|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Popery and condoms and gigolos
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.
Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child.
It's not billed as providing any act of sex that is prevented from generating a child, nor as changing the manner of the act of intercourse, so it's billing doesn't contradict the teaching at all.
At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.
[ 23. November 2010, 21:12: Message edited by: coniunx ]
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
I don't engineer the timing of any one act of intercourse: either it takes place, or it doesn't. It's not the same act if it takes place at a different time, because my wife and I aren't machines; we are people, and we are never the same at two different times.
OK now I get the sophistry that allows this. It rests on the idea that a couple would have sex say four times per month on average - but on using NFP they have sex twice per month. Therefore the timing has not changed, but two acts of sex have been forgone.
I wonder if anyone keeps tabs on frequency to be sure about that? For instance if they had sex 4 times during the non-fertile period, that would be cheating.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
But somehow using a condom, which they claim is even more likely to result in a pregnancy, intrinsically changes this because you're somehow avoiding pregnancy differently? Makes no damn sense.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"Benedict's comments about condoms and HIV essentially means the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging that its long-held, anti-birth control stance against condoms doesn't justify putting someone's life at risk. 'This is a game-changer,' said the Rev. Jim Martin, a Jesuit editor and writer." ...
"The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi,...said 'I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine,... He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship.'"
article on clarifications from the Pope
The specific discussion is HIV/AIDS, and apparently the Pope has clarified that it applies to sex with either male or female. I can't help wondering why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to sex that may be deadly in a way other than AIDS. It may be rare that another pregancy is likely to kill the woman, but the situation happens.
I never thought I would be saying this. But if that summary of why he's saying what he is is fair and accurate then three cheers for Pope Benedict! If the game is really changing in the way indicated then I can't say I'll be a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. But they will have at one stroke simultaneously removed their teaching, the consequences of which are vile (I am not exaggerating in the slightest when I compare it to human sacrifice - the making of others die for your purity rules) and demonstrated that when they are categorically wrong they are prepared to change if slowly. Which would move the Roman Catholic Church out of the category containing anti-vaccination campaigners and into that of honourable opposition.
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
It's not billed as providing any act of sex that is prevented from generating a child, nor as changing the manner of the act of intercourse, so it's billing doesn't contradict the teaching at all.
At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.
Fine. In which case every single method of contraception in existance except abstinance should be legal under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church because they all have a failure rate. And the nature of the act itself is unchanged by e.g. the Pill. It is simply that it becomes very unlikely for there to be conception. Which is precisely what NFP claims.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Whether the means used to track them are artificial or not, what is natural is the fertility cycle itself, and it's respecting that aspect of human nature which defines the methods as natural.
Which would be more convincing if the Church were more consistent in its "respect" for aspects of human nature. For example, most Catholic hosptitals will ruthlessly disrespect the natural state of their patient's immune systems, ruthlessly and artificially stimulating them with vaccines. While most sane people regard this as a tremendously good thing, it certainly isn't consistent with the position that the natural state of the human body must be "respected" by not altering it.
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.
. . . which is complete and utter bullshit. We're expected to believe that if a woman has a tubal ligation (a Catholic no-no) she has completely changed "the nature of the [sexual] act itself", but that a woman who has a hysterectomy to prevent the spread of cancer (which is okay by the Vatican) has not?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Reminds me of the surgeon's notes on an operation report I read as a student: the 35 year old Catholic mother of 4 had had an abdominal hysterectomy and in the "pathology found" section the surgeon had written "Menorrhagia and desire for sterilisation".
That was one helluva big deal compared to a tubal ligation-and irreversible to boot.
m
--------------------
quod scripsi, scripsi
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
NFP natural? - no way!
I can't think of anything MORE intrusive, off putting and unnatural to lovemaking than having to time it. We were very infertile and had to do NFP and all the temperature and maths stuff in order to try to conceive - it was awful.
[ 24. November 2010, 05:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
I agree with Justinian though, thanks to the extremely high levels of HIV infection caused by the previous Mbeki Government's criminal lack of response to the problem, the use of condoms as prophylactics has long been advocated by Catholic Health Agencies.
In this instance it was certain myths relating to HIV/AIDS, the reluctance to provide antiretrovirals as they were considered poisonous when traditional African medicines would be more effective and criminal neglect by the government, not the so-called Catholic Purity Laws that caused the problem to escalate.
I would imagine it is only the lunatic fringe of the RCC who would disagree with this...along with those who see HIV/AIDS as "God's Punishment" for any number of reasons.
[ 24. November 2010, 08:13: Message edited by: Fuzzipeg ]
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Another thought: Further up the thread I was chastised for my inability to control myself. The parrallel of controlling myself to avoid marital rape was suggested.
Well, if abstinence is such a trivial hurdle, why bother with NFP at all? Why not simply abstain completely until a child is actually desired? Then one would be truly open to the procreative potential. Wouldn't that be better?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Thanks, Mdijon. That makes life much simpler and everything easier to understand. Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Actually, the other approach is to just have the children early. They seem pretty good at enforcing abstinence to me. (How anyone manages to get pregnant after the 2nd child is beyond me).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems to me that if NFP is timing drum playing for when I'm out of the house, contraception would be fitting a muffler to the drum to stop the sound carrying.
