What would you say of a person who feels it is their right to eat as much food and they want, and after having eaten it, since it is more than their stomach can bear, the person adjourns to the nearest loo and promptly throws up. And then goes back to eat some more?
When told that this is a waste of food, that they ought to eat only as much as is needed and no more, that throwing up good food is doing what is unnatural and unhealthy, they reply that they have a right to enjoy food without worrying about gaining weight. Surely everyone has such a right, they say, because as well all know, to gain weight is to risk general ill health and to decrease one's life span. It is far better to eat as much as one desires and then chuck up. Surely?
I doubt many people reading here today see the “right” of eating and chucking for the pure pleasure of food as anything less than sheer gluttony and lack of self-control. I’m sure many also will eat that cream donut at morning tea time, knowing full well what the consequences may be and quite accepting of them. After all, if you want to be regularly eating donuts, be prepared for waistline expansion.
However, when it comes to the pleasure of sex, it all becomes a different matter. We demand the right to have sex without consequences. For that reason contraception is very necessary, because without it, there would most definitely be consequences and we can’t have that. And let’s take it one step further, in a world where contraception is necessary, so is abortion. Because if contraception does not prevent the conception of a child, then abortion needs to step in and clean up. Abortion and contraception go hand in hand.
Our appetites for sex are so huge that many cannot fathom being without the right to engage. Why wait for a day when the woman is not ovulating (a couple of days a month), when with a condom sex can be had without restraint. One would think that sexual self-control is not a virtue to be aspired to. But, what does it matter, really? In a culture with falling birth rates and loss of respect for human life.
Consider the following consequences warned of by POPE PAUL VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, released in 1968 during the pill revolution.
I remember a conversation at Sir Humphreys a while back where a number of men admitted (not even grudgingly) that they “tried out” potential partners before committing to the “best one”. What was that about care and reverence for one’s wife that the Pope was talking about, rather just a sex toy that happens to do your laundry as well? And what about the explosion of porn, something mostly consumed by men?
The Catholic position on sex and contraception has been said to be best typified by the Every sperm is sacred song in The Meaning of Life by Monty Python. Please remember, this song is a joke – it mocks the Catholic sanctity for life, and reduces it to sacredness of sperm only. Certainly sperm is necessary for the creation of a new human life, yet so is an egg, and so is the creation of a soul. By itself, sperm is only sperm. It has no meaning except for what happens to it when it fuses with an egg.
The way sex is supposed to work is that each person, man and woman, gives themselves to the other in love. The act of sex itself is a renewal of marriage vows and allows for the creation of a new human life which means that God is involved. Using contraception slams the door in God’s face, it tells Him He is not wanted this time around.
It has been argued that contraception is needed so as to not create more children than the couple can feed. Except, there has always been a sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy that does not involve contraception. That sure-fire way requires self-control, restraint and respect for the other person. That way is abstaining from sex. Just like with eating where a person needs to exercise self-control so as to not become hugely over-weight, so with sex couples are expected to abstain when having more children would be an undue burden. After all sex is pleasurable, but it’s purpose is not to provide pleasure, just like eating’s purpose is not to provide pleasure – but the pleasurable aspect of eating sure does encourage us to do it to stay alive.
I wonder if someone will ever come up with a type of mouth condom, so you can eat all you want and then put the condom out and start again. Too far fetched?
Related Links:
This post was inspired by this conversation at TBR
Contraception – why not? : Why does the Catholic Church keep insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time? Thirty years ago the case in favor of contraception seemed eminently reasonable. But the widespread use of contraception has had so many devastating effects on marriage, the family, and society as a whole, that the Pope's predictions about it make him now look, it retrospect, like a modern day prophet...A culture of inverted sexuality:The massive social and psychological disorder we see all around us is not the making of the "gay community." Our current problems — including even the gay-rights" movement itself — arose as a result of disorders that first became prevalent among heterosexuals...
A rubber ideology : I call it “condomism.” This is the belief that all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception...
