Posted on 11/13/2011 12:39:39 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
Interesting point of view. Imho you are correct about the linkage.
" First, you are validating H. L. Mencken’s observation that the Roman pope countenances birth control by means of mathematics, but not by means of physics or chemistry."
LOL! That's like faulting the Olympic medical committee for “countenancing” athletic achievement via diet and exercise, but not via methamphetamines, anabolic steroids, and bionic implants. The Olympic committee properly insists upon and respects athletes demonstrating the power and the limits of what the natural body can do, without being re-engineered by physics and chemistry.
Analogously, a respectful attitude toward the goodness of natural sex --- and that means the sexual goodness of a whole man and a whole woman --- HAS to be at the heart of good sexual love.
So that quote, Belteshazzar, only demonstrates that Mencken doesn't even know what contraception IS. It's the rejection of a woman as she is, and her replacement with a woman--- even the same woman --- stripped of her normal sexual functions.
Sincere marital love includes a healthy and grateful embrace of the loving wife as she is. Thus, if you choose sexual intercourse when you are naturally fertile, you know it's possible to get pregnant, thanks be to God. And if you choose sexual intercourse when you're naturally infertile (about 23 days out of every 29) you know it's NOT possible to get pregnant, AGAIN thanks be to God. Both ways, you are respecting the God-blessed design of your wife, and therefore the actual sexual nature of your spouse: not expecting her to be spayed, sprayed, sterilized, fractionated or fixed.
Whole women, as you know, are persons who are fertile and infertile on a periodic basis: who, according to her own inner design, can be expected to menstruate, ovulate, conceive, gestate, and lactate. It's how we're made. A man who makes love to a woman, loves that she is a woman. Know what I mean?
But contrariwise, contraception means that you regard her whole sexual nature as an aggravating complication. You’d rather be rid of it. A man who wants a contracepted wife might as well say that what he really wants, this time, is a tranny wife: one who seems outwardly, but does not function inwardly as a female, but as a male with an artificial vagina and tits.
I would tell Mr. Mencken that NFP is based, not on the sanctity of math, but on the sanctity of women.
"I have, as a Christian, always found his critique valid, even though he made it as an atheist. He has a point."
No, he doesn't have a point: he has a huge, almost an infinitely huge, blind spot. Not only doesn't he see the sanctity of God, he can't even see the sanctity of the sexes, the sanctity of man and woman ("male and female He created them”) in the image of God.
And --- though I can't document this --- I wouldn't be surprised if Mencken saw no problem with gay sex, either. Since he believes in neutering the sexual functions of women, he's already 90% there.
"Second, by arguing as you do, you have invalidated the central - and only logically consistent - argument against contraception. Thereafter all is debate about the how and not the what."
This shows a common misunderstanding about “how” and “what” (and even “why”), which I think I can help correct.
The "what" of contraception is not all about "not getting pregnant." In my teen years I did not get pregnant. I did not do it by practicing contracepted sex acts: abstinence is not contraception. Since you are a Christian, I think you would agree that for me as a teenager, nonpregnancy via abstinence is morally different from nonpregnancy via diligent use of spermicidal foams, jellies, jam, plugs, sprays and rubbers. A young girl may well choose abstinence rather than assent to contracepted sex, because she respects the sanctity of her own body.
You can see that, can’t you?
Just as a girl can legitimately postpone pregnancy until she is married and ready, a married woman can postpone pregnancy until she and her husband are ready. It can be just as legitimate to postpone pregnancy when you’re married, as when you’re unmarried. There may be grave reasons to do so: health problems, a financial crisis, the need to dedicate time, energy and care to other family members. And in this case, too, if a woman respects her own sanctity, she will avoid pregnancy by making grateful use of the wisdom of her own body: abstaining a little (~six days out of 29) for the sake of the common good of her whole family.
So there is no fault in avoiding pregnancy for the common good.
That’s not what’s wrong with contraception per se, What’s wrong with contraception per se is that it always involves turning the sex act itself against procreation. Which is what it has in common with anal sex, ejaculating into a baggie, or any other perversion. That’s what the word perversion means: PER (away from) VERSION (turning). All the perversions are sexual acts turned away from their own nature.
