I think the point often gets sidetracked to fertility issues like this was highschool biology class. It’s not. The point of the Church’s rules on contraception is to preserve the integrity of the marital act which, not to put too fine a point on it, is vaginal intercourse between a married man and a woman with nothing between them, open to the possibility that life could come from the act they are committing.
The minute you mess with the integrity of any aspect of that act (in which orifice the intercourse takes place, the number or type of persons involved, or the fertility) you’re doing violence to the nature of the marital act. God made it a certain way for certain purposes.
With artificial contraception you’re lying with your body. You’re saying ”I’m giving you everything”, and yet you’re holding back. Now, there could be a way to lie with your body with NFP, but it’s not doing so by its very nature.
You could intentionally hold back your fertility from your partner and use the fast from sex as a way to render yourself infertile, but it’s not necessary. NFP can be used as a method of responsibly spacing pregnancy while still maintaining the integrity of the marital act. The obvious difference is that nothing artificial is placed between the husband and wife to prevent conception. To use JPII’s language, the giving capacity of the man still gives and the receptive genius of the woman still receives. Conception is left in the hands of God. The couple has done nothing to change the nature of the act to prevent conception.
Every form of artificial contraception necessarily places something between the husband and wife that attempts to portray either the giving of the man or the receiving of the woman as other than what it appears to be. It says one thing and does another. If it’s condoms, the man is giving and then taking back. If it’s hormonal contraception, the woman is going through the motions of receiving while making sure her body will not actually receive it.
It’s this fundamental dishonesty in the place where we most clearly image God that the Church finds so detestable about contraception. Here, where we should be speaking most clearly and honestly with the language of our bodies, contraception throws in lies and muddies the waters of communication.
That’s why, despite this being a debate about contraception, conception is almost a side issue. In having sex when the chance of conception is less, man and woman are still authentically giving and receiving, they’re still giving the total gift of themselves to each other with no interruptions, they just might be lessening their chances of having a baby. The act itself is authentic and honest.
Homesick No More 
65 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 4, 2007 at 12:51 am
John Jansen
Excellent post, good sir. It’s all about honesty and authenticity.
I’m reminded of a down-to-earth analogy that a priest-friend of mine used in a humdinger of a homily he preached on contraception last year. The analogy isn’t his originally; it’s also been used by Christopher West — and maybe others, too — but I hadn’t heard it before:
December 4, 2007 at 2:53 am
Dave Hodges
NFP, when used as a method not to have children, is just as sinful as artificial contraception. Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii is quite clear in this regard.
December 4, 2007 at 3:55 am
Joshua
Dave,
I’ve asked this before, but never really gotten a good answer. If the RC husband finishes before the RC wife, is the RC wife out of luck for the evening? If not, why? What purpose does finishing her off fulfill if not a simple gratification of the flesh?
December 4, 2007 at 4:20 am
Dave Hodges
“If the RC husband finishes before the RC wife, is the RC wife out of luck for the evening?”
First of all, there are always second chances for the same evening. JPII said that the husband should do everything in his power to make sure that she finishes first. This might not always happen, but it should be the goal of the husband. If it is his goal and he sets his mind to it, then he can succeed. Sure less than perfect incidents will happen, but plenty of good times will happen as well.
December 4, 2007 at 4:42 am
bennettcarnahan
(with trepidation)
Dave,
how is that a “less than perfect” incident?
John,
Not meaning any disrespect toward your friend, but the analogy is, I think, a tad askew. It seems that the following might perhaps fit the situation a little more accurately.
Gweeds,
That picture pretty nearly makes the rest of your post superfluous.
December 4, 2007 at 5:00 am
Remy
So Dave what is the NFP if not a method for not having children? Shorely not a method for having them…
John, for the life of me I cannot make head nor tales of the analogy. How about this one: one couple only throws parties when Jesus cannot show up, on the days he is available the couple does not throw a party. The other couple invites Jesus to a party when he is able to show up, but puts saran-wrap over the door leaving a note saying to just poke through if He wants to enter. With whom is Christ more pleased?
Matt said: “despite this being a debate about contraception, conception is almost a side issue.”
Wow, not only is this etymologically impossible, but it is also amazing to me how quickly you would abandon the only strength of these posts just to protect your NFP or -as I will now refer to it- catapulting your veggies on the ground.
My argument here is tricky, because it is not my purpose to dissatisfy you with the position of your church, but neither am I promoting the use of condoms. I do think there are allowable uses of birthcontrol, but my concern, one that no number of encyclicals could ever account for, is the heart.
For example, if a church required of its members a tenth of the spice rack, while I might have misgivings over the wisdom to require this, I understand that they are dealing with their flock in the best way they know how and I am sympathetic to that. However, when this is used as a method of pietistic-manipulation and a instrument to bludgeon other churches I take issue.
Tithing the spice rack is fine, no sex with condoms okay, but it doesn’t solve the problem and it causes a lot more deeper and difficult problems.
