Understanding the Truth in Regards to Contraception

[Abu]

Jonatello #77
masturbspeczation has absolutely nothing at all to do with culture. if anything is cultural, its the taboo against masturbation. Human beings will typically automatically masturbate without any cultural influence, but if you want them to refrain, they must be taught and socialized not to.

Here is the persistent confusion which may mislead others.

As Fr Brian Harrison states: “But the truth is exactly the reverse. What has to be manufactured artificially by external social conditioning is not the belief that masturbation is bad and self-degrading, but the belief that it is good and natural. That is to say, the experience of repugnance and/or guilt in response to the perversion of self-induced orgasm is the natural, reasonable, and profoundly human reaction of anyone whose moral conscience has not yet been anaesthetized by decadent cultural influences or habitual lewd behaviour, and who is old enough to understand what the sexual organs are naturally designed for: loving and potentially procreative union with a person of the opposite sex…. it is our own anatomy that teaches us this lesson, not some Kantian philosophical theory on the sexual habits of animals!" [LT67 - THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED]](LT67 - THE SIN OF ONAN REVISITED])

Some make their own trouble because they never seem to face reality.

 

[mark_a]

I can’t just squint really hard and decide to agree because the Church tells me to.

It’s strange that knowledgeable Catholics accept that bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but want no part of the same Church that teaches us we should control ourselves.

 

[Jonatello]

It’s strange that knowledgeable Catholics accept that bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but want no part of the same Church that teaches us we should control ourselves.

I never said I want no part of that church. I only ask that the teachings of its many teachers make sense.

I cannot prove obviously that the eucharist is real, but while there’s no possible benefit to me passing it up, there’s a potentially enormous benefit to me taking part in it.

I desire God greatly. I want to be with God. I don’t always trust everyone who claims to speak for Him, but I do know if there’s even a chance that bread/wine is God then I want desperately to receive and be one with Him.

 

[Nate13]

B: masturbation has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch at all to do with culture. Its automatic. if anything is cultural, its the taboo against masturbation. Human beings will automatically masturbate without any cultural influence, but if you want them to refrain, they must be taught and socialized not to.

I don’t believe this is true at all. While it may be observed that humans are led to masturbate at times naturally with little to no (name removed by moderator)ut from culture, I believe it takes a culture like ours to make it as rampant as it is. Without our culture where would all the sexual stimuli come from that leads to the sexual excitement that would cause a person to want to masturbate? Also, you have to take into account not how our nature is now but how it was originally created to be.

 

[ahs]

B: masturbation has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch at all to do with culture. Its automatic.

I saw in another thread where you were stating masturbation is natural…part of our nature. Our Faith tells us otherwise…that it is a disordered act resulting from original sin and the tendency of man to sin. If masturbation were indeed “automatic” or natural, what would its purpose be? Why would it be an automatic or natural thing to do? What purpose would it serve?

-Release of sexual tension? No, God gave us the marriage act for that.
-Release of built-up seminal fluids from the testes? No, God gave us 2 natural ways to deal with that. Excess fluids can be re-absorbed into the body, or they can be expelled during sleep in what some call “wet dreams”.

We are creations of God. Our true “nature” is what God intended for us. God intended for us to be united as man and wife and to be fruitful and multiply. God reveals to us that it is not good for man to be alone. God condemns selfishness. Masturbation is all about “self”. It is a way to get sexual pleasure by stimulating the sexual organs in a manner contrary to their purpose. So, how exactly is masturbation an automatic or natural act?

C: while it sounds like it here (because of the statements/opinions i’m responding to), i’m not some super invested proponent of masturbation. I’d be okay with learning its bad, but the rationale needs to be more convincing for me to be able to be honest about agreeing. I can’t just squint really hard and decide to agree because the Church tells me to. My mind doesn’t do good with fake belief. So far, everything I’ve heard from people against masturbation just leaves me thinking that its superstition.

As someone who once suffered in this way, I’ll add these questions to ponder. Perhaps this is because you are subconsciously setting yourself as God’s judge, rather that the other way around? Perhaps you are thinking that if it does not make sense to you, that God owes you a better explanation? If this is the case, perhaps a good practice to combat this mentality would be submission to God and obedience to His Commands?

