Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Posted May 18, 2012 at 4:55am · Edited May 18, 2012 at 4:57am · Just Curious

If you're like me, you're a non-Catholic who sometimes wants answers to a burning question about Catholicism from a knowledgeable Catholic, but doesn't know where to look. So I thought I'd start this intel thread for such questions.

Here's a starter question from Mothership Greg and me:

Would Catholics consider non-procreative sex within the bonds of (heterosexual) marriage as being just as sinful as non-procreative sex outside the bonds of marriage? And why?

For closest comparison, suppose the non-procreative sex outside of marriage doesn't involve adultery from either party, and takes place in a stable, long-term relationship.

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

2
Votes

Answer by Pseudodionysius

Posted May 18, 2012 at 2:35pm

Rather than get into a casuistic response, I'll try to focus on the bigger picture and suggest one book that you may find helpful in exploring the issues in more in depth. The first question to ask is a variant of the man in the Gospel's who keeps the commandments and asks what more is required of him.

Your eternal destiny is communion with God. Your actions, while still under providence, can move you closer or further away from that goal. The perfection of your soul is a lifelong journey, with additional work to do in purgatory in removing all traces and stains of sin. Sin itself, while it may appear to embrace an equal good, in fact, deceives by allowing you to fall short of the mark and the excellence and nobility of soul to which you aspire. Many souls drift into lukewarmness toward God. 

Something to remember: God's kingdom in the afterlife is a monarchy with a perfect ruler and everyone in their own room of the mansion, with no jealousy or envy of those in higher or lower places. But, not everyone will see God face to face with the same intensity.

The marital bond between a man and a woman is sacramental and therefore grace flows from it. Couples who may have taken potentially irreversible actions (sterilization of one or both husband and wife) can still practice a conscious Christian asceticism which will not only strengthen their souls but also strengthen their marriage.

Two books I'll suggest: The first is by the late Abbot Vonier and is called The Life of the World to Come. That will focus you on the reward and goal. The second is Sex and Virtue , part of the new Catholic Moral Thought series by Catholic University of America Press house, written in 2003 and part of the series of texts written to reflect the thought of the 1993 Encyclical Veritatis Splendor.

An introduction to the larger issues can be found in Morality: The Catholic View by Servais Pinckaers, O.P.

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

2
Votes

Answer by Pseudodionysius

Posted May 29, 2012 at 4:39am

Those who engage in sexual intercourse for purposes of pleasure need not be doing so selfishly. If the desire for sexual pleasure motivates one to seek to have sexual intercourse with one's spouse, and if one is also striving to help one's spouse achieve what is good also, one is acting morally and bringing about what is good. For instance, one may succeed in making one's spouse feel loved, or the mutual pleasure may foster intimacy and bonding or comfort may be given and received. Here we see the unitive meaning of sexual intercourse being preserved without the procreative meaning being violated.

John Paul II teaches that far from fostering sensuality, the proper practice of NFP will enhance the loving relationship of the spouses and make their acts of sexual intercourse ones more expressive of love and acts more authentically expressive of total self-giving. The use of NFP, far from bringing about a state of sensuality, is more likely to assist one in gaining control of one's sexual appetites, in appreciating the deeper meanings of sexual intercourse and in being better able to express them. Throughout his writings, John Paul II speaks to this point. Consider this passage:

If conjugal chastity (and chastity in general) is manifested at first as the capacity to resist the concupiscence of the flesh, it later gradually reveals itself as a singular capacity to perceive, love and practice those meanings of the "language of the body" which remain altogether unknown to concupiscence itself and which progressively enrich the marital dialogue of the couple, purifying it, deepening it, and at the same time simplifying it. Therefore, that asceticism of continence, of which the encyclical speaks (HV 12), does not impoverish "affective manifestations," but rather makes them spiritually more intense and enriches.

Those who have the virtue of self-mastery are better able to ensure that their acts of sexual intercourse are more truly acts of love-making rather than acts designed merely to satisfy sexual urges.

More after the link.

Pseudodionysius: Just to be clear, those aren't my words, those are a full quotation of a larger set of documents.

Furius Camillus: I think much misunderstanding in the minds of Christians and observers is derived from a conflation of spirituality and asceticism.

