventing other STDs. According to “prevention messages” developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), **‘the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.’ **The CDC report further states that ‘latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, can reduce the risk of transmission of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomoniasis.’ It also indicates that when used consistently and correctly (‘when the infected areas are covered or protected by the condom’), they can decrease the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, chancroid and human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. The report also notes that latex condom use is associated with a reduced risk of HPV-associated diseases, such as cervical cancer.

"Greater proportions of very conservative parents than of liberal parents believed that condoms are not at all effective in preventing STDs (21% vs. 3%) and pregnancy (12% vs. 3%), and that no teenagers are capable of correct condom use (10% vs. 4%)."

~ guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3605004.html

“In June 2000, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) organized a review of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The review concluded that condoms were effective in protecting against transmission of HIV to women and men and in reducing the risk of men becoming infected with gonorrhoea. Evidence for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing other STIs was considered to be insufficient. We review[ed] the findings of prospective studies published after June 2000 that evaluated the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STIs. We searched Medline for publications in English and included other articles, reports, and abstracts of which we were aware. These prospective studies, published since June 2000, show that condom use is associated with statistically significant protection of men and women against several other types of STIs, including chlamydial infection, gonorrhoea, herpes simplex virus type 2, and syphilis. Condoms may also be associated with protecting women against trichomoniasis. While no published prospective study has found protection against genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection,** two studies reported that condom use was associated with higher rates of regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and clearance of cervical HPV infection in women and with regression of HPV-associated penile lesions in men.** Research findings available since the NIH review add considerably to the evidence of the effectiveness of condoms against STIs. Although condoms are not 100% effective, partial protection can substantially reduce the spread of STIs within populations.”

~ ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15356939

And these studies were done almost 15 years ago.

I can find no correlation between condom use and an increase in divorce in the United States.

There is no intelligent discussion without the facts. I appreciate that you want your statement to be true, but it simply is not.

***"Look, you have two options here: (1) Take an anti-intellectual approach, and just insist that God’s rules are right because they are God’s rules, or (2) Seriously seek the Truth, in humility and the belief that your current views might be wrong.

It’s up to you which choice you make."***

Prodigirl,

I’ve been teenager that would NEVER have had sex with my girlfriend if not for condoms and birth control. Nearly all my friends were the same way. Couple that bit of common sense with the fact that, since the advent of the Pill and availability of condoms, non-marital sex has increased dramatically (no one denies this), and you have a pretty strong rational argument that contraception leads to promiscuity and non-marital sex – which in turn clearly increases the incidence of single motherhood and STDs.

This is not rocket science.

Or you tell me: why have STDs become more and common since condoms became available?

Thanks for your patronizing accusation that I’m irrational though. It was quite clever, and I enjoyed it.

P.S. I agree that condoms “work”. That’s not what we’re talking about.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Well, it’s so natural that Adam and Eve had one.
Right. There ends the intellectual talk …

Natural law has nothing to do with what occurs “in nature”. It has to do with the natural ends (the teloi) of natural organisms. Cars do not have any natural ends; they are merely tools. Likewise, a condom has no natural ends.

Human beings have a natural end: happiness, or beatitude. It is in relation to this end that activities are good or bad for human beings. Now the use of condoms tends to bring unhappiness to human culture at large, for the reasons I have been explaining: it leads to broken homes and irresponsible actions. It leads to things you say you oppose, like non-marital sex and promiscuity.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using a condom as a finger puppet, a tiny water balloon, or an earring. None of these uses interfere with human flourishing, or happiness. But using a condom as a barrier to pregnancy does tend to involve very serious harms. Although these harms may not be manifest in every occasion of usage, the action is nevertheless wrong because of the negative consequences that such acts tend toward.

Please understand that I am willing to talk about exceptions, and I’m not interested in compelling anyone not to use birth control. But I think the activity is in the great majority of cases objectively wrong.

 

[Prodigirl]

Before the wedding, during the fiançailles and during the preparation of marriage, the great talks, between the engaged persons (the fiancée and the fiancé) on the modus operandi of the marital act, should be done in order to avoid some problematics of conjugal sexuality. That is helpful, useful and very prudential. The subtopics are:

The the right, the obligation and the duty of and to the conjugal sexual cooperation for each one;
The right on the body, the right of the body, the right to the body for each one;
The constitutive elements of the conjugal sexual rights, of the conjugal sexual duties and of the conjugal sexual obligations;
The foreplay and the sexual foreplay;
The fact of being a passive lover and the fact of being an active lover for each one;
The “how” of the donation and of the reception of sexed bodies;
The conjugal erotism of the marital act and the function of the Song of Songs within the catholic couple;

ETC.

Pretty fancy (and obtuse) song-and-dance here, but I get the point, and it is a COMPLETE TURN-OFF in every single instance, under every single circumstance you name. particularly of the “rights” and “obligations” and “duties” of the parties involved. I don’t disagree that discussion about sexual proclivities and behaviors is wise, but the ownership that is suggested by your terms is sickening. Any person who would enter into a lifetime covenant such as this would have to be a “true believer” (which I take no issue with) or unaware of how long a lifetime can be. I have just made a recent comment on how lust is considered sinful (my information having been taken from the Catechism), yet it is the combustion which inflames conjugal eroticism. So how is any of this kosher in CatholicWorld?

These 16th century-ish terms for sex and orgasm and anything sexual in nature just serve to cloud the issues. Is everyone afraid of sexuality?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Does a married couple try to conceive and fulfill the primary end when they have sex on infertile days? I can not imagine who would say yes in this case. That would be a lie.