ETA: The “Litany of Humility” helped me get past that time in my life and opened the floodgates of understanding for me. No one here can make you understand except yourself…through the Grace and Virtues of God.

 

[Jonatello]

I don’t believe this is true at all. While it may be observed that humans are led to masturbate at times naturally with little to no (name removed by moderator)ut from culture, I believe it takes a culture like ours to make it as rampant as it is. Without our culture where would all the sexual stimuli come from that leads to the sexual excitement that would cause a person to want to masturbate? Also, you have to take into account not how our nature is now but how it was originally created to be.

I believe it was Miles Davis who said something like you shouldn’t need porn to masturbate lol.

I know my own masturbation as a youngster began via my own discovery of the “feeling” plus imagination (thinking of girls/women who I never saw naked, some of whom were real people, others who were just figments of my imagination).

As for how our nature was originally created to be, this risks completely throwing the thread into a tailspin, but I believe we are being sexually starved today compared to God’s intent.

Like how a person who is fed nothing but candy starves. We’re getting a lot of imitation junk with hardly any actual food.

Obviously we’re drowned in over-the-top suggestion everywhere we turn, but none of that would be so powerful if we were receiving the sexual fulfillment God designed us for.

Without listing all the areas of this starvation, i’ll just touch on one:

One serious (although not nearly the only) factor in is the reality that God designed us to start having sex at a much earlier age than the average person today can reasonably become married. We weren’t designed to get strong urges somewhere around 13 (or for some of us younger) only to have to hold out another 13-20 years (or more) before we can get married. All those years of youthful prime and extremely intense built-in urges with no Eve/Adam designed for us that we can partake in…that’s a precarious situation that God never designed us for.

 

[ahs]

One serious (although not nearly the only) factor in is the reality that God designed us to start having sex at a much earlier age than the average person today can reasonably become married. We weren’t designed to get strong urges somewhere around 13 (or for some of us younger) only to have to hold out another 13-20 years (or more) before we can get married. All those years of youthful prime and extremely intense urges with no Eve/Adam designed for us that we can share in…that’s a precarious situation that God never designed us for.

Even to entertain that such is the case, one must admit that those urges would have been designed to come about at a time of MARRIED LIFE in that time. The urges are for the marital act, not for a solo-act. This just further goes to show that masturbation is not part of God’s plan, but a sinful implement by man to seek gratification outside of the marital embrace. God gave us a sex drive so that we would “be fruitful and multiply”, not so we could gratify ourselves.

 

[Nate13]

Without listing all the areas of this starvation, i’ll just touch on one:

One serious (although not nearly the only) factor in is the reality that God designed us to start having sex at a much earlier age than the average person today can reasonably become married. We weren’t designed to get strong urges somewhere around 13 (or for some of us younger) only to have to hold out another 13-20 years (or more) before we can get married. All those years of youthful prime and extremely intense urges with no Eve/Adam designed for us that we can share in…that’s a precarious situation that God never designed us for.

Somewhat agreed, however this is a cultural thing. I do disagree that God did not design us to be able to handle it. He gave us the ability to reason and to control our passions. It is completely and entirely possible to control the urge to masturbate even during puberty. This is how we differ from the animals in that we are capable of using our ability to reason to figure out when its appropriate to use the gifts God gave us.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK, I’m backing out. It’s bad enough that my username is a euphemism for something I don’t even have (I didn’t know this until long after I had chosen it) but I have a feeling that I’m attempting to discuss masturbation with a group of men. Sorry guys, no comprendo.

Abu, thanks for the info and links. I appreciate this far more than you probably can know. I’ve been searching for help in this area for years and have come up only empty-handed (hee hee).

And now my addled brain is even more addled than normal (which is pretty bad in itself). I’m going to start lurking regarding this thread.

I’m sorry if my comments hurt or angered anyone. I’m really trying to be charitable. I even started my own thread on how to write a charitable post in which I begged for help (really - it’s in the Back Fence Forum).

Maybe I’ll learn something. There is always that possibility, remote as it may be.