But if you’re going to abandon procreation as the emphasis for these posts and cling to a thin “open to the possibility that life could come from the act they are committing” in those times when it is impossible to become pregnant, which I contest only the naive could believe, then I will have to say these posts have lost all their value.
I want to argue that having children is good and beautiful and the greatest possible blessing and I think the options of birthcontrol are severely limited and the opportunities for birthcontrol few. This, I think, is where we agree. The Roman church thinks the best way to get to this position is to pile law upon law and to use words like “honest”, “integrity”, and “authentic” in a meaningless way. It’s silly for me to say that your prayerlife is dishonest and inauthentic because you use prayercondoms. For me to attach those words to the practice of praying with icons is meaningless and is not an argument.
A low view of prophylactics does not indicate a high view of procreation, and since a low view of procreation is the problem and a high use of prophylactics the fruit of that problem wouldn’t you be better served in spending your time on that matter rather than a funny piece of rubber on a funny looking body part?
December 4, 2007 at 5:25 am
Dave Hodges
“So Dave what is the NFP if not a method for not having children? Shorely not a method for having them…”
On the contrary, that is precisely what NFP is for! For those who are having difficult times conceiving, NFP allows the couple to monitor their vital signs to determine the best time to come together in order to conceive. Those who use the same process to eliminate the possibility of conception do so against the Church’s teaching, as the document to which I linked earlier demonstrates.
“The Roman church thinks the best way to get to this position is to pile law upon law and to use words like ‘honest’, ‘integrity’, and ‘authentic’ in a meaningless way.”
I didn’t see any of those words used in the encyclical above.
Josh deleted my question on his blog, so I’ll repost it here.
What is the difference between using a condom and mutual masturbation besides the location of the genitalia?
[This question, apparently, is proof that I am a cage stage Catholic, just like Jon Amos said. According to Jon Amos, a cage-stage Catholic is one who believes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and since this question reflects a view promulgated in the Catechism, I guess he’s right after all.]
December 4, 2007 at 5:27 am
Dave Hodges
Oops, I should have said, “I didn’t see any of those words used in the encyclical above in a meaningless way.”
December 4, 2007 at 7:46 am
Remy
Thank you for your clarifications, Dave. I did not read any of the NFP lit and was presuming what I was getting here to be the facts.
Here’s question for you, what is the difference between vaginal sex and anal sex besides the location of the genitalia?
December 4, 2007 at 7:46 am
Remy
Throw this “a” in where needed.
December 4, 2007 at 7:47 am
Dave Hodges
Remy,
The prayercondom thing doesn’t work because the analogy is very poor. A condom prevents life from being transmitted as a result of intercourse. An icon doesn’t prevent anything. My prayers are not stopped nor do they go unanswered because of the icon. There isn’t really any parallel to your analogy at all.
If you want a spiritual analog to your precious condoms, imagine going to church, praying intently the whole time, singing your heart out, and then right when you go up to receive communion, you stuff a saran wrap sock in your mouth. Then you take the bread into your mouth and hold it in there, nicely enveloped in the plastic sock. Then after the service is over, you go into the bathroom and take the sack out of your mouth – bread and all – and then dump the whole thing into the toilet, flush it satisfactorily, and then smugly grin to yourself about how you “beat the system”.
In sexual intercourse, the man gives his body to his wife and vise versa. The result of a man’s giving of himself results in the creation of life. If Jesus were to only give Himself as bread, but not actually convey any grace, i.e. if He were to withhold the life-giving aspect of his Precious Body and Blood, what would it avail us? Nothing.
December 4, 2007 at 7:49 am
Dave Hodges
“Here’s question for you, what is the difference between vaginal sex and anal sex besides the location of the genitalia?”
One fulfills the purposes God gave us as human beings and brings about the propagation of the human race and the dominion mandate. The other violates the natural order altogether, causes harm to both people, prohibits conception of life, and is strictly forbidden under Levitical law and the teachings of the Church.
Do you need any more help with this question?
December 4, 2007 at 8:02 am
respect
Still you both got the analogy for the contraception wrong!
The first one for Family Planning should have said
“they knew jesus couldnt come on the last 7 days of each month, so they purposefully planned so that he couldnt make it because they didnt want him there”
and this then becomes the same as putting a bouncer at the door as ben stated.
If its family planning, its obviously a PLAN, if its a plan to not get pregnant, its obviously a good plan, if its a good plan well executed it is the same as contraception. Both eliminate the possibility for children.
The only difference between the two is, Contraception is a good plan that works, and family planning is the idiots guide to having a baby on the first pop.
December 4, 2007 at 9:05 am
Remy
Dave, I said besides the location!
December 4, 2007 at 9:21 am
Dave Hodges
Everything I listed was besides the location.
December 4, 2007 at 10:25 am
jon
Yeah, Dave, a cage-stage Catholic is one who believes the Catechism of the Catholic Church – that’s what I said. Come on. This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help anything.
