Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

No, the Church teaches the purpose of marriage is twofold–both for bonding and babies. They come as a package deal.

And the ECFs would have agreed with this statement because in their view the babies themselves were the source of the bond, not the act that makes the babies. As Janet Smith (the author of the article you cited) says, “…those who have babies sooner in marriage have a longer lasting marriage than those who do not…people who have children become better people…you become a better person and you’re married to a better person and that makes for a better marriage.”

That doesn’t mean that every couple’s goal is to have as many children as possible. We can avoid for legitmate reasons…Also the couple’s mission is to get to heaven.

And the assumption is that having a (or another) baby will help the couple get to heaven – “she will be saved through childbearing” (1 Tim 2:15) – barring one of these “legitimate reasons”. Thus, the default mission of the couple is to have kids, and the more the merrier (or holier, perhaps).

Well, babies are always part of the equation, even if you are using NFP to avoid. They are intertwined. We may use the infertile period for bonding, however, the possibility of being able to create life is always there.

And the same is true for ABC. Babies are always part of the equation, even if you are using ABC to avoid them. The possibility of being able to create life is always there.

The growth and development of married love is not a bad thing. Many marriages during the EFC’s time were arranged marriages. They might also be amazed that we don’t do that any longer…our understanding of married love has grown to greater depths.

Very true. Times have changed, and the Church’s teaching has changed with the times. That’s all I’m saying.

This “change” you are so bothered about doesn’t negate what the ECF’s said–marriage and sex is for procreation and for the partners. That some thought sex was sinful isn’t the main part of their teaching, that I can see.

“Some”? How about every ECF for at least the first 400 years of Christianity who ever wrote on the topic of sex in marriage (according to what documents are in the public domain), including two popes surtitled “the Great”? That’s a pretty strong consensus to not be a part of the “main teaching” of the Church.

Because we aren’t animals. We can choose to have sex at any point of a woman’s cycle. While the biological urge is certainly present, this doesn’t make sex at other times any less bonding. Sex for humans is both physical AND mental.

Indeed…which is why the Catholic psychologists on the Papal Birth Control Commission argued that women who were physically and instinctively compelled toward having sex with their husbands at ovulation time suffered negative mental consequences.

Both–or I want to have sex with you and a baby could be possible.

That’s not the same as “I want to have a baby with you.”

ABC is an immoral way to "control births’. Total or periodic abstinence is a moral way to accomplish this. Now I know your ECF’s are having a hemmorage…

The ECFs would have had no problem with NFP itself. What they would have had a problem with is the idea that sex

…but this is the teaching of the Church and I submit to Her Authority.

It would be a lot easier for some people to submit to the Church’s authority if it were as constant in its teaching about sex in marriage as it claims to be.

There has been a development of the understanding in marital love and sex. It’s deepened.

Can a “deepened understanding” change the moral status of an act from “venially sinful” to “not sinful at all”? That’s the question here.

To bond with each other…

There are plenty of ways spouses can bond. Any shared activity can be a bonding activity. So the question is, “Why that particular way to bond?”

Consider this passage from TOB:

…excitement and emotion can jeopardize the orientation and the character of the mutual language of the body. Excitement seeks above all to be expressed in the form of sensual and corporeal pleasure. That is, it tends toward the conjugal act which (depending on the natural cycles of fertility) includes the possibility of procreation. Emotion, on the other hand, caused by another human being as a person, even if in its emotive content it is conditioned by the femininity or masculinity of the “other,” does not per se tend toward the conjugal act. But it limits itself to other manifestations of affection, which express the spousal meaning of the body, and which nevertheless do not include its (potentially) procreative meaning.

Please note:

1. Excitement seeks sensual and corporeal pleasure and tends toward the conjugal act.
2. Emotion does not per se tend toward the conjugal act.

So, no matter how much emotion a couple may feel toward each other, it isn’t emotion that motivates their decision to have sex. Rather, it’s one (or both) of these two things:

A) The desire to procreate.
B) The desire for pleasure.

Is that such a hard thing to admit? Can’t an NFP-using couple come right out and say, “We had sex because we like how good it feels to have sex”? Is there a mental block that comes with using NFP so that its practitioners can’t just say, “Sex is exciting and stimulating and so very pleasurable and fun, and sometimes we just wanna ‘do it’ for exactly those reasons”?