 

[Jonatello]

Even to entertain that such is the case, one must admit that those urges would have been designed to come about at a time of MARRIED LIFE in that time. The urges are for the marital act, not for a solo-act. This just further goes to show that masturbation is not part of God’s plan, but a sinful implement by man to seek gratification outside of the marital embrace. God gave us a sex drive so that we would “be fruitful and multiply”, not so we could gratify ourselves.

i’m not seeing how you’re drawing these conclusions from what i said

 

[ahs]

i’m not seeing how you’re drawing these conclusions from what i said

My conclusions that the sexual faculty and all sexual activity is created for the married life to be enjoyed in the marital embrace and that masturbation is contrary to its purpose is based on God’s Truth, not on anything you said. I was simply replying to what you said…that we have strong sexual urges at young ages and thus, you suggested that masturbation should be an automatic response (not a direct quote, but a summation of what you have posted).
I’m saying these strong urges do not mean we should masturbate, nor that masturbation is somehow a natural or automatic activity for us. Our sexual urges are there for the marital embrace. If our society has become such that people do not get married until later in life than we historically use to, it is not a justification to masturbate.

Perhaps you should start a new thread on this topic. If this thread derails further, it may get shut down.

 

[Jonatello]

My conclusions that the sexual faculty and all sexual activity is created for the married life to be enjoyed in the marital embrace and that masturbation is contrary to its purpose is based on God’s Truth, not on anything you said. I was simply replying to what you said…that we have strong sexual urges at young ages and thus, you suggested that masturbation should be an automatic response (not a direct quote, but a summation of what you have posted).
I’m saying these strong urges do not mean we should masturbate, nor that masturbation is somehow a natural or automatic activity for us. Our sexual urges are there for the marital embrace. If our society has become such that people do not get married until later in life than we historically use to, it is not a justification to masturbate.

Perhaps you should start a new thread on this topic. If this thread derails further, it may get shut down.

Agreed about derailing the thread, so I’ll try to bridge it back to the original topic:

Why do we presume to know the full purpose of these gifts and forces of nature that God has created for us? And why does it always revolve primarily around the most utilitarian of the functions?

Why do we have trees? For oxygen or for food? For shade or for wood? Or for beauty and delight? Aren’t all important? Which is most important?

In the Garden of Eden, before death came into the world, there were trees and fruit and God encouraged Adam/Eve to eat and enjoy even though death wasn’t a factor.

Why is salvation/creation/preservation of life important, if not for the beauty of life itself? Why is life such a gift if not for the love, joy, activities, sensations, bonding, and pleasures we get to share with one another and God? God didn’t have to make us, He WANTED to because He delights in us and bonds with us. Isn’t then the beauty of life the ultimate reason for creation of life? So how then is “creation of life” the “ultimate end” of the beauty in life? Life is only worth creating if it is worth experiencing.

Why do we assume that all physical pleasure and naked embrace has to be aimed toward the “ultimate end” of procreation, as if that were the only reason for it? There are plenty of other utilitarian purposes for sexual activity (that continue to be discovered and were largely unknown centuries ago)

But all utilitarian functions aside…shouldn’t we believe the mere joy/pleasure/bonding of 2 naked persons touching and delighting in one another would probably be so closely tied to the very purpose of life, that it would exist even if God chose another method to create new life? Doesn’t this then supersede procreative purpose as the “ultimate end” of sexuality?

 

[ahs]

Agreed about derailing the thread, so I’ll try to bridge it back to the original topic:

Why do we presume to know the full purpose of these gifts and forces of nature that God has created for us? And why does it always revolve primarily around the most utilitarian of the functions?

We don’t preseume to know everything. The Truth we are discussing here is a Truth of God, revealed via His Church that He established. There are those that are good at explaining it in terms of natural purposes, etc…but that does not change Truth, it only helps to explain to others what the Truth is and help others to make sense of it.

Why do we have trees? For oxygen or for food? For shade or for wood? Or for beauty and delight? Aren’t all important? Which is most important?

In the Garden of Eden, before death came into the world, there were trees and fruit and God encouraged Adam/Eve to eat and enjoy even though death wasn’t a factor.

I don’t follow. How is a tree similar to the sexual faculty? I see no way of comparing them any more than one could compare an apple to a paper clip.