Yes, that was basically my point.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's the moral distinction between those two that I'm struggling with.
It would be equivalent to saying "If you are going to play drums, play drums like they are meant to be played: loud and proud." However, I completely agree that this is the point that should be discussed. Is it (morally) important that the sexual act remain "ordered to procreation"? Unfortunately, this point gets lost since most people are not getting what this means in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is where I still don't get it. Why are all those artifices illicit, but the artifice of timing licit? And I'm doubly confused now by the suggestion that the artifice of timing becomes illicit if it is used for too long without "serious" cause.
You've answered your first question yourself. The other methods are not licit, because they do not result in the drums of sex being played loudly. There are two considerations: playing drums loudly ("ordering the act to procreation") and avoiding hassle from the police ("avoiding actual procreation"). Only NFP does both by virtue of timing.
The problem with using timing "too much" is not that the act itself is affected. The problem there is different, though related. Namely, you are supposed to enter Catholic marriage actually being open to procreation. You should want some kids, that's one of the overall "aims" of this sacrament. If you are using NFP to completely abolish all chances of offspring ever, then you are not causing a problem with any of the individual sexual acts, you are causing a problem with one of the overarching points of the sacrament of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Ingob, that does not make sense. If the intention is to avoid pregnancy then that is the intention no matter what method is used. No-one in their right mind intends avoiding pregnancy and leaves open the possibility of conception knowingly.
OK. Now try reading what I actually wrote. Hint: read the first paragraph, and pay close attention to the words put in bold. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Any attempt to avoid intercourse during a woman's period of high fertility is completely contrary to the law of nature....dare I say natural law!
Without any doubt is the timing "artificial". However, that is not the relevant "naturalness". This timing artifice relates to the end and the intentions for it. And as I've stated above, the goal of spacing children appropriately is good. An artifice that achieves good is good. The question is whether the nature of the sexual act is preserved. The problem is that there are more subtle ways of messing with it than withdrawal before ejaculation. But in the end it boils down to this: You are free to decide when you want to have sex. You are (according to the RCC) responsible for performing the sexual act in a "child-making manner" (not: such that a child will actually come of it). That's it. Given these two statements, NFP is OK (it uses the freedom of timing to perform "proper" sex when no offspring is likely to result, for reasons not otherwise under one's control), artificial contraception is not OK (one is not performing the act "properly", or adding other acts that prevent it from continuing as it would, thereby becoming responsible for its ultimate failure).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As I explained previously, I think you (and Chesterbelloc) are straining to create a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" which doesn't really exist.
OK. You clearly did not understand what I wrote. Can you please go back and read my previous post again? The point is one of responsibility, not of artifice. We are not responsible for how nature is, God is responsible for that. Making use of how nature is, by "artifice", is not a problem. If I sow my crops at the right time of the year to have them grow healthily, I do not become responsible for the seasons. We are responsible for what we do to change nature though. If I grow my crops under artificial light with hydroponics, then I am responsible if they taste crap. If the summer was rainy and the crops were rotting on the fields, then I am not. I did "my bit" right. The question is then what "my bit" is that I actually have to get right in having sex. If I get that right, and if I then use the "artifice" of using my observations of nature to time sex as to achieve a good end (spacing kids), then that is good and "natural" in the sense of having done what I should do and having made use of how nature is rather than trying to change it.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child. Either it's a massive deception or it doesn't fit (your summary of) the Catholic Church's stated criteria for illicit contraception.
The rocket science of sex... NFP is about having sex in a child-making manner, just not on days that happen to be good for child-making. Whereas artificial contraception (including stuff like withdrawal under the label) is either about having sex in a "non-child-making manner" in the first place, or about "doing something that disturbs the child-making ability at the time of having sex".
I'm responsible for: "having sex in a child-making manner". I'm not responsible for "the existence of days that are no good for child-making". I am responsible for "having child-making sex on days that are no good for child-making". However, my end there is good (spacing of children) as is my object (I bonk the right way), so that's fine. If I bonk in the wrong way, e.g., by withdrawing before ejaculation, then I'm responsible for that. If I arrange circumstances so that the days when I want to bonk are no good for child-making, then I am also responsible for these changes made to how things are. I am not allowed to do the latter two contra child-making.
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm merely hoping that the distinction itself becomes clear, and indeed, is shown to be a valid one "logically". My analogy to drumming given above was rather clear, I thought.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
mdijon, abstinence until children are desired is a very Catholic notion ( the so-called "Josephite marriage except in that case it is presumed that no further children were desired after that conceived of the Holy Ghost). As far as I ma aware the only other sect which enforces that rule is the Hare Krishna, which might explain the drop-out rate from that particular cult.
As for children being hr ultimate contraceptive-too bloody right!