There may be a second fault, too: contraception may exhibit selfishness because the couple is avoiding children for mere convenience That is, if they are avoiding childbearing for child-rejecting lifestyle preferences and not for serious medical, economic, or familial reasons.
If NFP, even, is used from selfish motivations, it is morally objectionable for that one reason: selfish child-rejection. If contraception is used from selfish motivations, it is morally objectionable for two reasons: child-rejection, and the perversion of natural sex.
I am delighted by your and your brother’s child-rich families. I am glad you told me about that, because it makes me beam at you (can you detect that through the computer monitor?) L’Chaim!
The causes of today’s horrible sexual mores are complex. One of the biggies is the shrinking of our awareness of the sanctity of natural sexual union.
Have a good day, my FRiend!
Mrs. Don-o, I appreciate also your civility; and I agree it is a quality often missing on FR religion threads ... sadly.
First, in regard to the Olympic athlete example, I don’t accept your analogy. I don’t think it is reflective of the situation. It is clever, to be sure, but it is not analogous. Besides which, saying that I don’t agree with your view of contraception does not mean that I consider all forms of contraception good and harmless. There are some which clearly involve elevated risk to the health either of the woman or the man, and some which involve surgical alteration of the body, either his or hers, and some which involve destruction of the fertilized ovum. The first category is unwise, the second is something that ought to be undertaken only for the most grave (and I would think quite rare) medical/health reasons, and the third is to be avoided altogether, for it is something about which God’s word is clear and unambiguous, i.e., the fifth commandment.
Second, you make the mistake of taking my approval of Mencken’s single point as approval of Mencken elsewhere. To which - here’s my analogy - I would say that just because I agree with Balaam’s donkey on one point, as Balaam himself finally did also, does not mean I seek his counsel on anything else.
Third, when it comes to sex and its inherent goodness - something on which we agree - that remains true only when it takes place within the context God clearly set for it, that is, marriage. That being said, abstinence outside of marriage is a given; it is a keeping of the sixth commandment. Abstinence within marriage is something entirely different and, further, is not to be the norm but the exception. (1 Corinthians 7) The reasons for the exception do not relate directly to pregnancy and child-bearing, but devotion to God, and is to be mutually, sincerely agreed upon.
Finally, I know that the expression “sanctity of marriage” is a common one, but it is really only a loosely applied one. Marriage is not sacred in the sense that it is something set aside as God’s preserve to be used for our salvation. In this, I am sure, we will disagree, since the Roman Catholic church teaches that marriage is one of seven sacraments, whereas Lutherans reject on Scriptural grounds the inclusion of marriage as a sacrament.
Marriage is instituted and commanded by God for all, except those He Himself explicitly identifies as being outside of the command. (again, 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19:11-12) Marriage is, furthermore, an enormous blessing to all of humanity individually and human society collectively. It is an institution whose corruption and neglect will become apparent over time as the blessings which ordinarily would flow from its honoring by all to all diminish and so impoverish society and individuals. This is very much the case in our own nation today as marriage, its institution and its Instituter increasingly are scorned and neglected. But marriage is, finally, an earthly institution, whose blessings are temporal and not eternal. It is not a sacrament.
Again, I do very much appreciate the tone and intent of this discussion, for which you are to be commended. God’s blessings to you and yours.
Interestingly, when I read the Family Foundations magazine of the Couple to Couple League (which teaches NFP in a Catholic Church-approved approach), the families in the articles and letters often say that they started out taking the NFP class and doing the process in a sort of “Catholic contraception” spirit, but moved beyond that mentality as their trust in God and each other grew. There are families in it who have large numbers of children, including the current president of CCL, who I think has about nine. Also, some people learn NFP in order to use it backwards, to maximize their chances of conceiving a child.
I'm no sure what you mean by this.
We may have a terminology problem. Contraception is, to speak exactly, an act which turns intercourse away from its procreative possibilities. Contra (against) ception (conception.)
Abstinence does not involve a sex act of any sort. Therefore abstinence is not cotnraception.