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

If you come from the perspective that the only reason to have sex is to “make a baby.” Then your analogy makes sense… however, the chruch does not and has not taught that. Sex is not just for making babies. So to ONLY do so to intend to have a baby, is no more than animalistic.

That’s totally backwards. Animals don’t plan their pregnancies. Animals don’t have sex because they know babies will result from it. They have sex because sex feels good. It just so happens that their instinctive desire to feel good (which humans have, too) produces babies. So, when humans have sex for pleasure’s sake, that is what is animalistic. It’s when humans have sex because they know that they will reap children from it that sex becomes the “fully human” act spoken of in TOB.

Can you have your cake and eat it, too?..with NFP…One has to give up sex at times. Where is the sacrifice with ABC?

So basically you’re saying that Catholics should periodically abstain from sex for the same reasons that they abstain from meat on Fridays? (Oh…wait…Catholics don’t actually have to do that anymore, do they?)

Any action to frustrate the mechanism of the mousetrap is cheating. Purposeful breaking of the chain makes playing the game a lie.

Here’s the question, though: Is waiting until the “God part” of the mousetrap has left on its own before triggering the trap really any different? Isn’t that like sneaking a cookie when Mom’s not looking?

What is missing in your analogy is the role we are to play as husband and wife with respect to the relationship with God…When we cheat each other or God by making the act one of self or mutual satisfaction without putting the result into the hands of God, we are living a lie.

But the result is in the hands of God whether or not the couple contracepts. If God wants to break a condom, He can do so. If God wants to have a woman ovulate despite her being on the pill, He can do so. If God doesn’t want the vasectomy to “take”, He can make it so. And whatever child results from contraceptive sex, the couple can accept it for the gift that it is without regard to the circumstances surrounding its conception.

So how is using NFP permissable? It’s based on the concept that sex is a gift from God. We, as a married couple, are to use it to bring us closer to Him and to provide a method to renew our sacrament we have made to each other. To emulate Christ’s love for us…

And the ECFs would be utterly aghast at your innovative concepts. Most would have shut their ears at “sex is a gift from God.” Sex bringing a couple closer to God? Gnosticism. Sex as a renewal of the sacrament? Ridiculous. Sex as analogous to the love of Christ for the Church? Blasphemous!

But, that was then, this is now, and the mind of the Church, over time, has changed. Isn’t that obvious?

Much of TOB is based on “In the beginning, it was not so.” A presentation that, while we are not free from original sin, we can, if we so desire, attempt to go back to the relationship Adam and Eve had. And we are called to do so.

Ah, but the relationship that Adam and Eve had before the Fall was not a sexual relationship. Adam and Eve were so “at one” with each other that sex wasn’t necessary to express that oneness. It was only after the Fall, after sin entered the human race, that Adam had sex with Eve…and why was that, if not to try to recapture that original oneness that they once had in Eden?

So, if sex in marriage is a tool toward recapturing that original oneness Adam and Eve once had in Eden, then the end goal of sex in marriage is a relationship of such oneness with one’s spouse that sex is no longer needed in the relationship. The couple can then live out the rest of their days celibately. Sex, in other words, is supposed to “work itself out of a job” – the more you do it, the less you should feel like doing it.

The fact that TOB doesn’t address this aspect of sex at all is one of the reasons I found it disappointing. Indeed, I don’t think there’s even one place in TOB where I saw anything about sex being a means to recapture “original oneness”. There’s plenty to be said about the nuptial meaning of the body, but it’s never indicated that sex is a means to reclaiming that meaning.

…I thought you went into TOB looking for your answer to question #3 from the ECFs… What is your feeling about that “teaching.” after reading TOB?

Inconclusive, honestly. On one had, TOB appears to try to keep from straying too far from the position of the ECFs, but it seems that most Catholics still use TOB as a jumping-off point for still more “sex-friendly” theology.

I will say that at this rate it’s more the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception that keeps me from being Catholic than it is the Church’s stance on ABC. But I still wish the Church would admit its inconsistency on its teaching about birth control and either revert to the mindset of the Fathers for consistency’s sake (even though I agree that the opinion of the Fathers on sex in marriage is unpalatable even to me) or open up ABC to married couples.

–Mike

 

[snowpiece]

“Chastity, not condoms solves the AIDS and STI problems.”

Wow. Good luck in overcoming that ignorance. You have a long way to go. I hope you find some compassion, too. When you can’t spell ‘bigot’, it’s difficult for me to take seriously any attempt you make to call others bigoted.

