Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigirl]

You think it’s a distinction without a difference, but my some of my children wouldn’t be alive if we had been using the Pill to avoid. That’s a difference.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the use of the Pill destroys a developing zygote? If so, read the following; if you mean something else I’d like to know what it is.

“Modern hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices have multiple biologic effects. Some of them may be the primary mechanism of contraceptive action, whereas others are secondary. For combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only methods, the main mechanisms are ovulation inhibition and changes in the cervical mucus that inhibit sperm penetration. The hormonal methods, particularly the low-dose progestin-only products and emergency contraceptive pills, have effects on the endometrium that, theoretically, could affect implantation. However, no scientific evidence indicates that prevention of implantation actually results from the use of these methods. Once pregnancy begins, none of these methods has an abortifacient action. The precise mechanism of intrauterine contraceptive devices is unclear. Current evidence indicates they exert their primary effect before fertilization, reducing the opportunity of sperm to fertilize an ovum.” ~ NCBI

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

My wife and I learned NFP over a five week period, taking an hour long class once a week. Since then, she has gotten into the habit of a 3-second check of mucus every time she uses the bathroom. There are no calculations and no testing. I help her mark down her readings on the chart. These readings are easy to interpret, once you have the training – which, again, was not just my wife’s responsibility.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting the use of the Pill destroys a developing zygote?

No, I was not weighing in on that. I’m saying that, if we had been using the Pill, we would not have had the chance to spontaneously throw caution to the wind and have fertile sex. We did throw caution to the wind, and I still enjoy the rambunctious and amusing “results”.

 

[Jaaanosik]

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?

It’s a good question. It’s between you and God whether you get an answer to that question or not. I will not speak on God’s behalf. I am not Him.
It’s also between you and God why the Bible is not good enough reason for you to believe His direct words.

 

[Thinking10]

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

If we make a positive case for marriage, we can draw this conclusion.

1. Heterosexual union is the indispensable means by which humans come into existence and therefore has special social value (indeed, the greatest possible social value because it is the first precondition for society).

1. The indispensable means by which something of special social value can occur itself has special value.

1. What has special value to human society deserves special social recognition and sanction.

1. Civil ordinances which recognize gay marriage as comparable to heterosexual marriage constitute a rejection of the special value of heterosexual unions.

1. To deny the special social value of what has special social value is unjust.

1. Therefore, gay marriage is unjust.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It’s a good question. It’s between you and God whether you get an answer to that question or not. I will not speak on God’s behalf. I am not Him.
It’s also between you and God why the Bible is not good enough reason for you to believe His direct words.

1. I have an answer to the question. The answer is that sodomy is wrong, whether straight people or gay people engage in it.
2. The intellectual answer, of course, doesn’t satisfy the emotional questioning. I will take your advice, then, as advice to continue seeking him with the questions I have that no intellectual answer could satisfy.
3. To believe the words of the Bible is different from understanding the words of the Bible. If the Bible only included things we could not understand, that would be a very strong argument that the Bible was not inspired by the God who created rational thought. Whenever God reveals something, whether through the Bible or through the Church, I try to understand it. I don’t think this is a sinful trait.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If we make a positive case for marriage, we can draw this conclusion.

Good strategy, although you should cite your sources.

Then again, if I recall correctly, you haven’t said that oral sex to orgasm is morally acceptable, so I don’t think you really needed to go through the trouble of making – errr, finding – this argument.

At any rate, if the argument you’ve quoted works, then one could rationally walk the tightrope of approving sodomy but rejecting gay marriage. But one would not be speaking with the Church, which says:

Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The Church’s objection to same-sex marriage proceeds from the fact that the sexual actions of gay couples are intrinsically contraceptive. So contraceptive acts within marriage would be wrong for the same reason.

If I can be excused for the expression, I guess the Church is saying to married couples who use condoms, “That’s so gay.”

 

[Jaaanosik]

1. I have an answer to the question. The answer is that sodomy is wrong, whether straight people or gay people engage in it.
2. The intellectual answer, of course, doesn’t satisfy the emotional questioning. I will take your advice, then, as advice to continue seeking him with the questions I have that no intellectual answer could satisfy.
3. To believe the words of the Bible is different from understanding the words of the Bible. If the Bible only included things we could not understand, that would be a very strong argument that the Bible was not inspired by the God who created rational thought. Whenever God reveals something, whether through the Bible or through the Church, I try to understand it. I don’t think this is a sinful trait.

