Originally posted by Justinian:
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:He thinks of what is logical within his system of thinking, not of what's politically expedient or palatable to people who don't operate within his own systematic ethos.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/20/131469670/popes-says-condoms-can-be-used-in-some-cases
Pope Benedict says that allowing male prostitutes to use condoms is the first step in a "more human way of sexuality," and that this is the first step in making male prostitution moral.
Huh? For a smart guy, does he think before he opens his mouth?
quote:Note the "may be" and "perhaps" and "can be." It's not a fully defined position. He was responding thoughtfully to a thoughtful question in an interview. And he wasn't stating it as something that might be universally applicable, but rather something that might apply "in the case of some individuals."
"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility,'' Benedict said.
quote:I am guessing as male prostitutes may be in a penetrative role and have more of a volition because it is their willy.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Though I wonder why the phrase "male prostitutes" was chosen.
quote:I think the key word here is "development": there is nothing here that is not entirely consonant with the teachings of, for example, Humanae vitae.
Leading Vatican observer John Allen commented: “Pope Benedict XVI has signaled that in some limited cases, where the intent is to prevent the transmission of disease rather than to prevent pregnancy, the use of condoms might be morally justified.
“While that position is hardly new, in the sense that a large number of Catholic theologians and even a special Vatican commission requested by Benedict XVI have endorsed it, this is the first time the pope himself has publicly espoused such a view.
“The comments do not yet rise to the level of official Church teaching, but they do suggest that Benedict might be open to such a development.”
quote:Wasn't that a Cardinal somebody-or-other rather than BXVI himself?
Has the Pope not previously claimed that condoms have holes in them and are useless for preventing STDs though?
quote:The disease isn't the problem. The contraception is the problem. I suspect if there were some magical way to prevent disease without preventing conception, that might be the ticket.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Oh, I guess so; too controversial for the Pope to have said it I guess. But then if he's admitting they help stop disease, then that doesn't seem helpful to his usual argument that people should not use them..
quote:I think the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholics have a major moral distinction that confuses the conversation somewhat.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It was Cardinal Trujillo in 2003. He was mistaken, and he shouldn't have clouded the waters with misleading misconceptions, but his broader concern was that as condoms frequently fail in other ways (breaking, slipping off, etc.)they should not be relied upon as a fail-safe as this could raise confidence to a level of recklessness. This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.
[x-p'd with Bulldog. Disease is very much the problem, but the Pope denies that reliance on condoms are the moral solution to that problem. Absent moral sexual behaviour, he speculates that they may alleviate the moral harm that would otherwise be compounded by disregard for the other's health.]
quote:I can't help but notice that this first step is motivated by a desire to save the lives of men. For thousands of years countless Catholic women have died because they weren't allowed to use birth control even if they know it would be fatal if they got pregnant. Today, in Africa, women are dying because their husbands bring the Aids virus home to them. All this has been okay with the church, but now there's this concern for male prostitutes. To me it's just another example of how the Catholic church values the lives of men more than women.
He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality.''
quote:Three points:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.
quote:There was nothing to "abolish" - it was only ever a theological speculation with no bindingness whatsoever.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Bit like the "get out of Limbo" clause when he abolished it a few years back?
quote:Firstly, my opinion as a rational interlocutor counts for every bit as much as yours, buster. Especially when my arguments are rational and not just, "It is true cos teh Pope sez."
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:Firstly: yes, well it has to seem that way for you, doesn't it? If you accept the magisterium then all you can do is go with that. I'm honestly not being snitty (well, not excessively) but what does your opinion signify in a context dominated by pontifical opinion of what one should think?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.
quote:Well, that would be wonderfully proved by addressing the other points in my post. Go for it "buster"!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:Firstly, my opinion as a rational interlocutor counts for every bit as much as yours, buster. Especially when my arguments are rational and not just, "It is true cos teh Pope sez."
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:Firstly: yes, well it has to seem that way for you, doesn't it? If you accept the magisterium then all you can do is go with that. I'm honestly not being snitty (well, not excessively) but what does your opinion signify in a context dominated by pontifical opinion of what one should think?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
... This is the Pope's concern too. That seems more than reasonable to me.
Second, the Pope's speculations on matters of morals if not formulated as such are not part of the magisterium.
Truly, the argument that Catholics check their brains at the church door and so can be ignored when commenting on Catholic issues does you no credit and will do you no favours. I defend my faith because it is rationally defensible and seems right to me.
quote:2. Who said that he is? One spontaneous example given in a biographical interview can hardly be considered a full account of the Pope's position in the field of sexual ethics. Brandishing statistics in people's faces is also not a good substitute for rational debate.
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Secondly: why should the Pope (if he is a caring pastor?) only be concerned with non-procreative sex? Look at, for example, these stats, and weep.
Thirdly: as a partially ironic response: a pox on the Pope's reasonableness! Without privileging either, tradition (the pontifical weapon of choice) is obviously NOT the same as reason. Sometimes they at least connect - but this time?... we have a choice.
quote:Your respone to point 2 says nothing more than you don't like, don't understand, or can't be bothered to engage with what the data might mean.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Since you asked so nicely...
quote:2. Who said that he is? One spontaneous example given in a biographical interview can hardly be considered a full account of the Pope's position in the field of sexual ethics. Brandishing statistics in people's faces is also not a good substitute for rational debate.
Originally posted by Cadfael:
Secondly: why should the Pope (if he is a caring pastor?) only be concerned with non-procreative sex? Look at, for example, these stats, and weep.
Thirdly: as a partially ironic response: a pox on the Pope's reasonableness! Without privileging either, tradition (the pontifical weapon of choice) is obviously NOT the same as reason. Sometimes they at least connect - but this time?... we have a choice.
3. This is scarcely calculated to receive a reasoned response, Cadfael - I'm not even sure what you mean. If you are drawing a dichotomy between tradition and reason you are way off mark.
quote:That argument cuts both ways - if it's so obvious to you, tell us all why you think the stats are irrelevant. Your post suggests that you already know why, so go ahead - educate us.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The statistics you gave are irrelevant. If you think they apply, perhaps you would like to share that with the rest of us.
quote:I saw, and see, nothing in that post that addresses the specific characteristics of the appallingly sad situation indicated in the SA statistics to which I linked.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I did. See my first post.
quote:I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, a Roman Catholic husband ignores what the Pope teaches about infidelity but for some reason accepts what the Pope says about condoms.
quote:OK...
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:I saw, and see, nothing in that post that addresses the specific characteristics of the appallingly sad situation indicated in the SA statistics to which I linked.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I did. See my first post.