Chronic sleep deprivation and the sheer hard yakka of rearing a family ( Dad earning and Mum slogging away at home especially if the family is run on "traditional" lines) means that the average couple goes to bed to sleep.
Trouble is, slip-ups d occur between sleeping and waking....
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
do not result in the drums of sex being played loudly. There are two considerations: playing drums loudly ("ordering the act to procreation") and avoiding hassle from the police ("avoiding actual procreation"). Only NFP does both by virtue of timing.
No it doesn't - far from it. It takes out the best in being 'loud and proud' ie Spontaneity. As I said, I've tried it and it sucks.
Using good contaception is like moving to a detached house with large grounds where you can play the drums as loudly and often as you both damn well please.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not responsible for "the existence of days that are no good for child-making". I am responsible for "having child-making sex on days that are no good for child-making".... If I arrange circumstances so that the days when I want to bonk are no good for child-making, then I am also responsible for these changes made to how things are. I am not allowed to do the latter two contra child-making.
So to paraphrase, you see NFP as enabling one to not have sex during certain periods, not as a way of changing the timing of sex?
Hence the answer to our question about "isn't timing just an artifice like latex is?" is answered "it would be, but NFP isn't about changing the timing, it's about not having sex during a fertile period".
But it seems to me the weakness of that argument is that it's very likely that a couple will have more sex during the non-fertile period than they otherwise would have, so they have altered the timing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
Trouble is, slip-ups d occur between sleeping and waking....
Not if waking is usually a result of noisy unrest in the next bedroom along.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I would imagine it is only the lunatic fringe of the RCC who would disagree with this...along with those who see HIV/AIDS as "God's Punishment" for any number of reasons.
I wish you were right here. Unfortunately even HIV/AIDS being God's Punishment is apparently not the lunatic fringe of the Roman Catholic Church - unless the lunatic fringe includes even recently appointed Archbishops such as André-Joseph Léonard of Belgium. Admittedly he explicitely rejects the idea that HIV/AIDS is God's Punishment, instead claiming that "this epidemic is sort of intrinsic justice, not at all a punishment." If an Archbishop appointed this year by Pope Benedict himself counts as the lunatic fringe then the Vatican is actively encouraging the lunatic fringe.
And on condoms, it's not the lunatic fringe either. The teaching of the RCC is that contraception is a mortal sin. And hell so skews any moral impulses (by being such an unpleasant place that the only person who deserves to end up there is the Judge) that unless you are actually in the presence of the suffering caused it's relatively easy to make the wrong call. Unless the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church become explicitely the way I outline above anyway.
I wish your imagination was the truth. Unfortunately I've met too many devout Catholics who are not obviously on the lunatic fringe to be able to believe that.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Another thought: Further up the thread I was chastised for my inability to control myself. The parrallel of controlling myself to avoid marital rape was suggested.
Well, if abstinence is such a trivial hurdle, why bother with NFP at all? Why not simply abstain completely until a child is actually desired? Then one would be truly open to the procreative potential. Wouldn't that be better?
No, it would be worse. Sex is a good thing in marriage, as long as it is proper sex (which manes it's expressing the procreative and unitive meanings of marriage).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Whether the means used to track them are artificial or not, what is natural is the fertility cycle itself, and it's respecting that aspect of human nature which defines the methods as natural.
Which would be more convincing if the Church were more consistent in its "respect" for aspects of human nature. For example, most Catholic hospitals will ruthlessly disrespect the natural state of their patient's immune systems, ruthlessly and artificially stimulating them with vaccines. While most sane people regard this as a tremendously good thing, it certainly isn't consistent with the position that the natural state of the human body must be "respected" by not altering it.
Which might be a neat answer if it wasn't a straw man, yet again.
There's nothing about disease which is a natural reflection of the nature of God. There is everything about sex which is a reflection of the nature of God.
At the risk of being accused again of failing to recognise that other contributor to this thread are intelligent and well-meaning, I really fail to see how anyone intelligent and well meaning can fail to spot that basic difference.
quote:
Crœsos: quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
At any time that a couple using NFP make love, they do so in a manner which could lead to the gift of a child; they know that at some times it's very likely to do so, and at other times it's impossible that it would do so. But the manner in which they make love, and the nature of the act itself, are unchanged.
. . . which is complete and utter bullshit. We're expected to believe that if a woman has a tubal ligation (a Catholic no-no) she has completely changed "the nature of the [sexual] act itself", but that a woman who has a hysterectomy to prevent the spread of cancer (which is okay by the Vatican) has not?
That's entirely right, yes. Do you really not understand the difference between dealing with the side effects of a major operation required for medical reasons and deliberately changing one's body so that it doesn't function?
Your whole approach seems to be that people are machines; that the nature of the person, body and soul, is irrelevant, and that all that matters is the physical state of the individual; in the same way as elsewhere it is being argued that you can change the timing of an act of intercourse (as though we were not people who change, develop, and relate).
That's a depersonalisation of the nature of sex and the nature of marriage which I ardently hope and believe the Catholic Church will never stand for, however hard people may argue for it.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So to paraphrase, you see NFP as enabling one to not have sex during certain periods, not as a way of changing the timing of sex?