The Church does not teach that the body is evil or that intercourse without procreation (barring the use of contraceptives, of course) is evil.

Pseudodionysius: Furius,

I believe many people carry around an implicit Manichean view of the body that has its origins in Descartes mind-body dualism.

Furius Camillus: Agreed Pseudodionysisus.

What I didn't do successfully, and wish I had, was express that the Church's teachings are not intended to deny life but to bring us closer to it through God, His gifts and the the gifts of his Church (grace, sacraments, the magisterium, and so on).  

[I voted you up too!  Still learning about this site.]

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

1
Vote

Answer by Tom Lindholtz

Posted May 18, 2012 at 9:23am

This isn't an answer, but the 60 word limit is too constraining for a comment.

Do you mean intentionally "certain" non-procreative sex (active artificial birth control) or intentionally "hopefully" non-procreative sex (rhythm method) or inadvertent non-procreative sex (a pregnancy simply didn't occur)?  I'm curious to hear the answer to this because, to me, it is of the nature of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"  It is a very fine dice.

Also, how long is long-term?  How committed is stable?  These questions are important because, it seems to me, the implication of "a stable long term relationship" is that it just describes two people who are doing their thing; perhaps very beautifully, but still seeing the relationship as just being about them.  But, in context, the question sets that in contrast to the RC view of Biblical marriage.  And in the Bible marriage is about more than just two people doing their thing.  The Bible teaches that marriage was given by God as an illustration of God's desire for His relationship with the Church (universal).  So what we do, and how we do it, in marriage is a reflection -- for good or for ill, intentionally or un- -- on God Himself.  So there is a "gulf of sacredness" between a "stable, long term relationship", a "mere" societal view of marriage, and a fully Biblical view of marriage.

Robert O'Brien: As a follow-up on this, I believe it was Neuhaus who observed that sex is the least-private thing we can do.  In terms of "'mere' society," it involves a minimum of two people, not to mention the children and other relations who care.  If one accepts the existence of a caring God, well, then, we're never private. 

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

1
Vote

Answer by Tom Lindholtz

Posted May 18, 2012 at 9:29am · Edited May 18, 2012 at 9:32am

From Wikipedia:

The Catholic Church is opposed to artificial contraception and orgasmic acts outside of the context of marital intercourse.[2] This belief dates back to the first centuries of Christianity.[3] Such acts are considered intrinsically disordered because of the belief that all licit sexual acts must be both unitive (express love), and procreative (open to procreation). The only form of birth control permitted is abstinence. Modern scientific methods of "periodic abstinence" such as natural family planning (NFP) were counted as a form of abstinence by Pope Paul VI in his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.[4] The following is the condemnation of contraception:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

A number of other documents provide more insight into the Church's position on contraception. The commission appointed to study the question in the years leading up to Humanae Vitaeissued two unofficial reports, a so-called "majority report" which attempted to express reasons the Catholic Church could change its teaching on contraception, and a "minority report" which explains the reasons for upholding the traditional Christian view on contraception.[5] In 1997, the Vatican released a document entitled "Vademecum for Confessors" (2:4) which states "[t]he Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception."[6] Furthermore, many Church Fathers condemned the use of contraception.[7][8]

The 1987 document Donum Vitae opposes in-vitro fertilization on grounds that it is harmful to embryos. Later on, the 2008 instruction Dignitas Personae denounces embryonic manipulations and new methods of contraception.

Many Western Catholics have voiced significant disagreement with the Church's stance on contraception.[9] Many Catholics use contraceptives other than those approved by the church. Studies have found 98% of Catholics women in the United States use contraceptive methods other than those officially sanctioned by the church.[10]

  1. ^ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%2038:8-10&version=NIV
  2. ^ http://www.catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
  3. ^ "Humanae Vitae: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Regulation of Birth, July 25, 1968". The Vatican. Retrieved 2006-10-01.
  4. ^ Minority Report
  5. ^ Vademecum
  6. ^ This Rock Magazine: The Fathers Know Best
  7. ^ Fr. Haydon
  8. ^ "The Evolution of Freedom as Catholicity in Catholic Ethics." Benjamin Hubbard and Brad Starr, UPA, 1990.
  9. ^ Rachel K. Jones and Joerg Dreweke (2011). Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use (Report). Guttmacher Institute.