Can you therefore be more specific (in particular, address the specific societal trends and characteristics of the situation) in a further response? At this time (maybe I am too dense?) I honestly don't get how your intervention addressed the specific example and the questions it raises...
quote:I don't either. However, I don't see how the Pope is to blame for bad, in the case of AIDS, or unfortunate, in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, things that happen because Roman Catholics ignore half of what he says.
orginally posted by Josephine:
I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.
quote:I don't think (and didn't say, nor mean to imply) that the Pope is to blame for my friend's foolishness. If it's the case that there are a significant number of Catholics who are foolish in the same way, it might, perhaps, point to a widespread problem in catechesis. But it's more likely that she was simply ignoring the parts of the church's teaching that she particularly didn't want to hear. People do that. It's not the Pope's fault.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:I don't either. However, I don't see how the Pope is to blame for bad, in the case of AIDS, or unfortunate, in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, things that happen because Roman Catholics ignore half of what he says.
orginally posted by Josephine:
I had a friend in college who was Roman Catholic, and was as sexually active as she could possibly manage to be. She would not use contraception, because Catholics are forbidden to use contraception. Somehow the idea that Catholics are also forbidden to engage in fornication never really connected with her. I'm not sure why.
quote:Statistics can be a dangerous thing, particulalrly when you wield them in a partial manner as a weapon to back up an argument.
Originally posted by Cadfael:
quote:That argument cuts both ways - if it's so obvious to you, tell us all why you think the stats are irrelevant. Your post suggests that you already know why, so go ahead - educate us.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The statistics you gave are irrelevant. If you think they apply, perhaps you would like to share that with the rest of us.
quote:That's one of the main things statistics are for, backing up arguments. If you aren't proposing to do anything about them, they're just mildly interesting like the reams and reams of statistics that baseball anoraks compile.
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
[QBStatistics can be a dangerous thing, particulalrly when you wield them in a partial manner as a weapon to back up an argument. [/QB]
quote:I can't quite understand your problem with what TT said.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Having thus established that using statistics to back up an argument isn't a problem, what then is this "partial manner" of which you speak?
quote:I think I should clarify what I meant, since it was perhaps a bit misleading.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps, as Chesterbelloc proposed, this line of thinking might eventually apply to contraception. I just can't see it.
quote:I think it's the sort of thing Benedict is thinking of as well: in the situation where the whole act of intercourse is utterly immoral anyway, use of a condom to reduce some of its evil effects may be indicative of a recognition that there is more to it than a physical transaction, and that it may have consequences and meanings beyond the physical act itself.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:I think I should clarify what I meant, since it was perhaps a bit misleading.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Perhaps, as Chesterbelloc proposed, this line of thinking might eventually apply to contraception. I just can't see it.
I entirely agree that the use of condoms with contraceptive intent is never going to be condoned by the Church. But the example I am thinking of where the health of women could be legitimately taken into account without changing an iota of existing teaching would be a married man visiting a female prostitute who was already contracepted up to the eyeballs. In this case, the husband's use of a condom in order not to contract a disease which he then passes on to his wife is in no way contraceptive in intent and seems a positive moral duty with which he burdens himself by committing adultery in this way.
As in all other matters, I could be wrong here. But this is at any rate what I was thinking of.
quote:What is the basis for this repugnance?
Originally posted by coniunx:
....... eventually would also see the repugnance of contraception in married intercourse.
quote:That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:What is the basis for this repugnance?
Originally posted by coniunx:
....... eventually would also see the repugnance of contraception in married intercourse.
quote:And all other sexuality is sinful?
Originally posted by coniunx:
That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.
quote:Well, ex-cuuuuze me!
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm not sure this conversation is really being dominated by the pontiff's views, as the majority of the posters here aren't Catholic.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I have it on good authority that my humble contribution was bang on the button!![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Do you mean: is one allowed to contracept from the point when one has as many kids as one wants; or, is it permitted to carry on having a sexual relationship after one is no longer able to bear children?
Originally posted by Boogie:
How about when our families are complete?
]quote:The main answer is that as people become more affluent, they tend to have fewer children.
Originally posted by Think²:
One wonders what explanation the RC establishment has for the decline of 10 child families.
quote:Whether a family is complete or not, marital sexuality retains the same meanings. Why should that change? We remain the same people; we retain the same sacramental vocation; we continue to be signs of the nature of God.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:And all other sexuality is sinful?
Originally posted by coniunx:
That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.
How about when our families are complete?
quote:The idea of being unable to use contaception within a marriage relationship seems to me completely bizarre.
Originally posted by coniunx:
The idea that a decision that a family is complete would somehow completely change a marriage relationship and its meaning seems to me a little bizarre!
quote:Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the situation - that statement is factually inaccurate.
Originally posted by coniunx:
or because they use the equally effective natural means of family planning.
quote:The fact that many people have believed something doesn't make it right.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
If someone thinks that the universal Christian consensus on the issue (until recent decades) is bizarre, perhaps that person is the one who "has issues" not the execrated Prada-wearing Pope in Rome.
quote:Really? Off the top of my head, I remember watching a dramatisation of Dickens "Christmas Carol" a while ago - and I vaguely remember the character of Scrooge expressing the idea that men shouldn't start families until they have learnt a trade, so that their children do not become a burden on the ratepayers.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
The fact that such a thing would seem bizarre would seem to be a radical failure to imagine outside one's own individual life situation. The choice to contracept within marriage was not considered to be a valid moral choice by virtually any Christian church until 80 years ago or so.
quote:Really? On what recent research do you base your allegation?
Originally posted by Think²:
quote:Whatever the moral rights and wrongs of the situation - that statement is factually inaccurate.
Originally posted by coniunx:
or because they use the equally effective natural means of family planning.
quote:The way a tradesman refrained from starting a family, at that time, was by refraining from marriage. Not by marrying and using contraception.
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Off the top of my head, I remember watching a dramatisation of Dickens "Christmas Carol" a while ago - and I vaguely remember the character of Scrooge expressing the idea that men shouldn't start families until they have learnt a trade, so that their children do not become a burden on the ratepayers.
quote:I did not too long ago (less than two years) spend considerable time hunting down and compiling data from studies of Natural Family Planning. Maybe you can find that thread in Oblivion somewhere, I'm not going to do this work again. However, the upshot was that the statement "modern NFP is at least as 'safe' as a condom" can be reasonably defended from data. The same fount of wisdom you use mentions stats comparable to the condom for the Billings method, a modern NFP I'm familiar with since my wife and I have been using it for many years.
Originally posted by Think²:
This wiki article gives standardised comparisons. I belive the table is based on the World Health Organisation data from an internaitonal study - but I can't swear to it. What's your source ?
quote:I am not asking you to.
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not going to do this work again.
quote:But not, oddly enough, by abstaining from sex.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:The way a tradesman refrained from starting a family, at that time, was by refraining from marriage. Not by marrying and using contraception.
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Off the top of my head, I remember watching a dramatisation of Dickens "Christmas Carol" a while ago - and I vaguely remember the character of Scrooge expressing the idea that men shouldn't start families until they have learnt a trade, so that their children do not become a burden on the ratepayers.
quote:The typical use failure rate for the condom is at 15% in the table you linked to, and at 10-18% in its page. That would make this NFP at least two times 'safer' than a condom.