Hence the answer to our question about "isn't timing just an artifice like latex is?" is answered "it would be, but NFP isn't about changing the timing, it's about not having sex during a fertile period".
But it seems to me the weakness of that argument is that it's very likely that a couple will have more sex during the non-fertile period than they otherwise would have, so they have altered the timing.
Well, indeed, and it's backed up by statistics indicating that NFP users have rather more frequent intercourse than contraceptive users.
But again you take the line that you can somehow move an act of intercourse in time, as though it's the same act; but it's not; it can't be.
Sex is an expression, a communication; it's never the same because the people concerned are never the same. Isn't that the experience of all married people?
I must say I'd always assumed it was; from the way people here seem to be arguing otherwise (or at least basing their arguments on the assumption that sex can somehow be the same at different times), though, I'm beginning to wonder if we NFP users are actually even more blessed in our experience of our marriages and their sexual expression than I'd ever realised.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
...I'm beginning to wonder if we NFP users are actually even more blessed in our experience of our marriages and their sexual expression than I'd ever realised.
Or just more deluded and more smug.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Sex is an expression, a communication; it's never the same because the people concerned are never the same.
I maintain this is sophistry. Although it's true in a sense, if we postpone a meeting from Monday to Thursday, it is true that the meeting on Thursday can't possibly be an exact replica of the meeting we would have had on Monday. Nevertheless if I insisted that, rather than postponing the meeting, in fact we'd simply cancelled a meeting on Monday and then booked a different one on Thursday, you'd be suspicious that I had an ulterior motive. That for some reason, I was trying to pretend that a meeting hadn't been moved for the purposes of appearances only.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well, if abstinence is such a trivial hurdle, why bother with NFP at all? Why not simply abstain completely until a child is actually desired? Then one would be truly open to the procreative potential. Wouldn't that be better?
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
No, it would be worse. Sex is a good thing in marriage, as long as it is proper sex (which manes it's expressing the procreative and unitive meanings of marriage).
Why is waiting 2wks morally different from waiting 2yrs?
[ 24. November 2010, 19:53: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well, if abstinence is such a trivial hurdle, why bother with NFP at all? Why not simply abstain completely until a child is actually desired? Then one would be truly open to the procreative potential. Wouldn't that be better?
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
No, it would be worse. Sex is a good thing in marriage, as long as it is proper sex (which manes it's expressing the procreative and unitive meanings of marriage).
Why is waiting 2wks morally different from waiting 2yrs?
Personally I'd say two years is so long that it would be a real hardship in marriage; whereas there is a cycle to a woman's (and therefore a couple's) fertility which is short enough for a pattern of some abstinence and a lot of non-abstinence to work really well; there's plenty of the 'good' in a time-scale which is very natural, and God made us that way.
But if you were to believe that a two-year period of abstinence was an experience which really built up your marriage, and enabled you to communicate well, and to grow in intimacy; well, it might work for you. I think that would be an unusual situation, though, and forgoing one of the goods of marriage for that long would have to something very carefully and prayerfully considered.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Personally I'd say two years is so long that it would be a real hardship in marriage; whereas there is a cycle to a woman's (and therefore a couple's) fertility which is short enough for a pattern of some abstinence and a lot of non-abstinence to work really well
So the morality of waiting 2wks vs 2 years comes down to personal opinion regarding how long is too long to wait? And, based on what you said earlier, do I take it that being denied sex for 2 years is justification for rape? On the other hand, if we can be expected to avoid rape after 2 years why is abstinence for 2 years such an issue?
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
there's plenty of the 'good' in a time-scale which is very natural, and God made us that way.
You're suggesting that God made us fit for 2wk abstinence cycles but not for 2yr cycles? On what basis?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Sex is an expression, a communication; it's never the same because the people concerned are never the same.
I maintain this is sophistry. Although it's true in a sense, if we postpone a meeting from Monday to Thursday, it is true that the meeting on Thursday can't possibly be an exact replica of the meeting we would have had on Monday.
Maintain away, if you like: it's your choice what arguments you label as sophistry. I maintain you are completely wrong.
And whilst I've had a lot of meetings in my time, I wouldn't say that any one of them had come anywhere near the personal nature of intercourse: it's in a different class of relationship.
Sex isn't about business, or about solving problems, or about gathering opinions; it's about total self-gift, and I can only ever give myself as I am now, not as I was a week ago or will be next week.
I'd rather have a 'sophistry' which places that degree of value on self-gift, than an approach which places sex on the same level as a meeting (or pretty well any other human experience).
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Personally I'd say two years is so long that it would be a real hardship in marriage; whereas there is a cycle to a woman's (and therefore a couple's) fertility which is short enough for a pattern of some abstinence and a lot of non-abstinence to work really well
So the morality of waiting 2wks vs 2 years comes down to personal opinion regarding how long is too long to wait? And, based on what you said earlier, do I take it that being denied sex for 2 years is justification for rape? On the other hand, if we can be expected to avoid rape after 2 years why is abstinence for 2 years such an issue?