Joseph Stanko: The 98% figure is an instance of statistical cherry-picking.  For starters, the same study reports that 70% of never married Catholic women surveyed had sexual experience, i.e. 30% are virgins.  Why would virgins need contraception? 

Joseph Stanko: The answer: 98% of women "at risk for unintended pregnancy" used contraception, meaning sexually active women who "were not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant."  So if you are a Catholic woman who is (a) not sexually active or (b) trying to get pregnant or (c) already pregnant, they don't include you in the count.

MJBubba: From the Guttmacher study ( http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html ), the highest possible number for the number of Catholic women using contraceptives is 87%, and due to questions regarding methodology and interpretation, could possibly be 72 % or even lower.

MJBubba: A blog post that investigated the 98 % claim, with really good discussion in the comments: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/02/how_to_lie_with_statistics_exa_1.html

MJBubba: 'nother good blog post, this time related to media coverage of this claim, also with good comments: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getreligion/2012/02/lies-damned-lies-and-98-of-catholic-women/#comments

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

1
Vote

Answer by Ed G.

Posted May 19, 2012 at 7:14pm · Edited May 19, 2012 at 7:25pm

There was a thread on this very topic (actually as on offshoot of a thread on contraception), discussing why artificial contraception is bad while natural family planning is acceptable. Mama Toad and Katievs, among others, were adamant that sex within marriage is a-ok and that NFP was allowed; I think the main distinction they rested on was that marriage itself is ordered toward procreation even if individual instances aren't. I, and to a lesser degree Tomm DeSeno, were less certain of all that; it seems to me that intentionally avoiding procreation with strategic abstinence (NFP) puts the resulting sex acts firmly into the non-procreative camp and therefore presumably not to be condoned.

It seems that we have a contradiction in the books: on the one hand the Church teaches that marital sex acts must be both unitive and procreative (see Tom Lindholtz references above), and on the other hand we have Pope Paul VI endorsing the strategic abstinence which results in sex that is intentionally not procreative (again see Tom Lindholtz references above). 

I truly don't know how to reconcile these two views, so I don't try. The card says Moops, so I'll take it that my wife and I are safe in our expressions of marital love even when we're intentionally avoiding the procreative power of our union.

Pseudodionysius: The book Sex and Virtue that I mentioned above reconciles the apparent contradiction.

Joseph Stanko: I think you've misunderstood Mama Toad and Katievs.  The distinction you've cited, "marriage itself is ordered toward procreation even if individual instances aren't," is the argument put forward by those defending contraception in marriage, i.e. it's ok to use condoms or The Pill within marriage sometimes as long as you don't always use them.

Joseph Stanko: Sex during the infertile period is infertile by nature, not by intention.  Saying this "results in sex that is intentionally not procreative" is like claiming that by waiting until after sunset to start the fireworks show your intention caused the darkness.  No, the sun set on its own, quite independent of your intentions.  All you did by intention was wait.

Ed G.: Your analogy is inapt. Knowingly having sex only in the infertile periods, as a program to avoid pregnancy yet still have sex some times, is certainly intentional. The result is sex that will never result in procreation unless the program is ended. If family planning were the only concern then total abstinence would serve the purpose even better.

Edited on May 24, 2012 at 10:47pm

Ed G.: Pseudo, can you give a short account of the reconciliation? I realize the difficulty since you're referring me to a book and this space only allows 60 words, but I'd be interested in a Cliff's Notes version if possible.

Ed G.: Joseph, in what way can we consider sex oriented towards procreation if the actual sex acts engaged in can never result in procreation?

Pseudodionysius: Ed G: it really centers around proper definitions of the virtue of prudence, nature, intention and the moral object. Really hard to do a summary, but I understand your confusion (its a common one) and really does need to be sorted out at book length.

Pseudodionysius: You are not morally required to only have sex during fertile periods: this actually elevates the procreative aspect to be above the unitive aspect and is a utilitarian misuse of your spouse, objectifying her by turning her into a baby machine.

Joseph Stanko: Ed, the point I was trying to make is that an intention alone cannot alter the fertility cycle without some positive action: a hormonal pill can alter the cycle, a barrier can render an otherwise fertile act infertile.  But merely intending to avoid pregnancy will not render the fertile period infertile, a lesson many teens have learned the hard way.

