Feminists fume about euphoric properties of semen
I was originally intrigued by this story as just another confirmation of God’s good, all natural plan for human sexuality and procreation. That liberal feminists were angry about the study’s findings came as no surprise.
But then I stepped back. Really? Can nothing good come from a man, literally?
This debacle, which involves attempting to destroy a brilliant surgeon’s career without blinking, further exposes the incestuous and harmful relationship between the homosexual and population control ideologies.
The other side is all green, natural, organic, and environmentally friendly until it comes to sex. Then, they censor information if it elevates natural heterosexual sexual relations over homosexual and unnatural (contracepted) sexual relations.
The story goes that renowned surgeon Dr. Lazar Greenfield, inventor of the Greenfield Filter (which traps blood clots), wrote a piece in the February issue of Surgery News touting the positive properties of semen. According to the Huffington Post on April 25:
Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).
Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: “So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.”
The attempt at Jackie Mason-humor apparently didn’t sit well in certain quarters. Dr. Greenfield resigned as editor of the Surgery News and gave up his stewardship of ACS after learning that his article had spurred threats of protests from outside women’s groups….
Dr. Greenfield explained:
The editorial was a review of what I thought was some fascinating new findings related to semen, and the way in which nature is trying to promote a stronger bond between men and women. It impressed me. It seemed as though it was a gift from nature. And so that was the reason for my lighthearted comments.
Greenfield’s column has been retracted and scrubbed but can still be read here. I’m guessing his comparison of menstrual synchronization between lesbian and heterero cohabitators, in which he found the former wanting, also hurt him.
The study Greenfield cited found, according to Scientific American:
In fact, semen has a very complicated chemical profile, containing over 50 different compounds (including hormones, neurotransmitters, endorphins and immunosuppressants) each with a special function and occurring in different concentrations within the seminal plasma.
Perhaps the most striking of these compounds is the bundle of mood-enhancing chemicals in semen. There is good in this goo. Such anxiolytic chemicals include, but are by no means limited to, cortisol (known to increase affection), estrone (which elevates mood), prolactin (a natural antidepressant), oxytocin (also elevates mood), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (another antidepressant), melatonin (a sleep-inducing agent) and even serotonin (perhaps the most well-known antidepressant neurotransmitter)….
The most significant findings from this 2002 study… were these: even after adjusting for frequency of sexual intercourse, women who engaged in sex and “never” used condoms showed significantly fewer depressive symptoms than did those who “usually” or “always” used condoms.
Add to that, according to the same article:
Now, medical professionals have known for a very long time that the vagina is an ideal route for drug delivery. The reason for this is that the vagina is surrounded by an impressive vascular network. Arteries, blood vessels, and lymphatic vessels abound, and – unlike some other routes of drug administration – chemicals that are absorbed through the vaginal walls have an almost direct line to the body’s peripheral circulation system.
There’s much more information on semen than I have no time for here. But sticking to the topic of its properties, which include female hormones that may stimulate ovulation, here is fascinating information from the study’s authors:
The primary putative mind-altering ingredients in semen:
Luteinizing hormone: astounding concentration in semen; linked to high sperm count and motility. Absorption into female bloodstream may facilitate or even induce ovulation.
Prolactin: influences maternal behavior, oxytocin secretion; mediates bonding
Estrone and estradiol: assists in recipient’s absorption of other compounds such as progesterone; may boost woman’s sexual motivation and mood
Testosterone: may increase sex drive and motivation; the more intercourse, the higher the testosterone levels in women, and the stronger the sexual desire. More than half the amount of testosterone in sperm has been found to be absorbed by the vagina.
Cytokines: these are the “warriors,” they suppress immune reaction to semen invading the vagina and cervix and therefore increase likelihood of pregnancy
Enkephalins: these opioids may contribute to orgasmic experience. They may decrease anxiety and cause drowsiness after sex. There’s also speculation that they assist in immune function and “reinforcing effects” — making a woman come back for more, i.e. addiction (although the absorption rate in female bloodstream is unknown)
Oxytocin: assists in stimulation of ovulation, increases production of other hormones, initiates bonding, facilitates orgasmic contractions; may strengthen bonding and make sexual activity more rewarding
Placental proteins, including human chorionic gonadotrophin (hcg) and human placental lactogen: associated with sperm motility; may increase chances of pregnancy
Relaxin: made in the prostate, this hormone may facilitate fertilization, implantation, and uterine growth. The role of relaxin suggests that women should keep having a lot of sex during pregnancy because sperm has pregnancy-maintaining properties. Relaxin also facilitates implantation and prevents preterm labor.
Thyrotropin-releasing hormones: potential anti-depressive; works by stimulating the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone, which in turn triggers hormone production in the mood-mediating thyroid gland. In pill form, it’s used to treat PMS and depression.
Serotonin: increases sperm motility. It also mediates mood, although not much known yet about vaginal absorption. Even if it doesn’t make it to the brain, it may indirectly alter behavior and emotions by contributing the building blocks of serotonin
Melatonin: increases effects of steroid hormones; induces sleepiness and fatigue, which may help the woman relax after sex; may stimulate reproductive function, also mood mediator; low melatonin levels are associated with depression and “reality disturbance”
Tyrosine: a precursor of neurotransmitters such as dopamine, the hormone of reward and addiction, and norepinephrine, involved in attention and arousal
Oh, and there’s also sperm in there, the DNA-bearing courier. Sperm is less than 3% the total volume of semen. But as it turns out, the bath water is nearly as important as the baby.
This is all such interesting, helpful information, right? No. Greenfield’s playful Valentine’s Day column spotlighting the study’s findings was greeted by such outrage from feminist groups that, along with his other punishments, Greenfield was forced to resign as president of the American College of Surgeons on the day he was to assume the position, which they threatened to protest.
You see, lesbians hate the thought of better sex between heteros. Gays hate the thought of natural unnatural sex (condomless anal sex) spreading HIV. Obviously, population control pushers stand to lose ground if couples switch to natural family planning, as does the contraceptive industry.
In fact, the only industry standing to gain ground from this information is the abortion industry.
THANK GOD FOR MEN!!!!!!! :) Especially my awesome hubby!!!
1 likes
There is only one form of sex and sexuality: Man+Woman. All other attempts are mistakes, errors, unnatural, and unsafe. Period.
6 likes
Jill, I think scientific information shouldn’t be censored because of ideology. However, your talk of a “homosexual ideology”, as though all gay people got together and decided to protest against Lazar Greenfield, makes me wonder if you’re purposefully trying to make the GLBT posters on this site, and their allies, feel alienated and leave. I also find it telling that someone from a pro-life GLBT group came on this site to talk about his group a few posts back and that didn’t merit any recognition from you.
1 likes
Homosexual activists do not support nor love homosexuals. If they did, they would do everything they could to help them stop destroying their bodies, minds, and souls living a destructive and disordered lifestyle. Homosexuality is not life-giving nor life-affirming. It is life-taking, and death stalks it around every corner. To be truly pro-life, one has to fight against disordered sexuality, including homosexuality, contraception, and any other abuses of this gift outside of authentic marriage. Until that is done, nothing can be accomplished.
0 likes
Prof. Janet Smith has been teaching this for years. Nevertheless, this is science which ultimately betrays the “truth” of lefties.
How long we can expect people living the homosexual lifestyle to stock spare semen in their refrigerators to be perverted as a sexual enhancer between partners?
0 likes
Cranky Catholic: if there’s a “homosexual lifestyle,” what’s the “heterosexual lifestyle”? Do you have to actually be involved with a member of the opposite sex?
0 likes
I do have to admit that his closing line is in very poor taste. That being said, this is a good teaching moment to point out the fact that we can NEVER give the opposition ANY kind of opening as Dr Greenfield did. This seems like a very good study, yet those who most need to hear it will only concentrate on his tasteless last line. People will do anything to distract themselves from teh actual substance and arguments presented, as we see from many pro-choicers. So we can never give them an opening, something that they can latch onto that is of no consequence (like a joke or an insult) while ignoring the actual argument we put forth.
0 likes
Good thing we switched from condoms to a diaphragm. :-)
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with “contracepting”. It’s killing an already-conceived baby that is the problem. And no, conception doesn’t begin with implantation. When I went in for the fitting for my diaphragm, the GYN was leaning on me pretty hard to just get hormonal contraception or an IUD instead. She seemed perplexed when I said “absolutely NOT!”.
I had often wondered if the “lift” I get after condom-free sex was a psychological function or a biological function… turns out there is more to the biological side than I had previously suspected. God is better to us than we deserve. :-)
1 likes
A homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle chosen that is a disordered form of normal and healthy sexuality. There is no “heterosexual lifestyle” because such a thing refers to normal human sexuality. Similarly, the lifestyles of the promiscuous or alcoholics are lifestyles which are disordered forms of healthy human behavior.
0 likes
Contraception is anti-life because it separates the procreative aspect from sexuality, making the act no different from homosexual activity or masturbation. Once children are separated from sex, and the act itself becomes merely a pleasure source or play, there is no reason to prohibit abortion. On what grounds can you suggest that someone cannot have an abortion, if you yourself have also separated sex from children? You don’t want children and neither do they, but both of you want to continue to have sex. You have lost all moral ground to be anti-abortion when you are pro-contraception, not the least to mention that most abortions occur as a result of failed contraception. Abortion is the logical outcome of contraception, since both have the same goal: to prevent the birth of children. Just like you cannot be pro-homosexual and pro-life, you cannot be pro-contraception and pro-life either.
1 likes
Once children are eliminated from sex, there is nothing to prevent the killing of the former and the abuse of the latter. If you find this hard to believe, you have not been paying attention for the last 50 years. Not to mention the fact that non-contracepting spouses have divorce rates in the single digit percentage, while their contracepting counterparts are hovering above 50%. Death stalks contraception. It is the “nicer-looking” cousin of abortion and the culture of death.
0 likes
Homosexuality, contraception, and abortion are all consequences of the abuse of human sexuality and the separation of the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative. To support any of these three is to be anti-life.
0 likes
Here’s another avenue to take on this: My husband had a vasectomy many decades ago. So take out the sperm out of this mix and the rest of this is just pure pleasure.
Oh, I’m going to have to tell him this!
0 likes
To put it bluntly, I’m here to help put an end to what are obvious logical errors in the pro-life movement: Namely that one can support contraception and homosexuality while claiming to be pro-life. This is simply not the case. Until we embrace the full meaning of what it means to truly be pro-life, and reclaim the authentic meaning and identity of human sexuality, the fight will be lost.
0 likes
@ Army Wife: All contracepting is wrong. When you are married, you vow to come freely to the marriage, be faithful, give yourself totally, and be FRUITFUL. (Christ gave Himself to us like that when He died on the cross, and we are to imitate Him). Free, Faithful, Total, Fruitful. Anything short of honoring those vows misses the mark (is a sin), and your marriage will suffer. I highly recommend studying Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. He said so much that all people need to hear. A great presenter of it is Christopher West. West has a video series out–he is fun to watch–shows how our deepest longings are reflected in rock and roll. There is a way to help husband and wife grow together, keep God in their marriage, and be true to their Fruitful vow–Natural Family Planning. And yes, God is better to us than we deserve! But we need to do our best every day to love Him like He deserves to be loved. Loving your husband like he deserves to be loved is a way to love Christ. But not being true to your marriage vows is not loving your husband the way you are called to love him.