I already told you that the sodomy is not natural.
On the other hand people do unnatural things and it’s not considered a sin - double effect principle.
X-rays for example. They are not good, not healthy, … unnatural for a human body.
Still we use it for a good end.

Listen, I am like you in this regard. I am trying to be as logical as I can. I believe the sound logic leads to the Truth. It leads to God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I already told you that the sodomy is not natural.
On the other hand people do unnatural things and it’s not considered a sin - double effect principle.
X-rays for example. They are not good, not healthy, … unnatural for a human body.
Still we use it for a good end.

Look, I teach natural law ethics. What you’re describing is not natural law ethics. In natural law ethics, X-rays are not unnatural, no more than shovels are unnatural. Natural law ethicists have NO objection to technology. They object to actions which thwart the proper functioning of an organism, whether those actions involve technology or not.

Listen, I am like you in this regard. I am trying to be as logical as I can. I believe the sound logic leads to the Truth. It leads to God.

 

[Thinking10]

At any rate, if the argument you’ve quoted works, then one could rationally walk the tightrope of approving sodomy but rejecting gay marriage. But one would not be speaking with the Church, which says:

Focus on what it is marriage does, and homosexuality never comes into the picture. Marriage can do something homosexuality can’t. Homosexuality can’t fulfill the unique role in our society that marriage can fulfill, so homosexual unions can never be a marriage. It is that simple.

Married couples do many things homosexuals do too. They drive cars, work at jobs, and everything else. What sets marriage and homosexuality apart is procreation, which is inherently part of marriage, and inherently disconnected from homosexuality.

Marriage is marriage because of what it does, procreation, not what it doesn’t do.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Oh, I forgot to respond to this part…

I already told you that the sodomy is not natural.

Oral sex to orgasm is traditionally understood as a form of sodomy.

 

[underacloud]

Then does the Casti Connubii disagree with the Humanae Vitae?

No.

In what way do you think it does?

Casti Connubii says here:

“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. 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.”

Some theologians argued regarding what exactly “reasons either of time or of certain defects” means; whether this was merely referring to menopause and other types of permanent infertility, or whether it refers to periodic infertility (the basis for NFP). Humanae Vitae (written later) thus clarified the matter to make it clear than NFP is acceptable, in keeping with this teaching from Casti Connubii.

This above paragraph also helps clarify the misunderstanding regarding the term “procreation”. Some people think it means that a couple must intent to have children when they have sex - this is not the meaning. Some people think it means conception must be possible when a couple has sex - again, this is not the meaning. The meaning is that sex must preserve “the intrinsic nature of the act”. NFP respects nature; it relies on nature; it observes nature. Contraception over-rides nature, changing the intrinsic nature of the act - that is the exact purpose of contraception.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Marriage is marriage because of what it does, procreation, not what it doesn’t do.

Marriage does squat, if couples deny one another the gift of self by contracepting.

 

[Thinking10]

Marriage does squat, if couples deny one another the gift of self by contracepting.

The arguments against contraception apply much better to sterilization, which actually does destroy reproductive ability.

Contraception is avoiding conception and only applies to individual acts, just as NFP does. If a couple is having as many children as they can reasonably raise, whether or not contraception was used in between conceptions, it has had no effect on the final outcome of how many children a couple has. Contraception can be abused, yes, but in moderation, has no more effect on conception than NFP.

Procreation is the primary, or first, purpose of marriage. If procreation is excessively suppressed or avoided, whether by NFP or condoms, contraception or NFP has been abused.

 

[Rau]

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.

Some knowledge is easily and simply had, some not. That doesn’t have any bearing on propriety. Does it matter whether a woman judges her fertility with a finger, a thermometer, a calendar or a future generation of the Apple iWatch? Regardless, it won’t swallow up your days and nights!! But you are right - it’s not certain knowledge with todays methods.