“The concept of “safe” casual sex is the issue”

Actually, the concept of “safe sex” is the issue, whether it’s casual or in a heterosexual-married-penis-in-vagina-sex situation. For your purposes, feel free to think only of the latter.

“Chastity within a marriage is the Church’s stance on BC, not a mechnaism to increase the church’s numbers.”

That’s right- the Church’s stance on BC is chastity within marriage (along with an irrational acceptance of NFP), AND the Church has that stance partly in order to increase it’s numbers. If you read about the context in which the Bible was written, increasing the population of believers was one of the expressed purposes of “saving seed”. “Seed” or ‘sperm’ as we call it today was then believed to contain all elements needed to create life. Women were seen as the ‘incubators’- as in, they did not provide any genetic info, etc, only ‘housed’ the growing baby. The population was threatened by wars, famine, etc and increasing it’s numbers was an expressed goal. Thus, wasting the ‘seed’ of all life (as sperm was perceived to be), was seen as a grave sin. This sin was against the community, not against God or oneself, because it was perceived that there may be a limited amount of this ‘seed’. Yes, the Church has other ways of finding members, but as the stats show, it’s much harder to get and keep new converts than children.

ABC is more respectful of human life than the view that every time heterosexual-married couples have the only acceptable form of sex (which still eliminates 99% of human sexual behavior), they must risk conceiving a child which they must bring to term. This renders children unplanned, unwanted, inconvenient, even called a punishment for the parents, etc. The simple lack of ABC can have disastrous, preventable, consequences.

You mentioned abortion as an outcome of access to ABC. There are two things to say about that.

1. The vast majority of women having abortions already have children. The main reason for the abortion is that they simply cannot afford to have another child, and they are considering the well being of their other children. To say that this is just ‘casual sex’ or that ABC would not have prevented that whole situation is to be blinded by faith and willful ignorance.
2. Using ABC means no conception. No pregnancy. Which means no abortion.

 

[mpartyka]

You theory still has a glaring hole in it that you haven’t answered.

*Either infertile sex is not ***sinful or knowledge of fertility is condemned.

It takes knowledge to sin. The ECF you keep quoting use the word ‘pleasure’ over and over. It is indulging in pleasure for pleasure’s own sake that they dismiss as a venial sin (not mortal) within marriage. Just because I happen to be infertile right now, I am not required to abstain, even according to the ECFs. I am not sinning while engaging in sex simply by having knowledge of my fertility.

The ECFs wouldn’t object to sex during the infertile period because the wife is obligated to pay the debt of marriage (i.e., have sex) to alleviate her husband’s concupiscence, or she may require the alleviation of her own concupiscence. But even having sex to relieve concupiscence is a seeking after pleasure in the eyes of the ECFs because it’s the pleasures of sex that relieve’s one’s concupiscence. Thus, if you’re looking for relief, that’s really the same thing as looking for pleasure, and that equals venial sin in the mind of the ECFs. But again, this venial sin is excused (though not encouraged) on account of the Sacrament of Marriage, with the end goal being that someday the couple’s concupiscence will diminish and they will be able to live celibately, thereby focusing purely on God instead of troubling each other with sexual desires.

So, if you know that you’re fertile today and refuse sex on that account, but you know you’ll be infertile tomorrow and do have sex on that account, the ECFs would probably accuse you of seeking after pleasure and therefore venially sinning because the timing of your refusal (and your acceptance afterwards) shows that the intent of your heart is set on the pleasure/relief brought by the act and not the possibility of procreation – but at the same time they would immediately excuse you from that sin because of the Sacrament of Marriage. In short, your knowledge of your fertility condemns you only on account of what you choose to do with that knowledge (and even then it doesn’t condemn you beyond excuse).

Would it be better for you not to know your fertility? I don’t see how since it’s the motive for which you’re having sex that determines whether the act is sinful or not. If you’re doing it for procreation’s sake, then you might justifiably have sex during what you believe to be your non-fertile period because there’s always the chance you might actually be fertile and not know it…but that might be a stretch, depending on your level of certitude in using NFP. The ECFs would smile most upon your having sex only for procreation’s sake only during the fertile periods, since your knowledge of your fertile and infertile times would make you more informed as to whether procreation could be accomplished at one time or another.