Originally posted by Think²:
Typical use 1-5%
Which give the typical use failure rate as very similar to that given in the wiki article I cited above.
quote:What is rather required for these methods to work is that the woman is diligent, and that the man trusts his partner in these matters. There's no particular intelligence needed. The other thing both partners have to be able to deal with is of course not having sex for two weeks in the month, or so. That can be hard, but it also can spice things up. Mostly it's something one gets used to.
Originally posted by Think²:
Reluctant as I am to speculate upon your sex life, let me just say this - it is evident from your years of posting on the ship that you are a *very* precise and logical man. Many members of the human race are not.
quote:Precisely. Our use of NFP predates my becoming Christian. My wife had significant side effects from even the 'weakest' pill (one should note that there are several variants, and not all of equal 'security'). All the other methods you mention are 'invasive' in some sense as compared to NFP. When we actually wanted to have a child, we had to do precisely nothing, i.e., stop watching which days are safe. (In fact, regrettably we used the NFP info to have sex on the maximally fertile days. That proved to be instantly effective. In retrospect I would have liked to 'try' a bit longer...
Originally posted by Think²:
More pertinently, we are talking about a married couple - more likely long term contraception in a monogamous relationship would be the pill, an implant, an IUD or a sterilisation operation.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
)quote:I don't mind in the least. It doesn't make it so - any more than I mind being told I'm Very Wicked Indeed for biting my fingernails.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Well that's a silly comment. The Pope has never taken away your "choice" to do anything. What you really saying is that the Pope is saying that your choice is an evil choice, and you don't like being told that your decisions are wicked. Understandable, because no one likes being told that they are doing wicked things, especially when they are, like contraception, very wicked indeed.
quote:Not time for a long reply, but it's not (just) intention that counts.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I hope this isn't a Dead Horse- I checked the guidelines and it doesn't seem to be- but could someone explain to me why natural family planning is OK with some people who believe that barrier methods are wrong?
If the intention is what counts, then purposely having sex at the "wrong" time of the month doesn't look that much different to me from using a condom. Your intention is to avoid procreating.
quote:The lateest source of information on modern NFP is the Frank-Hermann study published in 2007.
Originally posted by Think²:
Oddly enough the cochrane collaboration libraries have little information on this method and the latest studies on the academic database top out a tthe late 80s. This being a case of people not throwing good research money after bad I believe.
This wiki article gives standardised comparisons. I belive the table is based on the World Health Organisation data from an internaitonal study - but I can't swear to it. What's your source ?
quote:That was unfortunately Catholic of me when I tried to argue the general case. Of course, in general the only thing one needs to get used to with NFP is refraining from unprotected vaginal intercourse for two weeks in a month or so. Apart from Catholic morals, it is of course a perfectly possible use of NFP to determine when one needs to use a condom, and when not.
Originally posted by Think²:
The other thing both partners have to be able to deal with is of course not having sex for two weeks in the month, or so.
quote:Your numbers for typical use for NFP from Wikipedia are wrong by a factor of five - discussion, see previous thread. As per my link above, the least one can say is that Wikipedia is inconsistent on this number. Furthermore, there is nothing incoherent in the moral / theological argument for NFP. Some of the use NFP gets is indeed morally incoherent, i.e., it is not supposed to be the "Catholic pill". It is also obvious that if NFP is used to avoid pregnancy, then the corresponding sex is not (or is not hoped to be) procreative concerning its outcome. But the Catholic argument has never been about the procreative outcome. Otherwise the Church would need to forbid sex for married couples if they are infertile. This is simply not the case, and never has been. Rather, she forbids marriage, if the prospective couple is incapable of regular vaginal intercourse.
Originally posted by Think²:
It gives a 3% failure rate in perfect use for the cervical mucus spotting, but a 25% rate in typical use. ... The argument for natural family planning on the grounds that non-procreative sex is a problem is theologically inconsistent.
quote:And of course nothing you have said has any bearing on the question of whether or not contraception is used, nor would there be any need for any Catholic to disagree with any of it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sperm are not so precious. Millions are produced every day. Where the idea that each time they are 'spilled' there needs to be the possibility of conception comes from - I cannot imagine.
I do know that there is nothing ungodly about ejaculation and there is nothing ungodly about family planning.
We live in times when women no longer need to be kept as tame child bearing cows and ignored in all matters involving decision making.
Thank God.
quote:Since nobody involved in the debate is actually floating that idea, it's easy enough to determine precisely where it came from: from you.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Where the idea that each time they are 'spilled' there needs to be the possibility of conception comes from - I cannot imagine.
quote:Humanae vitae agrees, explicitly, see paragraph 16.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I do know that there is nothing ungodly about ejaculation and there is nothing ungodly about family planning.
quote:It seems to me that it required civilization to put women under such tutelage, and more civilization to bring them out of it again. Among "primitive" people the status of women can rarely be described like that. This shows that the connection between having plenty of children and low social status is not necessary. Our current "solution" to the problem however cannot be maintained indefinitely. Ultimately, women will have to have more children again than they typically do now in affluent Western civilization. Or it will be the end thereof.
Originally posted by Boogie:
We live in times when women no longer need to be kept as tame child bearing cows and ignored in all matters involving decision making.
quote:Well, no, and again that's not a problem for any Catholic.
Originally posted by Boogie:
From you link IngoB
"it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. "
No sex without the possibility of procreation?
I can't see this as good for anyone.
quote:And as Catholic teaching is about marital sexuality, that's probably not a germane issue. Inthe context of this thread, that's probably exactly why the Pope chose to use a male prostitute as his example: someone to whom he teaching did not apply, so a situation in which the discussion of the use of a condom could be logically separated from the main Catholic teching.
Originally posted by mdijon:
As a silly example, it's clear that if a professional sex worker asks for advice, offering NFP in the mix of options isn't going to be a good start.
quote:You know, people do sometimes say that, but it does indicate a very low level of self-control. I've never knowingly spoken about anything like this with a man who really couldn't control his sexual urges when his wife was sriously ill, or when he was out shopping with his family; why is it apparently impossible at other times?
And there will be a range of people who one could doubt the likely effectiveness of NFP in. (I'd count myself frankly). I know from experience that I can usually manage to use a condom, but sometimes can't manage to abstain.
quote:They are 'tho - a vehement spokeswoman has jus been on the radio saying it couldn't possibly be otherwise.
Originally posted by Unjust Stuart:
I haven't read the interview, but why is everyone assuming that the male prostitute is having sex with another man?
quote:You are making huge assumptions about people's organisational skills here.
Originally posted by coniunx:
And if it's a matter of respecting and valuing the fertility cycle of one's wife - as it is in the case of using NFP - what does it say about one's relationship if abstinence for a short time in a cycle is too difficult to manage?
quote:In short, the repugnance stems completely from the gibberish that the Roman Catholic Church preaches. Subtle hint: If your so-called morality leads to the death in agony of many people and the spread of disease then it's time to rethink your so-called morals.
