Why does Church ask for Celibacy within Marriage?

[YinYangMom]

Mathew George:

I say that mutually complementing sexual experience within marriage, is good in building closeness between couples. I say that Church’s reliance on Natural Law in its teachings is unconvincing, and, therefore, ask for whose sake I or my wife should be making the sacrifice of abstinence.

Ok, maybe I really missed the boat then…

a. what is unconvincing about the Church’s reliance on Natural law?
b. are you asking about permanent sacrifice or temporary?
c. are you asking ‘in general’ under what circumstances a couple may deem to refrain from sex?
d. or are you specifically asking about you and your wife, with your specifice circumstances?

 

[Prometheum_x]

The good of mutual voluntary abstinence is that it avoids the risks associated with sexual intimacy, i.e., a pregnancy that has severe health implications or an inability to provide for another child, etc.

What if the Church agreed to the demands of many and loosened its moral teaching on artificial birth control? Then, presumably, couples in the above situation might resort to ABC to solve their problem. What happens if the ABC fails? No form of birth control is 100% effective. Because the couple insisted on having sexual relations, if the ABC fails they have voluntarily placed themselves in a harmful situation and are fully responsible for the consequences that will occur.

If the risks associated with sexual intimacy are so severe that a couple simply cannot tolerate any level of risk, the only viable choice is complete abstinence for as long as the risk remains.

And I don’t need a Church to tell me that. I don’t even need to think about Natural Law or anything else like that. It’s just plain, common sense.

 

[Mathew_George]

Prometheum_x:

The good of mutual voluntary abstinence is that it avoids the risks associated with sexual intimacy, i.e., a pregnancy that has severe health implications or an inability to provide for another child, etc.

What if the Church agreed to the demands of many and loosened its moral teaching on artificial birth control? Then, presumably, couples in the above situation might resort to ABC to solve their problem. What happens if the ABC fails? No form of birth control is 100% effective. Because the couple insisted on having sexual relations, if the ABC fails they have voluntarily placed themselves in a harmful situation and are fully responsible for the consequences that will occur.

If the risks associated with sexual intimacy are so severe that a couple simply cannot tolerate any level of risk, the only viable choice is complete abstinence for as long as the risk remains.

And I don’t need a Church to tell me that. I don’t even need to think about Natural Law or anything else like that. It’s just plain, common sense.

Sexual intimacy that does not involve intercourse, can be 100% effective against chance of pregnancy, isn’t it? When Church’s teachings against ABC are from the point of view of Natural Law, a debate about NL is relevant, isn’t it?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

You can debate this all you want, but the Church’s teaching is clear, and it really doesn’t matter if we like it or agree.

God has yet to ask my thoughts on His laws, and I don’t see that trend starting. My job is to be obedient and a good and faithful servant.

 

[Mathew_George]

YinYangMom:

Ok, maybe I really missed the boat then…

a. what is unconvincing about the Church’s reliance on Natural law?
b. are you asking about permanent sacrifice or temporary?
c. are you asking ‘in general’ under what circumstances a couple may deem to refrain from sex?
d. or are you specifically asking about you and your wife, with your specifice circumstances?

a. My viewpoint about Church’s stand on Natural Law, is already there in my earlier posts. To summarize, Church’s argument is that Natural Law is ingrained in the conscience of all humans, and that human conscience itself will recognise a violation of it even if the Law is not spelt out in revealed Scriptures. Human conscience by itself will, therefore, be able to see ABC as a violation of Natural Law, the Church says. The point I am debating is, if ABC is indeed a violation of Natural Law, people with good conscience who belong to other religions should also naturally sense it as equally evil as a Catholic does. As this is not the case, my opinion is that, ABC might not be such a grave violation of Natural Law.

b. I am asking about permanent (or indefinite) abstinenace.

c. I do not understand your question. I am seeking a rational argument that would justify the sacrifice of abstinence. In other words, if ABC is not the grave evil… given my arguments about Natural Law, where is the case for abstinence when both spouses are desirous of sexual intimacy?

d. The debate, of course, is meant to be general. It has much less to do with my individual situation.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Mathew George:

a. The point I am debating is, if ABC is indeed a violation of Natural Law, people with good conscience who belong to other religions should also naturally sense it as equally evil as a Catholic does. As this is not the case, my opinion is that, ABC might not be such a grave violation of Natural Law.

that’s the key.

People with good, well-formed conscience’s, do see the problem.

Those who don’t, lack said conscience.

That’s true of any moral tenet the Church espouses. Just because certain people don’t “get it” doesn’t make it incorrect. it means those people haven’t formed the proper conscience yet.