Ed G.: Joseph, I just disagree with you on this point (which is weird because I usually like your comments and agree with you). On this, though, it seems as if you're engaging in semantic gymnastics to deny the essence and purpose of NFP in order to maintain that NFP has nothing significant in common with contraception.

Ed G.: It's not that intending to avoid pregnancy will render the fertile period infertile, it's that intentionally avoiding sex during the fertile period means the the sex you're left with is no longer oriented to procreation.

Ed G.: Pseudo, re #8: doesn't never having sex during the fertile period elevate the unitive aspect, objectifying the spouse by turning her into a pleasure machine?

Joseph Stanko: Ed, with respect, you're disagreeing with statements I never made.  For instance, what did I write that gave you the impression that I think "NFP has nothing significant in common with contraception?"  In fact you agreed with the statement I actually made: intending to avoid pregnancy will not render the fertile period infertile.

Pseudodionysius

Pseudo, re #8: doesn't never having sex during the fertile period elevate the unitive aspect, objectifying the spouse by turning her into a pleasure machine?

Not necessarily, since not having sex during the fertile period does require some asceticism by abstaining from sex. 

Pseudodionysius: Ed, constrained by space, but you'll notice that NFP respects the intrinsic regulation of the woman's cycle and requires periodic abstinence which will strengthen the virtue of temperance (thereby bringing the drives and desires under better control of the reason and will) in both partners.

Pseudodionysius: Ahem, Ed, about that book...

Ed G.: Joseph, it seems that your argument is that sin requires a positive action, and with NFP no positive action exists. Is that correct?

Ed G.: Pseud, re #14. I don't buy it. Periods of asceticism notwithstanding, spouses having sex only during infertile periods are doing so for pleasure, er, unity. Even with the asceticism, why doesn't this qualify as elevating one aspect over the other? 

Yes, yes. The book. Who has time for books? ;-)

Pseudodionysius

 Even with the asceticism, why doesn't this qualify as elevating one aspect over the other? 

Marriage is a sacrament and therefore a channel for grace. If you're exercising free will, prudence and a conscious Christian asceticism and prayer life, you will conform your will increasingly to God's plan for you and your wife.

Pseudodionysius: Buy the book, Luke....

Joseph Stanko: Pseud, you're quite the salesman, do you get a cut of the book sales or something?  :-)

Joseph Stanko: Ed, no, I was trying to draw a distinction between actions that result from intentions and those that do not.  If I intend for my arm to rise, it will.  If I intend for the sun to rise, it will, but of course it will also rise of its own accord irrespective of my will.

Joseph Stanko: You said NFP "results in sex that is intentionally not procreative."  But, like the sunrise, sex during the infertile period will be non-procreative regardless of intention.  There is no chain of causation that starts from an intention and leads to a sex act being sterilized in NFP.

Joseph Stanko: In contrast there is a clear chain of causation with any contraceptive: I intend to avoid procreation, therefore I use a condom, this results in a sex act that is intentionally not procreative.  I'm distinguishing between an "intentionally not procreative" act vs. a "naturally not procreative" act.

Ed G.: Pseud, ok ok I'll read the book..... eventually. 

Ed G.: Joseph re #24: couples employing NFP as a program do the same thing. They intend to avoid procreation, therefore they avoid the fertile period, this results in a sex life (if not individual act) that is intentionally not procreative.

Ed G.: If I'm a farmer and I knowingly sow my seed all year round except for the time when it could actually grow, would you characterize my seed sowing activities as oriented to growing crops?

Joseph Stanko: So is avoiding the fertile period immoral?  Are you claiming that couples have an obligation that they must engage in sex during each fertile period, and failing to do so constitutes a sin of omission, like skipping Mass on Sunday?

Ed G.: Let's say I'm a baseball player at bat. I intentionally want to avoid getting a hit because I'm tired and want to rest. So I swing only at pitches my bat has no hope of contacting while intentionally not swinging at pitches within reach. Would you consider my at-bat to be oriented to getting a hit?