Why is salvation/creation/preservation of life important, if not for the beauty of life itself? Why is life such a gift if not for the love, joy, activities, sensations, bonding, and pleasures we get to share with one another and God? God didn’t have to make us, He WANTED to because He delights in us and bonds with us. Isn’t then the beauty of life the ultimate reason for creation of life? So how then is “creation of life” the “ultimate end” of the beauty in life? Life is only worth creating if it is worth experiencing.?

Are you saying here that life cannot be fully experienced unless we are allowed to contracept or masturbate? Who says we cannot fully experience life by living it in the way that God created for us? Who says that all the love, joys, activities, sensations, bonding and pleasures are not shared if we use the sexual faculty in the natural manner with the natural ends of unification and procreation?

Why do we assume that all physical pleasure and naked embrace has to be aimed toward the “ultimate end” of procreation, as if that were the only reason for it? There are plenty of other utilitarian purposes for sexual activity (that continue to be discovered and were largely unknown centuries ago)

We don’t assume that “all physical pleasure and naked embrace has to be aimed toward the “ultimate end” of procreation, as if that were the only reason for it”. The marital embrace is for unification AND procreation. Neither aspect can be separated from the other unless one acts against nature. One must commit an act contrary to the natural ends in order to separate the two aspects…thus further showing that contraception or masturbation are contrary to nature.

But all utilitarian functions aside…shouldn’t we believe the mere joy/pleasure/bonding of 2 naked persons touching and delighting in one another would probably be so closely tied to the very purpose of life, that it would exist even if God chose another method to create new life? Doesn’t this then supersede procreative purpose as the “ultimate end” of sexuality?

No. We should not believe such. We cannot guess at something that does not exist. We cannot assumet that if God gave us another means of procreating that we would enjoy touching each others naked bodies. What evidence or example can you provide of something producing in a way other than sexual where the creatures show pleasure in touching each other? And no, your assumptions do not supersede God’s Natural Law.

 

[Jonatello]

We don’t preseume to know everything. The Truth we are discussing here is a Truth of God, revealed via His Church that He established. There are those that are good at explaining it in terms of natural purposes, etc…but that does not change Truth, it only helps to explain to others what the Truth is and help others to make sense of it.

but the rationale given by people against certain sexual practices often relies on nature for its premise.

I don’t follow. How is a tree similar to the sexual faculty? I see no way of comparing them any more than one could compare an apple to a paper clip.

context

Are you saying here that life cannot be fully experienced unless we are allowed to contracept or masturbate?

lol no. did you really interpret it that way?

The marital embrace is for unification AND procreation. Neither aspect can be separated from the other unless one acts against nature.

how is this automatically concluded? Is it against nature to find sanctuary in a tree without eating its fruit?

One must commit an act contrary to the natural ends in order to separate the two aspects…thus further showing that contraception or masturbation are contrary to nature.

It depends on how thorough we choose to be in recognizing the spectrum of natural ends and purpose.

The natural ends of mutual attraction is sexual activity. We are (thankfully) fully encouraged and capable of committing an act contrary to that.

The natural ends of fruit is to fall to the ground and sprout a new tree. But sometimes another creature will eat the fruit instead, and also protect the tree. Is the interception of the fruit contrary to nature?

The natural ends of masturbation is obviously not procreation. It’s for other reasons (some already known, others still being learned) that creatures (including humans) naturally do this.

The natural ends of “sexual” activity between 2 is not always or only procreation either.

No. We should not believe such.

why shouldn’t we? its the only conclusion that makes sense.

We cannot guess at something that does not exist.

its not about guessing, its about looking at various factors and deducing.

We cannot assumet that if God gave us another means of procreating that we would enjoy touching each others naked bodies.

:
i don’t see why this is so absurd to you. if you read my post completely, you should be able to understand why such a conclusion is made.

And no, your assumptions do not supersede God’s Natural Law.

:
this is the problem with discussing things with many (not all) fellow religious people.

person A: God says blue!

person B: Are you sure we’re not putting words in God’s mouth here? Because upon closer examination, it seems to me He’d be saying orange.

person A: Are you saying you’re smarter than God!?

 

[Nate13]

It seems Jonatello’s disagreement is specifically geared towards how we determine the purposes God has given to specific functions. It seems pointless to continue arguing about whether these purposes are important and should be upheld, until we have established what exactly are the purposes of our genitalia and how we know what they are.