I'm not making any rules: it's up to you how long you think abstinence is good in a relationship. I'm saying that avoiding the good of intercourse in marriage without good reason is not a good thing, so not moral; if your relationship is one in which that period of abstinence is a good thing, or is required by something important enough to make it worthwhile, then it's up to you to decide. But you can't conclude from any one term that any other term is good.
[Note that my original comment was about whether complete abstinence until a child was desired was a good thing. That's often more than two years. Leaving a marriage unconsummated until a child is desired would both mean avoiding one of the purposes of sex (the unitive purpose) which is scarcely something to be excluded from an early marriage in particular; it could even mean a denial of the unitive meaning of sex, which is just as bad as denying the procreative meaning. You brought in the 'two years' later].
quote:
mdijon quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
there's plenty of the 'good' in a time-scale which is very natural, and God made us that way.
You're suggesting that God made us fit for 2wk abstinence cycles but not for 2yr cycles? On what basis?
On the basis that he created us male and female, and that the fertility cycle he also created for us runs (roughly) on a monthly basis, with a time of fertility which is usually something under two weeks. I tend to think he knew what he was doing; don't you?
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
So to paraphrase, you see NFP as enabling one to not have sex during certain periods, not as a way of changing the timing of sex?
Er, what? I'm sorry, but while I'm not even sure what you mean, I'm pretty sure it's not what I meant. NFP is quite obviously highly "artificial" timing of sex to achieve an unequivocal purpose, namely usually the avoidance of procreation (sometimes it's the opposite). The whole point of what I've written is that nevertheless NFP is clearly different from "artificial contraception", and as it happens, morally licit because it is.
As for the greatness or not of "sex with NFP", frankly I think both Boogie (who says its terrible) and coniunx (who says its fantastic) are just talking nonsense. I assume Boogie has a better excuse, having employed NFP exclusively in a high stress situation. However, I seriously wonder if coniunx actually has used NFP, he (she?) sounds way too much like the advertising brochure... It comes closer to the "average truth" that people will experience sex under the NFP regime as good, bad, and anything in between. Between husband and wife, it mostly becomes a habitual matter, which is again both good and bad (the number of earth-shattering events goes down, but sex being relaxed-normal is actually quite nice).
If you ask me, I'd rather do without NFP. On balance, the negative sides are stronger than the positive sides for me. For example, having sex during the infertile times can have simple mechanical consequences. To avoid "piston jamming" some extra oil may be required... However, NFP certainly is a lot better than sex with condoms (details too NSFW). And these days I'm Catholic, so ideology has followed reality. Nevertheless, when it sounds like people should use NFP for the sheer fun of it, my bullshit detector goes into overdrive.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm pretty sure it's not what I meant. NFP is quite obviously highly "artificial" timing of sex to achieve an unequivocal purpose, namely usually the avoidance of procreation (sometimes it's the opposite). The whole point of what I've written is that nevertheless NFP is clearly different from "artificial contraception", and as it happens, morally licit because it is.
You're right, I was getting your view and Coniunx's view mixed up. It seems you have slightly different ways of arguing that NFP is different from artificial contraception, and I have to admit I'm still not completely sure about the details of them. I'll have another read through later.
But you've given me a chuckle with the rest of your post anyway.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE] However, I seriously wonder if coniunx actually has used NFP
I've both used it and taught it (with my wife, of course) for very nearly 30 years now.
And we've worked with people who have used it both to avoid pregnancy and to achieve it: certainly using it to achieve pregnancy is much more stressful, and is very much harder; but then it does often work and the results tend to be worthwhile.
Very few of the couples we've taught (and we are still in touch with very many of them) have been anything less than very happy with it, though; perhaps it's just that we always teach completely in the context of a Catholic understanding of marital sexuality, which sees it as a joy and a sacrament. That knowledge is just as important as the technical details.
In fact, I know that couples we've taught with a view to achieving pregnancy have continued to use NFP even once their fertility issues were treated and sorted out; and that's not only Catholic couples.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
In fact, I know that couples we've taught with a view to achieving pregnancy have continued to use NFP even once their fertility issues were treated and sorted out; and that's not only Catholic couples.
That sounds really weird.
"We so liked missing out the 2wks infertile period that now we have children we'd like to keep missing 2wks out - granted it will be a different 2wks, but the end result is the same - that all important rush when we finally hit the sack after waiting 2wks. It makes it all seem worth it."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
In fact, I know that couples we've taught with a view to achieving pregnancy have continued to use NFP even once their fertility issues were treated and sorted out; and that's not only Catholic couples.
That sounds really weird.
"We so liked missing out the 2wks infertile period that now we have children we'd like to keep missing 2wks out - granted it will be a different 2wks, but the end result is the same - that all important rush when we finally hit the sack after waiting 2wks. It makes it all seem worth it."
If it's possible that some of us find NFP positive in a marital relationship, as some of us certainly do, why should people who learn this for reasons which are not originally to do with avoiding conception not decide that it's good for them too?