 

[YinYangMom]

Mathew George:

a. My viewpoint about Church’s stand on Natural Law, is already there in my earlier posts. To summarize, Church’s argument is that Natural Law is ingrained in the conscience of all humans, and that human conscience itself will recognise a violation of it even if the Law is not spelt out in revealed Scriptures. Human conscience by itself will, therefore, be able to see ABC as a violation of Natural Law, the Church says. The point I am debating is, if ABC is indeed a violation of Natural Law, people with good conscience who belong to other religions should also naturally sense it as equally evil as a Catholic does. As this is not the case, my opinion is that, ABC might not be such a grave violation of Natural Law.

Oh, ok. That does help clear things up for me…
In my opinion, and based on observations of societies all around us, it appears people with good concsiences are sensing the evil surrounding ABC - they just haven’t connected the dots yet. But the signs are everywhere - they are complaining just as loudly as we are about the sorry state of human relations/social justice, etc…but haven’t put 2 and 2 together to see it starts with the ABC mentality toward human life/dignity.

b. I am asking about permanent (or indefinite) abstinenace.

c. I do not understand your question. I am seeking a rational argument that would justify the sacrifice of abstinence. In other words, if ABC is not the grave evil… given my arguments about Natural Law, where is the case for abstinence when both spouses are desirous of sexual intimacy?.

And I still don’t understand where you’re getting the idea that “abstinence when both spouses are desirous of sexual intimacy” is anything the Church is calling for.

There are some couples who are on such a special spiritual journey together as a couple that they feel called to offer that sacrifice - but that’s a very personal situation and certainly isn’t something the Church asks/requires/demands of married couples.

 

[Mathew_George]

HappyCatholic01:

that’s the key.

People with good, well-formed conscience’s, do see the problem.

Those who don’t, lack said conscience.

That’s true of any moral tenet the Church espouses. Just because certain people don’t “get it” doesn’t make it incorrect. it means those people haven’t formed the proper conscience yet.

You seem to equate well-formed conscience with indoctrinated conscience. These are not the same. Even terrorists and ultra-fundamentalists have an indoctrinated conscience that they interpret as well-formed conscience. If one’s religion or tenet gets an unguarded authority over one’s conscience, the fine line between well-formed conscience and indoctrinated conscience inevitably gets blurred.

The view expressed in your earlier post about ‘blind’ faith in infallible teachings of the Church, is taken in the right spirits. As I mentioned in my original post, I will find it more rational, to believe in an infallibly proclaimed teaching. The premise usually is beyond the comprehension of human intellect, and rather than trying to figure it out in vain, it makes sense to believe in the authority of the Church. Because, infallibly proclaimed teachings of the Church come within its strict frame-work of conditions, and do demand our unquestioning assent.

Teachings on ABC are a problem to me, primarily because the reliance on Natural Law retains the argument within the comprehension of human intellect. Therefore, so long as I cannot find a logical answer, I guess I am within my Catholic limits to question.

 

[Mathew_George]

goofyjim:

My mom told me the story of her parents who are now deceased. I forget whether it was just after her birth or another incident (she wound up being an only child) but they were told they would not be able to safely bear children. From that point on they lived in virtually a brother/sister relationship, meaning abstinence. They were a very devout Irish Catholic couple.

I do not question the nobility of people who bravely embrace the sacrifice of long-term or permanent abstinence. If that is what they believe in, the belief itself will bring them the happiness they search. And, if you believe in abstinence as the only right way, anything else will haunt your conscience. My question merely is, is abstinence a virtue that we were inculcated to believe in, or is it essentially the virtue in those circumstances. If it is the virtue, on what do we base our conviction, if not on the conscience cultivated by Catholic Church?

 

[Mathew_George]

LittleDeb:

One of the first questions I asked myself about people of other religions when I was searching out NFP was why don’t THEY embrace natural law? If continence is natural, then why doesn’t everyone think so. Yes, it should guide and disturb the conscience of all good people. It does. Not all people who embrace periodic abstinence are Catholic.

Why continence at all? Because humans are continent. We spend more time NOT having sex than we do having sex. This is not true for all animals. There are many species whose entire existence is centered on mating. We are not one of them. (I know there are some men who would beg to differ, but thinking is not doing!) Our natural law says that the ratio of having sex to not having sex is heavily weighted towards the not.

So I would ask anyone. Why doesn’t everyone embrace continence? You ask about the influence of indoctrination. That question is applied much better to those who do NOT embrace continence. Since our reproduction is based on sex, we obviously know sex causes babies. We also know sex doesn’t always cause babies, but no sex will not result in babies. Simply stated under natural law: Sex may cause babies. No sex will not cause babies.
It is only because of unnatural developments that current thought is: sex generally doesn’t cause babies. In other words the developments of contraceptions do not change natural law even if people are “indoctrinated” to think so.

