Originally posted by lucifershammer
How can it be in anticipation of intercourse if no intercourse occurs?

If a couple actively chooses to have sex only during the infertile
periods of the woman's cycle, they are anticipating when intercourse
is going to happen. This anticipation is contraceptive in nature;
that is contra (against) ceptive (conception).

The difference is degree -- in the NFP, the anticipation of conjugals
is neatly scheduled (in contrast to the woman's natural desires);
in ABC, the anticipation does not require the same degree of
coordination.

Again, not so. In one case, the sexual act occurs (at a given time); in the other it does not.

Yes, in both cases (NFP/ABC), when the sex act is consummated
it is done so with contraceptive intentions.

That is self-contradictory. If the methods are different, then the means are different and vice-versa. The end may be the same - but you know that Christian ethics are not consequentialist.

You are correct, the ends are the same (not to conceive). The means
are different -- however, if the Church is claiming that only natural
means of contraception are permissible, why do they then demand
that the natural cycle of the woman's desires be ignored. If they are
going to demand a natural and holistic attitude towards sexuality, then
they must attend to the woman's natural libido, which they do not do.

Remember once again - no couple is REQUIRED to plan the birth of their children. In fact, the Church teaches that there has to be a substantive reason for doing so. A scenario where both husband and wife act in full accord with both their individual natural drives and the nature of the act of sex is one the Church would be perfectly happy with.

A couple who does not do so is a foolish couple. And the Church's
general teachings (that the couple should be mindful of the timing
of their children) is relatively sound -- that the couple should be in a
position to support themselves and their family such that they can give
the sort of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual attention to any
new family members that might arrive.

However, the Church's teachings that only 'natural' contraception is
morally permissible (all the while demanding that the woman deny her
natural cycle of sexuality) is hypocritical and, as I've said, the
product of taking St Paul's writings to their ascetic extreme (as has
been done over the centuries) and Magesterium's painting themselves
into a corner by saying that every proclamation made by them is by
necessity infallible.

As an aside, what is the Christian man to do for the 6-9 months his wife is pregnant? Would you argue that, since he must not deny his natural urges, that he must seek pleasure elsewhere?

I suspect that you are not married with children. I'll let you in on a
little secret: women often enjoy sex more during pregnancy.
And, after childbirth (I assure you) the concerned husband's libido is
more than tamed by the demands of the new arrival and the needs of
the wife.

I'm not making the claim that it is soley about libido. There are
times when a man's libido is kicking and screaming and the woman
has a headache. The good husband will respect this. However, if the
couple decides (for all the right reasons) that they don't want children
at that particular time, then by necessity the woman must deny
the natural urges of her libidic cycle. The man suffers from no
such requirement.

This is what I feel is utterly absurd about the Church's teachings
regarding ABC.

Nope. Only if she does not want to get pregnant.

That's right, which might be an awful lot of the time (given that most
people in the West now have 2.5 kids). That is a lousy thing for the
Church to demand of only one gender of its population and that is
precisely why 90% of the active RC participants utterly ignore what I
(and they) consider to be a preposterous Church teaching.

Then please feel free to cite your own. I was actually searching for anecdotes from women who were disgruntled with NFP when I found these (needless to say, I did not find what I was looking for - the closest I got was a woman who said she was quite happy using contraception with her husband and never planned to try NFP).

I don't need to cite my own. The vast majority of Occidental
Roman Catholics have spoken by using birth control. That's right,
nine out of every ten of the lectors, Extraordinary Ministers of the
Eucharist, cantors, ushers, and general laity are violating Church
teaching because they have concluded that it is absurd.

I'm a man and (from all the indications I have - correct me if I'm wrong) so are you. Neither of us can truly claim to be subject-matter experts on the feelings of women. So why not let the women speak for themselves?

Yes, I am male. However, I am married (I do not know if you are
married) and my wife and I are very candid about our sexuality,
discussing things openly and without shame in either regard. And,
as I said, if there are women who feel more comfortable not using ABC
and using the 'natural' method, then I wish them all the blessing and
happiness in the world.

But, as I said before, the studies I cited are objective, scientific studies
regarding the woman's natural sexual cycle. If couples want to
engage in NFP to the contrary of their cycle, then I will never stand in
their way. If they feel more sexually fulfilled, then may God bless
them. But, I can only conclude that, if the majority of women do feel
more sexually fulfilled by ignoring their natural libidic cycles, then it
must be as the result of some sort of placebo effect.