I will attempt to respond to some of the disagreement. It seems Jonatello is arguing that while masturbation is obviously not the main purpose of our genitalia, why could it not be a designed lesser purpose?

I think the problem with this idea is that it contradicts the more obvious purposes of our genitalia. Its true that there are multiple purposes at times for different functions of our bodies, but they cannot contradict each other. The normality of man is to always be fertile. Every male orgasm is normally fertile. The act of masturbation is inherently an infertile act and thus contradicts our own nature. If God had designed males as he had females in that every act of orgasm was not related to fertility, then we might draw different conclusions. Does this start to answer your question as to why masturbation is opposed to natural law? Masturbation takes an inherently fertile function and makes it infertile. This is a big part of why its acceptable to bring a woman to orgasm using other means should intercourse not be sufficient.

Also please note that yes, not all male orgasms end up being fertile but they all are in principle or in other words were all designed to be.

 

[fix]

EWTN has a book chapter on these issues:

Contraceptive intercourse, as we have seen, is contra-ceptive because it
necessarily includes the choice to set aside or destroy the openness of the
act of sexual union to the good of transmitting life. The person who
chooses to have intercourse contraceptively is saying that it is not good
that this act is open to life, that it is not good that he or she is
fertile. Rather the contraceptor is saying that his or her procreative
power, his or her fertility is, here and now, not something good, but to
the contrary a disvalue or disease or evil. He or she is saying that
fertility is not a wonderfully good power of the human person, something
participating in the goodness of the human person. It may be a useful good,
or “bonum utile,” something good for something other than itself, a
“functional” good that can and indeed ought to be destroyed when it comes
into conflict with what is really humanly and personally good, namely the
unitive good of human sexuality.

To put it briefly, those who accept contraception recognize that it
requires an anti-procreative choice, the choice to set aside or get rid of
or destroy fertility and the openness of the act of coition to the good of
transmitting human life. Yet they argue that this choice is morally good
“because” the procreative aspect of our sexuality is not, for them, a
personal good but rather a merely functional good dependent for its “human,
personal” goodness on other aspects of the human person.32…

The choice to contracept, therefore, is a morally wrong choice because it
is the choice to set aside or destroy something that is really good, namely
our own fertility and the openness of the act of sexual union to the great
good of transmitting human life.38 It is just as wrong to set aside this
good as it is to set aside the good of friendship in the act of sexual
union, a point that Pope Paul VI makes quite effective in his perceptive
account of the meaning of marital life and of the marital act.39…

 

[Jonatello]

It seems Jonatello’s disagreement is specifically geared towards how we determine the purposes God has given to specific functions. It seems pointless to continue arguing about whether these purposes are important and should be upheld, until we have established what exactly are the purposes of our genitalia and how we know what they are.

I will attempt to respond to some of the disagreement. It seems Jonatello is arguing that while masturbation is obviously not the main purpose of our genitalia, why could it not be a designed lesser purpose?

I think the problem with this idea is that it contradicts the more obvious purposes of our genitalia. Its true that there are multiple purposes at times for different functions of our bodies, but they cannot contradict each other. The normality of man is to always be fertile. Every male orgasm is normally fertile. The act of masturbation is inherently an infertile act and thus contradicts our own nature. If God had designed males as he had females in that every act of orgasm was not related to fertility, then we might draw different conclusions. Does this start to answer your question as to why masturbation is opposed to natural law? Masturbation takes an inherently fertile function and makes it infertile. This is a big part of why its acceptable to bring a woman to orgasm using other means should intercourse not be sufficient.

Also please note that yes, not all male orgasms end up being fertile but they all are in principle or in other words were all designed to be.

For the last few posts, I’ve been trying to gear this conversation back toward contraception primarily. As for masturbation, it does not render a man infertile. As for infertile acts, there are many infertile acts that we partake in. Typing on a computer does not create babies either. These acts don’t however remove a man’s fertility. Neither does a discharge of semen outside of a fertile woman…which is what masturbation, contraception, wet dreams, and NFP all are.

As we know, there was a time among old specifically-agrarian cultures where the semen was viewed just like a seed (a whole tiny microscopic person), the woman no more than a place for it to grow, and thus spilling the seed was thought identical to throwing a little embryo or fetus onto the dirt…thus rendering that seed infertile, leaving it to die (murder) and be wasted.