Btw, in case you didn’t see my apology, it’s in one of the last comments on Guido’s Pillar & Ground post, here:
December 4, 2007 at 11:50 am
Scott Lyons
Dave, I appreciate your posting on these controversial issues. My comment may be tangential to the discussion at hand, it may not be. Regardless, I’m not a fan of NFP myself – not because I believe it an immoral act in and of itself, but perhaps because I see it as an immoral act for the mass majority of American Catholics. But the Church is the universal, the Catholic, Church and therefore when she speaks she is not merely speaking to us (the rich of this world, the healthy, those at peace). She is also speaking to those Catholics who live in terrible poverty, disease, and in the midst of persecution and war. (What the USCCB has taught about this, I don’t know.)
But perhaps, just perhaps, the Church’s teaching on NFP is more appropriately intended for the people in their circumstances than it is for us. Perhaps NFP for us “rich Americans” is just another way to be selfish and to guard our own plans.
In other words, it is one thing for me to try to space births and regulate the number of children I have in the relative comfort of my American lifestyle (though I think that I have so little) – as I understand it, that does not seem to be “open to life.” That seems to still be the poverty of my selfishness. It would be another thing entirely, I imagine, if I lived in a country where I daily experienced extreme poverty or famine or unimaginable persecution.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this perspective.
December 4, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Joshua
Dave writes, First of all, there are always second chances for the same evening. JPII said that the husband should do everything in his power to make sure that she finishes first. This might not always happen, but it should be the goal of the husband. If it is his goal and he sets his mind to it, then he can succeed. Sure less than perfect incidents will happen, but plenty of good times will happen as well.
In the few months I’ve known you, Dave, and in the billions of lines of comments you’ve made, this is the absolute bleeding weakest answer you’ve ever given to any question put to you. “The goal of the husband”? So does the RC husband tell the RC bride on the wedding night, “I’ll get off tonight- and just wait, you know- in seven or eight months I’ll get my money right and you can see what it’s like, too.” Ah, yes-of course! The female orgasm. A fun coincidence of sex!
If it is really, truly and honestly the teaching of the Catholic Church that a husband shouldn’t finish his wife after he gets off, then any serious investigation into Catholicism I’ve had is completely over. The selfishness of contraception? Why don’t you give me the biggest break of all time?
December 4, 2007 at 8:32 pm
respectmyauthorita
what the hell is wrong with you guys. Intellectuals=no practical knowledge whatsoever. But i didnt expect you to be this stupid.
December 4, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Dave Hodges
Jon Amos: “Yeah, Dave, a cage-stage Catholic is one who believes the Catechism of the Catholic Church – that’s what I said.”
That is precisely what you said. If a Catholic believes the claims of the Catholic Church, he is a cage-stage Catholic. If a Catholic says that “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it,” then he must be a cage-stage Catholic. This, of course, makes Pope St. Pius X a cage-stage Catholic, but, oh well. You then proceeded to explain that “faithful” Catholics (i.e. ones who agree with you) reject that teaching of the Church. If you’d like to clarify what you meant, by all means, but I thought your post was pretty clear: good, faithful, honest Catholics agree with you that the teachings of the Catholic Church are incorrect, and short-fused, cage-stage Catholics actually believe the Catechism.
Joshua: “If it is really, truly and honestly the teaching of the Catholic Church that a husband shouldn’t finish his wife after he gets off”
I didn’t realise this was your question. Of course, he can finish her off, provided he does so in a way that preserves her dignity as a person. And he can do this before as well as after. In fact, some theologians have said that the woman can finish the job herself if necessary. So if this is your gripe, it isn’t much of one. The reason for my confusion was that we were talking about contraceptive sex, not the woman failing to achieve an orgasm during normal sex.
Scott Lyons: “It would be another thing entirely, I imagine, if I lived in a country where I daily experienced extreme poverty or famine or unimaginable persecution.”
Scott, I think your perspective has merit. NFP, as used by many Catholics, is meant to prevent conception and is therefore sinful. But yes, the Church has declared that abstaining from sex during certain times can be done without sin provided the motives are pure.
December 4, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Scott Lyons
I appreciate your response, Dave.
And, Matt, thank you for your posting on contraception. I became a little confused as to whose site I was on last night apparently. (And without adult beverages even 🙂 )
December 4, 2007 at 10:24 pm
mattyonke
Good, I think Dave’s comments might be getting us closer to clarity. Josh, we’ve talked about this. Catholics can (and do) have good sex where everybody ends up happy. Though Dave, I’d have to question a theologian who recommended a wife seeing to her own needs. That seems very very suspect to me. And in the future, let’s try to respect our own human dignity and the dignity of the sexual act in the way we refer to it. I’m just not fond of the terminology of ‘getting off’.
As to the NFP questions, both Paul XI and John Paul II were very very clear that NFP can be used for responsible spacing of pregnancy in serious circumstances. This is not the same thing as the desire to not have children at all or not wanting to have children because it would interfere with your ability to buy a new boat. What circumstances constitute grave matter are left to the conscience of the individual who will have to stand before God and give an account for his fertility and his marriage and what he did with them.
I think there’ll be another post on Humanae Vitae in the near future that will try to address some of Remy’s issues and try, yet again, to make clear the difference between NFP and artificial contraception.