Do you see what I’m getting at? Remember, the ECFs wrote at a time when the knowledge of a woman’s fertile and infertile times – even the knowledge that a woman had fertile and infertile times – was still in its infancy. So, the idea that a woman might know whether she was fertile or not at a given time didn’t really factor into their understanding of sex in marriage at all. All they could bring to the table is, “Why is this couple having sex? To procreate, or for pleasure’s sake?” And those were the only reasons of which they knew. And, truthfully, those are the only reasons of which we know, if we’re honest with ourselves.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

If you read about the context in which the Bible was written, increasing the population of believers was one of the expressed purposes of “saving seed”. “Seed” or ‘sperm’ as we call it today was then believed to contain all elements needed to create life. Women were seen as the ‘incubators’- as in, they did not provide any genetic info, etc, only ‘housed’ the growing baby.

Minor correction: The ECFs did believe that the growing child took substance from the woman as it grew. This is how the “divine seed” implanted in the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit could grow into a literal descendant of Adam – because the divine seed took flesh from Mary and thus grew into a human being of the same flesh as ours. So, it would be correct to say that the ECFs believed the seed contained in itself all the elements necessary to conceive life in the fertile “soil” of the womb, but the life conceived would then grow into a child by virtue of the flesh supplied by the woman.

–Mike

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yes it does.

However, if the couple disagrees with the Catholic understanding of marriage, part of which believes that an openness to children is part of the nature of marriage, well then they probably aren’t in the best place to “listen” to what the Catholic Church believes. Which is fine. But if they want to celebrate a Catholic sacramental marriage, they would not be able to do so if they intended to have no children. This is just part of what the Church believes and professes; procreation is part of marriage by its very nature.

Cheers

Thanks for taking the time to reply. You do understand, though, that the reply sort of boils down to “start liking and wanting them, then you and the Church can get down to brass tacks.” Not saying that I expected much different, but it’s a bit dispiriting to learn that one doesn’t meet the prerequisites to enter a debate whose implications might concern him.

 

[mpartyka]

newbetx4957388:

If you come from the perspective that the only reason to have sex is to “make a baby.” Then your analogy makes sense… however, the chruch does not and has not taught that. Sex is not just for making babies. So to ONLY do so to intend to have a baby, is no more than animalistic.

That’s totally backwards. Animals don’t plan their pregnancies. Animals don’t have sex because they know babies will result from it. They have sex because sex feels good. It just so happens that their instinctive desire to feel good (which humans have, too) produces babies. So, when humans have sex for pleasure’s sake, that is what is animalistic. It’s when humans have sex because they know that they will reap children from it that sex becomes the “fully human” act spoken of in TOB.

Okay, I didn’t get what you were trying to say originally, which I now think was, “Animals have sex only when fertilization is a possibility, so if humans limited themselves to having sex only when fertilization is possible, they’d be behaving like animals.” But here’s the problem with that. Animals don’t know when they’re fertile or infertile. They just know what their hormones are telling them, which is, “Go and do it! Go and do it!” They act according to their nature. Well, since humans are animals, too – even if they are rational animals as opposed to irrational animals – humans are biologically prompted to “go and do it” when the woman is fertile just as the rest of the animals are. Unlike animals, however, humans choose to mate even when the woman is not fertile – but is this a function of human rationality, or is it a function of human concupiscence? I think the ECFs would say that the latter was responsible: Humans mated during infertile periods because human nature was corrupt on account of sin. Mating for reasons other than procreation was viewed as an act of rational animals behaving irrationally (i.e., unworthily of their status and dignity). If humans were to behave as designed (i.e., in the state of original blessedness that Adam and Eve shared before the Fall), then humans would have sex only for procreative purposes. And that, therefore, is the ideal to which the ECFs thought married couples should aspire.

Of course, many of the ECFs knew nothing about a woman’s fertility, so they were faced primarily with the stark fact that animals want sex when they’re fertile, whereas humans want it just about all the freakin’ time (or so it appears at times), which would have reinforced in them the conviction that a married couple’s desiring sex for its own sake was sinful (though excused).