Originally posted by coniunx:
]That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.
quote:Believe it or not I already have. And it seemed about as relevant to me as Atlas Shrugged - I don't know what world and type of person it is talking about other than the already converted. But despite this people seem to think of it as deep. Hmm... The more I think about it, the more Atlas Shrugged seems like an excellent analogy.
That's the short version. For the long version, read John Paul II's Theology of the Body.
quote:Both natural infertility (of either or both partners, whether temporary or permanent) and sterilization/contraception (if working properly) mean that there is no possibility of procreation in the sexual act. However, only the latter is considered a problem in Catholic sexual morals. That should tell you immediately that the lack of procreation as such is not what this is about.
Originally posted by Boogie:
From you link IngoB
"it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong. "
No sex without the possibility of procreation?
quote:Are you really suggesting that my inability to abstain in the context of my relationship is analogous to rape? Please clarify.
Originally posted by coniunx:
You know, people do sometimes say that, but it does indicate a very low level of self-control. I've never knowingly spoken about anything like this with a man who really couldn't control his sexual urges when his wife was sriously ill, or when he was out shopping with his family; why is it apparently impossible at other times?
...And unless you regard marital rape as acceptable, both men and women are reasonably expected to control themselves when their spouse says no. This is supposed to be a freely given gift of self, one to the other, not just an animal satisfaction of desire.
quote:That, I think, is a classic example of wishful thinking that goes way beyond what is merited by the actual source.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" was interesting this morning (which, of course, is itself a sign of the end times). Clifford Longley, who swam the Tiber, was extolling the Pope's statement as the begining of the melting of the ice cap (his words) on Catholic teaching about sexuality, that it begins a move from the abstract to the humanly pastoral.
quote:No, I'm suggesting that the *inability* to abstain isn't really an inability at all, and that if you consider the situation in which your wife says no, then you'll agree that in that case you would be able to abstain.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Are you really suggesting that my inability to abstain in the context of my relationship is analogous to rape? Please clarify.
Originally posted by coniunx:
You know, people do sometimes say that, but it does indicate a very low level of self-control. I've never knowingly spoken about anything like this with a man who really couldn't control his sexual urges when his wife was sriously ill, or when he was out shopping with his family; why is it apparently impossible at other times?
...And unless you regard marital rape as acceptable, both men and women are reasonably expected to control themselves when their spouse says no. This is supposed to be a freely given gift of self, one to the other, not just an animal satisfaction of desire.
quote:One can think of other reasons why the Vatican would be more sympathetic to allowing rent boys to use protection while maintaining that an HIV-negative woman with an HIV-positive husband must be willing to risk sickness an early death.
Originally posted by coniunx:
And as Catholic teaching is about marital sexuality, that's probably not a germane issue. In the context of this thread, that's probably exactly why the Pope chose to use a male prostitute as his example: someone to whom he teaching did not apply, so a situation in which the discussion of the use of a condom could be logically separated from the main Catholic teching.
quote:OK, if you wnat it that way.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:In short, the repugnance stems completely from the gibberish that the Roman Catholic Church preaches.
Originally posted by coniunx:
]That it is not faithful to - indeed directly opposed to - the sacramental meaning of marital sexuality, which is to be the image of both the love of Christ for the Church and the creative nature of God.
quote:Of course the inability is only relative and depends on the perceived consequences. An alcoholic might claim to be unable to not have a drink. In a sense that is true - but it is equally true that if you promised them a million pounds to not drink for one evening they'd probably be able to do it.
Originally posted by coniunx:
No, I'm suggesting that the *inability* to abstain isn't really an inability at all, and that if you consider the situation in which your wife says no, then you'll agree that in that case you would be able to abstain.
Your claim that you are unable to abstain therefore is invalid.
quote:I've often wondered why journalists covering religion had such trouble providing accurate analysis of religious topics. My assumption was they didn't really know enough about religion to understand what was happening. For instance, I read the article in question and understood exactly what the Pope was saying and that reporters were making a big deal out of nothing. Now, I'm thinking Chesterbelloc may be right. This statement is getting widespread coverage. Surely, not all the people covering the Roman Catholic Church are completely ignorant of Roman Catholic thought? The conspiracy won't work. Paul VI had no trouble dashing the hopes of millions of the faithful and he wasn't as conservative as Benedict XVI. No, the best recent hope for overturning the church's position on contraception likely died with John XXIII. Those wanting change will likely have to wait a generation or more to see that change come to fruition. If it isn't a conspiracy, I wonder if it is a case of journalists being lazy and needing a story for a slow news cycle. Then again, why couldn't they just join other journalists and speculate on the coming royal wedding?
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:That, I think, is a classic example of wishful thinking that goes way beyond what is merited by the actual source.
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" was interesting this morning (which, of course, is itself a sign of the end times). Clifford Longley, who swam the Tiber, was extolling the Pope's statement as the begining of the melting of the ice cap (his words) on Catholic teaching about sexuality, that it begins a move from the abstract to the humanly pastoral.
I catch a whiff from some commentators of intepreting and proclaiming the Pope's opinion to the world in such a way that it far exceeds his meaning, but by which they hope he'll thereby be cajolled into revising doctrine more radically for fear of being seen to dash expectations which he had no intention of raising. I predict that won't work - but get ready for "disappointed" liberal voices to shake their heads in disgust at the Pope's "backtracking" (which will of course be nothing of the sort).
In other words, some of the "enthusiasm" we're hearing from some quarters may be a deliberate tactic to corner the Pope under the guise and by means of praising his "courage" to the hilt. If their "interpretations" are not borne out, they at least get to lambast the poor old man afresh for his "intransigence" - so it's win-win.
quote:So it doesn't matter enough to you - that's your choice.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Of course the inability is only relative and depends on the perceived consequences. An alcoholic might claim to be unable to not have a drink. In a sense that is true - but it is equally true that if you promised them a million pounds to not drink for one evening they'd probably be able to do it.
Originally posted by coniunx:
No, I'm suggesting that the *inability* to abstain isn't really an inability at all, and that if you consider the situation in which your wife says no, then you'll agree that in that case you would be able to abstain.
Your claim that you are unable to abstain therefore is invalid.
Nevertheless, concluding that they were therefore perfectly able to become sober ignores the strong compulsion they are under to drink.
Likewise with human beings and sex. The fact that in certain instances I can control my sexual impulses doesn't mean that NFP is a realistic option for me. If I really became convinced that my salvation depended on it that might change, but I don't think like that so it isn't.
quote:I'm not sure what the inaccuracy is that you're talking about. Most of the commentary I've seen notes that the Pope has stated that condom use by gay prostitutes can be justified "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection". It is also noted that Pope's position on condom use by opposite-sex partners is "absolutely not", even if done to reduce the risk of infection. (I guess double effect doesn't apply in certain circumstances.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've often wondered why journalists covering religion had such trouble providing accurate analysis of religious topics.
quote:So if someone ever becomes convinced that it is seriously wrong to have sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception, they have the option of having sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception.