Oh, wait, are you under the impression that because a couple has difficulty conceiving at one stage of their lives, that means they will always have that difficulty? It isn't so; in quite a lot of cases the difficulty is something which can be dealt with nutritionally, for example, and that's long term.
But that sort of simplistic thinking might fit better with your rather weird calculations, which are clearly not based on any knowledge of fertility.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
In fact, I know that couples we've taught with a view to achieving pregnancy have continued to use NFP even once their fertility issues were treated and sorted out; and that's not only Catholic couples.
That sounds really weird.
"We so liked missing out the 2wks infertile period that now we have children we'd like to keep missing 2wks out - granted it will be a different 2wks, but the end result is the same - that all important rush when we finally hit the sack after waiting 2wks. It makes it all seem worth it."
If it's possible that some of us find NFP positive in a marital relationship, as some of us certainly do, why shouldn't people who learn this for reasons which are not originally to do with avoiding conception decide that it's good for them too?
Oh, wait, are you under the impression that because a couple has difficulty conceiving at one stage of their lives, that means they will always have that difficulty? It isn't so; in quite a lot of cases the difficulty is something which can be dealt with nutritionally, for example, and that's long term.
But that sort of simplistic thinking might fit better with your rather weird calculations, which are clearly not based on any knowledge of fertility.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
Sorry about the formatting on that last one - for some reason I was getting flood control interfering with editing, and by the time it decided not to interfere the time to edit had passed.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
It isn't so; in quite a lot of cases the difficulty is something which can be dealt with nutritionally, for example, and that's long term.
You don't go in for some kind of hand-waving unevidenced view of nutrition and infertility along with the other hocus-pocus sexual "more blessed than you thought" wonders you ascribe to NFP do you? What is this, zinc supplements or co-enzyme Q?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
It isn't so; in quite a lot of cases the difficulty is something which can be dealt with nutritionally, for example, and that's long term.
You don't go in for some kind of hand-waving unevidenced view of nutrition and infertility along with the other hocus-pocus sexual "more blessed than you thought" wonders you ascribe to NFP do you? What is this, zinc supplements or co-enzyme Q?
We'd always refer to a qualified nutritionist, or a GP if the situation is more complex, but there are some conditions which affect fertility and are fairly immediately obvious from a chart. If the cervical mucus is inadequate, or the luteal phase of the cycle is very short, for example, then susteained pregnancy isn't going to happen, and both of those are influenced by nutrition. But things like that are suprisingly common.
However, I doubt that a little bit of the science is going to influence your views now: you're langauge makes it clear you're simply totally prejudiced against all this, and will refuse to believe that anything can come of it. So much for good faith.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
However, I doubt that a little bit of the science is going to influence your views now
You could cut the irony with a hacksaw. Try me, I'm usually susceptible to data. I say it is exceedingly rare to find a nutritional problem associated with infertility in the UK outside of anorexia.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
However, I doubt that a little bit of the science is going to influence your views now
You could cut the irony with a hacksaw. Try me, I'm usually susceptible to data. I say it is exceedingly rare to find a nutritional problem associated with infertility in the UK outside of anorexia.
OK; just a couple of examples.
- Low thyroid function can lead to a reduced luteal phase in a fertility cycle, making it impossible for implantation to take place. Whilst not all hypothyroidism can be dealt with through nutrition, some can.
- Vitamins A and C at the wrong levels can result in a reduction in the production of cervical mucus, without which sperm survival and transport is drastically reduced or eliminated. Addressing the dietary imbalance will usually resolve the problem.
Of course, fertility problems are often only one of a variety of less evident but still adverse effects of such nutritional issues; so once people have improved their diet they tend to prefer to stay with it, so the fertility problem is solved permanently.
We've dealt with couples who have been trying to conceive for up to three years before we met them, and have conceived in two months after making changes to diet; and the majority of couples with fertility problems (and I wouldn't put anyone in that category until they had been unsucessful in achieving pregnancy for at least six months and probably a year) whom we've dealt with now have families by natural means.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- Low thyroid function can lead to a reduced luteal phase in a fertility cycle, making it impossible for implantation to take place. Whilst not all hypothyroidism can be dealt with through nutrition, some can.
Low thyroid function is very rarely the result of nutritional problems in the Western world, due to iodine supplementation.
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Vitamins A and C at the wrong levels can result in a reduction in the production of cervical mucus, without which sperm survival and transport is drastically reduced or eliminated.
Vitamin A and C deficiency virtually never occurs in the West either. And how you would tell that is the cause in an individual case is beyond me anyway.
Is this all determined by a battery of blood tests?
This all sounds very pseudo-science still.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- Low thyroid function can lead to a reduced luteal phase in a fertility cycle, making it impossible for implantation to take place. Whilst not all hypothyroidism can be dealt with through nutrition, some can.
Low thyroid function is very rarely the result of nutritional problems in the Western world, due to iodine supplementation.
