DescentBB

If you're having protected sex with an infected partner, plan on getting a piece of it. Even if the statitistics are in your favor, that's the attitude you should have. I read once that the AIDs virus is smaller than the pores in a condom. With all of that said, are there many mixed couples (one has aids/std the other doesn't) with healthy sex lives? I would think nothing spoils the mood faster than a gonorreah-infested vagina.

BigSlideHimself wrote:With all of that said, are there many mixed couples (one has aids/std the other doesn't) with healthy sex lives? I would think nothing spoils the mood faster than a gonorreah-infested vagina.

I think Magic Johnson has aids, but don't know if he transmitted it to his wife.

Nice post, Drakona.

And as for mobius and zuruck, whose names I will not dignify with capital letters, the word catholic simply means "universal". If you capitalize it or not, you're still saying the same thing.

Though Church refers to the institution and church refers to the building. Not like Mobius or Zuruck will care because they have the reflex reaction of "omg religion bad!!!"

Thanks... though I'd really been meaning to get back to this thread for a while, because something Top Gun said bothered me.

Top Gun wrote: What I meant when I made the statement about "treating sex" in different ways was that, in my mind at least, and according to the Church, there's a difference between NFP and other means of controlling pregnancy. Let me phrase it this way: obviously, when you're taking the Pill or using a condom or IUD or diaphragm or even using the withdrawl method, your entire intent is to make it impossible for the sperm and egg to unite, or at least to prevent that fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. (This is where the term "abortifacient" comes in, since the Church teaches that the fertilized egg represents human life.) However, when talking about something such as NFP, you're literally leaving it in God's hands. You're attempting to have sex at the times least conducive to pregnancy, but if there's an egg present at that time, you have a good chance at it.

As the irreverent joke goes, no method of birth control protects against divine intervention--not even abstinence. The point's a serious one, though--every method comes with some chance of failure. It is not as though condoms are safer than NFP (in fact, I think the opposite is true.) If NFP seems more like leaving things up to God than other methods, it is only because we understand better how those methods work--that is, we can understand how a sheet of latex can keep sperm and eggs apart; we don't understand so intuitively how the female body works, and why the signals that indicate ovulation do so reliably.

It is a tiny point, but one I felt the need to comment on, not really for the sake of birth control, but for the sake of the larger theological issue. Some people feel that by not taking certain precautions they are leaving things up to God--as though God ruled only in the chance happenings of life. The famous reformer John Wesley took this to an extreme: when he wanted to know God's will in a certain decision, he would write down the various options as he saw them on slips of paper, and draw them out of a hat. Others have taken that philosophy to less extreme ends--one lady on another forum I visit believed that the only righteous form of birth control was no birth control (not NFP, no birth control). She felt that God would give them children as he desired, and they would not interfere. The good biship in Les Miserables has this idea, too: he didn't lock the door on his house, and invited in anyone who knocked, trusting God to protect him. At one point in the story he invites in a criminal who steals from him and nearly decides to murder him--something he takes in stride as part of divine providence.

I say this is an issue on which to tread lightly. On the one hand, it does take faith to draw lots from a hat, use no birth control, and not lock your door. It exhibits a marvellous trust in God to do those things, and if he has given you a promise that if you trust him in those ways he will take care of you, then that can be an act of faith for you. BUT... you shouldn't go claiming promises that God hasn't made. You shouldn't assume "if I drive down the street wearing a blindfold, God will protect me." If he asks you to do that, that's all well and good--but what if he hasn't asked you to do that? Did he promise to protect you if you did that, or is that just you being foolish? Have faith in God, but don't claim promises he hasn't made to you. (At least, that's my take on it...)

I know I'm probably not ever going to see eye to eye with Catholics on birth control in particular and sexual ethics in general (and doctrine much more in general). That's okay. I'm all for arguing strenuously about it in the mean time.

It comes down to a difference in understanding of what sex is for, and what it can morally be used for. I say sex is for mutual enjoyment, intimacy, and the expression of love--even more than it's for procreation. I base that mostly on the experience of a couple years of marriage, and books that I read, the advice of people in marriages that I admire, things of that nature. And also my own experience--it has never seemed to me that sex acts that can result in pregnancy are different from those that cannot in any essential way. They are just as holy, as loving, as sexual and whole as any other.

My real beef with NFP--and especially with the Catholic version of it--is that I think it's both morally wrong and spiritually sinful to deprive your spouse of sex (I can back that up more if you like--I get it from 1 Cor. 7). Not that you can't ever say you don't want to, but... people have sexual needs, and marriage is intended to meet those. NFP where you can do non-intercourse things during the fertile times might be all right, but where you can't... that seems like an awfully heavy burden to me. Especially since in an ideal month the fertile time is about a week, and often it's two weeks or even longer. That seems to me like an unreasonably long period of time to be sexually inactive, especially since it's monthly. I don't think that's how marriage should be, at all--it should be sexually intimate, not sexually separate. That is really what I dislike about the Catholic position. A requirement to practice NFP seems odd but workable--but together with other restrictions, it seems like an awfully heavy burden, and a recipe for unnatural marriages.

I know I won't convince Catholics of that, though, and that's all right. From my perspective, you're better off doing what you think is right--even if you're not quite sure why--than being convinced by someone else to do something you think is wrong. Still, I feel like I have to say something. Sex and marriage are subjects that are very important to me, and I hate to see people doing silly things.

