Question: What is the purpose of sex?
rob wrote a comment on the post “Question: Is oral sex allowed in a Catholic marriage?” As I attempted to reply to his comment, I found myself writing a whole new post… which doesn’t really answer his comment, but addresses the basic purpose of sex.
I suppose the best way to address the issue of sex is first to ask, “What is the purpose of sex as God intended it to be?”
A careful examination and reflection of the question, which anyone can do in his or her own time and space, will reveal three possible answers:
1. For pleasure
2. For reproduction
3. For bonding between couples
No doubt that sexual intercourse does produce pleasure, but is that its sole purpose? For example, eating is pleasurable. Does that mean that the purpose of eating is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up obese and unhealthy, just because they eat for the pleasure of it. Rather, the purpose of eating is to nourish our bodies.
Take another example. Sleeping is pleasurable, especially when one is tired. Does that mean that the purpose of sleeping is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up being a lazy slob, and probably end up missing important appointments, just because they sleep for the pleasure of it. Rather, the purpose of sleeping is to allow our bodies to recover.
How about sex then? Sex between a couple is pleasurable, especially when both climax at the same time. Does that mean that the purpose of sex is for pleasure only? For people who think so, they end up being addicted to sex, and can’t think of anything else throughout the day. Rather, the purpose of sex is something else altogether.
You see, for all bodily functions which are necessary for humans to carry out in order to live in a way that God has ordained, God has cleverly attached pleasure as a side-effect to these functions, like eating, sleeping, shitting, farting, urinating (especially with a full bladder), …, and having sex. But to pursue these activities for the pleasure alone is unhealthy.
So we’ve established that answer #1 is not the right answer. True, sex does give pleasure, eating does give pleasure, sleeping does give pleasure, and the same goes for all other natural bodily functions including shitting, farting, urinating, breathing, yawning, sneezing, etc. But pleasure is not the sole purpose of any of these bodily functions.
If you look at it another way, what would happen if a couple engaged in sex purely for pleasure? Well, for one thing, they’d end up with multiple babies. What a bother. You can’t kill them, since that’d be murder. You can’t keep bringing them to the adoption agency - they’d give you counselling. Repeated abortions is dangerous for the mother’s health. So what do you with them?
Society’s answer has always been to address the ‘problem of fertility’ at the root. Maybe in the course of having sex, there was a way to separate the pleasure from the babies? Maybe we can prevent babies from even being born in the first place?
And so society has come up with condoms which prevent conception, masturbation (mutual or otherwise) which prevents conception, anal sex, oral sex, the Pill which either works to change a woman’s natural cycle so that she doesn’t conceive, or affects some hormones post-conception so that the fertilised egg cannot attach itself to the womb. In actually, such a Pill causes abortion of the pregnancy, hence is called abortifacient. The most common of these is Mifepristone also known as “RU-486″ and marketed under the brand name Mifeprex. It is widely known that such Pills induce abortion.
Once you handle that problem of the irritating babies that keep popping up, you’re free to have sex in any form for the sake of pleasure alone.
Actually, society has also come up with a way to deal with the problem of overeating. You want to eat, but you don’t want to additional weight that comes with it. So you either regurgitate the food out, so that you can eat some more (no one would hesitate to call this perverse or an illness), or you take a pill that allows the food to pass through your system undigested. More pills… Remember those weight-loss pills that promise to allow you to lose weight while maintaining your normal diet? This is how they work.
The problem here is, what if you were to do this all the time? For regurgitators, they will end up malnourished, and if it carries on, they will eventually die.
So what happens if an entire society does the same with sex? To separate pleasure from reproduction? To put it simply, society will end with this generation, because there is no more reproduction of the human species. Hence, a culture of death.
I missed out one answer, didn’t I? Answer #3 - sex is for bonding between couples. Well that’s actually incorporated into having babies. If one does not try to separate answers #2 and #3, and answers #1 from answers #2 and #3, one would tend to end up with a healthy marriage and family.
It is no secret that a married couple who uses contraceptives will be more likely to end up in divorce. Why? The reason is spiritual, but saying that doesn’t make it less important. It’s not a secret at all… it’s just not made known well enough…
Firstly, humans are beings made of a fusion of spirit and matter. We are neither completely matter, like animals, or completely spirit, like angels. We are spirit and matter. What we do in the flesh, we affect our spirit as well… which is why sins committed in the flesh can have an effect on our spiritual state, and our spiritual state can affect our physical being. Which is why when you can’t control your addictions (to food, sex, sleep, drugs, etc), you are more likely to be unable to control yourself spiritually and end up living a life of sin… if your addiction does not already lead you there.
In having sex, a couple bonds not just physically, but spiritually as well. A complete physical bonding reflects a complete spiritual bonding. What happens if you put a physical barrier, like a condom or a diaphragm, into a sexual intercourse? The physical barrier is a reflection of the spiritual barrier.