That's not our experience, and it surely depends exactly where in the western world you are. The US and Canada, apparently, routinely iodise salt; most UK salt is not iodised (and where it does it's at a far lower level). Here in the UK, someone who doesn't eat fish and drinks little milk may well have a fairly low iodine diet if they don't specifically seek out iodised salt.
quote:
quote:
Vitamins A and C at the wrong levels can result in a reduction in the production of cervical mucus, without which sperm survival and transport is drastically reduced or eliminated.
Vitamin A and C deficiency virtually never occurs in the West either. And how you would tell that is the cause in an individual case is beyond me anyway.
Vitamin C deficiency isn't the problem.
quote:
Is this all determined by a battery of blood tests?
This all sounds very pseudo-science still.
Well, as I say, we hand this off to qualified nutritionists and doctors, with an indication based on fertility charts of where we see the likely issues; we're not qualified in those areas ourselves and can't prescribe. They do the tests and diagnosis, and that's what they come up with.
If you regard UK medical practitioners as pseudo-scientific, then I guess that's about on a par with regarding experience of NFP by long-term users as 'hocus pocus' - rather insulting, of course, but presumably you're convinced you know better.
As a matter of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in this field?
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
We've dealt with couples who have been trying to conceive for up to three years before we met them, and have conceived in two months after making changes to diet; and the majority of couples with fertility problems (and I wouldn't put anyone in that category until they had been unsucessful in achieving pregnancy for at least six months and probably a year) whom we've dealt with now have families by natural means.
RE: DIET
Presumably, then, the menu at Ronnie D's (or other immediate calorie-boost fast foods - see mousethief's remarks, passim these boards, wrt the lack of fresh veg at 7-11s in poor neighbourhoods) the necessary diet of the poor, who breed like bunnies for benefits, according to Howard Flight, contains all the requisite nutrients needed for successful fertilization and gestation.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
As a matter of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in this field?
Actually, I must admit I've gone off the rails in my recent exchanges with you. The truth is that I'm not helping anyone much and not being very constructive. You annoyed me to start with by suggesting my problems abstaining could be usefully likened to my need to avoid raping my wife from time to time. I also worked some time ago that your view of NFP-sexual-fulfilment was a bit magical and unrealistic. I then wanted the further satisfaction of demonstrating that you didn't know what you were talking about in one particular area.
But it's pointless. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, and the fact is that even if I can demonstrate that, there are people who do understand biology and medicine very well and nevertheless support the Catholic Church's take on NFP so it hardly proves that I'm right. And that shouldn't be my aim in a discussion anyway.
So I'll leave the tangent there. I'm a medical doctor, by the way, so that was why I was jumping on that throw-away sentence about nutrition as my "opportunity". But for all the reasons above it doesn't matter.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I would like to point to the following comments by the ever reliable and fair John L. Allen jr. on BBC News, as particularly pertinent:
quote:
Shortly after his election to the papacy five years ago, Benedict XVI asked the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Health Care to examine the question. That office polled a number of theologians, scientists and medical experts, and tentatively drew a positive conclusion: in the limited case of a married couple trying to save one partner from infection, use of a condom could be accepted, even if should not be presented as the ideal. ...
To date, the Vatican has not issued any official statement along those lines, based in part not on doctrinal considerations but PR worries. The fear has been that if the Vatican were to issue even a narrow ruling, however carefully hemmed in and nuanced, all the world would hear is, "Church says condoms are okay."...
For those who would like the Catholic Church to become more flexible on condoms, therefore, a word of caution: hype doesn't help.
Furthermore, Jimmy Akin provides essentially the same analysis I did here. That's hardly surprising, since I learned first from his blog that there was a mistranslation in the English Humanae Vitae. He then also worries about the Church being misunderstood too easily.
Personally, I think the commentators underestimate Benedict. I think he will boldly step into the fray on contraception, no matter how easy it is for people to misunderstand. If he remains strong enough, that is, he is a very old man now... I would not be surprised if this soundbite in an interview was a first sign of a teaching document in the pipeline.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Ingo, I'm having a great deal of difficulty reconciling this with what I understood to be the official Catholic teaching.
I'm too dumb to understand even translations of half of what St Thomas writes and too lazy to read all of it so my understanding of his treatment of the legitimacy of sexual acts is based on second hand writings but isn't it something like this?
The good of an action can be determined by how closely it fulfils its created purpose, or to put it another way an action becomes evil by virtue of the deliberate omission of one or more of the intended goods. The purpose of sex is (in ranked order)
1. To produce offspring
2. To increase conjugal love
3. To provide pleasure for the participants
...or something along those lines. Now, I don't want to get into NFP vs other conception control methods but I really don't see how saying the use of condoms to prevent infection (and presumably it's only life-threatening infection) is a step in the right direction can be fitted into this scheme unless the Holy Father is saying that taking the risk of infecting your partner with something that has a good chance of killing them (which I'll call item 0), outweighs the deliberate removal of item 1 above.