That's fair, Drakona. I know I'll never agree with your position, either, but it's nice to have a calm, level-headed discussion about it, anyway. One thing that you posted struck me, however. You said that NFP without any other non-intercourse methods of interaction could produce an "unnatural" marriage. However, from all the testimony I've read from people who used it, their marriages seem anything but unnatural. This ties in with the whole "creating closeness" theme I mentioned. I'm not saying that NFP alone promotes greater communication and personal interaction between spouses; I'm just saying that it happens to.

Another point you raised, about NFP being "spiritually sinful" because it deprives both spouses of sexual intimacy, is another thing I wanted to discuss. This is a point I disagree with you on, as I've said before. I will admit this freely: NFP does entail some form of sacrifice by both husband and wife. In order to not become pregnant, they are depriving themselves from having intercourse during a certain period of each month, however long it may be. However, during this time, they can find ways to express their love to each other in non-sexual methods, both physical and verbal. Besides, the anticipation of the time when they will be able to have sex can make that first night "back" all the more fulfilling.

Once again, this whole issue has a larger tie-in, which goes along with the issue of the importance of procreation in marriage. You yourself place less importance on it than both I and the Catholic Church do. There's nothing wrong with this; it's just a difference of opinion. However, seeing one of the fundamental purposes of sexual intercourse as having children helps put the practice of NFP in a new light. Since the Church teaches sex fundamentally includes both intimacy and procreation, each and every sexual act must be open to the creation of new life. This is the light in which NFP differs from other methods of birth control; although it minimizes the chances of pregnancy, it still is open to it, without placing any barriers or hindrances toward it other than the time of month. A lot of this goes on beliefs, and I know you won't agree with me, but I hope this helps clear up my position a little bit.

To wrap things up, the Catholic Church sees children as the ultimate expression of love between two parents, and a couple that has children is seen as being very blessed. This is where you get the idea of the stereotypical large Catholic family. I think another post earlier in this thread, or perhaps one in the forum you linked to, mentioned that many Protestants would turn to the parents of seven or eight children and say something along the lines of, "You know, you could have prevented things from going so far." However, such large families are common within Catholicism; I know a few families in our local parish with seven or eight children. My point is, the Catholic understanding of sex fundamentally includes having children; in fact, openness to having children is a question asked in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Although this isn't backed up by any facts, I'd be willing to say that most Catholic couples have sex almost nightly for some time after they are married; as a result, many Catholic children are born around or shortly after that magical nine-month date from the wedding. I myself was born about a year after my parents were married. While the Church doesn't want a couple to turn into rabbits, churning out children, it also highly promotes the idea that each sexual act be open to the possibility of another child, thus the large family size. Seen in this context, NFP is not so much a form of birth control as a conscious decision by a couple to try to space out pregnancies, for financial/social/other reasons. This, at least in my opinion, is a fundamental difference between NFP and other forms of birth control: NFP almost implies that the couple will be pregant in the future, while the use of condoms or the Pill does not have that same implication. NFP is a means of delaying pregnancy, not an attempt to prevent it entirely.

I hope you found this post somewhat useful at understanding where I'm coming from. I'm also sorry that I didn't answer some of the points you and Lothar raised earlier; I tried to sit down and write down a lenghty response, but I kept being interrupted, and eventually I came to the point where my flow of thoughts had dried up. So if there are any specific points from earlier that you want to bring up again, I'll do my best to respond to them.

P.S. If these posts keep getting any longer, I might have to change my name to "Drakona 2."

Sorry for the short bump of this thread. I've been really busy this week, an I'm typically only able to be online for very short periods, so I haven't been able to weigh in on this discussion (I've barely been able to read through the posts in one sitting! ) until now.

I'm a Protestant, and I grew up in a fairly non-traditional church environment, but over the last few years I've come to really appreciate the Catholic church, especially the few Catholics I've gotten to know. My understanding of their stance about birth control has been mainly through the lens of my experience as a young person, occasionally helping out at the Catholic-run Crisis Pregnancy Center where my mother worked. The main issue they dealt with there was abortion, so at the time I understood the general Catholic stance on birth control as a "sanctity of life" issue (of course, as already pointed out, that issue doesn't logically fit when talking about non-abortifacient methods of birth control).

I can't say that I necessarily concur with the Catholic stance against condoms and other similar "barrier" methods, but I'm also not so sure that it's theologically or morally incorrect. Lothar, I can see where you could reason that it's partially based on Gnostic thinking, but I tend to think it's more an issue of preserving the "original design" for sexual intimacy between a man and wife. Personally, I don't think a condom really interferes, but I think I can see it from the perspective of someone who does see it as something unnatural or artificial.

Another factor could be the concern for keeping the church's stance on birth control consistent with the stance on premarital sex, given the common view that condoms just give unmarried people a way to avoid the commitment and/or results of premarital sex.

Oh, regarding Mobi's and Zuruck's ridiculous posts about the value of the Catholic church... there is a huge difference between debating the merits of the theological stance the church takes on a particular issue (i.e. the topic of sex and birth control being discussed), and attacking the Catholic church as a whole for actions which clearly do not fit within its standards. If you guys want to discuss the implications of the Crusades, or sexual misconduct, that's fine; but attacking the Church itself implies you're attacking its value system and theology.