It’s not wrong to know about the timing of ovulation. It’s not wrong to say - we’re not ready for a child now, so we better hold off on sex for a week or so. It’s not wrong to do that for a considerable period of time.

The getting of knowledge is an action of some kind, but it is not sexual activity! You seem to be suggesting that abstinence is really only “abstinence” if adopted in ignorance? “Passive activities” are OK apparently - but what is a passive activity

You’ve used the term “open to life” a number of times, and I wonder what you think it means? AFAIK, it is somewhat of a colloquialism, and certainly vague if those 3 little words is all that you get to hear. One of the Papal Encyclicals (Paul VI) wrote: “The Church… teaches that **each and every marriage act **(quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.” Breaching that requirement is what the Church means by contraception. A babycomp, finger or thermometer does not breach that requirement.

The Church teaches a prudent approach to making decisions about having children. But it also advocates a predisposition to children as the “default”. This just means that the mentality should **not **be “we assume we cannot have another child right now unless we discern otherwise,” but rather, “we assume we **can **have another child right now unless we discern otherwise.” And it is OK to discern “otherwise”, and to regulate sexual activity accordingly. But the unitive/pleasurable and procreative aspects of the act should not be severed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The arguments against contraception apply much better to sterilization, which actually does destroy reproductive ability.

Contraception is avoiding conception and only applies to individual acts, just as NFP does. If a couple is having as many children as they can reasonably raise, whether or not contraception was used in between conceptions, it has had no effect on the final outcome of how many children a couple has. Contraception can be abused, yes, but in moderation, has no more effect on conception than NFP.

Procreation is the primary, or first, purpose of marriage. If procreation is excessively suppressed or avoided, whether by NFP or condoms, contraception or NFP has been abused.

I respect your opinion. But the Church has never talked about the virtue of moderation in these terms, not at all. There is no moderate way to chemically modify one’s fertility, and there is no moderate way to put on a condom. Such actions transform a gift of self into a gift of pleasure.

And gifts of sexual pleasure are not generous and loving, unless they are accompanied by the gift of the entire self.

 

[Prodigirl]

I’m saying that, if we had been using the Pill, we would not have had the chance to spontaneously throw caution to the wind and have fertile sex.

Is this a joke? This just makes no sense to me at all. Most people I know who are anti-hormonal contraception decry its use precisely because they believe people are using the Pill so they can spontaneously throw caution to the wind and have … sex." You’re just not communicating in a way I understand. Sorry.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is this a joke? This just makes no sense to me at all. Most people I know who are anti-hormonal contraception decry its use precisely because they believe people are using the Pill so they can spontaneously throw caution to the wind and have … sex." You’re just not communicating in a way I understand. Sorry.

1. We look at the chart and see it’s a fertile day.
2. We look at each other, and experience desire.
3. We look at the five kids, and say, “Aieeee!”
4. We look back at the chart, and swear.
5. We look back at each other, and experience a desire mixed with a certain hint of wild abandon.
6. We throw caution to the wind, and accept the consequences if she gets pregnant.

Is that any clearer?

 

[Jaaanosik]

Look, I teach natural law ethics. What you’re describing is not natural law ethics. In natural law ethics, X-rays are not unnatural, no more than shovels are unnatural. Natural law ethicists have NO objection to technology. They object to actions which thwart the proper functioning of an organism, whether those actions involve technology or not.

Please, things are things and they will be things.
We are talking about moral acts of people here. Is it moral to expose someone to X-rays?
No, it is not. X-rays are harmful. It is immoral to do so unless there is a good reason for it.

 

[Prodigirl]

Marriage does squat, if couples deny one another the gift of self by contracepting./QUOTE

Aaaaannnndd now we’re back to Women As Brood Mares.

Great.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Please, things are things and they will be things.
We are talking about moral acts of people here. Is it moral to expose someone to X-rays?
No it is not. X-rays are harmful. It is immoral to do so unless there is a good reason for it.

Yes, that’s right. But X-rays are not unnatural, and condoms aren’t unnatural either – not in the relevant sense. Doing an X-ray on a human being is unnatural, yes, because of the natural end of a human being in terms of health.

Only actions can be unnatural. Objects cannot be unnatural.