Ed G.: re #28: No I'm actually not making any claims one way or the other. What I'm claiming is that a sex life that intentionally avoids pregnancy isn't, by definition, oriented toward procreation. Hence, my position that Catholic teaching appears conflicted on the matter since it requires a procreative aspect yet it condones the avoidance of pregnancy (NFP).

Joseph Stanko: Batters in baseball should try to get as many hits as possible.  However, the Church does not teach that married couples should try to have as many children as physically possible.  To the contrary, Pope Paul VI endorsed "responsible parenthood" and said there are valid reasons to limit family size.  So I don't think the analogy holds.

Ed G.: Ok, forget the baseball analogy (only because I don't desire to get further into the weeds by arguing about an analogy of the argument). A couple's sex is supposed to be oriented toward procreation; how can a sex life that intentionally avoids pregnancy be considered to be oriented toward procreation?

Joseph Stanko: Pope Paul wrote:

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

Joseph Stanko: I think there are subtle but important distinctions between saying that man must not on his own initiative break the connection between the two meanings of the act, and your statement that "sex is supposed to be oriented toward procreation."

Pseudodionysius

 Pseud, you're quite the salesman, do you get a cut of the book sales or something?  :-)

I wish. No. Academic publishers are quite immune to that sort of thing.

Ed G.: I think we're just going to have to disagree on this. I view employment of NFP as man acting on his own volition to suppress the procreative significance. None of your distinctions effectively fits with both Pope Paul's words and the reality of the intent and result of NFP (when it's not merely a temporary hiatus).

Pseudodionysius: Ed: read here.

Joseph Stanko: Ed, you said "I truly don't know how to reconcile these two views, so I don't try," but then you say "I'll take it that my wife and I are safe" which sounds like you have reconciled the two views, or at least decided that one trumps the other.

Joseph Stanko: Given that you view "employment of NFP as man acting on his own volition to suppress the procreative significance," it would seem the safer course is to avoid NFP.  What if it turns out that Pope Paul was wrong and you were right all along?

Joseph Stanko: If you pick a mushroom in the forest, and then you meet a man who claims to be a mushroom expert and tells you he's 100% certain it's not poisonous, but you have lingering doubts as to his credentials, wouldn't the safer course be to throw it away?

Tom Lindholtz: The question nags at me, "What about God's view of the question?  How does 'grace' and 'mercy' come into the equation?"  I'm not Catholic, so my conundrum may lie in the doctrine of the Church.  It strikes me that the Biblical phrase, "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men," applies when one is honing such a fine point.

Ed G.: Joseph re #38, 39, and 40: I'm not sure where you're going with this. I haven't reconciled the views (I haven't read the book yet), but one must continue to live.  I'll pray for mercy and forgiveness for any sins I may have committed.

Ed G.: Pseud, re #37: Joseph made the exact same arguments the author makes in the 2nd - 4th paragraphs.  The problem remains: "avoiding" is a verb if not a positive action. I don't think it's accurate to characterize someone avoiding pregnancy as "having done nothing to close out the possibility of having children." They are doing something: they're avoiding.

Joseph Stanko: Tom, God's view of the question is precisely what interests me.  Prior to the passage you cite, Jesus points to a practice of the Pharisees that violates one of the 10 commandments and asks "why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"  His point seems to be that when customs or traditions (cont.) 

Joseph Stanko: ...conflict with Divine Law we are obliged to conform our laws to God's laws.  I fail to see how that applies here.  What is the "commandment of God" that we are contradicting or ignoring in this discussion?  I would say rather that we are trying to determine how God's commandments apply to this particular situation.

Joseph Stanko: As for grace and mercy: God's commandments set a very high standard of behavior.  Without grace the task would be impossible, and we need mercy for all the times we fall short.  Lacking an understanding of grace and mercy, the secular world simply lowers the bar of acceptable behavior.  If a teaching is "too hard," discard it.

Joseph Stanko: Ed, yes we must continue to live, but isn't it prudent to avoid risks where possible?  And yet you specifically used the word "safe" to describe a course of action you appear to have grave doubts about.  Isn't that like saying "I'm not sure if this mushroom is poisonous, therefore I presume it's safe to eat?"

Joseph Stanko: re #43, suppose that on Monday during the fertile period there is a 10% chance of conception, while on Friday during the infertile period there is 0% chance.  Suppose the couple "avoids" on Monday, does that affect the probability of conception on Friday?  No.  Avoiding on Monday does not affect the possibility of having children on Friday.

