On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
> Its natural to the extent that you believed that God intended for women to
> be naturally fertile and infertile at regular intervals throughout a given
> month, and that this is the only process that does not change this cycle.
> (i.e. using a condom continuously effectively makes a woman continuously
> infertile.)
Erm, no, it makes the *man* effectively infertile. Unless you buy one of
those clumsy "female condom" contraptions, anyway.
Neither of which alters the biology of either partner, by the way.
> If you don't believe that there is anything inherently
> natural or God-intended about this cycle, then it is completely reasonable
> that you would look at it differently.
I wrote and deleted three long responses here, deciding instead to keep it
short.
IF one believes that the church fathers (and the Jewish patriarchs to
whom they often referred) were inspired by God when they forbade
masturbation and contraception, and accurately reflect His will, then
there's nothing to talk about with someone who doesn't so believe unless a
grueling contest of wills is what one desires.
On the other hand, if one believes that those fellows merely did their
best to infer God's will based on their best understanding of nature,
then their conclusions might be open for debate.
> >(Eg. blow jobs, clam lapping, dry humping....) *
>
> Actually, all of the above would be contraception by the Catholic Church,
> since they are being used as a way of achieving orgasm with the complete
> intent of not engaging in sexual intercourse. Thus, the Church would
> consider them sinful..... I wasn't sure if you were clear on that based on
> your final comment.
Quite clear. The comment is a resonse to your assertion--"The beauty of
NFP is that it forces couples into a natural cycle of 'courtship' and
'honeymoon' each month. During the 'courtship' phase, couples have to
necessarily seek other ways of showing their love for each other."--an
interpretation of NFP that betrays, IMO, the kind of total inexperience
with and misunderstanding of sex and marriage that much characterize
nearly all Catholic clergy. If we're talking about people like St.
Augustine, we can blame their errors to some extent on ignorance and the
power of myths surrounding reproduction. Modern theologians have no such
excuse.
One, it seems to assume that individuals are too stupid to realize that
non-sexual demonstrations of love are important unless the church
"forces" that fact upon them. Some people are that stupid, I'm sure, but
those who have happy marriages aren't, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Two, it perpetuates the assumtion that any sex which isn't penetrative
intercourse is bad. I know I'm making a personal judgment call here, but
IMO that set of beliefs is unambiguously evil, and so is the perpetuation
of said beliefs.
And three, it seems to assume that people who have access to a willing sex
partner are inevitably going to lose their ability to reason and behave
morally in general (cf. St. Augustine, John Chrysostom), the kind of
assumption which, IMO, is likely to characterize people either with no sex
lives or very unhappy sex lives, projecting their fears into subjects
which they simply don't understand.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Nuke the straight consumerist wildebeests for Buddha!