We now know better than that, we also know sperm never stops replenishing, and we know that if all is well it must regularly find its way out of a man one way or another (continuous generation + limited capacity) and men in those days had wives much closer to the onset of sexual maturity (and a great need for more little hands on deck - no need for condoms/NFP) to make fuller use of that semen build up, thus likely making the “spilling of seed” somewhat less common.

 

[Jonatello]

EWTN has a book chapter on these issues:

contraception does not destroy fertility. it doesn’t make use of fertility, but neither does abstinence, rhythm method, going to the movies, or playing scrabble.

hundreds of years ago, however, people thought it actually DID destroy fertility

its seems obvious that such misconception made its way into religious teaching, and now we’re stuck trying to invent new hairs to split in order to not rescind a misconception about reproduction.

(btw, i’m not particularly FOR contraception, though it may seem like it here…and i’m very open to the possibility of better rationales against it…i actually have my own serious moral/existential qualms about contraception AND nfp)

 

[fix]

contraception does not destroy fertility.

It destroys it for each act where it is used.

Would it be morally acceptable to destroy the unitive aspect for any given act?

it doesn’t make use of fertility, but neither does abstinence, rhythm method, going to the movies, or playing scrabble.

No, it intentionally suppresses fertility. NFP and playing scrabble in no way suppress fertility .

hundreds of years ago, however, people thought it actually DID destroy fertility

Contraception was always seen as immoral. This is not because science was less evolved. It is because the immoral nature of the act was always seen.

its seems obvious that such misconception made its way into religious teaching, and now we’re stuck trying to invent new hairs to split in order to not rescind a misconception about reproduction.

The moral proscription is not based on a scientistic understanding of human acts.

(btw, i’m not particularly FOR contraception, though it may seem like it here…and i’m very open to the possibility of better rationales against it…i actually have my own serious moral/existential qualms about contraception AND nfp)

Have you read the rich and deep Church explanations regarding the intrinsic evil of contraception?

 

[Nate13]

For the last few posts, I’ve been trying to gear this conversation back toward contraception primarily. As for masturbation, it does not render a man infertile. As for infertile acts, there are many infertile acts that we partake in. Typing on a computer does not create babies either. These acts don’t however remove a man’s fertility. Neither does a discharge of semen outside of a fertile woman…which is what masturbation, contraception, wet dreams, and NFP all are.

As we know, there was a time among old specifically-agrarian cultures where the semen was viewed just like a seed (a whole tiny microscopic person), the woman no more than a place for it to grow, and thus spilling the seed was thought identical to throwing a little embryo or fetus onto the dirt…thus rendering that seed infertile, leaving it to die (murder) and be wasted.

We now know better than that, we also know sperm never stops replenishing, and we know that if all is well it must regularly find its way out of a man one way or another (continuous generation + limited capacity) and men in those days had wives much closer to the onset of sexual maturity (and a great need for more little hands on deck - no need for condoms/NFP) to make fuller use of that semen build up, thus likely making the “spilling of seed” somewhat less common.

Contraception, masturbation they both are wrong based on the same principles however contraception brings a woman’s anatomy into the picture. An orgasm for a woman is not related in the same way to her sexuality that an orgasm is for a male’s sexuality.

I think your missing the point I’m trying to make. Yes, we all know now that you don’t have a life until sperm meets egg. The point I’m trying to make is that every male orgasm is geared towards creating new life. Are you trying to dispute that point? Masturbation is an act that is in no way geared towards generating new life. With contraception you could at least claim your putting tab A in slot B. How can you not see how this blatantly contradicts how our bodies were made?

Maybe we should start by establishing the purpose of semen and maybe that will help you get there?

Typing on a computer does not create babies either.

Typing on a computer does not inherently invoke semen every time in principle with the sole purpose of transmitting male fertility. Your analogy isn’t even on the same playing field as what we are talking about. For even further evidence that this act should only be tied to intercourse between a man and a woman we see that the male sperm also act to make a woman more receptive to a man’s DNA, and more likely to not see it as a threat. It also acts to increase the pleasure a woman feels from intercourse. Do you need God to stick up signs that show the way?