Shoot, I’m gonna have to change the name of this thing to the contraception blog or some such nonsense.
Let’s keep it civil around here,
Matt
December 4, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Dave Hodges
“Though Dave, I’d have to question a theologian who recommended a wife seeing to her own needs.”
It is not a recommendation at all. It was a statement addressing the very issue about which Joshua was complaining, to wit: a woman’s sexual needs can be met in other ways before and after coitus. And in some circumstances (I know not which – I didn’t read the report nor can I find it), the American bishops said that a woman can tend to it herself. Ideally, the man would do it. Ideally, he wouldn’t have to. But all this aside, this is a discussion over contraception, not the sexual needs of women, so Joshua’s complaint still baffles me.
December 4, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Joe
Remy,
You probably can’t make head-or-tails of “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you “, “This is My Body” or “I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church…” either, so don’t trouble yourself with simplistic analogies.
I am a Catholic and I believe that NFP has been popularized in the United States to the point of abuse. The USCCB is no one to turn to, therefore, we must turn to the Magisterium to understand when NFP should or should not be used. Dave Hodges rightly points us to the Magisterium.
It is my understanding that it cannot be used as a “contraceptive”. In other words, it is only to be used when there is a verifiable health hazard to pregnancy. It is not to be used at a married couple’s whim and specifically to prevent an “unwanted” pregnancy so that the couple can maintain their healthy middle-class lifestyle. You can determine what is true about NFP and what is false by who is carrying the claims. It is usually the borderline liberals who maintain that NFP can be used to prevent pregnancy when there are no external reasons to (and, sorry, financial burdens are not excuses to use NFP… cut back on spending). It is usually the orthodox Catholics who do not keep track of fertility periods to determine when a “good time” to copulate is. They make love whenever the desire is there and there is a moment for privacy.
Catholics can make love whenever they want to. They just shouldn’t plan to deliberately avoid pregnancy (unless there is a danger to the woman) when they do. This means that there is no problem making love when it is improbable that the woman may become pregnant, just that the couple shouldn’t deliberately avoid fertile periods so that they can continue being good American consumers and save up for that big house they want.
Since making love is both a physical and spiritual act of union, if the man has climaxed before the woman, there is nothing wrong with the man continuing until the woman climaxes. I can’t remember who argued that this seems contradictory to Catholic teaching. It isn’t as if the man “pulled out” or obstructed the possibility of creation by climaxing early. Also the sexual experience (between married couples) should be self-giving. The man should try to please his wife physically and she should try to please him as well (though, as a man, I can tell you that there is less of a burden on her part 😉 ).
So, in all, I think that skeptical Protestants have a right to see scandal when they see Catholics abusing NFP. We should always be open to new life, and that means not closing the door (by using contraception) or by pretending not to close the door yet leaving it only slghtly open with a dresser reinforcing it, preventing anyone from entering (NFP abused).
The sexual act is the only time we are actively involved in God’s creative power. The man and the woman, together with God, can create a new human being, body and soul, that has an opportunity to be praising God for all eternity. That is why contraception is a sin and that is why it should seriously affect a Catholic’s conscience when he chooses to deliberatly avoid the creative aspect of sex in favor of his own selfish reasons. God will take care of you if you do His will, you don’t need to worry about how much money you have in your savings account.
December 5, 2007 at 12:02 am
Joe
Yikes, I just read the latter part of Dave’s argument! Let’s just avoid the American bishops for now 🙂 until they can start showing that they would like to clean their own house first (not everyone is an Archbishop Burke). I like the link to the encyclical though and the explanations of what the Popes have said, however.
About a woman “finishing herself off”, well, that sounds a bit suspect to me as the Church has always considered masturbation a mortal sin, but, I can see that if the male seed has already been planted, then the couple have acheived the goal. Also, biologically, a female orgasm after the male seed is inside of her causes the cervix to dip down and “snatch” the sperm swimming just outside, forcing it into the uterus. So, a female orgasm after male copulation can actually increase the chances of fertilization. Maybe it’s just the language used that throws me back.
December 5, 2007 at 12:22 am
Dave Hodges
“Yikes, I just read the latter part of Dave’s argument! Let’s just avoid the American bishops for now 🙂 until they can start showing that they would like to clean their own house first (not everyone is an Archbishop Burke).”
Joe, I’m in agreement with you that the American bishops aren’t the best place to go on doctrinal matters. My point was to show that there is nothing in Catholic teaching that forbids a woman from receiving sexual gratification from other means before or after carnal embrace. I do not have access to the actual statement and have not seen it confirmed anywhere, it is just rumoured on the Internet. I agree that it sounds suspect as well.
December 5, 2007 at 4:26 am
Remy
Dave, my point was that apart from the location it isn’t anal sex. I guess that wasn’t clear. You sometimes don’t make any sense to me, but I shouldn’t be so quick to think you aren’t making a legitimate comment.
The analogy still works for me because you are praying at a piece of artwork which is neither a person nor a cellphone and that is “lying” with your body. It is a psychological barrier introduced to the natural act of prayer and therefore, icons are prayercondoms.