In my studies, it is ingrained in our conscience. That is why people who contracept have a 50% divorce rate as apposed to a less than 5% in non-contracepting couples. If you have two couples who agree on everything except contraception, it is still the contracepting couple who has the higher chance of divorce, regardless of religious affiliation.

You refer to one side of Natural Law, I refer to another. As you say, it is nature’s law that sex may cause babies, and abstinence will not cause babies. It is similar to other laws of nature that if you go out in the rain you get wet, or if something falls on your head you get hurt. We routinely change or deflect the effects of laws of nature, for a better quality of life. And, these activities are perfectly licit. Natural Law that the Church is refering to in ABC, is that the procreative law of nature should remain absolutely inviolate, to the extent that each time a deflection is made it is intrincically evil. It is not merely about the way nature works, it is about God’s Law ingrained in all human conscience, and as a corollary of the argument, that any infraction of the Law should disturb all human conscience.

As you righly say, human beings do not act sexually 24-7. Periodic continence, regard for the feelings and well-being of the partner, fear of the consequences of one’s actions, etc. are all part of the laws of nature governing human sexuality. All good human beings respect these laws, regardless of their religion. Where their good conscience differs from ours, is when it comes to our doctrinal positioning that each act of ABC is intrincically evil, without any regard for proportionality. There is no doubt in all human conscience, that the most enriching form of sex is the one that ends in intercourse and without any artificial barriers. But the good conscience of other religions allows for proportionality-considerations, to decide which form of sex is best under the circumstances. And, if they naturally have a clean conscience in doing that, I say it supports my argument that the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law is perhaps too rigorous. And that’s the basis of my argument that, as the Church has an overwhelming influnce on Catholic conscience, our feeling of virtue or guilt in this regard is possibly the result of an inculcated conscience.

You have compared the divorce rates. I have no doubt that people who happily choose non-contraceptive sex and those who are happy about their numerous children, tend to have a more satisfying marital experience. But I wouldn’t want to draw hasty conclusions out of it. As I said, we tend to judge ourselves as virtuous or guilty based on how our conscience is cultivated. People who willingly take the cross of non-contraceptive sex generally have indeed a noble disposition, and they are likely to be more humble in dealing with marital issues. But there are other issues as well that influence divorce rates, such as financial independence, general lowering of moral values, etc. Church’s teachings on ABC is not just because contraceptives add to moral promiscuity. I do not think it holds the view that a consciencious couple who wants to live as good Catholics will become promiscuous, if they are allowed ABC.

 

[YinYangMom]

Mathew George:

As you righly say, human beings do not act sexually 24-7. Periodic continence, regard for the feelings and well-being of the partner, fear of the consequences of one’s actions, etc. are all part of the laws of nature governing human sexuality. All good human beings respect these laws, regardless of their religion. Where their good conscience differs from ours, is when it comes to our doctrinal positioning that each act of ABC is intrincically evil, without any regard for proportionality.

ABC… Artificial Birth Control…artificial…
**that’s **what makes each and every act utilizing this method intrinsically evil. It’s not part of Natural Law.

 

[fix]

Mathew George:

I had some serious questions about Natural Law, and why good conscientious people of other religions do not feel so strongly about contraception as we do. Natural Law, if it is ingrained in the conscience of all people, should also guide and disturb the conscience of all good people, isn’t it? You have not focused on my question, while offering an answer. You suggest that a good Hindu too might embrace continence to protect his wife from pregnancy, while not addressing our basic point of debate, viz. why continence at all?

1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[fix]

Mathew George:

Natural Law that the Church is refering to in ABC, is that the procreative law of nature should remain absolutely inviolate, to the extent that each time a deflection is made it is intrincically evil. It is not merely about the way nature works, it is about God’s Law ingrained in all human conscience, and as a corollary of the argument, that any infraction of the Law should disturb all human conscience.

All good human beings respect these laws, regardless of their religion. Where their good conscience differs from ours, is when it comes to our doctrinal positioning that each act of ABC is intrincically evil, without any regard for proportionality. There is no doubt in all human conscience, that the most enriching form of sex is the one that ends in intercourse and without any artificial barriers. But the good conscience of other religions allows for proportionality-considerations, to decide which form of sex is best under the circumstances. And, if they naturally have a clean conscience in doing that, I say it supports my argument that the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law is perhaps too rigorous. And that’s the basis of my argument that, as the Church has an overwhelming influnce on Catholic conscience, our feeling of virtue or guilt in this regard is possibly the result of an inculcated conscience.