–Mike

 

[JACQUE_D]

C’mon guys. We ladies can’t keep poppin babies out. After six, I’ve had enough. We struggle to pay for schooling and everything else. I love all my children, but it would be selfish of me to keep having babies when their quality of living just wouldn’t be good enough. I understand the teaching of the Church, but my instincts and common-sense at my age tell me enough is enough. As adults, my husband and I are entitled to work, eat, sleep and ‘play’, as we wish, because we are good God fearing people. It’s a personal issue between a man and a woman who are raising their family. Theres nothing weird or perverted about a couple being together. You just can’t have more children than you can manage. And by the way, when your husband gets to a certain age - NFP doesn’t come into it because ‘things’ arent possible most of the time - if you get what I mean.
Jacque.:hug1:

 

[newbetx]

Okay, I didn’t get what you were trying to say originally, which I now think was, “Animals have sex only when fertilization is a possibility, so if humans limited themselves to having sex only when fertilization is possible, they’d be behaving like animals.” But here’s the problem with that. Animals don’t know when they’re fertile or infertile. They just know what their hormones are telling them, which is, “Go and do it! Go and do it!” They act according to their nature. Well, since humans are animals, too – even if they are rational animals as opposed to irrational animals – humans are biologically prompted to “go and do it” when the woman is fertile just as the rest of the animals are. Unlike animals, however, humans choose to mate even when the woman is not fertile – but is this a function of human rationality, or is it a function of human concupiscence? I think the ECFs would say that the latter was responsible: Humans mated during infertile periods because human nature was corrupt on account of sin. Mating for reasons other than procreation was viewed as an act of rational animals behaving irrationally (i.e., unworthily of their status and dignity). If humans were to behave as designed (i.e., in the state of original blessedness that Adam and Eve shared before the Fall), then humans would have sex only for procreative purposes. And that, therefore, is the ideal to which the ECFs thought married couples should aspire.

Of course, many of the ECFs knew nothing about a woman’s fertility, so they were faced primarily with the stark fact that animals want sex when they’re fertile, whereas humans want it just about all the freakin’ time (or so it appears at times), which would have reinforced in them the conviction that a married couple’s desiring sex for its own sake was sinful (though excused).

–Mike

I think the biggest point about humanity is that we’re called to be more than animals…We can act that way, but it’s not good for human kind… Humand sexuality is FAR different from animal sexuality.

Didn’t you ever have animals Mike? Yes they do know when they are fertile… that’s what triggers the hormones. Hormones trigger scents, scents trigger hormones and there you have the “interest” that typically, they don’t have. I had pairs of dogs for years… no heat, no interest in sex… with heat… much interest. They don’t do it as a bonding exercise or entertainment.

Humans do bond through sex (most of the time). And we’re designed to face each other during the act, unlike the animals… Our chemistry is different. That is one thing that we must know and understand in order for us to behave properly in this world. We are NOT animals dispite any other biological similarities. We are held to a higher standard whether we like it or not.

Well, Mike, I haven’t studied the ECF’s as much as you. I’ll keep with what JP II’s TOB teaches because it makes a great deal of sense to me based on my experience. If there is some descrepancy (although after reading both, I don’t recall you saying there was), then I’ll let others figure out what that implies.

Certainly, unchecked sexual desire will cause problems. The ECFs knew this and so do most people, today. Moderation and responsibility play a large role in our success with marriage. Many look to the church to create a list (minimum number of children, number of times to pray, what is crossing the line in affection) and the church wisely avoids this. However, that doesn’t stop some in the church from coming up with specific solutions for couples…

Example… say a man gets a vasectomy… but he repents and the priest says “Well, fine… but you need to honor the fertile period and avoid sex at that time.” effectively saying practice NFP to avoid. Some say that is the Church’s position… I don’t think so… And if it were me, I’d say “Well, fine, but you should have sex during the fertile time as to do what you can now to enable the will of God” But that’s just me. Based on my understanding of the value of sex, I would never say “Only when fertile.” To me that degrades the act. But then, I’m neither a early or late church father, either.

Peace.