But if you don’t like that one how about if I said your health insurance reveals to God that you are lying when you say you trust in Him for all your needs? Or that pantry of yours stocked with all that food is proof of your dishonesty that you rely on Him for your daily bread? How authentic is that? How much integrity would the argument have?
However, your recent qualifications on the matter make me feel much better about your position. I see that we are closer on this issue than I at first thought.
Joe, I affirm those passages wholeheartedly. Lord bless you and go soak your head.
December 5, 2007 at 5:12 am
Scott Lyons
Remy, I am probably coming in on a previous conversation here, so if I’m repeating something, forgive me – I don’t have a great deal of time to check up on the past threads at the moment. Concerning what you’ve said about icons as “prayer-condoms”: The Orthodox say that icons do with color what the Scriptures do with words. So to call icons “prayer-condoms” (other than being heretical and sacrilegious) is like calling the Scripture a relationship-condom with Jesus.
St Jerome, however, said that to be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ. By the means of the Scriptures we become familiar with Christ. Icons also make us familiar with Christ and with the saints – they are no barrier, no wall, but rather windows into heaven.
They could only, perhaps, be considered “prayer-condoms” if the person to whom I was praying was physically sitting behind it. Like speaking to a friend on the phone when the friend is sitting next to me. Or even like reading about Jesus in the Gospels while he is sitting in the room next to me, otherwise unoccupied.
That being said, I understand that your comment was an analogy rather than it’s own topic.
December 5, 2007 at 5:13 am
Dave Hodges
Remy,
Condoms are prophylactic in nature. That is what they are intended to be used for. What about an icon is prophylactic in any sense whatsoever? Nothing. So your analogy fails. Entirely. You keep harping on a comparison which makes no sense.
Nobody prays “at” an icon any more than you pray “at” your eyelids when you close your eyes when you pray at your local ecclesial community. If an icon is a prayercondom, then so are your eyelids.
“Dave, my point was that apart from the location it isn’t anal sex.”
The above statement is unintelligible. And my original question still stands, completely unanswered.
December 5, 2007 at 5:56 am
Matthew N. Petersen
I suppose this has been beaten to death, but:
I think some of the confusion comes from the equation of condoms with birth-prevention. As I understand it, the Catholic doctrine is 1) birth-prevention is wrong, 2) condoms (barrier contraceptives) are wrong.
To see this, consider the following questions. Would it be ok to use a condom with a pregnant wife? Or if she is past the age of child-bearing?
I think in both cases the Catholic answer is “no”, but clearly not from any objection to birth-prevention.
This means that it is perfectly reasonable (though perhaps mistaken) for a Catholic to say “NPP” (or whatever it’s called) is permissible at times, but condoms never are.
Or to get at this another way, Doug Wilson once said that he was neither for nor against birth-prevention, he was for children. If a woman is told “because of health reasons, if you have children as fast as you can, you can only have two more. But if you space them out with three years between birth and conception, you can have four or five more” the right thing to do is to use birth-control, and space out the children.
I believe a Catholic would agree with this analysis, but would still say “but don’t use a condom.”
Catholics object to birth-prevention (of all sorts), and raise further objections to various methods of birth-prevention.
They object to condoms specifically, because (and the argument is hard to make in a quick paragraph, but I first heard it from Chris Schlect at a CRF talk) condoms are an article of clothing coming between the husband and wife, and thus rather than a sign of transparency before the spouse, are a sign of self-seeking, and thus couple who use condoms are only capable of mutual masturbation (this was Mr. Schlect’s argument, not mine).
As I just said, the “condoms make mutual masturbation” argument was an argument that I heard not first from Hodges, but from Mr. Schlect (though he was talking about co-eds and would likely qualify and fine-tune it when talking to married couples). Now of course he said it more delicately (and Dave, I think people are not objecting quite to the substance of your post so much as to its crassness–you are saying “it is important to treat each other like people, and not like objects” but your way of saying it rips through shame, exposing us in precisely the same way pornography does) but the substance was similar.
December 5, 2007 at 6:41 am
Matthew N. Petersen
Remy,
I think Scott is onto something regarding the use of icons. You know how sometimes when you are reading about Christ there is an almost involuntary prayer to Him? In theory, the same thing can happen when we are looking at art depicting Christ. And when this happens, the art is not impeding prayer, but rather the prayer to and through the art is the natural result of looking at the depiction of Christ.
Or again, using art to pray is no more a distraction from Christ himself than using art to look to our wives. If she is standing beside us, something is wrong. But keeping a picture of her beside our computer, on our desk, in our wallet, and even being devoted to a picture of her if we are absent for an extended period of time (say in a war) is not a distraction for her, but healthy.
December 5, 2007 at 11:27 am
respect
If you cant get the “sex for free”, and every consummation should require a possibility for conception. Why would God make sex enjoyable. Why wouldnt he make sex an act only done for making children?