Ed G.: Re # 48: Right, avoiding on Monday doesn't affect the possibility of conception on Friday, but it certainly affects the possibility of conception at all.

Edited on May 31, 2012 at 12:53am

Ed G.: Re #47: I still don't know where you're going with this, and I'm beginning to develop a "what's it to you?" kind of feeling. Why do you care which I presume to be the safer course? I don't think sin and poisonous mushrooms are analogous; sin can be forgiven, poison can be fatal. 

Joseph Stanko: Sin can be fatal to the soul.  Yes, if we repent in time God will heal our souls, and if you call 911 after swallowing poison doctors can pump your stomach and heal your body.  As to your private life, you volunteered the information above, but if it makes you uncomfortable I understand and won't mention it further.

Ed G.: Thank you for your concern for my soul. Somehow, though, I don't think following incorrect Church teaching that isn't obviously immoral or even obviously incorrect would be a fatal sin for my soul. I have enough humility to admit the possibility - probability - that I am wrong. I deem my soul fairly safe in the hands of the popes.

Edited on May 31, 2012 at 2:59pm

Pseudodionysius: Ed,

In reviewing your comments, I think your difficulty is with moral action theory (thomist) rather than contraception per se. Is this correct? If so, I'd recommend this book on the Teleological Grammar of the Moral Act. Again, I don't get a commission.

Joseph Stanko: Pseud, it seems that one of the chief difficulties in explaining and defending this teaching is that so few people today are fluent in Thomistic terminology.  I was born and raised Catholic and yet it's still a foreign language to me, and one I've only recently attempted to learn. 

Joseph Stanko: It seems there's a need for an explanation "in plain English," stripped of all the Thomist jargon.  Does such a thing exist?  Or do you think it's impossible to state the case with precision without using the proper domain-specific terms?

Ed G.: Re #53: I don't know what you mean by "moral action theory" so I can't answer your question.

Re #54: This describes me too, except for the part about attempting to learn Thomist thought.

Pseudodionysius: It seems there's a need for an explanation "in plain English," stripped of all the Thomist jargon.  Does such a thing exist?  Or do you think it's impossible to state the case with precision without using the proper domain-specific terms?

Unfortunately, no. Take your time, but its a tool and a necessary one.

Pseudodionysius: To add to that, its possible to begin an explanation "in plain English", but the imprecision eventually forces you back into the technical terms to nail down ambiguities. You can dialectically reason your way into it with a good interlocutor, but that scholastic scaffolding is the ultimate underpinning of the doctrine and theology.

Pseudodionysius: You can find the beginnings of an explanation here. If you go through the current Catechism of the Catholic Church and the one for the Council of Trent and count the references to Aquinas, you may never finish.

Furius Camillus: Ed G, is there moral distinction between the inveterate drunk that ignores his dependency when driving his children to school on Wednesdays and the inveterate drunk who does not?

Is there moral distinction between a drunk parent calling a cab to pick up his wife and kids from the airport and the drunk parent driving himself to perform this task?

Ed G.: Re #60: Yes, there are distinctions to be made, but I don't think they apply to the topic at hand, mainly because sex among spouses is hardly comparable to a drunk endangering the lives of others. Is the drunk acting less immorally when he's merely driving drunk to work without his children in the car?

Ed G.: #60 continued: Your example seems to imply the following: there is nothing wrong with driving or with getting drunk; but it's wrong to be driving while drunk. Applied to the current topic: there is nothing wrong with marital sex or with abstinence; but it's wrong to have sex while observing abstinence? That doesn't work the same way.....

DanaWheels: I am Catholic. I am childless. Not for lack of trying. I just happen to have lost my left ovary and 2/3 of my right ovary. Does this mean that I shouldn't have sex because the chances that I'll become pregnant are really small? I don't think so. And frankly, after menopause, what then?

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

1
Vote

Answer by Furius Camillus

Posted May 25, 2012 at 7:43am

The answer lies outside the finely tuned parameters of your question.

It is not the role of Christians to judge the sin of others.  People are ultimately answerable to God and it is His offense that is to be avoided.