 

[Jennifer_J]

C’mon guys. We ladies can’t keep poppin babies out. After six, I’ve had enough. We struggle to pay for schooling and everything else. I love all my children, but it would be selfish of me to keep having babies when their quality of living just wouldn’t be good enough. I understand the teaching of the Church, but my instincts and common-sense at my age tell me enough is enough. As adults, my husband and I are entitled to work, eat, sleep and ‘play’, as we wish, because we are good God fearing people. It’s a personal issue between a man and a woman who are raising their family. Theres nothing weird or perverted about a couple being together. You just can’t have more children than you can manage. And by the way, when your husband gets to a certain age - NFP doesn’t come into it because ‘things’ arent possible most of the time - if you get what I mean.
Jacque.:hug1:

The Church doesn’t teach that you must keep “popping out babies”. Holy Mother Church does teach that sex is something special. There are licit and illicit means to controlling births. Use a licit means and you’re okay.

btw, if you husband is having sexual health issues, he should see a doctor…

 

[JACQUE_D]

So if the old boy is having ‘health issues’ then it’s ok for him to see a doctor, get some pills. You missed the point. It’s not all nice and easy , and you are obviously still having babies. Maybe you are in a better financial position than me, but 6 is enough. I think I’m a heck of a lot older than you. I’m an olde -school Catholic, but I’m not a brainless one. My husband won’t take kindly to being told when he can and cannot have ‘it’. I don’t agree with abortions, morning after pill etc etc. Isee a lot of families suffer because their are too many mouths to feed, but I’ve also seen couples split because she is practising NFP and he isn’t, so he finds it somewhere else. The world is not all sweety-pie and bunny kisses. I live in the real world. I’m a PROUD CATHOLIC WIFE AND MOTHER. You missed the point. There is nothing ILLICIT about my marriage.
Jacque D:tsktsk:

 

[newbetx]

So basically you’re saying that Catholics should periodically abstain from sex for the same reasons that they abstain from meat on Fridays? (Oh…wait…Catholics don’t actually have to do that anymore, do they?)
–Mike

Well, actually we still are supposed to. When not in Lent, if the local Bishop approves, Catholics can substitute another sacrafice for abstaining from eating meat if they choose… I love fish… so it’s of little sacrafice for me.

Here’s the question, though: Is waiting until the “God part” of the mousetrap has left on its own before triggering the trap really any different? Isn’t that like sneaking a cookie when Mom’s not looking?
–Mike

I guess I don’t quite understand what you mean, here. Expand please.

And the ECFs would be utterly aghast at your innovative concepts. Most would have shut their ears at “sex is a gift from God.” Sex bringing a couple closer to God? Gnosticism. Sex as a renewal of the sacrament? Ridiculous. Sex as analogous to the love of Christ for the Church? Blasphemous!
–Mike

Well, I"m reminded of another story with this one. Maybe someone knows who the saint is that I’m referring to and can provide a better version…
Once some Bishops and priests were leaving the church when a known beautiful prostitue, under arrest was drug by them as a coincidence… They all turned their heads so they wouldn’t be tempted to lust… except one. He looked at her and saw the beauty of a child of God and felt so horrible and sad that men only saw her as an object. Well she saw him and how he looked at her. No one had ever looked at her that way before. When she could, she came to the priest at the church and eventually became member… she was later made a saint, herself. Sorry. It was something I heard on one of those MP3s, I think. Could have been Relevant Radio. Not sure.

Key is, yes, the ECF’s would have likely turned their faces or covered their eyes. But is that the proper way to treat the sons and daughers of God?

But, that was then, this is now, and the mind of the Church, over time, has changed. Isn’t that obvious?
–Mike

To me it is… but what is change? There is the apostles creed and the Nicene creed… there was a change… the Truth we know, got bigger…that’s all.

Ah, but the relationship that Adam and Eve had before the Fall was not a sexual relationship. Adam and Eve were so “at one” with each other that sex wasn’t necessary to express that oneness. It was only after the Fall, after sin entered the human race, that Adam had sex with Eve…and why was that, if not to try to recapture that original oneness that they once had in Eden?
–Mike

I guess I didn’t understand that while in the garden they didn’t have sex… Not sure when they became “married.” either. I’ll have to go look into that.

So, if sex in marriage is a tool toward recapturing that original oneness Adam and Eve once had in Eden, then the end goal of sex in marriage is a relationship of such oneness with one’s spouse that sex is no longer needed in the relationship. The couple can then live out the rest of their days celibately. Sex, in other words, is supposed to “work itself out of a job” – the more you do it, the less you should feel like doing it.
–Mike

As they get older, some do exactly that. It’s not that bad of a thing.

The fact that TOB doesn’t address this aspect of sex at all is one of the reasons I found it disappointing. Indeed, I don’t think there’s even one place in TOB where I saw anything about sex being a means to recapture “original oneness”. There’s plenty to be said about the nuptial meaning of the body, but it’s never indicated that sex is a means to reclaiming that meaning.
–Mike

I got that from a “digested” version of TOB… I’ll have to go see if I can find it in the Wednesday audiences." Again… there are parts of the TOB lectures that weren’t publically announced. They were private papers… However, I can’t imagine that something as basic as this would have been held out. I’ll go dig a little deeper.