Originally posted by coniunx:
If you ever become convinced that contraception is actually seriously wrong, though, the option of NFP will be open to you;
quote:I will when such people uniformly take themselves out of the political and stop using such beliefs as sticks to enact harmful policies that undermine public health and also (on different points) hurt my friends. When the Catholic Church ceases to be a homophobic and sexist institution opposed to public health and that tries to throw its weight around politically then I shall cease to be opposed to the Catholic church. You cease the attacks from your side and so shall I. Until then I shall treat it the same way I would any political organisation whose stated goals would lead to dragging humanity backwards by the hair into the middle ages.
Originally posted by coniunx:
OK, if you wnat it that way.
The realistion that marriage is a sacramental reality which initmately reveals the nature of God is a powerhouse of inspiration for many Catholic couples; you may not get it yourself, but you might at least stop trying to attacking people who do know God in this way.
quote:And I can just hope that one day the Vatican will be treated as a historical museum and that you will understand and support this.
I suppose I can just hope and pray that one day you'll understand.
quote:We're right back to the same old argument we alwayscome up against: Catholics are entitled to their opinions, so long as they keep them to themselves and don't talk about them where other poeple might hear and sympathise with them. Well, screw that.
Originally posted by Justinian:
I will when such people uniformly take themselves out of the political and stop using such beliefs as sticks to enact harmful policies that undermine public health and also (on different points) hurt my friends.
quote:How wicked is contraception that isn't technically early abortion, in current Catholic teaching? Serious question, and open to anybody.
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
Understandable, because no one likes being told that they are doing wicked things, especially when they are, like contraception, very wicked indeed.
quote:So, no matter what the Pope actually said (speaking personally in an interview, by the way, and not in a way that commands assent from Catholics) about one specific example, he is now committed to supporting the widespread use of condoms in lots of situations?
Originally posted by shamwari:
Whatever may be said to the contrary the dam has been breached.
By allowing an exception based on intent and consequences the Pope has effectively made it possible for other intents and consequences to be employed in justifying what many Catholics (the majority?) do in practice anyway.
quote:yadda yadda yadda yawn
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:I question this although I take your point. I'm really convinced of the Christian teaching on many issues but it doesn't stop me screwing up through weakness sometimes or even, dare I say it, my own deliberate fault.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out
quote:Sure, GreyFace - that would go for all of us. But at least committedly attempting to practise those values would minimise the screw-ups more effectively than abandoning them altogether. And to really give them a go, belonging to a belief community that supported you in that endeavour could actually be pretty helpful in avoiding the harmful behaviour and effects rather than the opposite. Which is why I take issue with justinian.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:I question this although I take your point. I'm really convinced of the Christian teaching on many issues but it doesn't stop me screwing up through weakness sometimes or even, dare I say it, my own deliberate fault.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out
quote:Oh, Catholics are entitled to broadcast their opinions by megaphone if they like. The core problem here is that then you guys appear to want protection from being blasted straight back. If you want to call things sins then by the same count, I can call what you are advocating for evil. But apparently you want free licence to preach without opposition. I'd prefer if you (a) changed your minds or (b) shut up about your harmful beliefs. But I don't intend to make you. What I intend to do is to point out how harmful your beliefs are when you preach them.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
We're right back to the same old argument we alwayscome up against: Catholics are entitled to their opinions, so long as they keep them to themselves and don't talk about them where other poeple might hear and sympathise with them. Well, screw that.
quote:And here's where I laugh about polyanna preachings. The Roman Catholic Church has held sway for hundreds of years over the moral thought of Western Europe. And these weren't great times.
Of course, if people really became convinced of the Catholic teaching on sex and tried to practice it, STDs would be practically wiped out: abstinence, continence, fidelity and celibacy are the least HIV-friendly ideas out there.there.
quote:Please don't quote yourself as me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
The other thing both partners have to be able to deal with is of course not having sex for two weeks in the month, or so.
quote:That's ridiculous, Justinian - no-one is saying that. I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently I'm supposed to keep my beliefs to myself and it's only the RCC who should be allowed to preach on any matter where my beliefs are in direct opposition to the RCC.
quote:Can you clarify to this babe in the woods how the Pope's statement isn't perfectly in line with the ABC approach you described? Given that someone (specifically, a prostitute) is neither abstinent nor faithful, condoms are preferable to no condoms.
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for being non-HIV friendly, the Public Health line is ABC. Abstain. If you can't abstain, Be Faithful. If you can't be faithful, use a Condom. Which is even less HIV friendly than the teachings of the RCC because it acknowledges human faliability and actually helps sinners rather than just tells them they should be Righteous.
quote:Actually, if you read what he said, he hasn't allowed an exception. He has said that the use of a condom in this situation may be a first step in the direction of moralisation.
Originally posted by shamwari:
Whatever may be said to the contrary the dam has been breached.
By allowing an exception based on intent and consequences the Pope has effectively made it possible for other intents and consequences to be employed in justifying what many Catholics (the majority?) do in practice anyway.
quote:And you misunderstand. I treat Catholics the same way I do the right wing of the Tory party. I wish every single one of you would change your beliefs, I believe that in groups you are working against what I consider good and right, but I am happy to let you speak as long as you don't try to suppress others trying to speak.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:That's ridiculous, Justinian - no-one is saying that. I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently I'm supposed to keep my beliefs to myself and it's only the RCC who should be allowed to preach on any matter where my beliefs are in direct opposition to the RCC.
quote:None at all. I sincerely hope that the day will come when all of humanity rejects Roman Catholic discourse. And hope that some of my efforts will do some small thing to bring that about. My problem is with the content of Roman Catholic teachings and that you apparently confuse opposition to this with attempts to stop you speaking at all.
So long as people are free to accept or reject that Catholic discourse what's the problem?
quote:Two reasons. First, public health tends to the utilitarian (I go into the impacts in more detail below) and in most places there aren't full scale ABC public health campaigns set up. Secondly, the combination of the Vatican and the Press ensures that C is regularly in the headlines.
Finally, the "abstain" and "be faithful" bit of the mainstream message you quote is practically never heard: only the condom bit is.
quote:Yes. He's for once right. Wanting to provide people pleasure without attaching suffering is definitely an indication of a moral instinct.
[The Pope's recent reflection on the exapmple he gave in the interview suggests that in the absence of this moral motivation, the use of a condom may be an indication of some moral instinct beyond personal gratification.]
quote:That I will grant.