1 likes
Well put, Susan.
0 likes
I’d heard some of this before–that chemicals in sperm can create better moods–but this is just awesome. We truly serve a creative, loving, and good God.
Don’t really see what’s wrong with his comment. I know that I’d rather have semen than chocolate from DH for Valentine’s day.
1 likes
Contraception is anti-life because it separates the procreative aspect from sexuality, making the act no different from homosexual activity or masturbation. Once children are separated from sex, and the act itself becomes merely a pleasure source or play, there is no reason to prohibit abortion.
Bruce, a lot of what you’re saying is really stupid, but this statement here demands a response because it is so stupid it’s honestly difficult to understand how anyone could ever think it made any sense in the first place. You’ve just said that any sex that does not result in procreation (old people, infertile people, any people who just don’t conceive on a particular go-round) is functionally equivalent to murder! Are you even comprehending the nonsense coming out of your keyboard or are your fingers just moving across the letters without consulting your brain first?
You know, there are some people posting here who can make decent arguments for not using contraception. Everything you’ve said in this thread, Bruce, makes that whole side look bad just because you are on it.
1 likes
My set of twins came with their own natural family planning side-effect. LOL Who has time or energy for sex when your body is recovering from such an intense pregnancy and extreme sleep deprivation.
0 likes
Maybe this is why people who practice NFP have a low divorce rate. They arent using condoms that block the semen and they arent contradicting the good in the semen with other hormones in birth control pills.
0 likes
Okay, it looks like someone does not know the difference between couples who are naturally infertile, but still performing an act naturally directed toward procreation, and couples who are intentionally performing an act that prevents procreation and is merely for pleasure. A sexual act that is not meant to procreate but merely to derive pleasure is a masturbatory act. That is not hard to understand. Homosexuals masturbate together. Animals masturbate. A married couple who engages in natural intercourse without intentional contraception is not masturbating. The difference is the kind of act it is, not whether or not that act is successful in its mission. The kind of act that a contracepting couple engages in is NOT the same kind of act that a couple (who is infertile through no fault or action of their own) engages in. The former is intentionally closed to life and is no different than masturbation, the latter is unintentionally sterile and constitutes actual sex. The truth is the truth. :)
0 likes
No, arbitrary is arbitrary. Virtually everything in your post is supported by neither scripture nor reason of any kind, and those things that are scriptural you are using as harshly as possible to make yourself smug and try and make other people feel bad–which is actually much worse than just running off at the mouth.
I’m not going to waste any more time arguing with you, because it’s clear you are not engaging your brain. However, in the hopes that it will one day make an impact on you, I will say that the fact you have arrived at the conclusion that a married couple doing something together that is Biblically endorsed as a pleasurable act (Song of Solomon, anybody?) is the same as murdering a child because you do not want them really ought to be enough to make you sit down and reexamine your premises all on its own.
1 likes
Well, it seems like someone is failing to comprehend very simple truth. So, if the sexual act is not the union of man and woman directed toward the procreation of children, and merely a pleaureable act, then it could be defined as nearly anything that stimulates the genitals between men, women, or really anything. You have detached procreation from sex, and from there, anything goes. The trouble is, “anything goes” leads directly to abortion, since children are unintended and unwanted, and once they are there, the only way to eliminate them is to eliminate them. You said it yourself attempting to justify masturbatory sex: sex is about pleasure. If that is the case, you have no moral grounds to oppose any abuses of sex, since if pleasure is attained, the goal is achieved. That one may have to have an abortion following it is none of your concern, since sex to you is merely pleasure. Children are an unwanted side-effect that can be prevented if one is careful enough, or simply eliminated if mistakes are made. That is the abortion culture, and you are on its side whenever you contracept…whenever you separate children from sex. It is all the same. Truth is the truth. :)
0 likes
I don’t buy the load of hooey that says “all contraception is wrong but NFP is just peachy!”. Sorry!
If avoiding conception is wrong then so is using NFP to do so.
I do admire the Duggar family and other good parents with many children and their extreme level of patience and fortitude (and income) which they require to raise their large family but keep in mind that God does not gift every parent equally.
I certainly do not support any so-called “contraception” that takes the life of a child who has already been conceived. But I don’t see a problem with a married couple using a non-abortifacient “true contraceptive”. That’s between them and God. Not the Pope. God.
Not honoring my marriage vows because we use barrier contraception? Pffft. That’s ridiculous. Three children is fruitful enough for me at the moment, and I have stuck by my husband through thick and thin for nine years this Saturday. He will have been gone (deployed) for about four of those nine years at that point. I don’t cheat. I take care of his house, our kids, meals, laundry, bills, and yes-his sexual needs (and we’re both quite happy with our marriage bed, thanks). I defer to him on many decisions both major and minor. And most important of all (regarding the contraception argument) – we have both agreed that if we ever had our contraception fail and I should become pregnant as a result, we will still welcome and love that child just as if we had planned on having that child all along. God is welcome to circumvent our barrier if He wishes. That’s His decision and He knows our circumstances and what is best for us and for His plan.
I support the decisions of others to use NFP if they wish. Just don’t start sticking up your nose at those of us who don’t see a problem with non-abortive contraception. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this point. And yes, I’ve read the Bible and I ask my pastor if I have questions. Ya know, the guy who went to Seminary and is responsible for teaching, leading, disciplining, and shepherding his “flock”. So don’t start worrying about the perils of me using my apparently insufficient (according to some folks, anyway) mental capacity to even attempt to formulate any kind of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.
2 likes
Marauder,
I think it safe to say that not all gays and lesbians act as the firebrands do. At the same time, the silence from the moderates is deafening.
That said, the firebrands speak on behalf of the community, and absent denunciations from within the community, the voice of the firebrands IS the voice of the gays and lesbians in public policy. I would welcome a discussion with the noble dissenters to whom you make reference, but they are nowhere to be found.
At the behest of gay friends and family, II have read a great many gay, and gay-sympathetic publications over the years. I have never seen voices of moderation in these matters. The ugly truth is that gays and lesbians are content to allow the firebrands to speak for them.
This tyranny IS the face of the gat and lesbian community, with exceptions being few and far between.
As for the euphoric properties of semen coming under lesbian fire, it’s just one more manifestation of the rage against men.
1 likes
It is always fun to engage people who contracept, and attempt to use the Bible to justify it. Tell us, why would God create make people reproduce through the sexual act if it were merely meant for pleasure? The skin is not merely meant for sensation, but also protection. Hands were not made merely for sensation, but to make things as well. The genitals were not made merely for sensation, but for procreation as well. To use one’s hands only for sensation is to deny the full scope of their purpose, and to render them as something other than hands. To use the genitals only for pleasure is to deny God’s design and purpose for them, and to render them something other than genitals. Contraception is immoral. Always has been. Always will be. :)
0 likes
“The BDI scores between females who were in a relationship (
M D 10:17; SD D 8:46) andthose that were not (M D 12:11; SD D 9:55) were not significantly different. Likewise, length of the relationship did not correlate with depressive symptoms.”
From the original study. Doesn’t make much of a case for monogamy, does it? And by the way, the study didn’t look at gay sex, so it wasn’t even possible for them to draw the conclusion that hetersex is “superior.” Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
The authors of this study told readers to interpret their results with caution. For one, I’m pretty sure they didn’t control for confounding factors that could have skewed their findings. I know Greenfield’s editorial was supposed to be cute and playful, but he pulled up some research in its formative stages and called it evidence. That’s what’s so scary about scientific racism and sexism–because it’s “scientific,” the ideology takes on the mantle of authority. And really, what are we supposed to gain from this study? That women shouldn’t be using protection? That’s smart, especially with STIs and reproductive coercion so rampant. And what else? That depressed women could be less depressed if only they just got a man (forget the Prozac, yo)? Hmm. That to me does smack of phallus glorification.
1 likes
Contraception which kills children, practiced knowingly, is morally equivalent to abortion.
Contraception which kills children, performed by those who don’t realize what they are doing, is morally equivalent to someone who does not realize that the prenatal child is a human being getting an abortion. They will probably face horrible guilt when they realize what they have done, but they do not share the same moral responsibility for the act as a person who knew that contraception could kill children or a person who was well aware of prenatal development.
Contraception which does not kill or harm babies is not the moral equivalent of abortion, except in the sense and to the degree that all sins are equally a breaking of the law that sets us apart from God. I do believe that contraception is a sin. It is a sin against one’s spouse (in marriage), a sin against one’s body, a sin against God. But it’s not murder. It may lead to abortion, true. Then it is murder.
At the same time, two men are robbing two different banks. One has an unloaded gun. One has a loaded gun, extra ammo, and is ready to shoot any bank employees, bystanders, or police who get in the way.
If no one gets in their way, in both cases no one gets hurt. Both men are thieves. But only one has a murderous heart.
If the police show up, and the first man gives himself up, he is certainly not a murderer. He never intended to kill anyone, even if that meant he would not get his stolen money. He is still a criminal, but no one will charge him with murder or attempted murder.
But if the police show up when the second man is robbing the second bag, he shoots two officers and gets away with the money. That man is a murderer.
The (non-lethal) contracepting pro-lifers are committing a sin. The sin they are committing is not murder. It is not equivalent to murder. They know their actions could lead to a child, and they know that if that happens they will not harm the child. The fact that they are not open to God, or sharing fully with each other, or trusting God with their fertility, is a sin. But that is between the two of them and God.
The contracepting pro-dismemberment couple, who plans to kill any child resulting from their union, have murder in their hearts even if they are using a form of birth control that cannot kill babies. If no child results from their union, they haven’t killed any children, though undoubtedly God will hold them accountable for their hostility to life, even the life of their own son or daughter. If they have a child, and kill it, they become guilty of murder as well as whatever sins are involved in their contraception.
If in one case, there was no chance of the child dying, and in the other, there was no chance of the child living, I do not see how the actions are morally equivalent.
Also, NFP used continuously to prevent conception, touted to be as effective as the pill, hardly seems open to life. I understand (after reading the theology of the body) that it is not a sin, because no sinful action is taken. But a couple could practice NFP with murder in their hearts as well.
0 likes
Hmmm…there are an awful lot of “pastors” and folks who were “trained” in “seminaries” who also preach that abortion and homosexuality are perfectly moral and approved of in Scripture. It seems like there are an awful lot of different opinions and different interpretations of Scripture out there. In fact, I can do a google search and find many “Christian” pastors and Scripture “experts” who can justify just about anything, including contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. Heck, even Satan can quote Scripture to justify things. You see, that is the great weakness of Sola Scriptura…but I digress. Appeals to Scripture alone to fight abortion, contraception, and homosexuality always fail, since there are an equal number of folks on the other side who will interpret such Scripture entirely different and claim to be just as “correct” as you. You need something more, and the Natural Law and simple Reason suffice quite nicely…both of which oppose contraception, abortion, and homosexuality. :)
0 likes
Should we really be suprised by this? I shrug my shoulders at stories like this because I already know their agenda.
0 likes
There seem to be an awful lot of “wolves in sheep’s clothing” acting as Christian pastors out there…preaching the morality and goodness of contraception to people who should know better. They are nothing but mouthpieces for the culture of death. If your pastor approves of contraception, he has officially signed his soul over to the culture of death, since he has separated procreation from sex and thus nullified God’s design. There is nothing he cannot justify from that point on, and he has officially become useless to your salvation.