When told that this is a waste of food, that they ought to eat only as much as is needed and no more, that throwing up good food is doing what is unnatural and unhealthy, they reply that they have a right to enjoy food without worrying about gaining weight. Surely everyone has such a right, they say, because as well all know, to gain weight is to risk general ill health and to decrease one's life span. It is far better to eat as much as one desires and then chuck up. Surely?
I doubt many people reading here today see the “right” of eating and chucking for the pure pleasure of food as anything less than sheer gluttony and lack of self-control. I’m sure many also will eat that cream donut at morning tea time, knowing full well what the consequences may be and quite accepting of them. After all, if you want to be regularly eating donuts, be prepared for waistline expansion.
However, when it comes to the pleasure of sex, it all becomes a different matter. We demand the right to have sex without consequences. For that reason contraception is very necessary, because without it, there would most definitely be consequences and we can’t have that. And let’s take it one step further, in a world where contraception is necessary, so is abortion. Because if contraception does not prevent the conception of a child, then abortion needs to step in and clean up. Abortion and contraception go hand in hand.
Our appetites for sex are so huge that many cannot fathom being without the right to engage. Why wait for a day when the woman is not ovulating (a couple of days a month), when with a condom sex can be had without restraint. One would think that sexual self-control is not a virtue to be aspired to. But, what does it matter, really? In a culture with falling birth rates and loss of respect for human life.
Consider the following consequences warned of by POPE PAUL VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, released in 1968 during the pill revolution.
Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.Many of the consequences of what Pope Paul warned of have come to pass. There has been a major lowering of morality over that last several decades since the 1960s. To the point now where in NZ, the largest number of 11-14 ever have had abortions. Eleven to fourteen year old girls should not even be having sex, let alone having abortions. Hello!
I remember a conversation at Sir Humphreys a while back where a number of men admitted (not even grudgingly) that they “tried out” potential partners before committing to the “best one”. What was that about care and reverence for one’s wife that the Pope was talking about, rather just a sex toy that happens to do your laundry as well? And what about the explosion of porn, something mostly consumed by men?
The Catholic position on sex and contraception has been said to be best typified by the Every sperm is sacred song in The Meaning of Life by Monty Python. Please remember, this song is a joke – it mocks the Catholic sanctity for life, and reduces it to sacredness of sperm only. Certainly sperm is necessary for the creation of a new human life, yet so is an egg, and so is the creation of a soul. By itself, sperm is only sperm. It has no meaning except for what happens to it when it fuses with an egg.
The way sex is supposed to work is that each person, man and woman, gives themselves to the other in love. The act of sex itself is a renewal of marriage vows and allows for the creation of a new human life which means that God is involved. Using contraception slams the door in God’s face, it tells Him He is not wanted this time around.
It has been argued that contraception is needed so as to not create more children than the couple can feed. Except, there has always been a sure-fire way to prevent pregnancy that does not involve contraception. That sure-fire way requires self-control, restraint and respect for the other person. That way is abstaining from sex. Just like with eating where a person needs to exercise self-control so as to not become hugely over-weight, so with sex couples are expected to abstain when having more children would be an undue burden. After all sex is pleasurable, but it’s purpose is not to provide pleasure, just like eating’s purpose is not to provide pleasure – but the pleasurable aspect of eating sure does encourage us to do it to stay alive.
I wonder if someone will ever come up with a type of mouth condom, so you can eat all you want and then put the condom out and start again. Too far fetched?
Related Links:
This post was inspired by this conversation at TBR
Contraception – why not? : Why does the Catholic Church keep insisting, in the face of the opposite position held by most of the rest of the modern world, that contraception is one of the worst inventions of our time? Thirty years ago the case in favor of contraception seemed eminently reasonable. But the widespread use of contraception has had so many devastating effects on marriage, the family, and society as a whole, that the Pope's predictions about it make him now look, it retrospect, like a modern day prophet...A culture of inverted sexuality:The massive social and psychological disorder we see all around us is not the making of the "gay community." Our current problems — including even the gay-rights" movement itself — arose as a result of disorders that first became prevalent among heterosexuals...
A rubber ideology : I call it “condomism.” This is the belief that all problems surrounding sexual activity could be solved with enough contraception...