The Church is a bit better at emphasising the first two than mainstream secular culture, since she does not consider them merely prudentially but also has a distinct moral ontology to recommend them as virtuous in themselves.
quote:It normally is from what I can tell
But give the piper his due: insofar as public health campaigns do emphasis abstinence and fidelity this is highly to be commended and is a common rallying point.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The core problem is that condoms are the easiest part. The part that does not require people significantly changing their behaviour but that has a noticably positive impact in reducing the transmission of STDs. It's the one that can be given to sinners as well as saved. Which is why it's where the campaigns start; highest potential saving in lives or illness for lowest outlay. And in cultures where HIV isn't rife and the STDs are curable, it is sufficient for most people (with the full ABC focussing on high risk or already infected groups). A and B on their own don't normally have sufficient penetration even into Catholic cultures to make STDs vanishingly rare.quote:In this case it seems to be perfectly in line with it - although see my previous post in this thread. However the Pope's statement appears to be an outlier with regard to the normal teachings of the church. That it's an apparent outlier (and one in the right direction) is why it's getting so much attention.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Can you clarify to this babe in the woods how the Pope's statement isn't perfectly in line with the ABC approach you described? Given that someone (specifically, a prostitute) is neither abstinent nor faithful, condoms are preferable to no condoms.
quote:If they use NFP they don't have sex in a way that can prevent conception. That's rather the point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So if someone ever becomes convinced that it is seriously wrong to have sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception, they have the option of having sex without the intent to concieve, and in a way that prevents conception.
Originally posted by coniunx:
If you ever become convinced that contraception is actually seriously wrong, though, the option of NFP will be open to you;
Wait, what?
quote:Wherefore, I thank you for your clarification and apologise for my misunderstanding. I also thank you for your whole post, with refreshingly big bits of with I agree - the desired extirpation of Catholicsm aside, that is.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:And you misunderstand.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I was objecting to a line of argument you have tried before which suggests that Catholics should not allow their views to affect public policies: they should take themselves "out of the political" arena.
quote:The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
Originally posted by Think²:
But the point of NFP is to prevent conception, otherwise why not just have sex whenever you feel like it ?
quote:And I wouldn't say there was any moral difference between the two. Either way the car is going nowhere.
Originally posted by coniunx:
I wouldn't say that leaving your car engine switched off while not going anywhere was 'using fuel in a way which avoids movement', would you?
quote:Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act. When we're talking about people, what their relationship is, and how they act in the image of God, morality does start to come in, I'd say.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:And I wouldn't say there was any moral difference between the two. Either way the car ain't going anywhere.
Originally posted by coniunx:
I wouldn't say that leaving your car engine switched off while not going anywhere was 'using fuel in a way which avoids movement', would you?
quote:Does this mean NFP doesn't prevent conception? Or simply that it's not "designed" to do so and simply operates by luck? I'm pretty sure you're torturing the English language in ways forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote:The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
Originally posted by Think²:
But the point of NFP is to prevent conception, otherwise why not just have sex whenever you feel like it ?
quote:Then come up with a better analogy then. It was yours to start with.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act.
quote:I don't see that!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Does this mean NFP doesn't prevent conception? Or simply that it's not "designed" to do so and simply operates by luck? I'm pretty sure you're torturing the English language in ways forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
Originally posted by coniunx:
The intention of using NFP is to avoid conception; but an NFP user does not have sex in a way which is designed to prevent conception.
quote:It was an analogy for the question of whether it was meaningful to use the phrase 'having sex in a way which prevents procreation', not an analogy for the marital relationship. Since you don't seem to be arguing with its function in that respect, it seems to have served its purpose.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Then come up with a better analogy then. It was yours to start with.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Well, perhaps; but a car isn't a marriage, and burning motor fuel isn't a sacramental act.
quote:Sorry, that was an unintentional, sloppy quote-header copy and paste.
Originally posted by Think²:
Please don't quote yourself as me.
quote:Indeed. As I noted earlier the official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that a prostitute is permitted to protect himself (and presumably herself, though Benedict XIV didn't seem interested in the particulars of female sex workers for whatever reason
Originally posted by IngoB:
The only thing special here is a pope discussing such detail of sexual sin. That may be a sign for a particularly pastoral approach. Or it may be a sign for just how low one has to stoop these days to find any common ground for dialogue. It is quite amazing how easily people jump from what is good for a male prostitute to what may be good for them. Since when do male prostitutes provide an example to follow?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) from infection, but it's a grave wrong in the eyes of the Church for a wife to protect herself if her husband is infected with something.
quote:That's all a bit confused.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The official position of the Catholic Church seems to be that a prostitute is permitted to protect himself (and presumably herself, though Benedict XIV didn't seem interested in the particulars of female sex workers for whatever reason
quote:Your earlier suggestion would be completely useless in the actual case I was positing, where one of the parties to a marriage was already infected. In essence your suggestion was that an HIV-positive husband could take steps to prevent spreading the infection to any prostitutes he hires but that it would be a grave sin in the eyes of the Church to take similar measures for his wife.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Finally, I have already given an example of how a husband could protect his wife from infection even if he were visiting prostitutes, and it is not obviously contrary to Catholic principles.
quote:Nothing that the Pope says in areas regarding morality, faith, etc, is just "personal expression." It may not be official teaching, but this surely will be treated as essentially identical to church teaching.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
First, nothing the Pope said in the bit of the interview we're all talking about is the "official position of the Catholic Church". So far, it's just a personal expression of some ideas relating to the use of condoms in situations about which the Church has no defined teaching, except that the sexual behaviour itself is wrong.
quote:Whatever point he was trying to make.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Official guidance about what?
quote:Indeed. Just because the Pope believes it may be more moral (or at least not more immoral) for a prostitute to take steps to not deliberately infect his clients does not mean that he considers it moral for a man to do the same for his wife. Any assumption that the Pontiff is in any way concerned with impeding the spread of sexually transmitted diseases between husband and wife (or heterosexuals generally) is wishful thinking at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of his words at worst.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
People could if they purposefully ignored what the Pope actually said and instead acted on what they wished he said. Why not just ignore the Pope entirely and do what you want to do? That's just me. I'll never understand what motivates progressive Roman Catholics.
quote:Any assumption to the contrary is ridiculous calumny. The pope however is certainly no moral utilitarian, knows that the end does not justify the means and has not made sex his idol.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Any assumption that the Pontiff is in any way concerned with impeding the spread of sexually transmitted diseases between husband and wife (or heterosexuals generally) is wishful thinking at best and a deliberate misrepresentation of his words at worst.
quote:Rather, that the pope used a male prostitute as an example (likely with homosexual activity in mind) is easily understandable given precisely this background: he clearly did not want to enter here the debate about "condoms in marriage for disease prevention" with papal authority.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
What the Pope has done is effectively to support the Bishop of Rustenburg, Kevin Dowling who has promoted the use of condoms where prevention of disease is a priority eg between husband and wife where one is HIV positive, by prostitutes etc.
quote:And this makes my point exactly. Benedict fucked up here. His comments act as a de facto encyclical of sorts with none of the clarity or care involved in it.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Ex Ingob.... Rather, that the pope used a male prostitute as an example (likely with homosexual activity in mind) is easily understandable given precisely this background: he clearly did not want to enter here the debate about "condoms in marriage for disease prevention" with papal authority.
That is surmise, of course. What the pope seems to be pointing out (my surmise) is that the use of prophylactics is permissible when they assist in the prevention of transmission of disease. Isn't that why they are called prophylactics?
quote:You heard it here first folks!
the pope used a male prostitute
quote:I can see you are aching for the Pope to have made a major face-egging blunder here. But he has hasn't done anything of the sort.
