Feast of the Immaculate Conception

[KrazyHorse]

If this quote is from Ben Kenobi:

All the Catholic church is saying is that sex with a rubber is less satisfying then sex without. I really don't see why people find this a HARD teaching. Get married have sex with the wife and nobody else. That one I can see. Contraception? What's the point of it?

a) AFAIK you are a virgin, Ben. So your descriptions of what is sexually pleasurable and what is not is pretty laughable.

b) This is the most ridiculous interpretation of Church teaching on contraception I have ever seen. I would suggest that you speak to your priest. Or at least read Humanae Vitae

[KrazyHorse]

But it's the message of insisting on the perpetual virginity of Mary in order for her to maintain her holy sinless veneer that's the issue.

It is not official teaching that Mary needed to remain sexless in order to avoid sin.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Or at least read Humanae Vitae

Have you read Humanae Vitae ?

[KrazyHorse]

While this may have been the context in which the belief grew up (during the mid to late Middle Ages) it is not the theological justification for Mary's continued virginity.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by CrONoS


Have you read Humanae Vitae ?

Not in Latin. But in grade 11 at Loyola High School (in Montreal) we read and discussed it as part of the course "Love and Human Sexuality".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It is so contraception. By definition, contraception is a method of avoiding conception while still having sexual intercourse. And when combined with body temperature or vaginal viscosity measurements it is quite effective (not as effective as more direct methods, but still quite effective).

I've always heard it referred to as a birth control method, not contraception, as the latter term implies actual blockage of the conception via some sort of device, such as condom, or birth control medication, etc. But it's not a huge point.

It takes 6 months of abstinence for the woman to first begin to get an accurate chart, it seems. In the meantime, no joy joy for her or her husband. Even then, unless handled asbsolutely perfectly, failure rates can be as high as 25%?

And why is that orgasm outside of vaginal intercourse is bad to Catholics? Manual and oral sex are no-nos, even for married couples. That precludes coitus interruptus as a method, too, I guess.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Not in Latin. But in grade 11 at Loyola High School (in Montreal) we read and discussed it as part of the course "Love and Human Sexuality".

Oh now I understand. Seems to be a great school BTW

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
While this may have been the context in which the belief grew up (during the mid to late Middle Ages) it is not the theological justification for Mary's continued virginity.

Hmm, if so that must indeed be after-the-fact justification, because the arguments back in old times about this from both opponents and proponents of the doctrine are focusing on Mary remaining "pure" or "undefiled" or things like that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

But another book, "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", presents Jesus as speaking, at the death of Joseph, of Mary as "my mother, virgin undefiled".

...

the unorthodox monk Jovinian (who died in about 405), who denied that virginity as such was a higher state than marriage, and that abstinence as such was better than thankful eating, also denied the perpetual virginity of Mary and was condemned by synods at Rome and Milan

...

[Protestants, but displays contemporary thinking on the matter]

Huldrych Zwingli wrote: "I firmly believe that [Mary], according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." [32]

...

John Wesley wrote: "I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."[34]

[KrazyHorse]

Again, I do not dispute that many of the older writings surrounding the issue make sexuality seem inherently sinful. But the Magisterium of the Church never explicitly stated that.

[Boris Godunov]

What's its take?

[Ben Kenobi]

But making childbirth painful hardly seems a curse on "man," now does it? The women are the ones who get the brunt of that particular curse.

Man = Mankind

Men = of the male sex.

I was referring only to the curse on eve, not the curse on adam, which is rather irrelevant to our discussion.

The Catholic Church is telling married couples that they can't use condoms because it means their sex would be less pleasurable?? Are you joking?

Yes, that's part of it. The Catholic church teaches that contraception breaks the unitive and the procreative aspect together, and that the use of contraception erects a barrier between a husband and wife, such that they are no longer sharing each other fully.

Their union is not two becoming one, but two remaining apart. The teaching is also that the greatest pleasure is the union of a man and a woman in marriage together, without all this contraception nonsense.

The point of contraception for a married couple is obvious: they don't want to have so many kids that it bankrupts them, or ends up killing the mother.

Is it? No, the point of it is because it is birth 'control'. They are afraid of surrendering themselves to each other. It's not a coincidence that the term is phrased in that manner.