0 likes
Army Wife,
My thanks to your husband for his service, and to you for your substantial sacrifice. Military wives are a rare and special breed.
As for the contraception issue, that’s a big divisive issue between Catholics and others. I find that most Catholics come off in a rather off-putting way in their defense of NFP. They also miss some key concepts in that defense. To better understand the difference between contraception and NFP, read our document Humanae Vitae for yourself:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
God Bless your children as well for their great sacrifice. Happy Easter.
1 likes
Bruce, I had a hysterectomy in April 2010. My husband and I still engage in sex. Before the hysterectomy I had my tubes tied. I’m 100% pro-life, yet your comments are stating that because of my contraceptive decisions (well the hysterectomy was 100% needed due to cancer and other womanly issues with that cranky uterus) I’m not pro-life. This is just crazy. I don’t like that there are other pro-lifer’s out there who are so judgemental of others. Isn’t what we do in our lives God’s judegement call and not yours?
1 likes
I guess because I cannot carry a child anymore my husband and I should stop enjoying each other…..wow people come on now.
1 likes
“That’s what’s so scary about scientific racism and sexism–because it’s ‘scientific,’ the ideology takes on the mantle of authority.”
Not to mention ageism, particularly when used to kill those deemed not old enough to have rights.
“And really, what are we supposed to gain from this study? That women shouldn’t be using protection? That’s smart, especially with STIs and reproductive coercion so rampant. And what else? That depressed women could be less depressed if only they just got a man (forget the Prozac, yo)?”
So your take is, women should be denied this information, which some might find enormously helpful? I suffered from depression for many years and am still susceptible to it, but I figured out all on my own (through some combination of intuition and empirical evidence) that sex made me feel a whole lot better. No, it didn’t fix everything, but it did a great deal to alleviate the depression for quite a few hours. Not everyone is willing to take antidepressants, for a variety of reasons, but for us married heterosexual women in closed relationships, so-called unprotected sex is pretty accessible and a phenomenal help. And anything short of real sex is just more depressing. So is having to go extended periods with no sex or infrequent sex. Maybe this is why so many women don’t seem to like sex? Because they’re doing it wrong?
The best way to make sex protected sex is an exclusive marriage. I never have to worry about what the results of having sex with my husband might be.
1 likes
YCW: I definitely agree with you on the last part. For heterosexual women in longterm partnerships who’ve suffered from depressive disorders, I’m sure this news could be uplifting. But the initial study discussed college women–most of whom aren’t in long-term monogamous relationships.
0 likes
Nope. A couple who is infertile through no act or fault of their own still engage in the kind of act that is unitive and ordered toward the procreation of children. The fact that it does not happen does not change the nature of the act. Similarly, the digestive system does not stop being a digestive system when it fails to digest something. It still is what it is by its very nature even if the goal is not achieved through no fault of its own (such as illness). For the marital act, it is what it is only when it is naturally ordered toward procreation. If procreation does not occur (unintentionally) the act is still naturally ordered toward procreation even if it does not occur. However, if a couple intentionally severs the procreative aspect of the act, it no longer is the same kind of act, but rather one more akin to masturbation or homosexual activity. The act is no longer the kind of act fulfilled by procreation but rather an act that is intentionally closed to life. Other acts of this kind include masturbation and homosexual activity. So, yes, a husband and wife who have intentionally rendered themselves sterile, through their own actions, no longer engage in the same kind of marital act that a non-contracepting couple engage in (whether they are fertile or infertile). The acts are now different. One is naturally ordered toward offspring (regardless of whether it occurs or not) while the contracepted variety is no longer ordered to that end, but merely to pleasure. Other acts like that include masturbation and are closed to life (anti-life, actually). A baseball team is only a baseball team if they practice baseball with the intention of winning games. If they lose, they are still a baseball team because they played with the intention of winning. A couple still engages in authentic pro-life sex if they have sex with the intention of being open to life even if they “lose” as well. The difference between them and a couple who “intends to lose” is that the latter are no longer engaging in the same kind of act. They are merely masturbating together. So yes, those who contracept are indeed ANTI-life.
0 likes
Megan, I got married in college.
0 likes
@army wife: Just as if you “had planned on having that child all along”? I sense deception here. I commend you for rejecting abortion, but you should read with an open heart the comments of those who write here of the connection with abortion and contraception and view the Humanae Vitae document that Gerard referenced. I apologize if I was “off putting” regarding NFP–I didn’t intend to be.
0 likes
Bruce, I really don’t agree with anything you are saying. I know I’m pro-life (I’ve had three babies, no abortions because I don’t believe in them) and I would NEVER judge someone else based on their actions reguardless of how wrong I thought they were being morally.
I don’t think having sex with my husband is masterbating together, that is just insulting to my husband and I. So since we are unable to produce children now according to you Bruce we should just stop engaging in sex together? Wow, don’t think so. As a couple we enjoy all aspects of each other including having sex together.
After fighting tooth and nail to convince my family/friends as to WHY we had our three children (because we’re pro-life 100%) I’m being told from someone on this site that now I’m not pro-life because my husband and I engage in sex with no intentions of creating a baby now……If I was anti0life Bruce I would have gotten that abortion my mother pushed for when I was 15 years old and 26 weeks pregnant……but I guess your right, I MUST be ANTI-life because I can no longer have children and STILL enjoy the intimate company of my husband.
Bruce, here’s an idea…..if your married please go engage in some loving, intimate intercourse with your wife…..maybe you’ll calm down.
2 likes
It is clear that those who contracept have more in common with the feminists who are spoken of in this article than with pro-life people. Feminists sought to control their fertility by separating children from the sexual act, rendering it nothing more than a means to obtain pleasure and make themselves more like wayward and irresponsible men. The fact that some Christians and those who claim to be pro-life have adopted a similar stance is regrettable. Look at your own life. If you are contracepting, in reality, you are following the same belief system as radical pro-abortion feminists. You are no different.
0 likes
No Krystal, you should stop contracepting, and then you’ll actually have sex with your husband as opposed to merely masturbating together. It doesn’t mean you must have a child every time you have sex, but you must also not abuse the nature of the act by intentionally mutilating it into something different. The act must always be open to life, whether it occurs or not. You do have control over that, and God has provided a way. The fact that you ignore that, and attempt to control it by destroying it and engaging in mere masturbation is a sad reality. It is also anti-life.
0 likes
Susan, what deception do you see here? Is there something wrong with accepting a “surprise” child the same way we accept the children we actively attempted to conceive? You don’t know me so please, don’t try to invent some kind of sin or evil in my heart with regards to “surprise” children where there is none.
1 likes
The fact that you did not have an abortion does not make you pro-life. It simply means you did not have an abortion. That is good, but it does not make one pro-life. It makes you a well-formed human being. Contraception is anti-life by nature. That makes you anti-life. Remember, even women who work at Planned Parenthood can and do have children. That does not make them pro-life.
0 likes
The army wife has taken God out of her sexual activity, and altered its nature to resemble something else. You don’t trust God enough to abide by his natural design (in which not all acts of intercourse will result in children) so you instead impose your will on His. That is sinful. You seek pleasure without responsibility. That is NO DIFFERENT than those on the pro-abortion side who seek and do the same thing. You seek control without having to exhibit self-control. That is sinful and anti-life. Contracepted sex is not sex…all it is is masturbation.
0 likes
The couple practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy “intends to lose” as well, Bruce. (Don’t make the mistake of thinking I am pro-contraception. I just don’t think that contraception which does not kill babies is equivalent to murder.)
Also, Bruce, don’t forget that while sex was intended for procreation, it was also intended for pleasure (as this article makes clear). The disordered part of married, heterosexual contracepted sex is the lack of openness to life and the lack of giving to each other. The desire for sexual pleasure is in no sense sinful. It is not a sin to want sex for pleasure. The sin lies in cutting off the possibility of procreation and not giving oneself fully. The issue must remain that contracepted sex is bad, not that sex for pleasure is bad. The desire of a married man and wife to give each other sexual pleasure is good. The desire of two homosexuals (who cannot be married) or of an unmarried couple, or of one single person, to gain pleasure from sex is in itself sinful (unless they are willing to wait until circumstances change in order to properly fulfill that desire). Even then, the pleasure they want is not in itself wrong; it is simply the wrong time and/or the wrong person. The pleasure is not the problem. If a married couple has sex primarily for pleasure, but is open to life, surely there is no sin. And surely those who are having uncontracepted sex may not be doing it because they are open to life, but because they believe there is no chance (or little chance) of life resulting. A couple who are infertile but have as many kids as they want through adoption, or an elderly couple who contracepted in their youth, or a Catholic couple avoiding conception with NFP may want children just as little as a contracepting couple, but not be contracepting just because they believe conception is impossible or nearly so.
0 likes
Hey bruce, do you know what a hysterectomy is? If so, well then how in the world can I stop contracepting?
1 likes
Krystal, if your hysterectomy was for medical reasons (such as cancer or to save your life) and was not intended for contraception, then it is not your fault and your sex is not contracepted. If you had it done for contraceptive reasons, then it is your intention and your sex is merely masturbation. This really isn’t that hard.
0 likes
Bruce,
May I suggest you head over to http://www.TheMarriageBed.com for some real, Biblical teachings on married sex? The folks there are great, strong Christian people. Beliefs on these things do vary between Christians and they welcome folks with varied veiwpoints there. Great, Biblical discussions on their boards and good reading on the rest of the site as well.
I understand that you have a troubled past with regards to sexuality. I respect the fact that you’re wanting to get as far as possible away from that and I think it’s great that you’re interested in Godly things. I never struggled with homosexuality but I did struggle as a teenager with other sexual issues as well as other sin issues and I know it’s a hard place to be and a long road to recovery.
Blessings!
1 likes
Once again, not surprisingly, you have failed to comprehend.
0 likes
Here is a good question: How is contraception life-giving (i.e., pro-life)?
0 likes
Witnessing this exchange has been eye-opening, to say the least.
0 likes
Bruce – and you have failed to comprehend as well.
It’s OK if you feel your viewpoint is the truth, but we’d both do well to remember that as Christians we should always speak the truth – but in love. Being snide, hateful, rude, snotty, and holier-than-thou isn’t going to make much headway now is it?
And sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. If you really consider me to be sooo wrong and sinful then pray for me and let God do His thing, OK?
0 likes
But Bruce, if someone has sterilized themselves in an irreversible manner, they can’t very well “stop contracepting.” It is my understanding that the Catholic Church also does not require the reversal of sterilization among its members when that is possible, only that they see that they have erred and turn their lives over to God. Seeking a reversal can require travel, large sums of money, and is almost never covered by insurance. Also, after sterilization and a reversal, a woman has a much higher chance of ectopic pregnancy, which is almost always fatal to the child. So if someone is sterilized, and you believe this is a wrong act, it is reasonable to point out to them their error and try to convince them to repent, but it is not reasonable to tell them to “stop contracepting” like you would tell them to stop drinking.
0 likes
Nope. Most sterilizations are reversible, but if the mutilation (and that is the proper term for it) is permanent and was intentional, then all sexual activity from there on is closed to life, unnatural, and immoral. The ship has sailed, as it were. Truth is truth.
0 likes
May I point out that the Bible is a really big book? And that the church is 2,000 years old, with several apostolic seats? Plus, the books in the bible, and the books by other christian writers? There really is just a small group of heretical writings. We can trust that the people on the scene were the finest and most dedicated, most well- educated, and most spiritually mature, as well, as much, or more so than today.