Catholics have the Church to aid us and we try to follow it's teachings to avoid sin, not assign it.

Furthermore, Catholics and Christians will likely agree that this is a personal matter between themselves and the Lord.  Catholics, however, have the benefit of the sacrament of reconciliation. Through it we seek forgiveness for transgression and the strength to avoid future temptations.

Broadly stated, there is the Christian belief that Heaven is a place free of the physical world we know and many love.  This love can be substituted for love of God.  For this reason excessive attachment to worldly things is to be avoided.  One such attachment could be construed as the relentless search for carnal satisfaction.  

Not only may this blight or interfere with the reception of God's grace and its expression, but it can harm or destroy our earthly relationships by treating others or ourselves as means and not ends.  [Here you may read using others or ourselves instead of respecting the inherent God given dignity of humanity.]

Based on certain commentary to well conceived (punny, right?) answers, it is apparent that the thread may have been intended to provoke an assault on apparently arbitrary ethical direction emanating from the Catholic Church.

It reminds me of the schoolyard bromide I first heard from a "Buddhist" friend.  "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?"

Whereas in the above instance the question violates logical possibility and is not a matter of the physically possible the current thread's argument is more subtle.  It has been extremely enjoyable reading the posts and commentary as well as contemplating the matter so thank you MFR!

Anyway, I think of the original question's form as follows:

Q.  If 2X = 4, is X greater than or less than 2.

A.  X = 2.

Q.  That wasn't my question!

A.  This may be, but it is a pretty good answer.

Joseph Stanko: I don't quite agree that "Heaven is a place free of the physical world we know."  After Easter Jesus had a physical body that ascended into Heaven, and the Apostles Creed affirms the "resurrection of the body."  I think this suggests that rather than being free of the physical, in Heaven the physical will be restored and made incorruptible.

Furius Camillus: The Church does not frown on cremation or organ donation.  The body's physical form may be destroyed without endangering entrance to Heaven.  The body is not required.

Further, the eschatological body to be received is glorified or incorruptible as you say.  This is entirely outside our understanding which is bound by our experience of corruptible forms and minds.

Furius Camillus: The Lord did ascend bodily.  He presented himself in glorified form later to Paul on the road to Damascus.

Catholic tradition also has Mary ascending bodily to Heaven; an Old Testament prophet or two as well.  Yet I believe Heaven to be well populated with our ancestors, their Earthly bodies entombed here.

Edited on May 27, 2012 at 9:47am

Furius Camillus: Now that I think about it, I believe we receive a glimpse of the physical and glorified body distinction in the Luminous Mystery of the Transfiguration!

Sadly its been a few years since my last contemplative-prayer rosary session.

Thanks for making me remember this, Mr. Stanko.

Pseudodionysius

 The Church does not frown on cremation or organ donation

Yes it does. If the motivation of the cremation is to deny Catholic doctrines (if you're a Greek atomist, for example) as to organ donation, read on.

Edited on May 28, 2012 at 2:55am

Furius Camillus: Hair splitting to the max, Pseudodionysius.

I like it!

With trepidation I posted knowing there were those with far greater knowledge and understanding of Christian history and dogma than my paltry experience.

However, I did mean those within or merely consistent with Catholic tradition and Judeo-Christian ethics.  

Rituals performed for heretical or immoral purposes would rightly be considered anathema.

Pseudodionysius: Furius,

How about juicing the vote totals on my answers? I'm languishing in the basement at 2 votes and I'm feeling that I lack street cred in the Intel section.

Furius Camillus: Pseudodionysius,

I enjoy your writing and give you maximum bit and bite cred, especially for the monicker.

     I'm languishing in the basement at 2 votes...

Regardless of vote totals, many of your contributions are informative and insightful - maybe attitude altering.  This is worth more than cred.

[Is there a prize for most votes?]

Pseudodionysius: Furius,

"The only tragedy in life is not to be a Saint" - Leon Bloy.

Pseudodionysius: That said, I did give you a vote!