But we are discussing matters of morality. If you want to stick to the science, you will simply have to say "this is the period when the woman is most libidinous" and end at that. The answer to the "so what?" is a moral matter. The studies you cite do not deal with that. Albeit anecdotally, the articles I cited do.

If a couple feels that by using ABC, they are being immoral and,
consequently, their sex-life suffers, then I would urge them to
examine precisely why they feel that ABC is immoral. If they find the
basis upon which the Church rests her teachings to be utter flawed (as
I have made clear), it would be dishonest for them to adhere to them
(they would be adhering to a morality which has no justifiably basis).
As a result, they should reject the notion of the immorality of ABC and
their sex-life should improve. However, if they find that the arguments
of the Church are sound (for whatever reason), I would encourage them
to desist in ABC and try NFP.

And the sexual morality of Ancient Egypt and Rome is not something to write home about. Simply saying that the claim is silly and fallacious is not enough - you need to demonstrate it. In other words, you need to provide examples of societies where contraception was commonly used but sexual morality was not "loose" (define it in any reasonable manner you please - I would take it to be a period where casual sex and sex outside marriage are the exceptions and not the norm).

There has never been a society where casual sex and sex outside of
marriage were not regular occurances, irrespective of contraception or
Church influence. Violations of the 'sex within marriage' mandate
have been present before the Church existed, and continued in spite
of its demands.

And, that I have to prove that the Pope was wrong in his claim
that contraception aided and abeted this is utterly absurd. HE
has to prove his claim -- that ABC has led to a decline in morals. I
mentioned a variety of other cultural and societal factors which reduce
any impact that ABC might have had. The article has made
the bold claim, not I. It has not supported this bold claim and, as
such, I am not obbligated to address it.

It proves that the Church was opposed to the practice from the very beginning; that it was not some new doctrine cooked up by Pope Paul VI in the 1960s. It refutes the notions of certain denominations who permit contraception but claim that they function in accordance with the teachings of the Early Church (before the "Fall" or whatever it is they think happened with the Catholic Church later).

You are correct. It proves that the Church has made statements about
sexuality from the getgo. Fair enough. However, that the Protestant
denominations have relented on their ban of contraception does not
necessarily indicate that they have eschewed Church teaching.

The stand that the other churches have is that the way in which the
early Church understood artificial contraception and sexuality was
flawed. The Protestant churches do not make the claim that the
proclamations of the early Church, much less the Magesterium, was
infallible. They admit to their humanity and their ability to err. They
say that the issues that the modern Church faces today are not
analogous to what the early Church experienced and that the RCC is
holding on to a teaching which was never meant to be applied as it is
today (as are 90% of RCs).

As you well know, not all doctrines in the Church come from the Bible - we are not a sola scriptura body.

You are correct. The Assumption is a good example of this. However,
while you do not permit the possibility, most people in the world allow
for the possibility that the Magesterium has erred in the past and,
especially, in this case.

Continued...

What do Jewish commentators have to say about the sin of Onan?

The first site has:

Modern rabbinic authorities today seem to prefer the use of the birth control pill as the modern cup of roots. It allows intercourse to proceed naturally and unimpeded, allowing the fulfillment of the wife's conjugal rights. Also, in the case of the pill, there is no "waste of seed." Reform and Conservative rabbis are generally more lenient and permit the use of any contraceptive device for other reasons as well.

...

You will notice that even Conservative Rabbinic authorities allow
contraception in cases where pregnancy poses a risk to the woman.


In the second site, it reads:

This remains the Orthodox position on contraception, which accepts abstinence as the only permissible birth control method except where health reasons apply. Conservative and Reform views, which note that sexual pleasure between married couples is permissible and sanctioned by the rabbinical literature, authorize social, environmental and economic reasons for the use of birth control in addition to the health factors accepted by Orthodox practice, and leave the decision to individual choice (declared formally at the Central Conference of American Rabbis, 1930; and the Rabbinical Assembly of America, 1935).

Well, frankly, I reject any tradition which deems sexual pleasure
between married couples impermissible as utterly unnatural. This is
the tradition which marks the early Christian perspective on sexuality
(through the exaggeration and misinterpretation of St Paul). You
will note that Conservative Jewish authorities have little objection to
contraception as a whole, though 'spilling seed' is still prohibited.

From both the Jewish and the Christian traditions, the sin of Onan has always been traditionally interpreted as dealing with (male) contraception. It is not enough for you to say that you find it unconvincing - you need to demonstrate it.