Which means there are at least twelve different, distinct approaches to the holy word, and the right approach to living. The church in Rome is a congeries of different churches and orders, with distinct, different approaches. The Eastern Orthodox church has different logic trails. As does the Syriac, and so on.
One thing they all differ on is regulation of fertility. I’m Protestant, raised in a Calvinist tradition, and now a member of a different tradition. Mainline Protestants favor birth control. Some accept abortion. I think they are wrong, but in the tempo of church time- they still have time to reconsider and change. I think my denomination will change, at least on abortion.
Other denominations honor celibate callings. Since I can’t see my pastors as more effective if they were single, but I can see remarkably saintly Catholic priests, I can conclude that God places particular calls and vocations on particular people and churches. That’s a church with a divided notion of procreation- it’s limited to some people. These people are expected to go all out. It’s similar to Victorian England- not everyone got married. Ill, sickly women, or women without dowries, were discouraged from even marrying. If they married, they were expected to have a ton of children, and recruit poor relations to help care for this barnful of infants. I’d not be married and a mother today, under this regime.
Prior to the century, some governments had eunuchs in service. I’m not sure about churches. But families would consent to this for bright, ambitious younger sons. I have a bright, ambitious younger son. I would not consent to have him clipped. Oddly enough, it was considered a great asset to his future career. I find it unnerving and inhumane. We have recordings of men treated this way. We have photos of imperial Chinese servants of this persuasion.
Each choice in each approach, is nearly revolting to the others. So, please be kind if people don’t see the logic of your position. Their position has a logic that is wildly alien to yours, as yours is to theirs.
I mean, honestly, as best I can tell, gays are simply guys who probably would have been clipped in any other society, at any other time. it’s like they get to keep the block and tackle, and haven’t any clue how to manage it, and with an invisible, and frankly horrible, history. But the orientation- management, bitchiness, style- they sound like natural harem attendants, and accountants for the emperor, sultan, or big merchant.
0 likes
Since no one bothered to answer my first question, let me ask a few more. Why is it wrong for a woman with bulimia to experience the pleasure of eating without obtaining the life-giving nourishment of the act? What rationale would you use to convince me of why it is wrong?
0 likes
Here is another? How is contracepted sex different from homosexual sex? Is it the location where it takes place? Why is that important? What rationale would you use to convince me of the difference? In addition, why then is one okay but the other is not?
0 likes
I love this, who’da thunk males and females are so intricately complimentary! It is absolutely disgusting what these indignant feminists have done to this well meaning doctor’s career.
@ Bruce – I appreciate your trying to spread the truth about contraception, but the fact is that without a special grace, most non-Catholics will not see what you are saying. It took me a long time even as a faithful Catholic to accept the teachings – and now I can see no other way. Your best bet is prayer.
0 likes
Try this one, Bruce:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=655&page=4
0 likes
I think it is evident, as well, that once truth is denied as we see in protestantism, all reality become subjective and relevant. What is true for one is not true for another. We see it from denomination to denomination and from pastor to pastor. One says contraception is okay. Another says that not only is that kosher, but homosexual sex is too. Another goes even further and says that Jesus was just an idea and so on. Truth is lost. What that leads to is, ultimately, abortion, and why protestanism will never work to eliminate it. How can you argue that someone is wrong when you do not have an answer for what is objectively true and what is objectively false because you yourself do not recognize it? How can you say that abortion is immoral when your definition of morality changes by vote? How can you tell a person who does not believe that the child in the womb has rights when you cannot tell him where rights ultimately come from because you keep changing the nature of your source? The truth is, you can’t. You haven’t got a leg to stand on because you swept it out from yourself 500 years ago.
0 likes
“To that end, the couple should, if possible, seek a reversal of the sterilization. If that cannot be accomplished, then the couple could consign the marital privilege to the normally infertile time.” In other words, they have to play by God’s rules, not their own. Well, duh. Thank you for proving the point I made.
0 likes
I already covered the difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual contracepted sex: “The desire of a married man and wife to give each other sexual pleasure is good. The desire of two homosexuals (who cannot be married) or of an unmarried couple, or of one single person, to gain pleasure from sex is in itself sinful (unless they are willing to wait until circumstances change in order to properly fulfill that desire).”
A married couple does not desire a sinful thing when they desire to have sex with each other. A homosexual couple who desire to engage in intercourse desire something which is inherently sinful. The married couple’s sin is the contracepting, and they could have sex without sinning. The homosexual couple’s sin is to have sex at all, and they cannot do so in a manner that is not sin.
0 likes
Yes, but that answer differs from what you said earlier, that all sex after sterilization is permanently tainted. If you are going to spread the teachings of the Catholic church, do not overstate them.
Many evangelicals are working to end abortion. It’s not like the Catholic Church is managing to end it. It’s not like your pews aren’t filled with the contracepting and even the aborting. I suggest you clean your house before you try to clean ours.
0 likes
YCW, sex without regard to both its unitive and procreative ends (either by willful ignorance or contraception) is always disordered before or after sterilization. That is what the quote states as well. That is why it must be done with respect to its very nature, which includes acknowledging the aspect that it is not always necessarily fertile by nature. However, to sterilize intentionally is to ignore that aspect and grasp at control out out a lack of trust in the design and its Creator, and in order to irresponsibly pursue pleasure as a sole end. Is my house clean? It is now after years of intensely destructive disorder. Is yours? If you’re contracepting, it is not. If you’ve been sterilized and now engage in sexual activity without regard to being open to life or even cognizant of fertile and infertile times, you are merely masturbating or engaging in an activity no different than that of homosexuals. :)
0 likes
Regardless of one’s denomination, if one is promoting contraception as a good, that person is not pro-life and is not working to end abortion.
0 likes
Bruce,
Being a Catholic who hues to Apostolic and Magisterial teaching on sex, I have no problem with the content of your witness. However, it is entirely possible to sin against charity when witnessing the truth. I would never suggest to a married couple that their expression of love is masturbatory. You don’t find the Catholic church saying that either.
The issue is one of immense complexity, rooted in one’s understanding of marriage as a sacrament, the theology behind that understanding, and the tradition of one’s church.
0 likes
Looking at this sad, fallen world, and how those who see the truth about abortion come together on the battlefield against it, which do we currently have the most chance of ending? Abortion? Or its cause, birth control and disregard of the truth of man’s dignity? Which, considering the evidence, do you think this world would give up first?
Prayer, example and perseverance will convince them of the truth. Beating them over the head with it will not. You sound like a clanging cymbal.
0 likes
Gerard, while I appreciate your sentiments, I was not arguing against contraception using theology any religious teachings. Instead, contraception can be successfully argued against using reason. For example: If masturbation is merely the stimulating of one’s genitals for orgasm as an end itself (regardless of what body part or toy is used to do the job), the how is homosexual activity or contracepted sexual activity any different? There is no theology in that question, nor would it help. The truth is, it isn’t any different.
0 likes
I wasn’t necessarily saying that NFP was the end all, just observing that couples that practice it have a very low divorce rate and maybe it is because of all those feel good things in the semen.
As a Catholic I practice NFP and for all those who say that it is contraceptive, I just want to say it is in line with my faith and I am not preventing anything – as shown by the fact that I had my last child while practicing NFP after 5 years of NFP with no pregnancies.
I also want to say that while I dont agree with the following statement it certainly made me giggle.
…and then you’ll actually have sex with your husband as opposed to merely masturbating together.
0 likes
“Is my house clean? It is now after years of intensely destructive disorder. Is yours? If you’re contracepting, it is not.”
Perhaps you were not following my analogy. I was referring to the Catholic Church as opposed to Evangelical churches. I think it’s a lot more likely to find someone who is professing to be Catholic but believes contracepting, and abortion, and gay marriage are all okay than it is to find such a person in most Protestant denominations.
“ If you’ve been sterilized and now engage in sexual activity without regard to being open to life or even cognizant of fertile and infertile times is to be merely masturbating or engaging in an activity no different than that of homosexuals.”
I don’t think you’ve been listening. I said I am not contracepting.
I took the pill for a year. It is probably the thing in my life I most regret. I have not since tried to use any artificial methods to control my fertility. I very rarely use NFP either. I like sex and I like babies. I am merely defending those who, though perhaps not convicted in this area like you and I have been, would never kill their children and are trying their best to follow God in the ways that their conscience has revealed to them. Are those who are contracepting, or who chose sterilization for contraceptive reasons, correct? No. But I don’t think that it is appropriate or correct or convincing to call them anti-life or to say that contracepted sex is exactly the same as homosexual sex. They are alike in that they are all sin, but homosexual sex is itself a sin, while in contracepted heterosexual sex in marriage the sex is not the sin, but the contracepting.
“Regardless of one’s denomination, if one is promoting contraception as a good, that person is not pro-life and is not working to end abortion.”
I am not promoting and do not promote contraception as a good thing. But when we take it upon ourselves to decide who is and is not pro-life, we alienate those who could be our allies. It is of paramount importance to teach people that children are human beings deserving of rights. We start where we disagree. If they believe that all abortion is okay, and you can convince them there is no reason for abortion after viability, you have done a great good. If we can convince them that the child deserves protection from the moment of implantation, when before they thought first-trimester abortions were not morally problematic, we have done a service to them, to God, to their future children, and to pregnant women they may influence. If we can convince someone who thinks all birth control is okay that some of it kills a human being, and needs to be avoided, then we have been of great service to them and their children–and it is indeed very important to bring this information to pro-lifers, because they are very likely to listen and heed our advice to save these very young human beings. And this far almost all of the pro-lifers on this site are still our allies. They agree with us and they try to convince other people of the same. Some dedicate much of their free time and resources to saving the lives of children. It is insulting to say they are just like those who murder children. And most of the pro-lifers here are also Christians. They believe that God has a plan for sexuality and marriage, and are trying to follow what they understand of it. It is insulting to compare them to someone who flouts that plan. If you start off insulting a person, they will not listen to you. Walk with them as far as you agree to the place that you disagree. You believe that you are right, and they are wrong. I do not believe that they are trying to grieve God and counterfeit marriage. You and I have learned something they have not. So share and teach. Only God can convict. They may not be ready to accept this teaching, but you don’t convince them of your rightness with inflammatory tactics. Most people reject this teaching when they hear it today, even if they come to accept it. Be patient, and persistent, and kind.
0 likes
Bruce,
I think a major distinction you are missing is that homosexual sex is ininsically disordered, whereas heterosexual sex is not. If nature is your criterion, then heterosexual union is natural, whereas homosexual union is not.
The next issue is whether or not every coital event needs to result in pregnancy, and the answer is no.
My church stresses that there be an openness to the possibility, which does not imply maximizing a probable outcome. To say that sex is only for babies is actually a heretical teaching in my church. As for the natural order and contraception, obviously contraception is not natural. The openness to life is the key with the litmus test being what one does when the contraceptive fails.
Pure nature is a treacherous place from which to argue on a good day. Male lions kill the cubs of the previous head of the pride. Humans frown on such behavior when women remarry, grounding that opposition more in metaphysics than in nature. The nature of humanity and the concomitant human dignity are rooted in metaphysical/spiritual reality. If they weren’t, then abortion would truly be a mere “choice”.
0 likes
Bruce – What Gerard said about charity must be truly emphasized. Teaching, however true, will not get through if not taught and shared with charity.
