Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Jaaanosik]

When you are talking about NFP, it almost sounds contradictory. It sounds as if it is being used as birth control, and has nothing to do with an intent to procreate, and at the same time, is done for purposes of procreation. It sounds like NFP and defenses of it are contradictory about how NFP relates to procreation. NFP is directed both toward and away from procreation at the same time. It sounds like it causes confusion about what its relationship is with procreation.

It appears you are right about NFP.
The HV brought some confusion. The procreative aspect is being understood as conception or at least as an intent to conceive by many people.
The HV has that strange definition of procreative aspect as a way how to have sex.

It appears the way how to have sex is more important than the end/goal of having the sex.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes…because it is. The term used in Humae Vitae is “regulation of birth”.

Catholic couples may have sex even though they specifically wish not to fall pregnant in doing so. Anyone who would tell you that Catholics must intend procreation every time they have sex does not understand the doctrine.

It is all laid out in Humanae Vitae and anyone who remains confused should read that document. You may still disagree with the doctrine, but at least you will understand it better.

Then does the Casti Connubii disagree with the Humanae Vitae?

 

[Jaaanosik]

That is the problem with getting focused in too closely on individual acts, rather than unions as a whole. If marriage, as a union, is viewed as procreative rather than individual acts within that union, you could never conclude that the Church’s teachings are illogical.

+1 on this one
I totally agree.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Suppose I had a non-profit organization whose aim was providing shelter for the poor. One activity involved in this is building houses.

Now suppose that I just really love building houses. Even though all the families in my city have houses, and so the purpose of my organization is (at this moment) moot, I talk to the board about a plan to continue building houses – not for the poor, but just because I like building houses. I even take precautions to make sure poor people don’t live in these houses.

It’s hard to explain my actions as aimed at helping the poor.

In the same way, if a central purpose of a marriage is procreativity, it’s hard to understand how putting a condom on could be in accordance with that purpose.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Suppose I had a non-profit organization whose aim was providing shelter for the poor. One activity involved in this is building houses.

Now suppose that I just really love building houses. Even though all the families in my city have houses, and so the purpose of my organization is (at this moment) moot, I talk to the board about a plan to continue building houses – not for the poor, but just because I like building houses. I even take precautions to make sure poor people don’t live in these houses.

It’s hard to explain my actions as aimed at helping the poor.

In the same way, if a central purpose of a marriage is procreativity, it’s hard to understand how putting a condom on could be in accordance with that purpose.

A marriage has multiple goals.
Please, define your definition of procreativity. Is it procreation as conception intent or procreation as how to have sex?
I assume it’s the conception intent because it does not appear that the way how to have sex would be a central purpose of a marriage.

The HV says it’s OK for a married couple not to intend to conceive a baby at every single marital act.
It appears that putting condom on is the same thing as NFP which is what HV allows to do. A condom is a different way how to make sure that a sperm does not come to a date with an ovum.

What is so hard to understand here?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A marriage has multiple goals.
Please, define your definition of procreativity. Is it procreation as conception intent or procreation as how to have sex?
I assume it’s the conception intent because it does not appear that the way how to have sex would be a central purpose of a marriage.

I agree that a marriage has multiple goals. Only two of them are relevant to sexual congress: procreation and unity. So if a couple has sex in a way that is NOT procreative in nature, then it must be unitive in nature, no?

(This would be the only possible justification – though it is not sufficient).

But if oral or anal sex is unitive in nature for a straight couple, it is unitive in nature for a gay couple too. You still haven’t responded to this point, so I thought I would give you another chance.

As for the definition of procreation, in this context, an ACT is procreative in nature if it is (a) the type of act that leads to babies, and (b) not subject to barrier methods or attempts to manipulate fertility. But no, married couples don’t have to intend to have a baby every time they come together – we’re usually thinking of something else entirely.

It appears that putting condom on is the same thing as NFP which is what HV allows to do. A condom is a different way how to make sure that a sperm does not come to a date with an ovum.

We’ve been over this. When my wife and I have sex, we are not attempting to keep the sperm and ovum apart. Having sex would be a VERY strange way to attempt such a thing.