To put it plainly: abstaining from intercourse, whether permanently (e.g. for celibates), OR for a very limited and temporary reason (e.g. for married people who may be ill, in hospital, separated geographically, or abstaining a few days a month to avoid pregnancy) is not contraception.
If it were the same thing, you'd have to say all our teens who are not having sex are "practicing contraception" --- which they are not.
But perhaps you had some other meaning in mind?
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Maybe I need more coffee? I didn't say anything about hyporcrisy, nor did I say anthing about murder, nor did I say anything about Muslims or Islam. So I don't understand what this comment is referring to.
Did you possibly post it on the wrong thread?
(Puzzled, thud-headed look on face.)
I meant that the mentality of using NFP for avoiding pregnancy.
"It's very hard to condemn a homosexual sex act (which is turned away from its natural function), if you're already committed to a contracepted sex act (which is turned away from its natural function.) "
The clear implication is that "hypocrisy" would make it hard.
What you are doing is failing to notice that although "turning away from natural function" is a broad category, that does make subcategories, e.g. contracepted sex the same as homosexual sex, nor would anyone imagine them to be the same thing.
It's like this ~ there are a dozen men over there ~ 6 are tall and 6 are short, which means tall means short.
You'll notice I'm not on either side in the contraception issue in your broader question of how it is Catholics and Protestants end up with different positions.
On the other hand, I don't think the reason for this starts with the Reformation/Counter Reformation period ~ instead, it starts with the discovery of the mammalian sperm and egg system and that is so recent we continue to have dramatic problems with the implications. In fact, we don't even know all the implications. Homosexuals, in fact, want us to believe those elements have nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
Another problem of similar nature has to do with the way we identify our relatives and friends. It seems to be built into us. Yet, expressed a different way it's how we exclude "others".
Obviously taking control of our sexuality so that it does not lead us to harm ourselves or others is the morally correct path, and the same for how we identify friends, family and others ~ we should do that in ways that benefit us all.
Those paths are hard for all, and incredibly difficult for some.
I've decided to pursue my research into St Martin of Tours as well as St Gildas ~ they are very early Saints ~ both reduced the complexity of their lives to one sheet of cloth, some sandals, prayer and a "chapel" ~ while doing good for others. The early Fathers of the Church viewed such lives favorably.
Oh, OK. You mean for not grave reasons, e.g. financial crisis, mother’s health, stuff like that.
As I understand it, if you don't even have a standard that an act of intercourse ought to be natural --- meaning, man/woman, in the procreative form --- then there's no basis for being against contracepted sex, homosexual sex, heterosexual up the anus, down the throat, or anything else, barring (possibly) coercion.
Such a position is in grave moral error, but I never said it was hypocritical. It's not hypocrisy, if you don't even claim to be affirming natural sex and natural marriage.
I heartily agree with you that sexual virtue is "hard for all, and incredibly difficult for some." There were periods in my life when it just just daily, head-banging suffering. (Not now! But a period of crisis in my life, 25 years ago.) Nor do I think my experience is unusual. In fact, I think it is our common human lot, at some point in your life anyway.
That's why we have to say "Lord, have mercy" on such a regular basis.
Saints of God, pray for us!
Yep. Sorry for the other quick post.
It is being used by people wanting to limit births for trivial reasons. Further more it is being taught as “Catholic Birth Control” in many pre Cana settings.
I think you are forgetting an important psychological facts: if any means are countenanced, then the ends are changed. Fact is that devises such as the condom were created for the use of whores, and no whore wants to get pregnant, because she is not having sex for that purpose., for from her point of few, a pregnancy is an evil in itself.
So, RobbyS, are you telling me that abstinence from sex for five or six days a month within marriage is not changing the ends, i.e., procreation? What kind of mental gymnastics is this?
Secondly, are you also saying that anything invented for an evil purpose - and I haven’t seen the proof of that which you assert regarding the invention of condoms, and don’t have sufficient interest to find out - cannot henceforth be used without sin?
There is some muddled thinking here.