Inconclusive, honestly. On one had, TOB appears to try to keep from straying too far from the position of the ECFs, but it seems that most Catholics still use TOB as a jumping-off point for still more “sex-friendly” theology.
–Mike

Guilty as charged.

I will say that at this rate it’s more the Marian dogma of the Immaculate Conception that keeps me from being Catholic than it is the Church’s stance on ABC. But I still wish the Church would admit its inconsistency on its teaching about birth control and either revert to the mindset of the Fathers for consistency’s sake (even though I agree that the opinion of the Fathers on sex in marriage is unpalatable even to me) or open up ABC to married couples.

–Mike

Well, that’s another thread… And for me, it’s not that much of a stretch to accept this. It’s logical mostly… I’ll look for a thread or something that can walk you through it. .

 

[newbetx]

But the result is in the hands of God whether or not the couple contracepts. If God wants to break a condom, He can do so. If God wants to have a woman ovulate despite her being on the pill, He can do so. If God doesn’t want the vasectomy to “take”, He can make it so. And whatever child results from contraceptive sex, the couple can accept it for the gift that it is without regard to the circumstances surrounding its conception.
–Mike

I used to think this way too. If God wants me to have a kid, then by golly, he’ll make it happen… Well, he made only one happen without sex… and it’s really arrogant of us to think that God would bless us somehow after thumbing our noses at him. Reminds me of some old jokes that I probably can’t tell here… But anyway, it reminds of a scripture passage that I can’t quote directly… Do not put your Lord God to the test… That is exactly what we are doing with contracepted sex and an attitude like that. Does it happen? Does God have a direct hand in EVERY conception? I don’t think so, but that’s just where I am in my journey, these days. I’m still of the belief that God created the processes of nature and messes with them very little. But I do believe in miracles. I’ve witnessed too many, not to.

Sorry out of order… but I just grabbed something that would make the previous post fit and then pasted it here.

 

[diggerdomer]

I know this is off topic and apologize for that…but if there are good jokes to share please do so! I think it would be a great contribution to this forum.

Cheers

 

[Jennifer_J]

So if the old boy is having ‘health issues’ then it’s ok for him to see a doctor, get some pills. You missed the point. It’s not all nice and easy , and you are obviously still having babies. Maybe you are in a better financial position than me, but 6 is enough. I think I’m a heck of a lot older than you. I’m an olde -school Catholic, but I’m not a brainless one. My husband won’t take kindly to being told when he can and cannot have ‘it’. I don’t agree with abortions, morning after pill etc etc. Isee a lot of families suffer because their are too many mouths to feed, but I’ve also seen couples split because she is practising NFP and he isn’t, so he finds it somewhere else. The world is not all sweety-pie and bunny kisses. I live in the real world. I’m a PROUD CATHOLIC WIFE AND MOTHER. You missed the point. There is nothing ILLICIT about my marriage.
Jacque D:tsktsk:

ahem…check the attitude please. I said nothing about the licitness of your marriage, only the potential licitness of your method of birth control (which is not against Church teaching, NFP or total abstinence are available as licit means of controlling births).

If your dh is having medical issues pertaining to sexual issues, then yes, HE should see a doctor. I don’t know about pills or what not, but one would think he’d want to be 100% for you. Certainly age may be a factor, but so could prostate problems, circulatory problems, blood pressure problems, weight, lack of exercise, etc. Nothing wrong with getting a physical and seeing if there are health issues he could correct so that he can, um, perform better

You are also assuming a lot about me, my dh and our particular station in life. No one promised that following Jesus would be easy. We all have crosses. Just because something is hard, doesn’t mean we give up and take the easy road. We pick up our cross and follow him. NFP is no picnic. It takes communication and dedication of both parties. You assume because I have 6 children that I’ve never used NFP? Wrong-o. I have used it quite successfully when we’ve needed to space births. No surprises.