When we don’t make love, that’s our prerogative, biblically and morally. Do you claim that, on HV, it is morally wrong for a husband and wife to abstain from sex on a given night?

 

[believer691]

I have in My Messages, passages which are well concealed and hard to understand, but these are for those of whom the prophet Isaiah spoke: “you will listen and listen again, but not understand, see and see again, but not perceive …” these people are uninhabited; 4 they also distort the Scriptures; remind everyone5 that they cannot serve two masters; the master of the world and Me; I, who am the Master of the Heavens; remind them that they should put in practice what they have been taught by Me; do not prefer your own pleasure to God; True Life In God (TLIG.ORG)

 

[Jaaanosik]

I agree that a marriage has multiple goals. Only two of them are relevant to sexual congress: procreation and unity. So if a couple has sex in a way that is NOT procreative in nature, then it must be unitive in nature, no?

(This would be the only possible justification – though it is not sufficient).

But if oral or anal sex is unitive in nature for a straight couple, it is unitive in nature for a gay couple too. You still haven’t responded to this point, so I thought I would give you another chance.

As for the definition of procreation, in this context, an ACT is procreative in nature if it is (a) the type of act that leads to babies, and (b) not subject to barrier methods or attempts to manipulate fertility. But no, married couples don’t have to intend to have a baby every time they come together – we’re usually thinking of something else entirely.

We’ve been over this. When my wife and I have sex, we are not attempting to keep the sperm and ovum apart. Having sex would be a VERY strange way to attempt such a thing.

When we don’t make love, that’s our prerogative, biblically and morally. Do you claim that, on HV, it is morally wrong for a husband and wife to abstain from sex on a given night?

Do you understand that we have two types of the God’s moral law?
The first one is revealed one - the Bible, the Ten Commandments, … all that Jesus taught us.
The second one is the Natural law.

The first one has higher priority because it’s a direct word from God.
The second one is dependent on human nature - capability to reason - to interpret the Natural law. This can bring an error into the picture.

These are the facts. Unless you prove that what I said is wrong then the above statements stand.

Having cleared that I’ll repeat to you again.

The homosexual couples do not have a marriage.
The marriage is between man and woman.
The sex outside of marriage is wrong.
This is revealed moral law coming from God through the Bible.

There is no need to come up with any natural law explanations because it’s irrelevant, whatever might be said it can not overrule the revealed God’s moral law.

Do you understand?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you understand that we have two types of the God’s moral law?
The first one is revealed one - the Bible, the Ten Commandments, … all that Jesus taught us.
The second one is the Natural law.

Throughout Church history, no moral theologian I know of has ever said that marriage is based solely on revealed law. Nor does it make any sense, since marriage has existed cross-culturally for tens of thousands of years.

If you want to say that we know what marriage is solely through revelation, you are offering a theological innovation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Throughout Church history, no moral theologian I know of has ever said that marriage is based solely on revealed law. Nor does it make any sense, since marriage has existed cross-culturally for tens of thousands of years.

If you want to say that we know what marriage is solely through revelation, you are offering a theological innovation.

Look at it differently.
You have a direct God’s word in one hand.
You have a human explanation of the Natural law in the other hand.

Anybody can argue with a logic of the human explanation of the Natural law.
It’s much harder to argue with God’s direct word. The only issue could be the interpretation of the God’s words. It’s very clear in our discussed subject though.

I don’t care if it’s innovation or not.
It’s simple argument, simple logic and it’s much harder to argue with a simple well thought out logic than with some complicated stuff.

I stand by my words.
There is no need to invent anything when the God’s words are clear what marriage is.
Anybody reading this should spread the word. This is very powerful argument.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Look at it differently.
You have a direct God’s word in one hand.
You have a human explanation of the Natural law in the other hand.

Anybody can argue with a logic of the human explanation of the Natural law.
It’s much harder to argue with God’s direct word. The only issue could be the interpretation of the God’s words. It’s very clear in our discussed subject though.

I’m not arguing with God’s word. I submit 100% to Catholic teaching. You’re the one who is at odds with Catholic teaching.

I am saying that God’s word is not arbitrary. When God tells me not to get married to a man – and this is something I would personally be quite interested in doing – I am interested in His reason for saying that. He shows me His reason by engaging my intellectual faculties.