Please – as St. Francis deSales stated – you will gather more flies with honey than with vinegar. Young Christian Woman is a kindred spirit – with much reason and charity with her,
In the spiritual journey, there are many steps. We are all on the road – some further than others, and the point about the banging gong is well placed.
Please, for the sake of love and the teaching – generosity and kind spirit works wonders. Many are on the same page here. No need to be harsh and drive them away.
Your wrath should be directed at those who champion the slaughter of the innocent and for those who champion evil. And even with God’s graces, the hardened of hearts can change into champions for Good! witness the conversion of Saul to Paul. God is good, He can do anything, we are to imitate Him in everything, including charity.
0 likes
Gerard, I’m not disagreeing with your position regarding the sexual activities of hetero and homosexuals, but I think we’re attacking two different things. The marital act, in order to be the marital act, must be the comprehensive bodily union of a man and a woman ordered toward the procreation of children. Both must be present, but the positive outcome of the latter is not required for it to be an authentic marital act, only that it is ORDERED toward that end. The marital act, uncontracepted, is naturally ordered toward that end, and if the couple is involuntarily infertile, that ordered nature does not change. Contracepted sexual activity is not naturally ordered toward procreation, but instead, is ordered toward sexual pleasure alone. By its very nature it cannot be considered a marital act because it lacks a key component. The act is intentionally sterile and, in fact, ordered to sterility not procreation. If the act results in a conception (by accident) the act was sill ORDERED toward sterility and, thus, was not a marital act. In that case, it is either more akin to masturbation, which is a sterile act ordered toward attaining sexual pleasure, or homosexual sex, which is similar. As for a contracepted sexual act which is ordered toward sterility, should this act result in a baby accidently, it still would not be any more of a marital act than an insemination at a sperm clinic is a marital act. Or, for that matter, a test tube baby.
0 likes
Without a doubt, it is commendable to avoid abortifacient contraception. Very few people realize early abortions occur with hormonal BC because pharmaceutical companies don’t like to draw attention to it (not surprisingly). So I high-five anyone who recognizes this evil and spreads the word. Not to mention you’re significantly reducing your risk of developing breast cancer AND keeping artificial hormones out of our drinking water. So thanks – you’re awesome. :)
For the average American, this demonstrates an ability to seek the greater good, to act on one’s conscience rather than selfish desires. And for the average person, resolving the problem with condoms or diaphragms is a no-brainer. No early chemical abortion – problem solved.
Christians, however, are called to an even deeper level of altruism. Christian marriage symbolizes God’s union with the Church. Marriage was, in fact, the first sacrament instituted. And throughout the Bible, God’s love for us is compared to that of a bridegroom & bride far more often than any other analogy. Marriage is a pretty big deal. It’s not just for companionship, sexual release, or children. It’s meant to point others to the great mystery of God uniting Himself to us for eternity.
Then there’s the fact that humans are made in God’s image. What does that mean, exactly? It means that we’re called to love as God loves. That’s a tall order, but there are certain aspects of God’s love that we can understand and imitate. The four major aspects are “free, total, faithful, and fruitful.” And of course, we’re all familiar with 1 Corinthians 13: “Love is patient, love is kind… it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking… It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
If our actions fail to meet those qualities, it isn’t love. And while most people consider hate to be the opposite of love, no one would ever accuse a married couple engaging in sex of hating each other. The opposite of love is actually use. Using someone – essentially, reducing them to an object rather than respecting them as a person – is worse than hating them. Hate is bad, but use is worse.
So we have to ask ourselves: is using contraception patient? Is it self-seeking? Does it promote perseverance and selfless love, as demonstrated by Christ crucified? Is it a free, total, faithful and fruitful act of love? The honest answers to these questions can be uncomfortable. But with God’s grace, we can exchange the world’s counterfeit version of “love” for God’s authentic version. And what we thought was good before will become simply incredible.
I take no credit for these concepts. Everything I’ve shared here is derived from John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which Christopher West has interpreted for the guy on the street to understand. I’m surprised no one here has mentioned it yet. It’s amazing, and it has the power to truly transform the way you see yourself and the world. God bless.
0 likes
Julie, please see my comment at 10:16 this am!
0 likes
Bruce,
So…how about asexuality (the orientation)? Is that okay? I have to disagree with you. We can talk about it and try to come to a broad understanding, but I will have to say that I disagree with you.
0 likes
Susan – Oops, missed that! Can’t have too much of a good thing, though. :)
0 likes
yes – Christopher West is awesome! Yay Pope JPII! Special day coming up on May 1! ;)
0 likes
Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as a sexual “orientation.” There is only normal, healthy human sexuality and then disorders involving abnormal inclinations (such as homosexuality, bisexuality, etc). “Asexual” would mean that one could reproduce without sexual reproduction, which is not a capacity humans possess. If you are referring to a person who chooses to remain celibate and continent, that person may indeed possess a healthy and natural sexual desire toward the opposite sex, but chooses not to engage it. There is nothing disordered about controlling one’s passions and appetites. If you are referring to a person who, for whatever reason, seems to lack any normal sexual desire proportionate to those of similar age and state in life, then you are referring to a person who more than likely has some sort of disorder. An orientation would seem to suggest that such inclinations are normal and ordered, when they clearly are not. Disorder is a more accurate term.
0 likes
I’m sorry I haven’t read all the comments, but Bruce, I think you are unnecessarily conflating the overarching reasoned argument for ordered sexuality with life arguments. I agree with you that homosexuality and sex undertaken with a contraceptive mentality (surgical or barrier) are inherently immoral behaviors. And to the extent that they undermine our human dignity, they are certainly not to be encouraged. However, those issues don’t always touch on the issue of the destruction of human life that is at the center of the pro-life cause. They OFTEN do – a lot of contraceptive are abortifacient and homosexuals and heterosexuals alike undertake fertility treatments that treat the human embryo as property and a commodity. However, one can engage in homosexual and certain contraceptive sexual acts without in any way encouraging the destruction of innocent human life. I understand that you are trying to impart the overall beauty that is a full understanding of the human good, but you go too far when you say that people who commit other sins are inherently not pro-life. You don’t need to be of any particular persuasion to recognize that human life begins at conception, ends with natural death, and to respect that.
0 likes
Hi Army Wife.
“If avoiding conception is wrong then so is using NFP to do so.”
Your hypothesis is incorrect. Properly understood, it is NOT avoiding conception that is wrong. It is the MEANS by which one chooses to avoid conception. We believe that actions are ordered towards certain ends. The marital act is ordered towards the union of teh spouses and procreation. To take an action that WILLFULLY thwarts either one of those ends is to engage in an action which is disordered. This is why we believe that contraception is disordered and NFP is not. With NFP, you are not thwarting any natural action because there is no action! The mechanism is abstinence. You do not engage in an action and then thwart the ends of it. This is the distinction we make with NFP and contraception.
I have to say, it REALLy is worth it to look into this issue for Protestant to look into teh issue of contraception. Before 1930, EVERY. SINGLE. mainline protestant denomination condemned contraception as gravely immoral. If we were living 100 years ago, all of your churches would teach teh evils of contraception. What happened? Was the Church wrong for all those hundreds of years? Did we finally realize that contraception is okay? Or did all those churches have it right, and it was sin that caused us to accept contraception as moral? Again, these questions are worth relaly looking into and thinking about for those who love God and desire nothing more than to do his will.
0 likes
Good heavens…! I almost tremble to wade in, here…
Bruce, I’ll parallel what Dr. Nadal said: it is certainly a fact that artificial contraception is an objective moral evil. It’s also true that the “contraceptive mentality” (by which one desires to render the sexual act infertile) is inherently and objectively disordered (i.e. it’s wrong, regardless of opinions on the matter… which is, by the way, the reason why a wrong use of NFP can easily be sinful, even though NFP is not intrinsically disordered, in and of itself). However, there’s such a thing as failing to scale one’s weapons to the task at hand; it’s not wise and prudent to kill a cockroach with a howitzer, but foolish. There is such a thing as sane proportion, you know.
Here’s my point (and others have introduced it, as well): I, of all people, understand the zeal which can drive us to preach the truth more forcefully than circumstances warrant… especially if one feels that the audience is rejecting (willfully or reflexively) and/or misunderstanding your key points, which you see (and rightly so) as genuine matters of life and death. My own Lent, in fact, was practically one big 40-day object lesson in that idea (e.g. some friends of mine turned out to be abortion-tolerant, and I didn’t know it until recently… and they were, to put it politely, not very interested in any opposing views, especially from me); it can sometimes take supernatural fortitude (literally!) to restrain the urge to scream, lash out, and any other loss of self-control. But we must keep our self-control, as well as our peace; and speaking as a spiritual warrior (albeit a weak and sinful one), I do not say that as a bland platitude, nor is it any sort of “nod” to pacifism. It’s quite possible to “win” a battle (in the sense of no one being able/willing to refute you) and lose the war (of saving souls); it’s actually quite easy to do that, in fact, and the devil specializes in provoking God’s people into just such a trap.
St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (a.k.a. St. Edith Stein) put that idea plainly: “Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.” This is a two-edged warning: to “heart-followers”, who mistakenly think that their emotions, habits, sentiments, and personal opinions are somehow “holy writ”; and to “holy curmudgeons” who mistakenly think that “accurate data” (independent of love) is somehow all that is needed for “truth”.
0 likes
OK, I get it. I come off as an enormous prick. It is not an excuse, but this medium does not really work well with communication sometimes. If I were speaking to each of you, I would be saying the same things, but you could see my face and hear how I inflect and emphasize things, and when I am being purposefully dry. In writing, it comes off looking like a prick. I know. This isn’t my first rodeo. I stand by what I say, but of course, if it comes off as prick-ish, that was not my intention.
0 likes
Accepted. And I understand. I can get pretty heated up talking to those who support the dismemberment of human beings, myself. But seeing as I don’t actually know anyone in real life who subscribes to the right use of the human body, it is easy to understand how foreign it seems to people.
I certainly wish you luck and blessing in your campaign to educate and inform.
Often one motivation of Protestants who refuse to use NFP is to attempt to follow scripture. Since Paul warns us not to abstain, except perhaps for a time of fasting and prayer, but there is no clear command in the Bible to not avoid conception (though there are certainly commands to be fruitful and multiply), they decide that the command not to abstain is of greater priority than what one might (if trying) deduce from natural law, that sex is for having children. So while it may seem wrong in our hearts to try to not have children, we know the Bible tells us to come together so we will not be tempted. It seems best to follow the Bible foremost. Yet a better solution, of course, is to both be fruitful and not abstain (and even periodic abstinence is a failure to be fruitful–hence the reason it should be used only in grave situations).
0 likes
It is rather interesting, however, that prior to the 1960s, protestants did not support contraception nor abortion. Since then, things have gotten worse. Pray.
0 likes
Bruce,
I’d like to second Joy’s comments, and address your focus on nature a little more. My focus in the pro-life movement stems in large part from my education as a scientist. Science supports all of our contentions and refutes all of the proabort contentions.
But science only goes so far. What you say about the ordering of the marital act is true. But it is also true that married people who contracept still engage in the marital act, though it is not entirely ordered toward its procreative dimension. Nevertheless, there still remains the unitive dimension, and that takes us out of the realm of nature and into the realm of the metaphysical.