I thought you couldn't do that. It can't be double effect, can it? The intent could be to achieve the good of 2 and 3 whilst 1 is overruled because of 0 but that looks to be stretching it beyond breaking point. And if I can do that, why can't we apply it to sterilisation procedures in which there's a high risk of a further pregnancy killing the mother?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I apologise for the loose wording there. I don't think many pregnancies happen as a result of being sterilised. You know what I mean ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Ingo, I'm having a great deal of difficulty reconciling this with what I understood to be the official Catholic teaching.
I'm too dumb to understand even translations of half of what St Thomas writes and too lazy to read all of it so my understanding of his treatment of the legitimacy of sexual acts is based on second hand writings but isn't it something like this?
The good of an action can be determined by how closely it fulfils its created purpose, or to put it another way an action becomes evil by virtue of the deliberate omission of one or more of the intended goods. The purpose of sex is (in ranked order)
1. To produce offspring
2. To increase conjugal love
3. To provide pleasure for the participants
...or something along those lines. Now, I don't want to get into NFP vs other conception control methods but I really don't see how saying the use of condoms to prevent infection (and presumably it's only life-threatening infection) is a step in the right direction can be fitted into this scheme unless the Holy Father is saying that taking the risk of infecting your partner with something that has a good chance of killing them (which I'll call item 0), outweighs the deliberate removal of item 1 above.
I thought you couldn't do that. It can't be double effect, can it? The intent could be to achieve the good of 2 and 3 whilst 1 is overruled because of 0 but that looks to be stretching it beyond breaking point. And if I can do that, why can't we apply it to sterilisation procedures in which there's a high risk of a further pregnancy killing the mother?
What the Pope was really talking about was non-marital sexual intercourse. The Pope says it would be better if the adulterous member of the couple to use a condom when they engage in extramarital sexual intercourse. If a person already has AIDS, then it is better if they use a condom than infecting their spouse.
I do have some questions about this teaching as it regards to married couples. Did the unfaithful spouse ever intend on being faithful in the first place? My understanding of the traditional sexual ethics of South African men suggests many of them don't really think fidelity in marriage is expected of them. In which case, they shouldn't be seeking the sacrament of marriage in the first place. In fact, as I see it, the wife if she desires has grounds for an annulment.
Second, is it common for a husband or wife to admit they've been having sex with prostitutes, might be infected with AIDS, and now need to use a condom when engaging in sexual intercourse with their spouse? Adultery is also grounds for annulment. It may be the woman would like an annulment but can't get one because she relies too much on her husband. In which case, we are talking about a culture so patriarchal it makes the Vatican look feminist by comparison.
Third, can a person with AIDS even validly receive the sacrament of marriage? If the Pope has said that not spreading the disease is more important then procreation, then a person with AIDS should use a condom when having sexual intercourse if they are in fact going to have sexual intercourse. A person incapable of engaging in procreative sex can't produce children. In my mind, it doesn't matter if you look at it as a refusal to have children or inability to consummate the marriage either is a canonical impediment to marriage.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What the Pope was really talking about was non-marital sexual intercourse. The Pope says it would be better if the adulterous member of the couple to use a condom when they engage in extramarital sexual intercourse. If a person already has AIDS, then it is better if they use a condom than infecting their spouse.
Actually, the Pope didn't say that. So far as I've seen the statements under discussion only deal with sex outside of marriage, so the question of whether "it is better if they use a condom than infecting their spouse" hasn't really been addressed one way or the other. Given that (as I understand it) condoms were a Catholic no-no for syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea, etc. after it was fairly clear that they could prevent the spread of those diseases, I don't see why AIDS gets a pass.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:The purpose of sex is (in ranked order)
1. To produce offspring
2. To increase conjugal love
3. To provide pleasure for the participants
Just a quick re-entry into this debate (as I'm out of the country again soon): the ranking of (1) and (2) there is not as clear as you imply.
Church teaching was traditionally portrayed as saying that the primary purpose of sex was procreation; but that missed an important point - that sex was only right within marriage (and that the teaching presumed that was the case). It therefore assumed that sex was automatically at the service of married love. The case of the meaning of sex outside marriage is not even considered, and it is already known to be wrong and thus inherently purposeless.
Humanae Vitae said that the two purposes (unitive and procreative) were of equal importance, an affirmation which has not been challenged by any more recent teaching and which avoided the ambiguity of the older statement.
--------------------
--
Coniunx
Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It can't be double effect, can it?
The key to my mind is that infertile married couples may have sex, indeed people may marry even though their infertility be known in advance. However, I do not quite know how to properly use that key - frankly, I can make (to my mind convincing) cases for or against allowing condom use as disease prevention within marriage.
The main argument pro is that the disruption of possible procreative consequences is not voluntary in that case. The main argument contra is that procreative ordering must remain concrete in the act, not merely abstracted into irrelevance.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The main argument contra is that procreative ordering must remain concrete in the act, not merely abstracted into irrelevance.
The 'high' failure rate of condoms propounded on by NFP advocates makes it seem condom use could easily make the procreative 'nature' of sex 'concrete in the act.'
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