The reason He has shown me, through the Church’s ministers, includes the following statements:

1. Sodomy is wrong.
2. Marriage manifests itself in sexual activity.
3. The only way to act sexually in a “marriage” between two men is sodomy.
4. Therefore, marriage between two men is wrong.

You deny #1, and yet insist that gay marriage is wrong. And, when I ask you for why it’s wrong, you say, “Because God said so.” Now I agree that this is reason to believe it’s wrong – if you dad tells a toddler not to touch the stove, that’s a reason not to touch it. But the toddler’s dad is telling him not to touch the stove because the stove will hurt him. The toddler’s dad is not being arbitrary.

If you were to give me firm evidence, right now, that God forbids gay sex for no reason whatsoever, I would rebel against God. There is no reason to obey a “god” who gives arbitrary commands. Sorry, there just isn’t.

Now, sometimes we have to trust God, even though we don’t understand the reason. That’s good. That’s faith. But it’s a far cry from saying that there is no reason.

I don’t care if it’s innovation or not.
It’s simple argument, simple logic and it’s much harder to argue with a simple well thought out logic than with some complicated stuff.

Now that is pure anti-intellectualism. If simple reasoning can be good reasoning, then complex reasoning can be good reasoning. The fact is that you are smart enough to see why my reasoning is sound; this is why you’ve chosen to appeal to God’s revelation, instead of simply trying to rebut my reasoning.

 

[Thinking10]

It’s simple argument, simple logic and it’s much harder to argue with a simple well thought out logic than with some complicated stuff.

Agreed. It is as simple as this: Marriage is a procreative union. Homosexuals relationships are, by their nature, non-procreative, and thus cannot be marriages.

 

[Jaaanosik]

I’m not arguing with God’s word. I submit 100% to Catholic teaching. You’re the one who is at odds with Catholic teaching.

I am saying that God’s word is not arbitrary. When God tells me not to get married to a man – and this is something I would personally be quite interested in doing – I am interested in His reason for saying that. He shows me His reason by engaging my intellectual faculties.

The reason He has shown me, through the Church’s ministers, includes the following statements:

1. Sodomy is wrong.
2. Marriage manifests itself in sexual activity.
3. The only way to act sexually in a “marriage” between two men is sodomy.
4. Therefore, marriage between two men is wrong.

You deny #1, and yet insist that gay marriage is wrong. And, when I ask you for why it’s wrong, you say, “Because God said so.” Now I agree that this is reason to believe it’s wrong – if you dad tells a toddler not to touch the stove, that’s a reason not to touch it. But the toddler’s dad is telling him not to touch the stove because the stove will hurt him. The toddler’s dad is not being arbitrary.

If you were to give me firm evidence, right now, that God forbids gay sex for no reason whatsoever, I would rebel against God. There is no reason to obey a “god” who gives arbitrary commands. Sorry, there just isn’t.

Now, sometimes we have to trust God, even though we don’t understand the reason. That’s good. That’s faith. But it’s a far cry from saying that there is no reason.

Now that is pure anti-intellectualism. If simple reasoning can be good reasoning, then complex reasoning can be good reasoning. The fact is that you are smart enough to see why my reasoning is sound; this is why you’ve chosen to appeal to God’s revelation, instead of simply trying to rebut my reasoning.

Genesis 1

27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 2

22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

23The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

God is clear in His words. He is not arbitrary at the same time.
The message is crystal clear and it gives us the explanation as well.

Is there anything confusing in the Genesis verses?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

God is clear in His words. He is not arbitrary at the same time.
The message is crystal clear and it gives us the explanation as well.

Is there anything confusing in the Genesis verses?

No. But it is a reason to believe something, not a reason why it is true.

There is a huge difference. Someone shouting “Fire!” is a reason for me to leave the building. But it is not the reason why there is a fire. Fires don’t start up when people shout “Fire!”

Let me ask you this question: did God forbid gay marriages because they are bad for us? Or why did He forbid them?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Agreed. It is as simple as this: Marriage is a procreative union. Homosexuals relationships are, by their nature, non-procreative, and thus cannot be marriages.