Strictly speaking, orgasm is a physiologic function that gets men interested in sex, and with it the creation of children. (few men would have sex just to make babies) But orgasm also generates bonds between the couple, therefore orgasm is something that functions in the metaphysical unitive dimension via oxytocin-mediated bonding at the neurological level. Orgasm takes the married couple from the physical to the metaphysical.
I agree that contraception is unnatural, but that does not mean a married couple does not function in a unitive dimension. Incompleteness of fulfilling the ordering of sex in a married couple cannot be compared to the entirely disordered function in same-sex expression between gays and lesbians.
Not even the Catholic Church claims the absence of a marital act with use of contraception. In fact, if a woman needs to be put on oral contraceptives to treat endometriosis, the use is permissible under the principle of double-effect. Their relations are both valid and licit.
0 likes
[Just another underlyin reason for my ‘latex intolerence’]
[Adds new meaning to the line from ‘Dr. Strangelove’ about ‘precious bodily fluids’]
Gee, I wonder if Dr. Greenfield’s premises would work for pickinup ladies in a singles bar?
Brought to mind James Taylor’s ‘Steamroller Blues’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT7tWlHp3WA&feature=related
[Evis’ rendition, tho good, fails to eclipse Taylor’s.]
Well, I’m a steamroller, baby
I’m bound to roll all over you
Yes, I’m a steamroller, baby
I’m bound to roll all over you
I’m gonna inject your soul with
some sweet rock ‘n roll
And shoot you full of rhythm and blues
Well, I’m a cement mixer
A churning urn of burning funk
Yes, I’m a cement mixer for you, baby
A churning urn of burning funk
Well, I’m a demolition derby
A hefty hunk of steaming junk
Now, I’m a napalm bomb, baby
Just guaranteed to blow your mind
Yeah, I’m a napalm bomb for you, baby
Guaranteed to blow your mind
And if I can’t have your love for my own
Sweet child, won’t be nothing left behind.
It seems how lately, baby
Got a bad case steamroller blues
So if your wife says she has a headache, you can honestly claim you have the cure.
I think I will try it out on my wife and see what kind of response I get.
0 likes
Hey YCW.
“Since Paul warns us not to abstain, except perhaps for a time of fasting and prayer…”
I know you aren’t quite making this argument, but 1 Cor 7:5 says (NIV)
“Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time…”
St Paul goes on to give the reasons you mentioned, but I think an important point that some Protestants often don’t address is that St Paul mentions the exception being MUTUAL CONSENT, which is very consistent with NFP. Both couples agree, through prayer and open communication, that now might not be the best time to have another child, so they agree to abstain.
That being said, as you know, I very much agree with you about misuse of NFP. I think teh Church is wise not to try and define every single case of when it is acceptable or not, but clearly a couple can use it with a “contraceptive attitude” where they are trying to avoid pregnancy for very shallow or flimsy reasons. My personal preference is to always be open to life and leave it up to God. But indeed, it can be misused, which is something we don’t emphasize enough.
0 likes
Wow Bruce, IMO I think you could take some advice in diplomacy here! But sometimes I may have posted things here that others thought the same about me. I don’t agree with your analogy to masturbation and homosexuality regarding married homosexual sex and think you should to listen to Gerard and joyfromillinois, but that is just my opinion.
However, I want to address the study discussed here. I have heard it stated by an internationally renowned childbirth education and doula (professional labor assistant) speaker/researcher that “laboring women who are lesbians typically have very difficult, non-progressive, protacted labors, I wish someone would research whether the lack of sexual intercourse with the regular release of male seminal fluid during the pregnancy has something to do with this problem”. Hmmmm. How interested that a few years later this study about the properties of semen is released. Indeed “we are fearfully and wonderfully made”, in many, many ways. Like I have said here for years “marriage was designed by God, the creator, to join together and unite a man and a woman anatomically, physiologically, hormonally, psychologically, emotionally, immunologically and spiritually in ways that were meant to blow our mind”. I have been ridiculed by pro-aborts and liberal pro-lifers for making this statement in the past that I had “no proof” but this study is just the tip of the iceberg. “The truth will set you free.” People can be angry at the messenger like they were angry at this researcher and at me for making “politically incorrect” observations but it is still part of God’s design.
0 likes
I’m usually in agreement with your posts,Bruce, but you lost me on this one. I wanted to be a wife and mother my entire life. It just didn’t happen until I was in my forties and diabetic, but it DID happen. I was 3 months shy of my 42nd Birthday when I gave birth to our daughter. My first pregnancy ended in miscarriage. We were TRYING to have a baby, so we were not using any form of contraception.After our daughter was born, I was recovering from a c-section, 19 1/2 hours of labor, pre-eclampsia and was dealing with diabetes AND the sudden death of my mother. I was in bad shape, both physically AND emotionally. WE WANTED another baby, but I needed time to heal (again, physically AND emotionally). We used contraception (non-hormonal) until our daughter’s first birthday. We wanted to have time to enjoy our baby. The very first month we tried again, I got pregnant. We lost THAT baby. We have lost THREE MORE since then. God knew/knows our situation. He knew I needed time to recover. He also knows we WANT another baby. Your posts are very hurtful, Bruce. Perhaps you think God is now “punishing” me for using a “barrier method” for those few months? You don’t know (neither do I, Bruce) what would have happened to me or my child had I gotten pregnant again right away. Everyone’s situation is different. Just something to think about…
0 likes
Gen 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. [Matt 19:5; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31-33.] AMP
Matt 19:4-6 4 He replied, Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? [Gen 1:27; 2:24.] 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder (separate). AMP
One of the observable evidences that the two have become one is the new ‘one’ who has been conceived as a result of the joining of the two.
When we receive Jesus we become one with Him.
1 Cor 6:15-17 15 Do you not see and know that your bodies are members (bodily parts) of Christ (the Messiah)? Am I therefore to take the parts of Christ and make [them] parts of a prostitute? Never! Never! 16 Or do you not know and realize that when a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? The two, it is written, shall become one flesh. [Gen 2:24.] 17 But the person who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him. AMP
1 Cor 12:12-14 12 For just as the body is a unity and yet has many parts, and all the parts, though many, form [only] one body, so it is with Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). 13 For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit. 14 For the body does not consist of one limb or organ but of many. AMP
1 Cor 1:11-13 11 For it has been made clear to me, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions and wrangling and factions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you [either] says, I belong to Paul, or I belong to Apollos, or I belong to Cephas (Peter), or I belong to Christ. 13 Is Christ (the Messiah) divided into parts? Was Paul crucified on behalf of you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? AMP
Gal 3:26-29 26 For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. 27 For as many [of you] as were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union and communion with Christ, the Anointed One, the Messiah] have put on (clothed yourselves with) Christ. 28 There is [now no distinction] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ [are in Him Who is Abraham’s Seed], then you are Abraham’s offspring and [spiritual] heirs according to promise. AMP
1 Cor 12:24-27 …But God has so adjusted (mingled, harmonized, and subtly proportioned the parts of) the whole body, giving the greater honor and richer endowment to the inferior parts which lack [apparent importance], 25 So that there should be no division or discord or lack of adaptation [of the parts of the body to each other], but the members all alike should have a mutual interest in and care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the parts [share] the suffering; if one member is honored, all the members [share in] the enjoyment of it. 27 Now you [collectively] are Christ’s body and [individually] you are members of it, each part severally and distinct [each with his own place and function]. AMP
The question is begged: If there is only one LORD, one Spirit, one body of Christ, then ’who’ is seeking to divide us when we are identified as protestants and/or catholics?
0 likes
Pamela and Prolifer L,
Diplomacy is not in my tool box either. It is a tool I have to borrow if I want to use it.
I lost my first born son to abortion when I was a young man. My wife and I have lost two children thru spontaneous miscarriage. The loss is real. When I count heads at the dinner table even tho all five of our surviving children are there I get the sense there are still some missing.
We were born into a world for which we were not designed. Therefore sometimes bad stuff happens.
But the ONE who redeemed us has promised HE would not forsake us and HE gave us HOLY SPIRIT to comfort, lead, teach and empower us to complete the works HE purposed for us before the foundations of the earth were laid.
There is a passage in the old part of the ‘book’, that says the children of the barren one will outnumber the married one, the least will be a clan. These ‘children of the barren’ are the ‘little ones’ that GOD sends our way to disciple, mentor, teach, and raise up in the way they should go.
If you ask HIM HE will show you those whom HE predestined to part of your household.
0 likes
Of course there are advantages to heterosexuality! Men can be wonderful. They can be self-sacrificing as seen in the Titanic and the “women and children first” rule they created.
However, it’s also true that heterosex, unlike masturbation and lesbianism, leads to females getting pregnant with pregnancies they are unwilling to carry to term and therefore to abortion.
0 likes
BTW, I would appreciate prayers–DH and I are considering adopting a sibling group from Asia (4, 3, and 2–and we have two: nearly 3 and 16 months).
0 likes
“When you are married, you vow to come freely to the marriage, be faithful, give yourself totally, and be FRUITFUL.”
Maybe you did. I certainly didn’t vow any of those things.
0 likes
Gerard, I was not arguing from a scientific perspective either. It was philosophic. If you read any Robby George, you’ll understand what my argument is. Cheers!
0 likes
Wow, Hal. Then your relationship arrangement is not a marriage.
0 likes
I’m sad that I came to this board. I’m sad that people who claim to be pro-life and full of God’s love are so hateful towards each other. My marriage is no less loving because my husband and I use condoms. I hate the idea of calling someone anti-life because they use contraception. Bruce, it’s not helpful to the fight to turn people away from the movement because of your own weird hang ups.
0 likes
Army Wife I’m with you all the way. You expressed yourself so well. TONS of Christians agree with you.
0 likes
Contraception always involves a choice to impede new human life; life is one of the basic human goods. Considered in this way, life refers to the same thing whether one chooses to prevent conception or, by abortion, to prevent the birth of a baby already conceived. Indeed, sometimes people who do not want a baby choose at one and the same time both to try, by practicing contraception, to prevent the unwanted baby’s coming to be and, if contraception should fail, to resort to abortion. Conversely, a couple about to marry who choose a home partly because it has a room suitable for a nursery act for the same good as when, during a subsequent pregnancy, they choose and buy the things they need for their baby. Both before and after he or she is conceived, the hoped-for child for whom they prepare is no mere abstraction. Nor is the unwanted child whose life someone seeks to prevent by using contraception. For both the hoped-for child and the unwanted child specify will acts, whose moral significance as prolife and contralife they thereby determine. Modern individualism usually obscures life’s unity as it flows from parents to children, but this continuity is real and is experienced vividly by a man and a woman who are in love and who joyfully receive the gift of a child as the fruit of their love and its embodiment. Thus, although a choice to contracept intends to forestall the new person, still it also is a choice to limit the continuity of real human life. For, in preventing the baby whom they project and reject, those who choose to contracept limit their own lives as they tend to become one and to flow beyond themselves. It is as if, by contracepting, they commit a kind of limited suicide; they choose to cut off their life together, as they are about to hand it on, at the precise point at which a new person might emerge.
0 likes
Sexual intercourse is open to new life when the couple do not intend to impede conception and their performance is such that conception would result if the physiological conditions were conducive to it. However, if either or both spouses seek complete satisfaction (orgasm) by cooperating in any sort of act which is not open to new life, that act is not marital. That is so even if there is no intent to impede new life, for example, if a husband uses a condom to prevent the transmission of disease, a couple engages in mutual masturbation for variety’s sake, or a wife intentionally stimulates her husband to orgasm when the couple for some reason are incapable of intercourse.