Sorry to take a tangent to this very interesting post, but I'd just like to state clearly that NZConservative claims all patent, copyright and trademark ownership of the "mouth condom". Patent pending, all rights reserved, etc.
ReplyDeleteSo, accepting contarception is wrong, what is a believer to do when they have enough kids? Stop having sex?
ReplyDeleteWhy does the Church have such a strong desire to control such a natural urge? Why can't loving, married couples with children continue to express their love for each other through sex without the fear of more, unaffordable, children?
Stop having sex? Why Fugley? Even without contraception, there are many days in the cycle full intercourse is pretty much safe.
ReplyDeleteRhythm Method.
And I think it is instructive to see this not as the Church taking control over sex, but rather, the individual taking control over their lust, rather than their love. With the right attitude, everything changes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find the observational method of NFP far more accurate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFugley;
ReplyDeleteIt may have escaped your notice but the only country in the Western world that is having enough chidren to replace its population is the USA and then only barely.
The only reason our populations are not collapsing is because of immigration.
Which brings its own set of problems - not the least of which being the importation of cultures hostile to our own.
Sing little grasshopper while the summer sun shines because the winter is on the way.
James, all comments of that nature will be deleted, no matter what else of value you might say.
ReplyDeleteStop having sex? Why Fugley? Even without contraception, there are many days in the cycle full intercourse is pretty much safe.
ReplyDeleteGood old Vatican Roulette: after all, the people in most urgent need of birth control are our at risk teens, and what could possibly go wrong with a birth control method that requires a couple of teenagers high on hormones and party pills to wait for up to several weeks to have sex?
I'm guessing you've been married for a while, Zen?
Firstly, you make it sound like teenagers are totally at the mercy of their hormones. Do you think that excuse would wash as a defence against rape? "It was my hormones, but hey, I got a condom on."
ReplyDeleteAnd what could possibly go wrong with teenagers engaging in sex even with birth control? Apart from becoming pregnant anyway, the ensuing abortion, STI's, STD's, depression or loss of self-esteem by making a mistake in the heat of the moment etc you mean?
Does contraception give our young ones a false sense of protection perhaps?
That said, you read far too much into my comment Danyl. Fugley made the assumption that said "no sex". I just pointed out it means "less sex"
Personally, I don't quite follow the whole Catholic argument about contraception, but that's mainly because I haven't studied it yet. I've only got as far as respecting that position in principle. I suspect I'll b e reading up on it over the next few weeks, as this seems to be where the debazte is heading.
I have been reading Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" (actually, started with a couple of books about it, with frequent excerpts back to the original) and it is quite an impressive work and providing thought provoking material.
Finally. God bless you Lucyna for having the guts to say this stuff. The Catholic Church must be very happy to have you :)
ReplyDelete"We demand the right to have sex without consequence."
ReplyDeleteWell, we don't demand it, but we'd like it. Does the Church have the same righteous anger towards doctors and scientists, constantly coming up with new medicines and procedures that let us enjoy close contact with a wide range of other people without suffering the natural consequences of that, ie illnesses of varying severity up to and including death? God took the good trouble to create all those illnesses and here we are demonstrating our contempt for his effort by trying to wipe them out, in a cowardly attempt to extend our own lives. Surely the Church should be promoting restraint and self-control in our dealings with other people?
Milt, no the church does not forbid people from coming up with new medicines unless it contradicts his moral law. In fact in Ecclesiasticus 38 it says -
ReplyDeleteHold the physician in honor, for he is essential to you, and God it was who established his profession.
From God the doctor has his wisdom, and the king provides for his sustenance.
His knowledge makes the doctor distinguished, and gives him access to those in authority.
God makes the earth yield healing herbs which the prudent man should not neglect;
Was not the water sweetened by a twig that men might learn his power?
He endows men with the knowledge to glory in his mighty works,
Through which the doctor eases pain and the druggist prepares his medicines;
But the Pill is something entirely different - normally people take medicine when they are unhealthy or there is something wrong with them. Is a woman sick or ill who is pregnant? No; it is just for convenience sake.