That others are in serious error does not mean the Church has it wrong. The grasping of natural law may be clouded by many things including unrepentent sin.

Was it Augustine who said sin darkens the intellect and dulls the conscience?

 

[mercygate]

Mathew George:

You refer to one side of Natural Law, I refer to another. As you say, it is nature’s law that sex may cause babies, and abstinence will not cause babies. It is similar to other laws of nature that if you go out in the rain you get wet, or if something falls on your head you get hurt. We routinely change or deflect the effects of laws of nature, for a better quality of life.

But ABC denies all life. The “quality” clause is a distraction in this case. Since life is intrinsically good, ABC thwarts an intrinsic good.

And, these activities are perfectly licit. Natural Law that the Church is refering to in ABC, is that the procreative law of nature should remain absolutely inviolate, to the extent that each time a deflection is made it is intrincically evil. It is not merely about the way nature works, it is about God’s Law ingrained in all human conscience, and as a corollary of the argument, that any infraction of the Law should disturb all human conscience.

I do not understand this statement.

As you righly say, human beings do not act sexually 24-7. Periodic continence, regard for the feelings and well-being of the partner, fear of the consequences of one’s actions, etc. are all part of the laws of nature governing human sexuality.

Actually, these are moral and social considerations, not “natural” considerations.

All good human beings respect these laws, regardless of their religion. Where their good conscience differs from ours, is when it comes to our doctrinal positioning that each act of ABC is intrincically evil, without any regard for proportionality.

A conscience which is formed in opposition to moral law cannot be called “good.” It might be called “innocent” and judged at a lower degree of culpability, but it cannot be called “good.” Check out St. Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans on the linkage between idolatry and unnatural sexual acts.

There is no doubt in all human conscience, that the most enriching form of sex is the one that ends in intercourse and without any artificial barriers. But the good conscience of other religions allows for proportionality-considerations, to decide which form of sex is best under the circumstances. And, if they naturally have a clean conscience in doing that, I say it supports my argument that the Church’s interpretation of Natural Law is perhaps too rigorous.

The blue sentence does not track conceptually. The best you can say is that their conscience is unformed. Again, according to Paul, there is “no excuse.”

And that’s the basis of my argument that, as the Church has an overwhelming influnce on Catholic conscience, our feeling of virtue or guilt in this regard is possibly the result of an inculcated conscience.

Thanks be to God. That is the idea of teaching. We pass on the faith through teaching. I do not understand why you present that as if it were some kind of problem.

. . . . Church’s teachings on ABC is not just because contraceptives add to moral promiscuity. I do not think it holds the view that a consciencious couple who wants to live as good Catholics will become promiscuous, if they are allowed ABC.

If I understand you, I would agree. But an individual couple’s promiscuity is a red herring. Such a couple is committing their very own sin in contracepting. The observation on promiscuity applies across societies. And in that regard Humanae Vitae can be considered a prophetic document.

 

[JimO]

JimO:

I re-read your post and have a couple of questions for clarification. Your example doesn’t make sense, as I stated before, because your example wouldn’t involve permanent abstinence. Second, there are no artificial birth control methods that “avoid any chance of pregnancy”, thus, your only option is sterilization and yet you refer to the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control and not sterilization.

Could you clarify your example?

Matthew,

You have ignored both of my posts wherein I requested clarification on your example. Please read my previous post (above) and respond. Otherwise I have to assume that this isn’t a real-life example and that you are simply trying to reinforce your own rejection of Church teaching.

NFP has been shown to be as effective or more effective in preventing pregnancy than all methods of ABC other than sterilization; therefore, unless you are considering sterilization, there is an equal or higher “risk” of pregnancy with ABC than NFP.

 

[Mathew_George]

JimO:

Matthew,

You have ignored both of my posts wherein I requested clarification on your example. Please read my previous post (above) and respond. Otherwise I have to assume that this isn’t a real-life example and that you are simply trying to reinforce your own rejection of Church teaching.

NFP has been shown to be as effective or more effective in preventing pregnancy than all methods of ABC other than sterilization; therefore, unless you are considering sterilization, there is an equal or higher “risk” of pregnancy with ABC than NFP.

My intention was not to ignore you. I thought I had answered your point about the degree of safety of ABC, as reply to another similar query. I meant any method of sexual intimacy that does not involve sexual intercourse. To your point about the length of abstinence, let’s say there is no sure way to know. Let me call it a few years to indefinite, at this time.