Originally posted by pjkirk:
And this makes my point exactly. Benedict fucked up here. His comments act as a de facto encyclical of sorts with none of the clarity or care involved in it.
quote:Hmm. Ok, lets' take this to a more basic level.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it did that for me either. The point was whether there was any meaningful difference between using a pill or condom to avoid pregnancy or timing sex to avoid pregnancy. Your answer was that the latter was not having sex in a way that was designed to avoid procreation (presumably timing doesn't count as design in that) and thus we got to go to analogies with cars and engines running.
quote:This is the arbitrary bit. You define "open to the procreative meaning" in such a way that it includes altering the timing of sex to avoid procreation, but excludes altering the mechanics of sex to avoid procreation.
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
quote:Then why does it work?
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
quote:Wrong. One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility. Where there is no possibility of pregnancy through no fault of either party (infertility, post-hysterectomy, post-menopause) there can be no intent deliberately to frustrate the procreative process!
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Surely, to be logical, that has to be an intention for a sexual act to be procreative for it to be licit. If anyone has sexual intercourse with the intention to avoid pregnancy then that must be illicit. Naturally anyone having sexual intercourse where there is no possibility of pregnancy must be indulging in an illicit act.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Which NFP does. It has been claimed - on this thread - that it is a more reliable method of precluding the procreative possibility than a condom!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility.
quote:NFP is deliberately precluding the procreative possibility. Why else would anyone use it?
Since conjugal sex is a good independently of its procreative potential - as a legitimate fulfilment of a natural desire and as a bond between the spouses - then it retains that goodness when pregnancy is no longer possible so long as it is not delberately precluded.
quote:With the intent deliberately to preclude it artificially, yes. To take advantage of the body's natural infertile period to enjoy conjugal relations, no - provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods also. Delibertely attempting to remain childless even by natural means (i.e., strictly never having sex when the symptoms of fertility are present) is considered illicit also.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
So you obviously agree that sexual intercourse between the fertile with an intention to avoid pregnancy must be wrong.
quote:But it's also been pointed out that it's each individual act of intercourse which should be considered, and that in using NFP no act of intercourse excludes the proctrative meaning. Do try to keep up.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Which NFP does. It has been claimed - on this thread - that it is a more reliable method of precluding the procreative possibility than a condom!
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
One only has not to intend deliberately to preclude the procreative possibility.
quote:Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Then why does it work?
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
quote:The note (35) references the following:
6. However, profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behaviour of married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality.(35)
The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called "natural," confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.
quote:
(35) "If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.
"The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love" (Paul VI, Enc. Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, n. 16).
"When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as 'ministers' of God's plan and they 'benefit from' their sexuality according to the original dynamism of 'total' self-giving, without manipulation or alteration" (John Paul II, Apost. Exhort. Familiaris Consortio, November 22, 1981, n. 32).
"The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord's call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility" (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 97).
quote:Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
With the intent deliberately to preclude it artificially, yes. To take advantage of the body's natural infertile period to enjoy conjugal relations, no - provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods also. Delibertely attempting to remain childless even by natural means (i.e., strictly never having sex when the symptoms of fertility are present) is considered illicit also.
quote:
Having contemplated the BBC translation of the German texts, I see what the Holy Father's words mean. He is saying that if a rent-boy has unprotected sex, he is committing two sins: the mortal sin of homosexual genital intercourse; and the mortal sin of risking communicating a lethal infection. If, however, he uses a condom, while he is still committing the first of those mortal sins, he has to a degree excluded the second. By so doing he has, as we might say, taken a step in the right direction.
quote:*Stepping into this discussion, mortal sin means you are condemned to hell anyway unless you repent. What difference does it make in the fires of gehenna if you commit one mortal sin versus two?
Originally posted by +Chad:
I rather like Fr Hunwicke's take on the Papal statement:
quote:
Having contemplated the BBC translation of the German texts, I see what the Holy Father's words mean. He is saying that if a rent-boy has unprotected sex, he is committing two sins: the mortal sin of homosexual genital intercourse; and the mortal sin of risking communicating a lethal infection. If, however, he uses a condom, while he is still committing the first of those mortal sins, he has to a degree excluded the second. By so doing he has, as we might say, taken a step in the right direction.
quote:Thank you Crœsos - my thoughts exactly, I was working out a succinct way of saying it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why does it work?
quote:Did you really think Marvin didn't understand that bit? If you use your imagination you could assume that we are intelligent people who simply disagree with you. You could then imagine ways of communicating what you think that don't assume our problem is just stubborn stupidity.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?
quote:It all sounds pretty case by case to me. But I couldn't find anything in your post that addresses the reason that indefinite NFP isn't moral. It seems that temporary NFP is considered "open to procreation" but indefinite NFP is not. On the other hand neither temporary nor indefinite contraception is considered "open to procreation".
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Fuzzipeg and mdijon, the key phrase in my post was "provided that there is a suffiently serious cause for the prolonged use of this method to the exclusion of relations during fertile periods".
quote:Invalid premise on two counts.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Hmm. Ok, lets' take this to a more basic level.
- the problem is that an act of intercourse which fails to express the procreative meaning of sex is wrong
quote:And here most non-Catholics IME see blatant sophistry.
- if you use a condom or a pill, you are still engaging in an act of intercourse which is not open to the procreative meaning.
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.
quote:"When I feed the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist." Apparently only acts of charity matter, not the overall impact of the situation.
Does that make it clear? The point is that each individual act of intercourse matters; it's not some sort of fuzzy 'overall group of all acts of intercourse'.
quote:Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
]I can see you are aching for the Pope to have made a major face-egging blunder here. But he has hasn't done anything of the sort.
quote:Really? Thanks for the dictionary lesson. My point still stands - just by talking, he is issuing might-as-well-be-official guidance. Given the range of opinions on what he actually meant from people on this thread trying diligently to figure it out, he did so very sloppily too, which would be worse than if he had kept his yap shut in the first place.
There are no "de facto" encyclicals: all official doctrine is officially promulgated in official documents precisely so that the faithful will not be misled. This was not an offcial document, or an endorsed finding of a commission, or a sermon or even a lecture to a group of moral theologians: it was an opinion expressed in the course of a biographical interview.
quote:You assume the good is so 'evident.' Looking from the outside and from a longer historical view, it's a very mixed bag at best. Lots of good, and a shitton of bad.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
Fortunately it will long survive you, Justinian, and for all its faults, sophistry and often wicked members I am proud to call myself a Catholic because it is only in the Church that I really feel God's presence and see Him working through ordinary people to bring in His Kingdom. To dismiss the power of good that is so evident in what the Church does and is in a snide comment on fetishist sex only reflects on you not the object of your attack.
quote:If I may be so gauche as to quote myself earlier on this thread:
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I didn't think it would take Justinian long to turn this into his usual attack on the RCC....talk about a red herring!
quote:
quote:yadda yadda yadda yawn
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:"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." ...