As I've said, Onan's incident is not soley about contraception: it is
about Onan's denial of his fraternal duty to his late brother's wife. It
is not dealing with contraception in and of itself, but in the context of
his unwillingness to perform his 'God-given' duty.

Consequently, a married couple who practices ABC for the first five
years of their marriage in order to acquire a sound economic base for
their lives before having children are still 'being fruitful and multiplying'
without a doubt. They are still performing their 'God-given' duty and,
as such, the Onan incident has no relevance to their situation.

You say there are plenty of cases where the wrath of God appears disproportionate to the crime committed. Cite some instances. What are the traditional interpretations of those passages?

I don't want to get off on another tangent. Consider the Elisha issue
I've cited a few times (early in II Kings, second chapter I think) during
which Elisha curses children in the name of the Lord, who responds
with two she-bears which slaughter 42 of the children. If you care to
respond to that, please do so in another thread. Suffice it to say that
God has, at least once, executed a penalty which is apparently ill-fitted
to the crime; I see no reason why (if we must read it literally) Onan's
death is another one of these situations.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]How can it be in anticipation of intercourse if no intercourse occurs?

If a couple actively chooses to have sex only during the infertile
periods of the woman's cycle, they are anticipating when intercourse
is going to happen. This anticipation is contraceptive in nature;
that is contra (again ...[text shortened]... lity that the Magesterium has erred in the past and,
especially, in this case.

Continued...[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
[b]What do Jewish commentators have to say about the sin of Onan?

The first site has:

[i]Modern rabbinic authorities today seem to prefer the use of the birth control pill as the modern cup of roots. It allows intercourse to proceed naturally and unimpeded, allowing the fulfillment of the wife's conjugal rights. Also, in the case of the pill, ther ...[text shortened]... why (if we must read it literally) Onan's
death is another one of these situations.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by no1marauder
I post this for Lucifershammer from the Archbishop of Denver. I ask him if he agrees that it accurately states Church teaching. If so, I will proceed from there to make my "closing argument" that the purpose of sex is procreation according to the RCC:

This is what the Church means when she teaches that Catholic married love is b ...[text shortened]... ch other and from their Creator.

http://www.archden.org/archbishop/docs/of_human_life.htm

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When you quote, quote all the relevant portions:

11. As a result, in presenting the nature of Christian marriage to a new generation, we need to articulate its fulfilling satisfactions at least as well as its duties. The Catholic ...[text shortened]... by its nature both unitive and procreative -- not either/or. [/b]

The Pope is no different than any other man it's not like he puts his dress on any differently than they do.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. It seems you are using a different object to the verb "anticipate" than the Church. You are talking about anticipating the timing of sex, the Church is talking about anticipating the act itself.

Can you explain what the difference between anticipating the sex act and anticipating the
timing of the sex act? If you are using NFP in an effort to avoid pregnancy, then you are
anticipating when the sex act is going to occur. You do so on a large scale -- if you see
mucus, then you don't act, if you don't you have sex with contraceptive intent (i.e., against
conception). If you use ABC in an effort to avoid pregnancy, then you anticipate the sex
act by slipping on a condom (short term) or taking the pill (longer term).

Both use a method before deciding on when to engage in conjugals. Both are acting
contraceptively. Both utilze a contraceptive method in anticipation of the sex act.

2. The difference between ABC and NFP is more than just degree. One alters the physical nature of the act itself (e.g. with condoms); the other does not. Or one alters the physical nature of the actors (e.g. with the pill); the other does not. An act of sex involving contraception is physically distinguishable from one that does not. That is not the case with NFP. Even though the timing occurs at a particular point of the woman's cycle, it is indistinguishable from the same act at the same time if the couple were not practising NFP (but not ABC either).

I recognize the differences between ABC and NFP. ABCs alter some aspect of the physical part
of the sex act. The Church seems to claim that this is immoral because it is unnatural.
This claim is undermined, however, by the explicit context underwhich contraceptive NFP takes
place. It demands an alteration of the physical timing of sexual acts. It demands an
ignoring of the natural timing of the woman's sexual desires.

The Church can't have it both ways (and remain logical). It can't demand that its faithful reject
ABC because of its supposed 'unnaturalness' and that they embrace NFP inspite of its
'unnaturalness.' She is being dishonest by claiming that NFP is 'natural,' because it most certainly
is not.

4. Are you saying that the man gives up nothing in NFP, or that the woman gives up more?

Both give up a substantial intimacy. Intimacy is created when libido is pronounced. When
both members have a significant libidinous desire, sexual relations are an even greater blessing
than normally. When one party has to constantly reject her libidinous desire, it becomes
frustrating.

