Posted on 03/19/2007 5:46:55 AM PDT by markomalley
The converse being that if you condone one form of sexual pleasure, then you must condone all forms. I always hated Plato...
As an evangelical Presbyterian, although I would have preferred to hear a case built on the bible first, rather than simply logic, however, I cannot find fault in Dr. Miris's clear and cogent reasoning. The more I see the fruits of easy sex (I hate to call it the "sexual revolution")--which historically directly follows the availability of contraception, with the culture of death from abortion also quickly following, the more I'm considering that the Roman position on contraception may well indeed be the most godly one.
Still I would think the issue for American Roman Catholic curia would be to find a way to make their case more compelling to average American Roman Catholics (like Sean Hannity) who, I believe, seem to approve of and use contraception as much as those of other faiths. That disconnect, of official Roman teaching, verses, typical lay practice, is one serious issue that evangelicals like I have with Roman Catholicism.
"There are ways to do this while still preserving the respect for the sexual act that the Church requires."
Really?
You learn something new everyday!
Dare I ask how this is done? Or will it make me squirm thinking of the pain?
"If you are talking about as foreplay, then absolutely. If you are talking about a sexual act in and of itself, then no"
I remember a thread where the question was a "session" that involved a sequence of acts.
I think the point being made was they thought they were not "contracepting" because by the end of the session intercourse had occurred, but after other acts - including os had occurred as well.
So...the man "completed" both ways.
If I remember right, they were told this was a no-no.
Mrs VS
you seem to articulate some of my problems better than I can.
this statement stood out to me...
" The arguments against it are mystical, which does not invalidate them. "
when I read the arguments against it the language is lofty and theoretical but I find myself thinking..."most people don't talk to each other like this or think in this manner"
Which - like you say - doesn't invalidate the argument, and maybe it would be nice if more people did talk and think like this - but it just seem out of reach - out of touch.
Maybe my husband and I should get to a place where we say to each other "let us give our whole selves to each other in mutual total self giving accepting each others' fertility"
But that isn't happening right now.
Sort of like the difference between learning theoretical principles in textbooks, versus going out in the real world and living it.
"The arguments for its possible morality when considering the total relationship have weight for me."
yes - the relationship as a whole.
When I consider what is more harmful - contracepting? celibacy?
I imagine celibacy would be very harmful.
This is what happens to women when they tell their man there won't be any sex....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1804745/posts
(just kidding)
From what I have heard from friends who are going through some very trying fertility issues, there's no pain involved. A sample is gathered after love making. My impression was that something like a condom was used, but that it allowed some semen escape while retaining some.
But I have to admit, I didn't ask any clarifying questions. ;)
As to the other issue, hubby and I have asked about that as well, and I was left with the impression that it's a no-no as well.
"A sample is gathered after love making"
ohhh! ok. that's much better than what I was thinking.
I was imagining some awful procedure involving a long needle sticking in places where no one wants a needle.
"As to the other issue, hubby and I have asked about that as well, and I was left with the impression that it's a no-no as well."
it isn't like people who do this are trying to contracept - they're probably even conceiving during such activities.
Sometimes I think people get too technical with this teaching.
But then again - my opinion doesn't really matter! :)
There is no question that contraception has led to some bad things - fornication by those who would formerly have been deterred by the risks; the notion that using contraception is the same as having a right not to be pregnant, hence abortion; birth rates that are too low in some parts of the world; the idea of procreation as an optional part of marriage, etc.
You could also name good things - women not worn down by childbearing and childrearing, families not having more children than they can provide for, women being able to enter other spheres than motherhood - couples being able to have this and the closeness, pleasure, release of intercourse.
Guns facilitate plenty of bad things. Horrible, immoral, unChristian things. Not many people here would say, ban guns.
You are right that there is a vast disconnect between the teaching of the Church and the ordinary Catholic. I am not sure how it can be bridged.
Mrs VS
I'm not Catholic and I really don't have a problem with contraception, providing that it's not something that could be destructive to an embryo. By that, I mean that condoms used in marriage seems perfectly okay to me.
Multiple measures provide more certainty - 1-2% chance of pregnancy with NFP X 2% chance with barrier methods = 0.04% chance of pregnancy - same principle holds true with any set of independent safeguards for anything. Sterilization would provide even more certainty - and I am not sure why when pregnancy itself is a threat to health and life, it may not be surgically prevented - when licit treatments for other conditions, e.g. fibroids, do sterilize. Fibroids are rarely life-threatening.
John Paul says in Love and Responsibility that abstaining during the fertile time is difficult for the woman - her desire is strongest then. He is right. It is even possible that the woman will experience NO desire when she isn't fertile. Using NFP to not conceive means that the woman can not offer her husband the gift of her strongest desire - or sometimes any desire at all. In these circumstances, her pleasure and fulfillment are likely much diminished.