The Catholic Church forbids any type of contraception whatsoever, even for a married couple. Given that prohibition, the logical conclusion is that the Catholic Church views intercourse for recreational purposes negatively.

No, the logical part is that the church teaches that the greatest pleasure is found in sex between a man and woman in marriage without contraception, and that the use of contraception results in less pleasure, not greater.

But the necessity of Mary remaining a Virgin after the birth of Jesus is still unanswered. If having sex within marriage is A-OK, then why does it even matter to Catholics if Mary had kids with Joseph after Jesus was born? She was his wife, after all, not God's.

It doesn't, as I said earlier, it's simply a historical fact. The only ones who ever bring it up are Protestants seeking to lay on this trope.

[Ben Kenobi]

a) AFAIK you are a virgin, Ben. So your descriptions of what is sexually pleasurable and what is not is pretty laughable.

b) This is the most ridiculous interpretation of Church teaching on contraception I have ever seen. I would suggest that you speak to your priest. Or at least read Humanae Vitae

First off, my priest is a virgin also, so either the first or the second has to go.

As for Humanae Vitae, he explicitly says that there is more pleasure in sex without contraception. I'm rather surprised that you are going in this direction. Why would you think I haven't read Humanae Vitae?

[Boris Godunov]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, that's part of it. The Catholic church teaches that contraception breaks the unitive and the procreative aspect together, and that the use of contraception erects a barrier between a husband and wife, such that they are no longer sharing each other fully.

How is it breaking the unitive act, unless you mean they are removing the chances of procreating? That still goes back to the idea that recreational sex = wrong.

Their union is not two becoming one, but two remaining apart. The teaching is also that the greatest pleasure is the union of a man and a woman in marriage together, without all this contraception nonsense.

Contraception doesn't break up this union, unless you mean "union" to be referring to procreative protential.

Is it? No, the point of it is because it is birth 'control'. They are afraid of surrendering themselves to each other. It's not a coincidence that the term is phrased in that manner.

So men and women don't use birth control to prevent conceiving children, but rather to control their "surrender" to one another? Ludicrous.

Look, the only reason birth control or contraception or whatever you want to call it exists is to prevent pregnancy, and the reason married couples would use it is to avoid the burden of having too many kids to care for.

No, the logical part is that the church teaches that the greatest pleasure is found in sex between a man and woman in marriage without contraception, and that the use of contraception results in less pleasure, not greater.

Contraception does not necessarily result in less pleasure. It depends on the method. If the woman is on the pill, the physical pleasure is the same.

Have you ever used contraception, BK? Or have the Catholic luminaries who devised such a silly idea?

It doesn't, as I said earlier, it's simply a historical fact. The only ones who ever bring it up are Protestants seeking to lay on this trope.

It's a historical fact? How so? If I take the Bible literally, it says quite clearly Jesus had brothers. There are no historical "facts" behind the perpetual virginity of Mary, only dogma contrived well after the "fact."

[Ben Kenobi]

It takes 6 months of abstinence for the woman to first begin to get an accurate chart, it seems. In the meantime, no joy joy for her or her husband. Even then, unless handled asbsolutely perfectly, failure rates can be as high as 25%?

Any Catholic who is interested in Natural Family Planning, most use the Billings method.

http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/index.html

I can't understand why people keep bringing up the rhythm method. Cervical mucus is far more accurate then temperature, which is why the new method has supplanted the old one.

It doesn't take 6 months to get an accurate chart. I don't know where you are getting that information from. It's not anywhere in Billings, the only cite I can see it from is a site that has no references.

And why is that orgasm outside of vaginal intercourse is bad to Catholics? Manual and oral sex are no-nos, even for married couples. That precludes coitus interruptus as a method, too, I guess.

Again, the idea goes back to the union of the man and a woman together.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

a) AFAIK you are a virgin, Ben. So your descriptions of what is sexually pleasurable and what is not is pretty laughable.

b) This is the most ridiculous interpretation of Church teaching on contraception I have ever seen. I would suggest that you speak to your priest. Or at least read Humanae Vitae

First off, my priest is a virgin also, so either the first or the second has to go.

As for Humanae Vitae, he explicitly says that there is more pleasure in sex without contraception. I'm rather surprised that you are going in this direction. Why would you think I haven't read Humanae Vitae?

What are "his" credentials for saying such a thing? Personal experience? Or wishful thinking?