It seems the NFP couple trying to avoid pregnancy acts against CC teaching.

You don’t have to intend to beget offspring every time you engage in sex.

Either way this conversation wearies me as I have committed myself to celibacy and I am sick of the myriad ways the iniquity of heterosexuals has damaged the fabric of society and then the myriad times they blame it on LGBT people.

 

[fpt]

Pretty fancy (and obtuse) song-and-dance here, but I get the point, and it is a COMPLETE TURN-OFF in every single instance, under every single circumstance you name. particularly of the “rights” and “obligations” and “duties” of the parties involved. I don’t disagree that discussion about sexual proclivities and behaviors is wise, but the ownership that is suggested by your terms is sickening. Any person who would enter into a lifetime covenant such as this would have to be a “true believer” (which I take no issue with) or unaware of how long a lifetime can be. I have just made a recent comment on how lust is considered sinful (my information having been taken from the Catechism), yet it is the combustion which inflames conjugal eroticism. So how is any of this kosher in CatholicWorld?

These 16th century-ish terms for sex and orgasm and anything sexual in nature just serve to cloud the issues. Is everyone afraid of sexuality?

Sorry, but for the catholicism the marriage is a natural contract and a natural institution, and the persons are the objects of this particular contract. It is a donation and a reception of persons (body, soul and heart). The donation of persons means the donation of souls, the donation of hearts and the donation of bodies. This donation has to be mutual, reciprocal, total and bilateral.The wife agrees with the fact of receiving the masculinity of her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of receiving the femininity of his wife; the wife agrees with the fact of giving her own femininity to her husband, the husband agrees with the fact of giving his own masculinity to his wife: to give and to receive.

The body of wife becomes the body of husband, the body of husband becomes the body of wife: it is the donation of bodies, for making one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation. The exchange of vows of marriage implies the donation of nudities: the wife offers / gives her own nudity to her husband, the husband offers / gives his own nudity to her wife: the right to see, to look at, to stare the nudity of the other, the obligation and the duty to show the nudity to the other, the right to receive and to take the nudity of the other, the marital debt, the conjugal sexual obligations, the conjugal sexual duties, the conjugal sexual rights, the obligation, the duty and the right to the sexual cooperation, in the human fashion. The terms of “human fashion” means in the respect of the human nature.

For information:

“In the human manner” is coming from the Canon Law, what means the respect of the natural moral order of the marital act, in three moments (before, during and after).

In the canon law:

Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.

If the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh???

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1° those who lack sufficient use of reason;

2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;
*
The essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted, conjugally sexually speaking???*

3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

The essential obligations of marriage, conjugally sexually speaking???

Can. 1096 §1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

Through some form of sexual cooperation, conjugally sexually speaking???

The triptych (right / obligation / duty) stays, even if that can be seen like a odd thing. The right of the body, the right on the body and the right to the body are catholic notions, it is like that, I am sorry.

You should read all my messages of this thread for understanding **my deep thought about this topic. **

 

[Jaaanosik]

Natural law has nothing to do with what occurs “in nature”. It has to do with the natural ends (the teloi) of natural organisms. Cars do not have any natural ends; they are merely tools. Likewise, a condom has no natural ends.

Human beings have a natural end: happiness, or beatitude. It is in relation to this end that activities are good or bad for human beings. Now the use of condoms tends to bring unhappiness to human culture at large, for the reasons I have been explaining: it leads to broken homes and irresponsible actions. It leads to things you say you oppose, like non-marital sex and promiscuity.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using a condom as a finger puppet, a tiny water balloon, or an earring. None of these uses interfere with human flourishing, or happiness. But using a condom as a barrier to pregnancy does tend to involve very serious harms. Although these harms may not be manifest in every occasion of usage, the action is nevertheless wrong because of the negative consequences that such acts tend toward.

Please understand that I am willing to talk about exceptions, and I’m not interested in compelling anyone not to use birth control. But I think the activity is in the great majority of cases objectively wrong.

When you said:

A car is not an unnatural way of transportation.

does it mean it’s a natural way of transportation? How is that linked to an end of a natural organism. That’s confusing.

Let’s move on.
Objects have a creator. The creator designs an object with attributes and a purpose, a goal. Sometimes there are multiple goals associated with an object.

When an object is used for its purpose then it’s good.
When an object is used for other purpose then it’s not good - one might say it’s a sin.

Take a little kitchen knife. It has two main attributes. A sharp edge and a sharp point.
If the knife is used for cutting vegetables or piercing a bag of rice then it’s good.
If the knife is used as a chisel then most likely it will break then it’s not good.

Human body parts are analyzed in the similar way. What are the reproductive organs for? What are their goals/purposes/ends?
Are we supposed to use them all the time for all the purposes?
If the organ has two ends then why it’s supposed be used for the both ends every time it’s being used?

For example hearing. It’s designed for listening. We listening for dangers around us - it’s a survival end and we listen when we communicate with other people.
Where does listening to a music for one’s pleasure come from? Is it fulfilling it’s original goal in this case?
One can listen to his favorite music with headphones on for one’s pleasure and he can miss a burglar in his own house.

The question is how the natural law can explain enforcement of using reproductive organs in a specific way when it’s not even the end/goal/purpose we are talking about.
How to have sex is not the end/purpose/goal - it’s what it is - a way how to achieve the goal.