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Am I reading this clarification correctly as saying that responsible use of condoms to protect the life of another is potentially appropriate in any circumstance (including within marriage), and that perhaps Benedict's point is more generous than initially interpreted?
quote:I have never said there is not that of the Light in the Roman Catholic Church. Or that ordinary people from all walks of life including the churches you so blithely dismiss by being unable to see God's presence in them do not do good. Much good comes from the Roman Catholic Church. And much ill comes from the Roman Catholic Church.
Originally posted by Fuzzipeg:
I didn't think it would take Justinian long to turn this into his usual attack on the RCC....talk about a red herring!
Fortunately it will long survive you, Justinian, and for all its faults, sophistry and often wicked members I am proud to call myself a Catholic because it is only in the Church that I really feel God's presence and see Him working through ordinary people to bring in His Kingdom. To dismiss the power of good that is so evident in what the Church does and is in a snide comment on fetishist sex only reflects on you not the object of your attack.
quote:Artifice is no problem, what it is for, is. But before we come to that, let's clarify something else. The difference between "NFP to avoid pregnancy" and artificial contraception is clearly not in the outcome (if they work, they will both keep the couple childless). The difference often is, but does not have to be, in the intentions. For example, the intention of spacing children appropriately is good as such. Thus one can employ artificial contraception with good intentions to reach a good end. Rather, the difference is actually located in the object, the act itself, or possibly in other related acts.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Aren't most of the techniques used in NFP also artificial (i.e. products of human artifice)? Mathematics, calendars, and various ovulation monitoring techniques are all artificial creations. It seems like you're not opposed to artificial contraception, just to certain levels of artifice.
quote: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. It's the moral distinction between those two that I'm struggling with.
Originally posted by IngoB:
An analogy: I wish to play the drums. But you are my neighbor and complain to the police every time I do. I do not want that hassle. I now devise the following "artifice".... Thursdays and Saturdays you are regularly away from the afternoon to the late evening (actually you are going bowling). Therefore I start playing my drums during those time slots, hassle free.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
All other methods to avoid pregnancy either corrupt the procreative ordering of the sexual act directly (e.g., withdrawal prior to ejaculation) or acquire additional responsibility for its failure to result in procreation through related acts (e.g., taking the pill makes the woman infertile when she would not be so without it). And that is illicit.
quote:As I explained previously, I think you (and Chesterbelloc) are straining to create a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" which doesn't really exist. Virtually all the methods used in NFP are "artificial". Mathematics and calendars are such old technologies that we often don't think of them as such anymore, but they're technologies just the same. A lot of ovulation-tracking methods are of a more recent vintage, however, and seem at least as artificial/unnatural.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Artifice is no problem, what it is for, is.
<snip>
Now, what parts of the sexual act must we actually perform in a right manner, so that it can be considered morally "good" (or at least "neutral")? Simply those parts over which we have natural control.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.
quote:Well, if he doesn't think that, then the question of how not having sex during a fertile time (the basis of NFP) works to prevents you getting pregnant was a bit of a strange one to ask, wasn't it? I frankly couldn't even see what point he could be making that would merit that sort of question.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
- if you use NFP, you are not engaging in an act of intercousre which is not open to the procreative meaning.quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then why does it work?quote:Did you really think Marvin didn't understand that bit? If you use your imagination you could assume that we are intelligent people who simply disagree with you.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Because with one notable exception, if you don't engage in intercourse you don't get pregnant. Did you really think otherwise?
quote:I really struggle to understand how this can not be understood.
I haven't really understood the argument that explains why timing an event to avoid pregnancy is morally different to altering the mechanics of the event.You have some definition of "open to procreation" that includes engineering the timing but excludes engineering the mechanics.
quote: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.
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. Virtually all the methods used in NFP are "artificial". Mathematics and calendars are such old technologies that we often don't think of them as such anymore, but they're technologies just the same. A lot of ovulation-tracking methods are of a more recent vintage, however, and seem at least as artificial/unnatural. [/qb]
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child.[/QB]
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Which is where NFP falls down. It's billed as sex that couldn't result in a child.
Originally posted by IngoB:
According to the Church, we should perform the act in such a manner that a child could result from it.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:. . . 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?
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.
quote:Yes, that was basically my point.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's the moral distinction between those two that I'm struggling with.
quote: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.
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.
quote:OK. Now try reading what I actually wrote. Hint: read the first paragraph, and pay close attention to the words put in bold.
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.
quote: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).
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!
quote: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.
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.
quote:The rocket science of sex...
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.
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".quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Not if waking is usually a result of noisy unrest in the next bedroom along.
Originally posted by multipara:
Trouble is, slip-ups d occur between sleeping and waking....
quote: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.
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.
quote: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).
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?
quote:Which might be a neat answer if it wasn't a straw man, yet again.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
Crœsos:quote:. . . 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?
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.
quote:Well, indeed, and it's backed up by statistics indicating that NFP users have rather more frequent intercourse than contraceptive users.
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.
quote:Or just more deluded and more smug.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Sex is an expression, a communication; it's never the same because the people concerned are never the same.
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:Why is waiting 2wks morally different from waiting 2yrs?
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).
quote: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.
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:Why is waiting 2wks morally different from waiting 2yrs?
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).
quote: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?
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
quote:You're suggesting that God made us fit for 2wk abstinence cycles but not for 2yr cycles? On what basis?
Originally posted by coniunx:
there's plenty of the 'good' in a time-scale which is very natural, and God made us that way.
quote:Maintain away, if you like: it's your choice what arguments you label as sophistry. I maintain you are completely wrong.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote: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.
Originally posted by coniunx:
Sex is an expression, a communication; it's never the same because the people concerned are never the same.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote: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?
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
quote: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?
mdijonquote:You're suggesting that God made us fit for 2wk abstinence cycles but not for 2yr cycles? On what basis?
Originally posted by coniunx:
there's plenty of the 'good' in a time-scale which is very natural, and God made us that way.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:I've both used it and taught it (with my wife, of course) for very nearly 30 years now.
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE] However, I seriously wonder if coniunx actually has used NFP
quote:That sounds really weird.
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:That sounds really weird.
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.
"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."
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
quote: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?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:That sounds really weird.
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.
"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."
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by coniunx:
However, I doubt that a little bit of the science is going to influence your views now
quote:OK; just a couple of examples.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote: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.
Originally posted by coniunx:
However, I doubt that a little bit of the science is going to influence your views now
quote:Low thyroid function is very rarely the result of nutritional problems in the Western world, due to iodine supplementation.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Low thyroid function is very rarely the result of nutritional problems in the Western world, due to iodine supplementation.
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.
quote:Vitamin C deficiency isn't the problem.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Is this all determined by a battery of blood tests?
This all sounds very pseudo-science still.
quote:RE: DIET
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by coniunx:
As a matter of interest, what are your qualifications and experience in this field?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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
quote: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.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
It can't be double effect, can it?
quote: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.'
Originally posted by IngoB:
The main argument contra is that procreative ordering must remain concrete in the act, not merely abstracted into irrelevance.