The Bible is very specific on when life begins -
--snip--
Man is created in the image of God (Gen.1:27), so to take an innocent human life is equivalent to kill an image of God (Gen.9:6). That is the basis for the commandment "You shall not murder" (Ex.20:13).
From the moment of creation, God gives the humans an immortal soul: "The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being" (Gen.2:7).
From the moment of conception, a human being is an immortal human:
"Have mercy on me, O God… remember, I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of conception" (Ps.51:5, or 7).
"Your hand shape me and made me… you gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12).
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart" (Jer.1:4-6).
"For you created my inmost being: you knit me together in my mother's womb. For so many wonders I thank you, a wonder am I… When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body" (Ps.139:13-16).
"Even from his mother's womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit" (Luk.1:15).
--snip--
Fugley: “Why does the Church have such a strong desire to control such a natural urge”
ReplyDeletePsycho Milt: “God took the good trouble to create all those illnesses”
Implicit in Fugley’s statement is the idea that if an urge is so natural it must be desirable. Would it not follow that if an outcome is so natural it should be desirable?
Implicit in Psycho Milt’s statement is the idea that either we accept all things ordain by God or we interfere with whatever we like. This idea misses the possibility that some things are ordained as blessings, and others as curses. The new life that results from the intimate relations between a man and a woman is a blessing. The incontinent human appetite for sex is a curse. Illness and disease is a curse. God expects us to work for what is right despite the curses we suffer as a race. He also expects us to welcome with open arms the blessings we have access to. What greater blessing than the wonder of a new human life?
Thanks, Allan.
ReplyDeleteAJ, your explanation for the existence of illnesses and the human sex drive makes Muslims look like rationalists. Anything for us on how the leopard got his spots?
ReplyDeleteFletch's counter-argument at least is one. It stands up if we accept that convenience is immoral, but I'm damned if I'm giving up my dishwasher.
A further thought - if contraception is weaselling out of the consequences of our actions, then sex acts that can't lead to conception are equally immoral. Surely we have to restrain ourselves from those too? Things are looking pretty bleak for the Christian's sex life...
“I remember a conversation at Sir Humphreys a while back where a number of men admitted (not even grudgingly) that they “tried out” potential partners before committing to the “best one”. What was that about care and reverence for one’s wife that the Pope was talking about, rather just a sex toy that happens to do your laundry as well? And what about the explosion of porn, something mostly consumed by men?”
ReplyDeleteI feel this misrepresents what was said. It certainly misrepresents my contribution. Sex before marriage is not about trying out something like a test drive of a car (although I will concede that some, both men and women, may view it that way). More it is a mutual exploration of the compatibility of the partnership. Just as in courtship you explore your mutual beliefs in religion, parenting, philosophy, politics etc you should also explore your physical compatibility. Also notice I say mutual, meaning that both partners are equally part of the exploration, which is often a loving caring and respectful experience.
As Zen Tiger so nicely puts – “With the right attitude, everything changes.”
Anonymous, I have no doubt that some people might be better at making love than others, but that is not the point is it? Being in love with someone and choosing to spend the rest of your life with them is what counts. I find it hard to believe that two people who love each other and marry will have 'bad sex'.
ReplyDeleteI am sure the sex will still feel very enjoyable; in fact, if you love the person it will be the best sex you'll ever have. It seems selfish to me to go from person-to-person in order to find the one from whom you will get the best sex.
Do you understand what I mean?
In many respects I agree with you, but I would like to expand on this part “It seems selfish to me to go from person-to-person in order to find the one from whom you will get the best sex.”
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be missing my point. In any relationship sex is just one part of the whole. When you are courting you are in one sense testing the compatibility of your prospective life partner. If you exclude one part of the equation you may miss a very important truth about your partner. Because sex is an important part, but not the only part, of the relationship, for example you might have wildly differing levels of libido. So to me your statement misses the fact that when courting you are in one sense going from person-to-person to find the most complete package. (Note to self find a better way of expressing that).
But that said I think I do see what you mean.
I think I understand what you are saying as well although I don't agree. But let me ask you - are you partnered with someone now? (that always sounds to me like people are talking about law firms :)
ReplyDeleteSay that your partner's libido changed and they didn't come up to your expectation of what sex should be; would you stay with them or go and get someone else? Or would you still love them and stay with them if they couldn't make love to you at all - like Christopher Reeve and his wife.