December 5, 2007 at 11:31 am
respect
If it is made for both like most will probably say, whyso? I want the sex, but not necessarily a kid. If i have to have both together, why would god give me such a strong desire to have sex all the time, and a strong desire to not have children all the time? I do have 1 child, but i really dont want another for a while, so under your catholic rules, if i want to only have 1 child for a while, i have to just not have sex or what? Im interested in this lunacy, someone please give me a reason.
December 5, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Joe
Respect,
Read Theology of the Body. It may be helpful in answering your questions.
December 5, 2007 at 8:30 pm
respect
I would rather get a brief answer from some of you, than waste my time reading something i dont even agree with, when i could be busting out some mad riffs on my guitar.
December 5, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Joe
Respect,
Ok, then. Bust away! Curious, why would you be posting on Catholic blog if you would never read something you don’t agree with?
December 5, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Joe
Remy,
“I affirm those passages wholeheartedly”
Umm… No, you don’t. You’re a Protestant.
December 6, 2007 at 3:38 am
John Jansen
Matt said: As to the NFP questions, both Paul XI and John Paul II were very very clear that NFP can be used for responsible spacing of pregnancy in serious circumstances. This is not the same thing as the desire to not have children at all or not wanting to have children because it would interfere with your ability to buy a new boat. What circumstances constitute grave matter are left to the conscience of the individual who will have to stand before God and give an account for his fertility and his marriage and what he did with them.
Matt,
I’d urge you to check out Dr. Janet Smith’s essay, “Moral Use of Natural Family Planning” [PDF]. In it, she states, “This essay will attempt to sketch out the types of circumstances in which methods of NFP can be used morally; in the course of doing so it will suggest that the range of reasons is broader and perhaps more liberal than many think.”
Janet Smith isn’t the Magisterium, of course, but she’s wicked smart, zealously orthodox, and has contributed a heckuva lot to the Church’s body of scholarship on sexual morality.
December 6, 2007 at 4:20 am
Joe
“Janet Smith isn’t the Magisterium”… right.
“…she’s wicked smart…”… but she’s not the Magisterium (Luther was wicked smart too).
“…zealously orthodox…”… in light of this statement? – “in the course of doing so it will suggest that the range of reasons is broader and perhaps more liberal than many think”… i wonder.
“…and has contributed a heckuva lot to the Church’s body of scholarship on sexual morality.”… Ok, what exactly? Has she contributed more than the Magisterium? Anything the Popes haven’t covered? Or has she contributed a heckuva lot of “new” and “novel” scholarship for modern times.
Sorry, but I’m very apprehensive about female theologians these days for obvious reasons.
December 6, 2007 at 4:38 am
Matthew N. Petersen
Jason,
I think the whole issue of birth-prevention actually clouds the issue. When I hear some Catholics talk about sex, I get the idea they think sex is only good for producing children–which is of course silly. Have they even been in love?
But I think there is also a problem if we say “sex is just fun.” It sounds too much like “I really like rollercoasters, and the only one I can ride is her.”
Talking like that is obviously silly even about kisses, let alone making love. You kiss your wife because you love her. And I think, in a large part, you have sex with your wife, for the same sort of reason, because you love her. At least Pope John Paul II would say you shouldn’t use your wife to get off just because you like it, but rather you should make love to her, because you love her.
And when we look at it in this way, the objection to condoms becomes a little more sensible. Remember the scene in Batman and Robin where Robin kisses Poison Ivy with celophane on his lips? Yeah, in a way he kissed her, but really he didn’t. And I think a Pope John Paul II’s objection is that sex wearing rubber is kinda like a kiss with plastic on our lips.
December 6, 2007 at 4:40 am
Matthew N. Petersen
Joe,
I think you are right. That Therese of Lisieux–don’t trust her. She even wanted to be a priest!
December 6, 2007 at 6:54 am
David
Yonke, my friend— we haven’t met in years, but perhaps you recall. I’m pleased that you’ve found peace in the arms of a woman & a church. & strangely— though it’s in a strange tongue— I’m pleased to see your defense of a theology of the body, integrity of the love act.
So beautiful, the photos of your son.
Pax et bonum,
d.
December 6, 2007 at 7:03 am
David
& incidentally, am presently at work on a dissertation on Augustine & Heidegger, a hermeneutic of “natality” drawn from bk. 1 of the Confessions.
You may find my first paper towards the dissertation– up at http://www.typeschrift.blogspot.com– of some interest. The notes & formatting were stripped in the transfer, but I’d gladly send you the document as an attachment.
& with regards to technological, genetic threats to birth, you may find some of Catholic philosopher Paul Virilio’s work– particularly the two volumes of interviews, Politics of the Very Worst, & Crepuscular Dawn– of some interest.
Regardless, peace.
d.
December 6, 2007 at 8:51 am
mattyonke
Petersen,
The kissing analogy is not bad at all. And the act being because of love for the other person is dead on. 25 points extra credit for the batman reference.
And David Dusenbury,
Well my my my, look what the cat dragged in! Good to hear from you and I’ll be checking out your site shortly. What a surprise!