0 likes
Contraception is intrinsically evil and is opposed to Christianity. It is a part of the culture of death, whether you recognize it or not. It also destroys marriages and is a major cause of disease, not to mention abortion (due to its high failure rate). There is nothing Christian about it.
0 likes
Bruce,
I can quote Robby George chapter and verse. He has several philosophical loose ends that only find their resolution in Jesus.
God Bless.
0 likes
Thanks, Brad. Blessings to all (yes, you too, Bruce). Gotta get some rest… busy day tomorrow. :-)
Gerard Nadal – You’re welcome. We’ve been through a lot in the past nine years but I’ve personally benefitted from it more than I have lost from the experience in some ways. I was married young and the Army spouse experience, as well as the experience of just being a wife and mother, has helped me mature quite a bit. This life is not without its hardships, but then neither is anyone else’s.
0 likes
If it’s so good, why are they giving it away?
0 likes
While I bristle at some of Bruce’s comments, I am open to hearing his arguments. As some have stated before, we are all on a path, and some further on the path than others. Maybe Bruce is ahead of me (maybe not), but the discussion reminds me of the kind of comments I have heard more than once from other church goers after a sermon about tithing. Many are resentful that “all the pastor (or church?) is interested in is money.” Where I was grateful to hear Biblical truths I had not heard before (my heart was ready to hear them?), others were resentful of hearing them. I am not saying that I can or will get to the place where I agree with Bruce on every point, there was a time (when I was first married), that I had never even heard of an “abortifacient”, so I am glad to hear different points of view and muddle through the logic, or lack thereof. (I’m not always sure which is which!)
I love Paladin’s comments, and hope he/she does not mind me repeating: St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (a.k.a. St. Edith Stein) put that idea plainly: “Do not accept anything as the truth if it lacks love. And do not accept anything as love which lacks truth! One without the other becomes a destructive lie.” This is a two-edged warning: to “heart-followers”, who mistakenly think that their emotions, habits, sentiments, and personal opinions are somehow “holy writ”; and to “holy curmudgeons” who mistakenly think that “accurate data” (independent of love) is somehow all that is needed for “truth”.
I also understand Bruce’s contention that if he were face to face with any of us, we might interpret his words differently based on his ability to express his emotions and not just his ideas… I believe Bruce may be trying to “speak the truth in love” but the love doesn’t necessarily show through the printed word.
The place where I have a problem following Bruce is my belief that without some sort of contraception, there would be a huge burden (finaicial, emotional, etc.) placed on many families… now I know that I am calling children a “burden”, but for many people they are. I don’t believe many families would handle what The Duggars handle with as much grace. I know I’m getting close to the pro-aborts argument that children are better off dead than being born into a world that would be “mean” to them, but from a practical point of view, I have no clue how I would function with 19 children… I know, I know… God would provide a way (financially, emotionally, etc.), or not provide that many children, etc., but I still (sinfully?) feel that way… and I try to be logical person… not just an emotional one. I know I’m exposing myself as not being very committed, but maybe that’s why I love Bruce’s commitment. I just pray that his arguments will help move people down the path while God opens their hearts to hearing.
0 likes
MO3, Bruce’s contention is that rather than using contraception, if a couple has a truly grave reason to avoid conception, they should use NFP. NFP is extremely effective and works by means of periodic abstinence from sex, for a couple days to a little bit longer than a week, depending on the woman’s individual pattern and how much they are trying to avoid pregnancy. If one has a really good reason to avoid pregnancy, with NFP at least there is no chance of harming a newly conceived child, and nothing is added to the relationship between the husband and the wife, nor does anything come between them. NFP also helps develop self-control, communication, and teaches both partners more about how a woman’s body works. I know of no birth control method I am completely okay with, but the only disadvantage of NFP is that it means less sex, especially when it is most enjoyable. While that is a big disadvantage, it’s not morally or philosophically problematic. (And if one isn’t Catholic, there’s still quite a bit that’s open during that week or so.)
0 likes
Also, God knows very well–far better than us–what we can handle. If you can’t handle 19 children, God won’t give you 19 children. I have not prevented conception or even used NFP in the past 6 1/2 years, and I have 2 living children (not 6 1/2). The average number of children before birth control was widespread was 6. One does not wake up one day and have 19 children; one starts out with one. Then two. You only add one or two at a time, and after the first couple, what’s one more? Going from one to two is big; going from 17 to 18 isn’t so bad, especially with some much older siblings to help out. They get added one, occasionally two at a time, and it’s rare to have them less than a year apart, especially while using the feeding method God designed for them. And when God brings a child into a family, he knows that the child is just what the family needs and the family is the right one for the child. It is incredibly rare to have a child each fertile cycle. The Bible is clear that it is God who opens and closes the womb.
0 likes
Bruce says:
April 26, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Wow, Hal. Then your relationship arrangement is not a marriage.
Not sure you get to redefine marriage. You’ve already tried to redefine healthy sexuality, masturbation, “pro life,” and sin. What color is the sky in your world?
0 likes
Liberal tells Christian not to redefine marriage. This is a first.
0 likes
Many have expressed mixed feelings about what I have said concerning contraception. Truth be told, I am often shocked by how committed I am to being anti-contraception and even anti-abortion. It is a fact that not very long ago, none of you would have recognized me except as one yelling vile things at you from the front lines of pro-abortion rallies. You would not have recognized me except as an extremely addicted pervert and atheist. You would not have recognized me except as one who hated Christianity, sexual morality, and any mention of life, babies, and marriage. The truth of the matter is that I do not have a rational explanation for the change. The only reason is grace and grace alone. I cannot begin to tell you how much this means to me or that I would sooner die than be without it once again. It was not enough for me to see the evil of abortion, for truth forced me to see the evil of all distortions of the great gift of human sexuality which I had abused miserably for decades. Contraception is an abuse of that gift and leads down the path to further abuse and destruction. I have seen it first hand time and time again. Pray for grace, those of you on the fence. Pray for the grace to recognize the truth in front of you and the truth naturally placed within you by the hand of God. It is there. Pray that He unlocks it for you. For me, he led me to the one place I hated more than any other, the Church. Now, I cannot live without her. Thank you, and God bless. (even you, Hal ;)).
0 likes
Me agreeing with Hal – also probably a first.
Here’s my view I guess: so long as the contraception is non-abortaficient and the couple realizes and accepts that pregnancy can and may happen, I don’t feel as though God necessarily condemns it. Some people act as though they know better than God, and others seem to think He will automatically take care of them, with no effort on their part. I believe that barrier contraception and NPF fall into the category in between; same as hospitalizing someone who was bitten by a snake. Yes, God can heal that wound, but should we not treat this person with medicine and just assume God will heal them? God works everything towards his will; common sense says err on the side of caution, and if it is His plan for you to get pregnant (‘be fruitful’), it will happen anyway.
0 likes
Also, many couples want to have kids, but are realistic enough to try to postpone them somewhat. I’m getting married the 7th, my fiance and I both work temp jobs and will barely have enough money for bills as it is. Is it really realistic to say we should just remain virgins until we have more stable jobs, just to avoid a honeymoon baby?
0 likes
Bruce – thank you for sharing your story! God’s grace truly can transform fully – from the inside out! Continue to nurture that great gift, and you will find a way to reach those with your conversion story! Continue on, with mush charity!
YCW – good for you considering to adopt that young family from Asia. Many blessings. It is a wonderful Christian witness to extend yourself and your family that way. I’m sure there will be many adjustments in your household – and I hope that your friends, family and church will be at your side to help these children adjust and flourish in your Christ-centered home. Many, Many blessings. May I put your situation on our Church’s prayer chain? I would love to do that for you, and today at my adoration time I will be praying for you and your family and those beautiful little ones….
Very nice everyone! see – love wins!! ;)
0 likes
Congratulations Amanda K on your upcoming marriage. Have you and your fiance prayed about what God wants for you in your situation? If you took the NFP classes you would know what was happening when! I know a few couples who went into marriage as virgins, decided to consummate their marriage, and God graced some with children right away, others later.
NFP is so amazing – that after the birth of our second child (who we conceived with the use of NFP – it’s that exact), after 7-8 months I had my first menstrual cycle ( I was breastfeeding), and through NFP we realized that my first two cycles we non-ovulatory.
Let God take the lead. Do you love each other? Willing to marry for better or worse, in sickness and health, for richer and poorer? Then be open to what He wants! Start praying together if you have not started already! He can work wonders!
Congratulations again!
0 likes
@Bruce: While I still disagree with you on a number of key points about contraception, it is wonderful to hear your story. Grace is good.
0 likes
“Have you and your fiance prayed about what God wants for you in your situation?”
Seriously? People do this?
0 likes
Yes, Hal. Seriously.
0 likes
Seriously? People do this?
Yup they do Hal. It’s when you start praying like this with a sincere heart, that you will begin to better understand Bruce’s arguments (I even started praying “Bring it on.” Boy did He ever!
I totally understand you Bruce when you state that you are often shocked about how committed you are to being anti-contraception. I often feel this way as well but know I was called to share what I’ve learned.
I begged God (on my knees) to help me discern in some areas in my life. He answered. I never planned on (or even really wanted to) study Pope John Paul II writings and then later teach Theology of the Body but was compelled by actions that I can only explain as works by the Holy Spirit.
Trust me, it would have been easier for me to continue living the way I was, mindlessly reading People magazine, feeling sorry for myself and wasting time in taverns.
0 likes
Amanda: You are comparing babies to a disease? I don’t think that babies are to be prevented at all costs. There are not good times and bad times to get a disease. A disease is not something many people desperately pray God for. Medical science is great at fixing things that are broken. When nothing is broken, it doesn’t have much helpful to say.
Joy, I would appreciate your prayers, but until my husband is sure he wants to pursue this, I don’t want to put it on prayer chains or anything. We haven’t actually told anyone in “real life” yet (well, I mentioned it to SIL, but told her to keep quiet).
Hal, my family seeks God’s will all the time. So do most of the Christians I know. We don’t believe that we will be happiest choosing our own path, but that God, who knows us better than we know ourselves, will give us true joy as we turn our lives over to Him. We believe it is through dying that we live. I don’t expect you to understand this… but I pray one day you will.
0 likes
Yes, Hal. :)
My husband and I pray together as we seek to do His will.
0 likes
Hal- yes, many people do pray about major life decisions. I had a long period of soul-searching, prayer, and study with regards to many areas (contraception was one of them but by no means the only area).
Anyone professing a true, born-again Christian faith should be praying and reading the Word regularly – seeking God’s will constantly in every area of their lives. God isn’t something you can just put away in a “Sunday” box, separate from the “marriage box”, “career box”, etc. - so to speak.
It is a struggle to maintain this time with God but worth it. I struggle with it as well. The “busy-ness” of life often competes with God for my time and attention, but the extra effort it takes to maintain a good prayer-life and Bible study is worth it.
0 likes
I’m happy choosing my own path, but if you think God knows better, I’m not going to talk you out of it.
0 likes
Joy, I don’t think there are any classes like that around here; I was just planning on researching it online. Thanks for your congratulations!
YCW, I never said anything about disease. Maybe a better example would be using sunscreen, or a seat belt. Whether or not one takes these precautions, God’s will will still be done, but why not increase the odds of a favorable outcome (so long as no harm is done)? Another way of looking at it could be the invalid who waits for Jesus to come to Him versus the woman who touched His cloak.