The man may not be realizing that he is losing out as clearly as the woman, but he is. When a
member of a couple is obligated to deny their natural libido, it creates psychological
frustration which impacts the marriage dramatically.

5. How many of the vast majority of the Occidental RCs have practised NFP and subsequently rejected it because they found it unsatisfactory?

One doesn't have to practice it to recognize that it is unsatisfactory. One just has to
simply know what unnaturalness it involves to reject it.

I'm sure a lot of people reject it because they still (falsely) think of it as 'Catholic Roulette,'
not realizing that NFP can be used to be as effective in preventing pregnancy as a condom or
diaphragm. There is no excuse for ignorance.

However, I know a lot of RC couples who use ABC after using NFP who have suffered no loss
of intimacy, as well as RC couples who have had surgeries which prevent pregnancy who, too,
suffered no loss of intimacy (some men, some women).

And, I know only a few couples who tried NFP and found it unsatisfying precisely for the
reasons I am discussing -- that the woman was utterly sexually frustrated.

6. In referring to the placebo effect, you are discounting the spiritual element of happiness. If you believe in the spiritual/God, then you believe that spiritual acts have physical effects and vice-versa. I would expect an atheist to say that the placebo effect is in play; I would expect a theist to at least consider the option that something else is going on.

Of course I am willing to consider it. But it seems that your consideration is predicated on the
notion that the Magesterium is correct about this. Consider the couples with healthy and deeply
spiritual sexual lives who use ABCs. You would, of course, call this a placebo effect, saying that
their sexual lives cannot be deeply spiritual because of the teaching of the Church.

The difference? It's the same as the Young Earth/Old Earth argument. Like you, who bases your
opinion on the teachings of the Church, the Young Earth proponents rely on the teachings of the
Bible. I, like the Old Earth supporters, support it with science. I would say that a person cannot
have a deeply spiritual sexuality while at the same time deliberately denying the natural, physical
aspects of it.

7. The question of loose morals is not one of regular infidelity, but of socially acceptable infidelity. Modern Occidental society accepts (and even expects, to some extent) sex outside marriage, particularly before marriage.

...

8. It is easy to demonstrate the role contraception played in facilitating the sexual "revolution" - simply imagine a world where contraception was impossible. That contraception caused the changes in sexual morality we saw starting from the 60s is probably an exaggerated claim, but the claim that acceptance of contraception would lead to loose morals is not. The first assumes direct causality, the second assumes only necessary mediation.

I would, in either case, demand proof of this claim. I could make a similarly audacious and
unsupportable counterclaim. For example (and I don't really believe this): I claim that the
acceptance of contraception led to closing of the pay gap between men and women in America.

Consider, by counterexample, the morality in Africa. Contraception is illegal there, yet in many
places, AIDS is running rampant because of 'loose morals.' Contraception could be a source of
literal, physical salvation over there, but the Church's stranglehold on morality is leading to the
death of an entire generation of people.

You see: the Church is not (and has not been) in control of casual sex outside of marriage in
either place. People -- so-caled faithful -- are ignoring that teaching irrespective of contraception.

Which place has a more dire condition?

9. One can talk at length about the Protestant position. Suffice to say this - Protestants believe in many dogmas proclaimed by the Church (take the Trinity, or the Inspiration of Scriptures). How can they claim the Church was infallible on these matters but fallible on others? If the Magisterium has erred on the matter of contraception, why should the possibility that the Magisterium erred on these others not be considered?

An excellent question. I ask this of the Protestant fundamentalist contingent all the time, most
notably with their absurd rejection of the so-called aprocypha from their Scripture sources.

It comes down to reason. There is no reason to reject the apocrypha -- which were
Scripture in the Septuagint (the Bible clearly used by the early Christians and, most likely, Jesus
Himself), and were used by the Church for 1500 years without any significant conflict -- yet they
do.

However, the Protestants do not, and have never in their 500 years, recognize the Magesteruim
as infallible. That the Church could err in her teachings was the subject of debate long before
the Schisms from her. And, even within the Church, there are many great theologians who
challenge the notion that the Magesterium cannot err.

And, as it pertains to this issue, the reason that the Protestant Church changed its opinion on this
matter was because it felt that the reasons the Church gave on the issue were insubstantial. As
they were not obligated to accept Her teachings without question, and given that they could think
of many good reasons for contraception within marriage, and found the Church's objections to be
lacking, they abandoned it, and, from their perspective, rightly so.