December 6, 2007 at 9:12 am
respect
MattP, i disagree, sex isnt just about love. Sex feels good because it feels good. When i am sitting around doing nothing and get all riled up. I dont think “i need to go love my wife”. I think “man i need to go tear of a piece”. And my wife feels the same way at times. She and i love each other, but sometimes we gett a little bit wirey and we both just need some good action. There are times when its got love in it. But mostly its an itch that needs scratching. Maybe some of you romantics only think sex can happen when its surrounded by love and what not, but i think many people like sex for sex.
December 6, 2007 at 9:16 am
Remy
Dave: I’ll say again that I don’t think icons are prayercondoms, but I still find it an immensely entertaining analogy. Despite that I will refrain from pressing it further you nasty little killjoy.
Scott: I’ve said my peace on icons elsewhere and don’t feel the need to retread it, but the short of it is I’m just messing around with the prayercondom thing. I agree with St. Jerome, but I confess that his comments on the Song tickle me sometimes. Pope Gregory the Great said the use of icons were exceptional tools for the illiterate and I agree with that as well.
Joe: keep soaking your head.
December 6, 2007 at 10:17 am
mattyonke
Jason,
It’s not about being ‘romantic’ (though romance is a very good thing), it’s about what the sex act is. The sexual act is an act of mutual self-giving. It’s you giving yourself to your wife and your wife giving herself to you. If it’s not that, it’s just animalistic which is, essentially what you described. Sometimes you need to scratch an instinctive itch and you use your wife to scratch that itch. That’d be fine if you were an elephant, but you are a human being with inherent dignity and the image of God written all over you.
Because of that image, you can’t just act like an animal. The life of the Most Holy Trinity is a life of mutual giving of self. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are continually giving of their life to each other from eternity past and that loving gift is fruitful, both within the Trinity and outside of it, in creation.
So what does this have to do with sex? The marital union between a man and a woman isn’t just some instinctual fleshy thing, though it is both of those to a degree. It is the place where God enters into the life of Man most closely to do the most Godlike thing humans can do: Create Life.
So we see that there, more than anywhere else, we must be very careful how we live out that Image of God that’s stamped on our bodies and our souls. We must be extra careful there, in the bedroom, to be always making a gift of ourselves, never using the other to fulfill our lusts. Would God do that to us? Would the Father do that to the Son? Would the Holy Spirit do that to the Father?
Of course not, and as such, we can never enter the bedroom with an attitude of lust or of appropriating that other person for our own ends. Love is always gift. So the sexual act, which is the sacramental outworking of our love for our wives, can never be an act of dominion or taking or lustful using. It must always be an act of total giving of self to the other.
So that’s why you can’t just get your rocks off. My foremost objection to birth control is that it implicitly makes sex about just that, and Jason, I think you would agree, right? You use birth control because you want to be able to have the pleasure of sex without having a kid, right?
December 6, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Matthew N. Petersen
Jason,
At the risk of double-teaming you, as far as I can tell, you said when you itch, you use your wife to rub-off the itch.
Now if your back is tight, and your wife rubs your back, it is nice because your back gets loose, and because your wife rubbed your back. In that sense rubbing off the itch doesn’t offend me. If you have the itch, and your wife rubbs it off, I don’t have a problem with it, any more than I would have a problem with your wife rubbing your back to get rid of a back-ache. But just as I would have a problem if you said (in the cliche way) “woman, my back hurts. Rub it.” And there was nothing “with my wife” about her rubbing it; so I have a problem with just having your wife rub out your sex itch. It sounds too much like “woman, my loins hurt, rubb it out.” That she is your wife makes it permissible, but it sounds like she is just an apparatus used. I’m not sure you mean that, but that’s what it sounds like.
Anyway, if she isn’t just a apparatus used to rub-out the itch, but is actually a person who, as a person, helps you; it doesn’t seem right to put that barrier between the two of you.
December 6, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Joe
“That Therese of Lisieux–don’t trust her. She even wanted to be a priest!”
Well, that was stupid. Maybe I should’ve qualified “female theologians”. I don’t trust “modern” theologians male or female, but I especially don’t trust the “modern” female theologians. Are you equating “Dr.” Janet to Therese of Lisieux? Coo Coo!
December 6, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Joe
Remy,
I’ve soaked my head in the lustral waters of Baptism… Ah… The Sacrament where I die and rise again in Christ (hence the term “born again” which I’m sure you are familiar with). Yes, Original Sin is destroyed and I am given the ability to be saved through this Sacrament.
What? Oh, I forgot, it’s nothing more than a symbol to you. Yeah, nothing happens, right? So all of those Scriptures where Christ says it’s necessary and what happens through it don’t make sense to you either. Nor do the ones in the letters from St. Paul (the Proddies favorite Saint to misinterpret).
Oh well! Basically, you don’t believe in the Scriptures. Why are you posting on a Catholic blog again?