Some couples experience difficulty and resentment when they have to wait two weeks plus. A very devout nurse, of about forty, told me that she and her husband were now doing NFP but they could not have managed when they were younger.
Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Sometimes we are called to be married and to burn - as when spouses are apart from each other. To do so when they are together - some might call that perverse.
Mrs VS
"Using NFP to not conceive means that the woman can not offer her husband the gift of her strongest desire - or sometimes any desire at all. In these circumstances, her pleasure and fulfillment are likely much diminished."
absolutely correct. And after time the man can get the impression his wife no longer finds him desireable and she becomes resentful the only period of time sex is enjoyable to her - is no longer available.
"A very devout nurse, of about forty, told me that she and her husband were now doing NFP but they could not have managed when they were younger."
even when we were doing our very best to abide by the NFP rules - there were still many many trips to the confessional with the exact same problem.
"Saint Paul said it is better to marry than to burn. Sometimes we are called to be married and to burn - as when spouses are apart from each other. To do so when they are together - some might call that perverse."
I've often pondered the meaning of that verse.
Ha! I like the outfits!
Hormonal contraception could not be licit because it is potentially abortifacient. But yes, there were some recent studies confirming what some women on the Pill had noticed - some do lose their desire, and that this can persist even after stopping the Pill.
As you say, men have to restrain themselves even when their desire is high - but they get to indulge when desire is high also - that carries over into the waiting time. If a woman never gets to indulge when desire is high, that carries over into the rest of her life.
In a state of NO desire (a state I have experienced after childbirth for a few months - it's hormonal, and what a strange way of looking at the world it is) desire is literally a foreign concept, intercourse a laughable custom, and arousal impossible. You don't miss it. Attempts to arouse would be unpleasant or annoying - the wife would rather have her husband just get it over with. A sensible and sensitive husband will wait it out. Now imagine this lasting not for months - but for years.
With low desire, no matter how attentive, loving, patient, and skilled the husband is, he may not be able to fully compensate for his wife's hormonal state, just as a wife might not overcome her husband's impotence if there were a physical cause. And in both cases, they would miss what they lack.
Telling couples who are having trouble with NFP for whatever reason, "If you do this and that, your problems will be over. It's worked for me and a lot of people I know," would be like me telling a couple who is having trouble conceiving even though they know NFP, "If you do this when the signs are that way, you'll get pregnant. It's always worked for me."
Paul says "Do not deprive each other, except...to be free for prayer." You could use that against the NFP only argument.
Paul writes as if the end of days is near. It's strange - for the sake of heaven, we must live as if the world would end tomorrow, and for the sake of creation and those entrusted to us, we must live as though the world will endure for eons.
Mrs VS
I remember reading advice a priest was giving a man who was "gay' in that he was only attracted to men but was trying to live by Church teaching.
The priest explained how the inclination itself was not sinful but acting on it sexually was.
The man was not only concerned about his sexuality but also about companionship - being able to share his life with someone even if he were not committing sexual acts.
The response from the priest was that it would not be sinful to cohabitate with another man as long as they lived as brothers, but he strongly did not recommend that arrangement because it most likely required super human resolve to resist temptation if they both possessed healthy levels of desire.
He thought it invited too much "occasion for sin" for a person to handle.
I think of that article often as it relates to married couples practicing NFP especially now that it appears my husband and I are supposed to avoid sex 90% of the time.
After 2 decades of being together we are supposed to switch gears and become celibate? And we're supposed to continue living together under these conditions -as any other arrangement would be detrimental to the family as a whole.
No priest is going to advise us "maybe you too should live apart as the temptation will be too great for you to handle."
So the idea that we are expected to have superhuman resolve and never again enjoy our "peak" time - but still be expected to live together for the sake of the kids...this does seem twisted and perverse.
I read the arguments - and they sound lovely - but they don't address the reality of my situation.
I truly think that celibacy would harm the marriage, and I'm not going to do that.
I don't know what to say to you, but that your post makes me very sad, for you. It is a heavy cross, and I am so sorry that you have to carry it.
You are in my prayers, and I am sure the prayers of numerous other FReepers. You are not carrying this alone, we will take some small share of the burden, with our prayers. That's what the communion of saints is all about in my mind.
I don't have any other advice, being fairly new at this whole married thing, and well, got my own issues to resolve. Just know I am praying for you, and that God is merciful. And knows you heart better than you do yourself.
thank you dear.
you're very kind and I hope I don't scare the newly married.
I just figured I can't be the only who had had this experience with NFP and find oneself to be between a rock and a hard place.
I have tried to abide by the rules and never wanted to wind up a "cafeteria catholic"
So it seems a bit of a surprise to me to wind up where I am.
thank you for the prayers and God Bless your new marriage.
despite my struggles with this issue I consider my marriage to be the greatest blessing in my life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.