I love children, and I would love to have them soon, but my future husband believes that if we were to get pregnant too soon, we may have to put such a child up for adoption. This would break my heart, so I would much rather attempt to postpone kids for a few years. God doesn’t give us more than we can handle, but at the same time, people shouldn’t test Him by just having sex all the time and hoping He’ll take care of the situation.
0 likes
“I believe that barrier contraception and NPF fall into the category in between; same as hospitalizing someone who was bitten by a snake.” ” Maybe a better example would be using sunscreen, or a seat belt. Whether or not one takes these precautions, God’s will will still be done”
So you’ve compared a baby to a snakebite, skin cancer, and injury in a car accident. No wonder some people think you can’t be pro-contraception and pro-life.
I know that’s not what you’re trying to say (or so I hope). But you are comparing babies to things that are ALWAYS BAD.
I am sorry that your fiance feels that way, but you never need to put a child up for adoption; there are so many resources out there (like CPCs). And if you can’t support a child, why are you getting married?
I am sorry if I am coming across harsh, but in His Word God says He has made married people one: “In flesh and spirit they are His. And why one? Because he desires Godly offspring.”
I admit freely that I used birth control when I first married, and regret it. But we certainly wouldn’t have made an adoption plan. There’s no way you would need to do that if you didn’t want to.
I would love to talk further but I need to go make dinner.
0 likes
“And if you can’t support a child, why are you getting married?”
Holy Guacamole, poor people can’t get married now?
0 likes
YCW: I more so meant a tan (at worst sunburn, not really skin cancer), a thing that some may desire, some may not, and some may not wish to have right now. Idk, my good analogy maker is broken right now. I know there are better examples, I just can’t think of them right now! :(
I feel that as I get to talk to my fiance more (as I just recently found out about his thoughts on adoption), he will realize that we would still be okay if we got pregnant, it would just be REALLY tight.
I don’t think it follows 100% that one must be able to afford a child before one gets married. Our situation if one that I’m sure many have dealt with – we have been going out for three years and love each other deeply, yet neither of us have great jobs. We are trying to abstain from sex until marriage, but we are human and it’s difficult at times, and I do not think it makes sense to wait even longer to get married just because you can’t afford kids right away. Also, at the very least, any children will have committed parents, as opposed to those who aren’t married.
Hal: Why am I agreeing with you today?! This is very strange. :) *cue Twilight Zone theme song*
0 likes
Common ground, Amanda. Congratulations on the upcoming marriage, btw. Have kids when you’re ready. Live every day with love, and awe. (some advice from an old man).
0 likes
Have kids when you’re ready.
Have kids whenever you become pregnant, Amanda. You’ll never be ready for ’em but you will always love them more than you could ever imagine.
0 likes
Well, I agree we’re never really “ready.” But no harm in waiting a few years.
0 likes
Some food for thought…
From the beginning, God made two plans…hence the old testatment (promise) and new testatment (promise).
The old promise was based on being part of Israel and a Jew. The only way to salvation was physically through the bloodline of the family (Israel). The old directive from God was to “Be fruitful and multiply” (physically) (Gen 1:28)
The new promise has allowed all people to come to salvation…this time spiritually through the bloodline of the family (Israel) through Jesus. The new directive is to “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved…(Mark 16:16).
0 likes
Pamela
I have a gift to pray for couples who are having trouble conceiving. Would you like me to pray for you? myrtle
0 likes
Pamela
Sorry about that I just realized it’s not conceiving that your having problems with but actually carrying the baby to term. I will pray for you if you’ll still want to have a baby.
0 likes
And Amanda, all of your arguments work just as well for NFP as for birth control. If you have a really good reason to postpone having children–and being unable to finance them is a valid concern, though I think people worry too much about how much children cost–NFP is the best option.
Not counting medical bills–and insurance covers those, over the deductible, which we usually spend up to anyway–I didn’t need to spend much on our kids for quite a while. All I needed to buy for my daughter was a crib, which she didn’t use until 4 months. If you coslept you wouldn’t need that. You can exclusively breastfeed 6 months or more, and after that they eat very little (and it doesn’t need to come in glass gerber jars). Now my one-year-old can sometimes eat as much as a grown man, but I’ve never truly needed to buy clothes for my kids or toys.
0 likes
BTW I will be calling the agency for more info today.
0 likes
The sibling group we were considering has been placed already with another family.
0 likes
So sorry to hear that that particular family is not available to your family – but another set of children surely needs assistance! God has a plan for you and your family – and it’ll all be ok in the end. I am sure that you are sad over this – and God will see you through. Thinking of you and praying for you.
0 likes
Thank you. Not quite sure how to feel–appreciate your prayers. :)
0 likes
;)
0 likes
Hi All
I have enjoyed the debate. I am a big TOB fan and convert. One of the issues with theology of the body is to realise that we have all been hurt or lied to and that being open to the truth is difficult especially when we have been raised to believe in a certain value or virtue that subsequently gets questioned and rejected as false. This is probably why the first and greatest commandment is to love God before all else as only He can truely bring us fulfilment.
God is a communion of everlasting love – Father Son and Holy Spirit. He created us in his image – so we have that impression “stamped” into our bodies as the above article attests to. When we look at God’s incredible love for us we see Jesus whose love for us can be summed up in the following words – free, total, faithful and life giving. He gave His life freely for us, He gave Himself totally for us even unto death on the cross, He is always faithful (I will be with you always) and He gives us life. It is no co-incidence that our wedding covenant (vows) contain these 4 self same concepts – That as husband and wife, together with God we give ourselves freely without impediment, totally (body and soul), faithfully (till death do us part) in a life giving relationship that is open to children should God wish it, to each other. Through marriage we enter into a trinitarian life long communion of love with God as husband and wife. Each time we enter into the marital embrace we renew our marriage covenant / vows.
Now for a simple question – how strong will our marriages be if we are unfaithful to our wedding covenant?
Would marriage last if one or both partners was regularly unfaithful?
How do you respond to the statement – Surely our marriage vows can’t mean that each and every act of sexual intercourse must be with my spouse – come on!! If it causes you to flinch thats not surprising. Now ponder the following statement – Surely our marriage vows can’t mean that God must be present at each and every act of sexual intercourse? Don’t be ridiculous we don’t want 50 kids!!
If you can see the failure of logic vs our marriage vows in the first case its not difficult to follow it to the second statement. When we contracept we tell God we don’t want Him in our bedroom – we deny Him the right to give us the gift of a child if He wishes it. Do the maths – God = love … take God out of the equation and you get…. Sex - God = Lust.
I struggled long and hard with this and finally got it. A journalist scoffed after one of Pope John Paul II’s wednesday sessions …. If a man can’t lust after his wife who the hell can he lust after!! Clearly he didn’t have the vaguest idea …. in short he can’t lust after anyone! When we lust we after someone we objectify the person and seek our own gratification. Contraception teaches us precisely that sex is for pleasure … pleasure anywhere anytime ….. self discipline is not an issue because the use of contraception means that the gift of life from God is denied.
Can it possibly be that the difference in lifestyle between contracepting couples and those practicing natural family planning is the difference in divorce rate of 50 to 60% and 2 to 3 % respectively? TOB taught me about chasity in marriage and I cried when I begged forgiveness from my wife for having used her for my gratification – I didn’t know what is was doing – but that didn’t make it right. Now I’m working hard at being a better and more loving husband. Our love life is a renewal of our marriage vows and God is present each time. Go back to my old ways …. not if I can help it.
0 likes
Not sure I get all of what you’re saying, David. I know if I were not married, lust would be a major problem for me, but since I am, I am able to channel that into a healthy desire for my husband. Why is it that if we used birth control, it would be “lust,” but since we don’t, it’s something else?
0 likes
ycw, I think that it’s a semantic issue. “Lust” is often used to talk about not just sexual desire, but about PURELY sexual desire, ie at the expense of valuing the non-sexual aspects of the person you are desiring. I know that I would feel objectified if my partner lusted after me in that sense – if he simply forgot (or chose to ignore) every bit of “me” that wasn’t certain key aspects of my body. It’s the “me” and “him” that make our relationship so great - every aspect of it! - and if he were to disregard (even temporarily) the sum total of who I am as a person, it would feel like he was saying to me, “You can go for now, but your body can stay.”
Channeling that semantic understanding of lust as pure sexual desire into a healthy desire for a spouse means it’s not lust anymore – it’s a complete and total love and desire for a person – thus lust would be considered a perversion of what sex is meant to be: taking something that is meant to be part of a whole, and making it the whole. That’s how I see it, anyway. I don’t think that David means lust to mean “strong sexual desire,” but “reduction of the object of your desire to nothing but that.”
0 likes
Thanks Alexandra you put that beautifully.
John Paul II says that the opposite of love is not hate but lust. Lust is when we use someone for our own gratification be it for sex or any other reason because we deprive that person of their God given dignity.
Ladies, you especially, know when someone has used you – be it before or in marriage – as a man I beg you to forgive us as many have not heard the beauty of God’s love and have crossed the line sometimes with intent and sometimes not. Such actions have deprived / denied women of their dignity, beauty, soul and mind and treat them purely as a body to be used and discarded (another conquest if you will)
Sex (the act) is a beautiful gift from God, it is an appetite that we all have. Like any other appetite we can use it to God’s glory or abuse it. There is a very fine line that we can honour or cross at any time – when sex is about me, my needs my pleasure etc the chances are that we are allowing lust to take control. When its about willing the good of one’s beloved as God would – the beloved becomes the focus and our actions are directed at his or her good. Willing the good of the other takes discipline, love, respect at all times and is not switched on and off like a light bulb especially with regard to a woman and her body.
In the old testament the Ark of the Covenant was that box that the Israelites carried the word of God in (the ten commandments) If you as a layperson touched the box you got fried / struck down dead. The Ark of the New Covenant was the womb of our blessed Mother Mary – she carried Christ in her – she brought new life into the world. The womb of each woman is a special place (sacred if you wish) as only a woman can bring forth new life. To do this men and woman are complimentary beings – different brains different bodies etc that fit together. The functioning of a woman’s body is fascinating for example if she is stressed, worried, unhappy etc her body will delay ovulation. Its her body speaking the reality of her condition (spiritual,mental and physical). A couple using natural family planning will pick this up and the husband out of concern and love for his wife will communicate with her to resolve the issue (i.e. will her good). In this situation the couple work with God and how He created us – understanding the dignity, complexity and beauty of our bodies and souls. Its not easy but certainly the rewards are wonderful for the couple in constantly growing in “becoming one”.
A couple using contraception wont even be aware of the situation because they don’t monitor it and will look to their standard of sex anywhere anytime even though this may cause the wife more stress or call “headache”. Such a couple instead of co-operating with God and how he designed our bodies says through contraception – God its ok we don’t want you here with us now … we know better … we don’t want to renew our marriage vows at this time as we will not be giving ourselves totally to each other we are holding back our fertility.
Having been in both places I can only strongly recommend the first and say the other, contraception, is a sad and distant second.
0 likes
I don’t use contraception, nor will I. Just wasn’t quite sure on your meaning of lust.
0 likes
young christian woman – you rock! Walk tall
0 likes
Very nice discussion of Theology of the Body and contraception & NFP. Great stuff, for sure!
0 likes