God **made **them nonprocreative. He must have done that for a reason, no?

Or does God just do things randomly?

 

[Thinking10]

No. But it is a reason to believe something, not a reason why it is true.

There is a huge difference. Someone shouting “Fire!” is a reason for me to leave the building. But it is not the reason why there is a fire. Fires don’t start up when people shout “Fire!”

Let me ask you this question: did God forbid gay marriages because they are bad for us? Or why did He forbid them?

God forbids all sexual unions outside of marriage between one man and one woman. Why single out homosexuals? A relationship between two homosexuals is one of thousands of combinations of people that do not equal a marriage. Let’s talk about what marriage is, not what it isn’t.

 

[Thinking10]

God **made **them nonprocreative. He must have done that for a reason, no?

Or does God just do things randomly?

He didn’t make them non procreative. Many relationships between people are non procreative.

He made men and women to be procreative. Procreative relations are what were made differently from other types of relationships.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

He didn’t make them non procreative. Many relationships between people are non procreative.

He made men and women to be procreative. Procreative relations are what were made differently from other types of relationships.

You know what I meant. God made it so that a man and a man don’t make a baby. Did He do that because it was good for these two men, or for some other reason?

God forbids all sexual unions outside of marriage between one man and one woman. Why single out homosexuals?

Because this thread is trying to fathom the relationship between the wrongness (or permissibility) of sodomy and the wrongness (or permissibility) of homosexual action. Such an investigation helps us understand the nature of marriage better.

 

[Thinking10]

You know what I meant. God made it so that a man and a man don’t make a baby. Did He do that because it was good for these two men, or for some other reason?

Because this thread is trying to fathom the relationship between the wrongness (or permissibility) of sodomy and the wrongness (or permissibility) of homosexual action. Such an investigation helps us understand the nature of marriage better.

There are infinite number of things you can say are wrong or not marriages.

Procreation is what makes marriage right. Marriage is singled out from other relationships for what is right about marriage. Marriage is being given special recognition because of something uniquely good about it.

 

[Prodigirl]

During my engagement, my wife and I did not have sex. By this, natural, means we avoided conception (I suppose ). Would you say we practiced contraception? I

One performs an “end-run” on the fertility cycle when one takes a pill, wears a condom, or employs a similar means. Because those acts truly defeat the natural consequences of the act. Having sex during the infertile time is not an “end-run” of the fertility cycle - it’s recognising its realities and in-built features.

What an oversimplified perception of what goes into the act of not conceiving. Easy for the man; he just has to wait until his turn. Meanwhile, the woman’s days and nights are swallowed up by calculations and testing and rigamarole - as is nearly always the case in matters of contraception - not to mention concern, anxiety, prayer, and the daily crossing and uncrossing of fingers. This doesn’t even take into account the women whose cycles are thrown off through hormonal disorders, who can no more chart their fertility than they can swallow the parts of a car to transport them elsewhere, vomit them onto the driveway and rebuild the car.

Abstinence in sexual matters is** the fact or practice of restraining oneself from indulging in sexual behavior; the absence of sexual action or activity.** It may be a decision, a choice, but it is not action. Charting, temping, examination of cervical mucus, use of CycleBeads are all actions. And what about this? * “FINALLY! A Natural Method of Family Planning that is effective, simple and** approved by the Catholic Church!** What are Ladycomp and Babycomp? Ladycomp/Babycomp is the first truly comprehensive professional medical system in the world for conception and contraception.”* These are not passive activities, and they are as much taken to avoid conception as to enable conception, if not more so.

A pill, a condom, a diaphragm, an IUD, a basal thermometer, a chart - these are all tools used to avoid pregnancy. See NFP for what it is, for what the intentions behind it are. Do you really believe the typical American woman in her active reproductive years who has 2 or 3 or 4 children wants more children? Is it your mission to convince me that in using NFP she is charting her fertility so that she can conceive another? I don’t think so. Eighty-nine percent of at-risk Catholics currently use a contraceptive method. I contend that this statistic, courtesy Guttmacher Institute, includes NFP.

The couple who is truly, unreservedly “open to life” would not mess with any of it.