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

0
Votes

Answer by Nanda Panjandrum

Posted June 16, 2012 at 2:45am

MFR:  For the committed Catholic, marriage has both a procreative and a unitive dimension.  Though procreation is the fullest and most complete example of the end (purpose) of marriage, intimacy for the sake of the unitive dimension itself strengthens the marital bond and the mutual love of the spouses.  Where contraception is not an issue: spouses beyond child-bearing age, for instance, the union of the couple in faith and love is a powerful teacher of the gift of one's whole self to the other that carries over into navigating life's daily ups and downs, imho. 

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

0
Votes

Answer by Western Chauvinist

Posted July 15, 2012 at 1:45am

Would Catholics consider non-procreative sex within the bonds of (heterosexual) marriage as being just as sinful as non-procreative sex outside the bonds of marriage? And why?

Here's a much less erudite answer from a lowly, still-studying, Catholic revert.

No. Not sinful at all within the bonds of marriage, as long as the couple is participating in authentic love. Authentic love being: willing the good of the other. That the couple may experience sensual pleasure is the happy consequence of the unitive aspect of the act -- the free self-giving of one to the other.

An unmarried couple isn't capable of participating in authentic love in the sex act, because if they were freely self-giving, they'd be married and open to participating in God's will for procreation. 

God made us creatures of the body. Man and woman he made us. And he called his creation "good." There is no downside to sex within the context of authentic love.

For the simple set, like me, the better place to start understanding Catholic teaching on sex might be Theology of the Body for Teens (based on JPII's tome, Theology of the Body).

P.S. The modifier "heterosexual" is probably unnecessary in the context of this discussion. ;-)

P.P.S The lengthy discussion of NFP misses the "family planning" part of the practice. I know couples who use NFP to know when to try to conceive. It is not simply a "contraceptive" practice. 

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.

0
Votes

Answer by R. Craigen

Posted September 2, 2012 at 3:18am · Edited September 2, 2012 at 3:25am

Sorry, I'm not a catholic. We protestants do not have a strict catechism and lean more toward individual interaction with theology, so I can give you my answer but I won't guarantee that it conforms to the next protestant who shows up. Still, it should reflect similar principals. My thoughts are my own, but largely gleaned from interacting with many sources, including christian writers and the bible.

First thing: It seems clear in scripture that sex is designed for giving pleasure; this is a primary point of the activity, and (most protestants hold this) procreation is directly connected to the activity but is not a necessary part of it. Sex without procreation is not frowned on -- sex outside of an appropriate covenant relationship is. But throughout the discussion we must remember that sex is (divinely) designed to give intense pleasure to both participants. This pleasure is good. Sex is good. All of the above can be supported biblically, but it would be tedious to do so here.

Second thing: the primary function of sex within a marriage is to cement the marital bond. Biblically, in marriage, a man and a woman become one. Genesis: "one flesh", a picture which emphasizes the point and implicitly references, I believe, the sex act itself. So in simple terms, the act is relationship glue.

It should be obvious what happens when a "glued" relationship is torn apart: Damage is done to both "surfaces" -- as with strong "real" glue. I don't need to support this -- anyone who knows someone who's gone through a breakup knows this is a tangible, indisputable fact.

Third thing: There is a continuum of sexual acts, corresponding to depth of intimacy. When I make eye contact with you it may be regarded as sexual. Touching your shoulder. Shaking ... holding ... your hand. A hug. A kiss on the cheek ... forehead ... lips ... neck ... torso. I'll spare the "missing links" of where my (and your) hands might go (etc). This is a family resource and we must respect the CoC.

Each level of intimacy corresponds to an appropriate kind of relationship (and vice versa). As a relationship deepens, healthy sexual intimacy may appropriately move along this continuum. As it does, it adds glue. The farther along, the stronger the glue.

Finally, the mathematician in me visualizes a graph with physical intimacy on one axis, relational commitment on the other. At the origin, total strangers -- no level of intimacy appropriate. At the top right, married people having rapturous sexual intercourse. SOME kind of monotone increasing curve connects those two points. For simplicity, a straight line. Above the line are unhealthily "chaste" relationships with much relational commitment, but too little corresponding sexual glue. Below it are unhealthily "promiscuous" interactions in which sexual intimacy has run ahead of relational commitment, messily scattering glue all over the place.

Please excuse me now. I have to go take a shower.

Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.


Would you like to answer this Question?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Most Popular on the Member Feed

    8. View All Member Posts

Ricochet Podcasts

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In