 

[JACQUE_D]

I have six children and three grandchildren. My cycle is extremely irregular and my dear husband has permanent brewers droop, and I say permanent because he is an alcoholic who thinks he doesn’t have a drinking problem. I carry my cross too and I try not to weigh it down too much. I am aware of the organisations out there to help him, but remember, he ‘doesn’t have a problem.’
Jacque D.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I have six children and three grandchildren. My cycle is extremely irregular and my dear husband has permanent brewers droop, and I say permanent because he is an alcoholic who thinks he doesn’t have a drinking problem. I carry my cross too and I try not to weigh it down too much. I am aware of the organisations out there to help him, but remember, he ‘doesn’t have a problem.’
Jacque D.

I’m sorry and will pray for you and your family.:console: I grew up with an alcoholic (and abusive to my mother) stepfather and my father also has drinking problems–probably also an alcoholic, but he was able to quit cold turkey (but not before endangering me as a child, driving drunk! AND having severe health issues). Needless to say, I don’t drink.

 

[mpartyka]

I think the biggest point about humanity is that we’re called to be more than animals…We can act that way, but it’s not good for human kind…

Right. And the ECFs would argue that if humans are having sex more than is necessary to create children, they are acting worse than animals, not better.

For example, St. Augustine once wrote, “There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant,” as if to say, “Once your wife is pregnant, what’s the point of having sex beyond that, as it won’t accomplish anything further besides your gratification?” He continues: “Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage.” So, according to St. Augustine, having sex with your wife when you know she’s already pregnant is one of these three things – immodest, shameless, or base.

Didn’t you ever have animals Mike? Yes they do know when they are fertile… that’s what triggers the hormones. Hormones trigger scents, scents trigger hormones and there you have the “interest” that typically, they don’t have. I had pairs of dogs for years… no heat, no interest in sex… with heat… much interest.

Exactly. They want sex at the times that they are biologically programmed to want sex, and not otherwise. That same programming is present in humans, too. So, when humans act against that programming and have sex more than that programming warrants, is that a sign of God’s original design…or is is a sign of sin’s corruption of that original design?

And we’re designed to face each other during the act, unlike the animals.

Not true, actually. Other primates, such as bonobos and chimpanzees, can mate face-to-face. And there are certain parts of the male and female anatomy that can visually be seen to fit more congruently in the “from behind” position, indicating that humans are no more “designed” for face-to-face sex than any other animals (unless you count pelvis shape, which results in our ability to walk upright plus the enormous pain a woman experiences during childbirth).

That is one thing that we must know and understand in order for us to behave properly in this world. We are NOT animals dispite any other biological similarities.

Even the ECFs acknowledge that humans are animals – rational rather than irrational, granted, but animals nonetheless.

We are held to a higher standard whether we like it or not.

And that higher standard would be to have sex more often than animals?

I’ll keep with what JP II’s TOB teaches because it makes a great deal of sense to me based on my experience.

That’s the thing that bothers me, though…everyone who objects to the teaching of the ECFs objects on the basis of their personal experience with sex…even the married priest I asked…which makes me wonder, is it part of Christianity to prize sex so highly, or has sex so saturated modern culture as to make it unthinkable that a religion could be so dismissive toward it?

–Mike

 

[lostandconfused]

Exactly. They want sex at the times that they are biologically programmed to want sex, and not otherwise. That same programming is present in humans, too. So, when humans act against that programming and have sex more than that programming warrants, is that a sign of God’s original design…or is is a sign of sin’s corruption of that original design?

I noticed you mentioned bonobos, so you know about bonobos…bonobos are famous for having casual sex for pleasure. A lot. Dolphins do it as well. A few other species of primates do it as well, I forget which, but they blow off steam by mating when they are not in heat. Are bonobos corrupted by sin?

 

[lostandconfused]

One question though,

this whole argument is about controlling births. People are arguing that one method of controlling births is more “holy” than another…if youre so anti-controlling things and letting God’s will work, then why are you trying to control anything in the first place. NFP is just as “I am intending to control the outcome of this sex” as taking a pill is. Youre still trying to force your will no matter what.

So how is NFP okay too? If you are really trying to argue “God’s will” then why are you still attempting to use your own will here?

(However, this would be an extremely stupid and horrible approach because honestly, no matter what, sex=babies so this whole God’s Will argument results in tv shows like 18 going on 19 or whatever and they just keep having more until they run out of names that start with the same letter…but then what? They cant avoid God’s will, so are they going to keep having more until the wife goes through menopause or just dies from the exhaustion?)

If this is really a matter of control, then the NFP people are just as bad as the pill or condom people.