I agree that the sex act is very important and enjoyable (so I'm told), but you are saying that your ultimate decision to be with someone could come down to that alone. eg, I love you, but the sex isn't good enough.
“I agree that the sex act is very important and enjoyable (so I'm told), but you are saying that your ultimate decision to be with someone could come down to that alone. eg, I love you, but the sex isn't good enough.”
ReplyDeleteEqually you could say I love you, but the intellectual stimulation of your conversation isn’t enough. In the end it is the complete package. The ultimate decision should be based on the complete relationship.
If I may expand this again “It seems selfish to me to go from person-to-person in order to find the one from whom you will get the best sex.”
Is it then selfish in courtship to share emotional intimacy and intellectual intimacy, which are just as beautiful as physical intimacy by going from person-to-person to find the one you get the best emotional connection from, or intellectual connection from?
And yes happily married for 13 years. And my partner agrees completely with me. Which is surprising since you could say that when we courted, we explored everything about each other and mutually came to the conclusion that we were very compatible…
"Which is surprising" ... Make that not surprising :-)
ReplyDeleteEqually you could say I love you, but the intellectual stimulation of your conversation isn’t enough.
ReplyDeleteThen it's not love.
Anon, I'm glad it worked out for you, etc, but one of the best ways to extinguish a burning relationship is to have sex. Once a man knows he can have sex without any responsibilities, why would he ever commit to a long-term relationship?
ReplyDelete"Once a man knows he can have sex without any responsibilities, why would he ever commit to a long-term relationship?"
ReplyDeleteHow about: because he likes or loves the person he's having sex with? Just a thought...
Or, how about about he likes / loves having sex? As I was reading the other day in a column, "Ladies, if you really want to know why He's Just Not That Into You it's because you're sleeping with him! He is getting all the sex and intimacy he wants without any of the commitment". As Lucyna suggests, try not sleeping with a guy. If that sounds old-fashioned, I am guilty as charged...
ReplyDeleteSounds like a return to the days when, if you were a man, marriage was what you did to be able to fuck a respectable girl, and if you were a woman, sex was what you put up with to be able to get a husband. Forgive the rest of us for being less than keen for such a redefinition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of codswallop. You guys can't really be that ignorant and insensitive. It cracks me up we take these sorts of arguments seriously...
ReplyDeleteMilt - you're so jaded!
ReplyDeleteMy parents have just celebrated 40 years of happy marriage and another couple in my church have just celebrated 60 years of marriage. I wonder if it's they who are happy compared to people who go from person to person, enjoying their 'sexual freedom' but never seeming to be able to find "the one".
Quite a good (but long) article here on the subject written by a woman.
I don't think I'm jaded - I've been married for 24 years to someone I met at school. But that isn't an example everyone should feel morally obliged to emulate.
ReplyDeleteGood for you!
ReplyDeleteBut don't you want others to enjoy the same happiness that you have?
I have to wonder if two people say they are in love - that they have found their life partner - why do they not marry the person? A lot of couples trot out that old, "we think it's just a piece of paper" chestnut but if it is just a piece of paper what's the big deal in getting it?
To me, it feels like one or both people are leaving a 'way out' for themselves; an escape clause just in case it doesn't work out. Is that love though?
And if both say it *is* real love, then why isn't the guy a big enough of a man to say, 'you're the only one for me, the one I want to spend the rest of my life with; I want to proclaim that loudly before God, and the Law, and before our friends and family'.
A woman might say that it doesn't matter, but in my opinion it does matter to them.
Again, just my opinion.
"one of the best ways to extinguish a burning relationship is to have sex"
ReplyDeleteIf this was true then we would see a lot of loveless marriages...
Anon, AHA!
ReplyDeleteBut I'm talking about pre-marital sex. Sex in marriage is good and it bonds the husband and wife closer.
That is the difference.
“Sex in marriage is good and it bonds the husband and wife closer.”
ReplyDeleteMaking love bonds people together not sex. And making love has nothing to do with marriage.