December 6, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Melton
Not that it matters much, Joe, but Remy’s father/pastor is getting in some hot water for statements he made on Baptimal efficacy, amongst other things. But you wouldn’t know that because you’re the typical Catholic who motors through these things making asinine statements like Protestants don’t believe in the Scriptures. Yeah, dialogue like that is REALLY helpful. Of course, you also wouldn’t know that Remy and Matt are old friends who go back a ways, either. But who’s counting.
And yes, I realize that THIS dialogue isn’t helping much either, but hey, I like to defend friends of mine that don’t really need defending – sue me.
December 6, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Melton
Oops, in my heated state, I made a misspelling – that should be Baptismal.
December 6, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Joe
Not that it matters much, Meltdown, but Remy’s statements show that he is embittered towards Catholic teaching and could care less about honest dialogue with Catholics. But you wouldn’t know that because you can’t detect the typical Protestant commenter who motors through these things making asinine statements like… well, everything he said.
When Remy wants to dialogue, we’ll dialogue. I have Protestant friends who are truly interested in dialogue and we have very respectful conversations. Remy is enjoying the incognito effect and the lack of face-to-face respectful dialogue that is available on blogs. I’m just returning the favor. He’s visiting a Catholic blog, it’s not the other way around.
Not only that, in case you missed it, he uses terms such as “go soak your head” like a broken record. Yeah, he wants to dialogue… riiiiiggggghhhhttt!
December 6, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Joe
Ugh, I apologize to Remy… I somehow started to get him confused with the well-named “respect”. Too many entries on this blog, I guess. I apologize to you too, Melton (Meltdown).
December 6, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Joe
Soaking head now…
December 6, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Melton
No, Remy is visiting the blog of an old friend, as am I. See, some of us don’t see things in your jaded Catholic vs. Protestant terms. And my guess is (although I”m really trying not to put words in his mouth) that he does want to dialogue – just not with you. Gee, I wonder why.
December 6, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Melton
I posted that last comment before I saw Joe’s latest 2 – so let me apologize as well. Simple misunderstanding – I can see how you would think those things about Jason (or “respect”).
Peace in Christ,
Josh
December 6, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Joe
Thank you for your forgiveness, Josh. I hope I sincerely hope I didn’t offend Remy. It sure is easy to get wound up blogging, but Jason’s (aka respect) semi-retarded posts are all too familiar on Catholic blogs. I tend to lose my cool and become scathing. Very bad on my part.
Peace of the Lord be with you and Remy, too.
Joe
December 6, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Melton
I’ll let Remy speak for himself – but I bet you didn’t offend him. I know you didn’t offend me – I have the same problem of being hot-tempered (plus I have the extra fault of sticking my nose in where it doesn’t belong).
December 7, 2007 at 10:29 am
Paul
sure do get a lot more comments when blogging about sex, huh?
December 7, 2007 at 10:33 am
Paul
If I suggested that there should only be eight more comments on this article, would that be juvenile or would it accomplish some sort of thematic fulfillment?
December 8, 2007 at 2:03 am
Joshua
Dave and Guido,
Given what you’ve both said before about seeking out pleasure and the purposes of sex, why is it okay for a husband to satisfy his wife after he has already finished? What purpose does this serve?
December 8, 2007 at 3:21 am
Matthew N. Petersen
Paul,
Unless of course you’re Matt Petersen.
Josh,
I’m not Dave or Matt, but since Matt liked what I said earlier, maybe I can have a go.
Is the femal climax of any use reproductively? No, or not much.
But I think that the joy of sex is (or ought to be) the physical joy of two physical persons enjoying eachother. I am my body, and so the joy is in my body. But for whatever reason (it probably has something to do with the fall) it is easy for the man to enjoy the woman without the woman really getting to enjoy the man. And so helping her finish would, it seems to unmarried me, be helping her to physically have the joy of him. Ideally they could both enjoy each other fully together. But while he is learning, or if he makes a mistake, he doesn’t have to say “oops sorry–I’m not good enough–I got to enjoy you, but not you me. Better luck next time.”
December 8, 2007 at 9:51 am
respect
well if you finish her off, you might just be helping her to “get her rocks off” as the yonkubine says. That might be evil.
And No matt i think it is fine for a man and a woman to look at eachother and say lets make like hamsters and get our socks off then our rocks off. I think the bed is a gift from God as are children, i dont think they have a symbiotic relationship. I think part of that gift was to become animals and to have fun with it. You talk of dignity, and all this self respect, but you mis apply it. a guy doesnt lose his dignity in this. every time the unity candle is dipped, it doesnt have to be some meaningful consummation of the marriage. Religion is not supposed to suck the fun and enjoyment out of everything, or restrict the enjoyment to certain guidelines. All these parameters starts me thinking all of you pious men are pharisees. You build a hedge around the bed so that you dont fall to some transgression you might think is there outside of it. If being this anal helps you sleep at night, no pun, then by all means be some proper quaker in the bed. But if you lighten up and think about this rationally,practically, etc,, your sex life might be more fulfilling, so will your wives, finally; and you might pay attention to some more important issues in your life, that if you are wrong about, may have more serious consequences.
December 9, 2007 at 3:42 am
Matthew N. Petersen
All that from a teetotaler.