Continued...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
10. Since contraception was very much around in the Roman era (when the early Church first taught against contraception), and the cyclicality of the female libido was as true then as it is now; it follows that the situation in which the Church proclaimed its teaching was not very different from what we see today.

Not very different? Not true. It was only in the 20th century that the Church embraced
sexual pleasure and gratification (in marriage) as a blessing. The Church had a much more hard-
lined stance on pleasure before this, encouraging a minimal amount of conjugal behavior. This
derives from I Cor 7:, albeit (I believe) as a misreading.

This applies especially a woman's gratification. I would be deeply surprised if you could
find me one, mainstream, theological text from before 1900 that made permissible a woman's
right to enjoy sexual pleasure in the context of a marriage. A woman has, since of old, been
taught that her libido is either of no consequence, or worse that it was the product of evil (i.e., the
Fall). As we observed, this is maintained in Orthodox Judiasm (for both sexes).

This antiquated and misogynistic notion has been the subject of plays, short stories, poems, and
all manner of literature throughout the centuries -- when a woman enjoys her sexuality, she is a
sinner. In these writings, her sexuality leads to all manner of problems -- infidelity, hate, grief --
everything that is bad. Almost invariably, the woman pays the price while the man does not.

It is this very thread that is encouraged by the unnatural technique of NFP which I find the
most offensive and appalling (and disingenuous, in that the Church claims that it is natural).

So, I categorically reject your claim that perspectives within the Church and society as a whole
'are not very different' from when the Church first started its campaign against contraception. And,
since I think that 1st-century contraception is not even remotely analogous to 21st-century
contraception, I would not find it problematic or hypocritical for the Church to have reevaluated its
stance on the issue in the 60s and have changed its mind.

I do believe that Karol Wojltja's comments, however, reveal the motivation behind the Church's
refusal to budge from its position -- it feared losing the respect of its faithful and, thereby, control.

While many, if not most, of the 90% ignore the teaching of the Church without a substantive
reason for doing so, not all do. The Church's stance is biologically unnatural and psychologically
unsupportable. That it falls in line with the unwavering tradition of the Church is immaterial, for
the notions of sexuality and, consequently, contraception has changed in the past 2000 years.
And its claim to know with unfallible certainty the will of God on this measure is dubious at
best, given the clear political motivations revealed by the minority report.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Can you explain what the difference between anticipating the sex act and anticipating the
timing of the sex act?

I'm writing from work, so I'll have to take it one small chunk at a time.

If you think of an act of sex X occurring at time T, this can be represented as (X,T). Anticipating this act would be like a function A(X,T). If one is anticipating only the timing, then it would be A(T). In NFP, (X,T) does not exist (because there is no act of sex taking place at that time between the couple), so A(X,T) is meaningless. Since the sin of contraception refers to A(X,T) and not A(T), it follows that a couple practising NFP is not sinning.

Did that make any sense to you? Pardon me, but I tend to find it easier to conceptualise and express terms as an engineer would (as Coletti would, no doubt, agree).

Originally posted by Nemesio
I recognize the differences between ABC and NFP. ABCs alter some aspect of the physical part
of the sex act. The Church seems to claim that this is immoral because it is unnatural.
This claim is undermined, however, by the explicit context underwhich contraceptive NFP takes
place. It demands an alteration of the physical timing of sexu ...[text shortened]... She is being dishonest by claiming that NFP is 'natural,' because it most certainly
is not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, no. The Church does not claim it is immoral because it is unnatural, but because it violates Divine command/ God's plan for marriage.

Further, the question is not whether ignoring the natural timing of the woman's sexual desires is unnatural, but whether it is unjustified. You seem to be claiming that, in itself and because it is "unna ...[text shortened]... er act complete in itself. The timing has not been "changed", the act itself has not occurred.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Just more extra-Christian doctrine.
Is there any support for this stance in Christ's words? If you answer , try and have a quote from Christ that's on point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thanks for the non-answer; I quoted as much as I thought was relevant. Still waiting for the answer as to whether this is an autnoritative statement of RCC doctrine; if it is, it will logically follow from it and the prior passages from Leo, the present Pope and others that the purpose of marriage and sex is procreation; as the unitive "purpose ...[text shortened]... chbishop's letter which expressly says that sex for the unitive "purpose" alone is forbidden.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not everything Christ taught and did is in the Bible (C.f. Jn 21:25).