Sin concerns unbelief in, distrust of, neglect of, disregard toward or defiance of, God and His will for us. The means used for sin is immaterial. To assert otherwise is to enter into pharisaical hairsplitting from which no one will emerge unscathed.
A complication is caused by the modern attitude toward sexual abstention, which so many people now regard as "unnatural." Add to that the fear of pregnancy. All this can complicate an emotional relationship between a man and a woman at all times and places. You will agree that when a man goes to a whore, he is not looking for love but gratification. It can be that in a marriage, a man can come to look upon his wife as a whore, even if we don't consider the question of possible progeny. That's the danger of NFP. You can end up with what the pope called the contraceptive mentality even if you don't use birth control devises.
The modern condom was invented in the 19th century as a result of the growing concern of society of the fate of whores. Always they had had a short life, but the humanitarian movement now took an interest in their fate. Prime Minister Gladstone, a famous evangelical, took a great personal interest in the fate of London whores. Their life was pretty miserable as we know from reading about the victims of Jack the Ripper.
In America, it was much the same. A famous New York madam was put on trial for murder after a beautiful young whore was found in a chest in the river, dead and pregnant. The New York Times began a crusade against prostitution, fueled by the frequency of similar fates for young poor girls. Dead in childbirth. The sheepskin condom was developed to reduce the pregnancy rate of whores, and in well kept brothels the clients were forced to use them or lose their privileges.
The market for this grew especially during the "gay nineties" and even was taken up by family men as time wore on. But if one freely uses contraceptives, one has obviously stepped over that line.The pill of course, completely changed the situation. The pragmatic argument for virginity away. As does the need to get a license to have sex with a woman freely--well as much as she will tolerate. T
RobbyS wrote:
“A complication is caused by the modern attitude toward sexual abstention, which so many people now regard as ‘unnatural.’”
Unnatural? What do you mean? Abnormal? What is your point? How is the modern attitude different than the older one? On what basis do you assert that? Has the nature of man somehow changed in the last few years? You are not advancing a clear argument.
As for the history of prostitution and condoms, I find it immaterial to the point at issue.
Lastly, I find your final paragraph incoherent ... literally, incoherent.
I am not looking for a fight, but you need to work on staying with the point and expressing yourself clearly.
Unnatural means unnatural. Try a dictionary sometimes. As to the modern attitude, has it ever occured to you that there is an underlying reason for the great changes in sexual morality during the past century, especially since the sexual revolution? The modern attitude is indeed different because it assumes that man is basically just a clever ape. That he is being true to his nature only when he is doing what he feels like doing, that the old sexual morality was repressive of his true self.
RobbyS wrote:
“has it ever occured to you that there is an underlying reason for the great changes in sexual morality during the past century, especially since the sexual revolution?”
Has it ever occurred to you that man has been here before in history and done these sorts of thing before? History didn’t begin in your lifetime, as Rush likes to remind his listeners from time to time. “That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it can be said, ‘See, this is new’? It has already been in ancient times before us.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)
We just happen to be living through one of those worse than average times. Sadly, man is being true to his nature when he does these sorts of things ... which is part of what I am trying to point out to you.
I’ll say it again, the problem is not with the new technology of deviancy, the problem lies within fallen and corrupt man himself. But I sense that that is not something you really had in mind to talk about.
We are probably not nearly as far apart as you think. However, I am not nearly as interested in discussing the details of Roman Catholic approved practice as I am in discussing the marriage, family, and human relations under God’s moral law and, how the gospel is in the end the only efficacious solution to the problem of sin and evil in man.
Roman Catholic practice was the practice of all Christian bodies until 1931. Except the matter of matrimony which under the Protestant disposition was reduced from the level of a sacrament to a contract between persons, the sexual morality of Catholics and Protestant was the same. That morality underlay the laws defining and protecting the institution of marriage. The present attacks on that institution have come about because our elites have largely abandoned that morality in favor of one that recognizes few sexual vices, or actually applauds them as an exercise of human liberty. Man has indeed fallen, but many seem happy with this condition, which puts them lower than the beasts, who follow the dictates of nature.
Pro-Life bump
Great find, Mrs. Don-o.
A Blessed Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.