Sex is a time when couples express their marital vows - to give of themselves completely to each other, to receive of the other partner completely, in a free, total, faithful, and fruitful way. But with contraceptives, whatever the form, the couple is saying with their bodies, “I give you all of myself, except my fertility.” or “I want all of you, except your fertility.” Such an action is a reflection of a deeper withholding of something else on a spiritual level.
In the end, contraceptives not only creates a barrier to prevent reproduction (#2), it also creates a barrier to prevent bonding between couples (#3).
Answers #2 and #3 are intrinsically linked to each other; they cannot be separated… just as physical union cannot be separated from spiritual union during sex.
And that, is the purpose of sex.
Filed under: FAQs, General, Life Reflections, Relationships, Sex
The music on your website is horrible! Are you playing it because:
A. It’s for your own selfish pleasure
B. To force this crap down others throates
C. Because you think Jesus will be your friend?
Well, Tom, I was thinking of changing it a short while ago, but this person Cath who heard it said it stirs the soul of people who need it. See her comment here:
http://catholicwriter.wordpress.com/2006/05/19/question-is-oral-sex-allowed-in-a-catholic-marriage/#comment-33957
God bless,
Catholic Writer
CW i dont find the music all that horrible.the guitar piece is quite soothing.but coming to the point, how did you come to your conclusions on the purpose of sex?(please quote from the Bible). what does st.paul mean in 1 Cor 7:2,5?he seems to say-sex(within a marriage) is a legal way of fulfilling one’s sexual desires.please clarify.
Hi bejoy john,
On purpose of sex:
I will answer your question by quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which also quotes from the Bible.
God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. “It is not good that man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen 2:18). None of the animals can be man’s partner (Gen 2:19-20). The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity. (CCC n.371)
Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (”bone of my bones…”
and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh” (Gen 2:24), they can transmit human life: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28). By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work. (CCC n.372)
That is not exactly how I came to my conclusions, because I read it from another source. Since you asked for bible quotations, I decided to use what the CCC says, because it’s more authoritative.
It is the “one flesh” (Gen 2:24) that tells us that sex is for bonding (spiritual and physical bonding), and it is the “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen 1:2
that tells us that sex is for procreation. Pleasure can be said to be the side-effect of sex, not one of the main purposes. It is when we separate the pleasure aspect of sex from the main purposes of sex from the pleasure that we run into all the things that are against moral norms and the teachings of the Church.
For example, the Church teaches us:
- when we remove the procreative purpose from sex, we get contraception, masturbation, oral sex, abortion, anal sex, mutual masturbation, adultery, etc.
- when we remove the bonding purpose from sex, we get IVF, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, etc.
At the very heart of it, the Church teaches us that these things are wrong because they undermine the meaning of sex, the meaning of why we are man and woman, and the meaning of marriage.
On 1 Cor 7:2,5:
The footnote found in the Jerusalem Bible says that this section is “not a formal treatise on marriage and virginity but a series of replies, probably in the same order as the questions that were put to Paul. Hence, the repetitions and apparent contradictions. The main points are:
1. As a general rule, each should keep the state of life in which his call to the faith found him.
2. Virginity is a higher calling than marriage, and spiritually more profitable.
3. Marriage is a safeguard for those incapable of absolute continence.”
However, Jesus makes it clear that even in marriage, a husband is not to look at his wife lustfully (Mt 5:28). Eph 5:21-33 gives the best guidelines for how husband should treat their wives, and how wives should treat their husbands.
Hope these help answer your queries!
God bless,
Catholic Writer
Well i already responded in long length to your catholic sex blog site with the same question. Unfortunately its coming up with a “no comment” showing. Not sure if this is the main site you use or not. If this is the one you use then I’ll post the really long rebuttal to your argument in that sex is for the community.
Bear with me: Although it’s nice to see you using logic and reason in order to support the catholic church’s stance on sex, it’s ultimately flawed. For many reasons, but they all lead to one BASIC reason. Your argument is for a bygone era.
Using reason and logic for this, the whole idea of sex building and contributing for the community is in essence all about survival. This applied to the majority of our species timeframe on earth, as it necessary for each and every capable human to reproduce as much as he and she could in order to guarantee the survival of a species, nation, tribe, etc.
Today, for the first time in human history, it is not necessary to continuously reproduce in order to keep the community surviving. In fact, uncontrolled reproduction actually hurts and causes suffering when it deals with people on the poverty line and in third world countries, where many individuals can barely feed themselves.
In my little town here in Texas, it is not necessary for me to produce offspring for the community to continue to be vibrant. I might still one day choose to have children, but it would most definitely be controlled. Point is that even though the world and everything in it requires us to reproduce, it is not to the point in having uncontrolled number of pregnancies and having sex for the mere reason to have children.
We don’t live in a world where having as many children as one could would mean survivability of at least one child due to diseases and having more children fill up the ranks of the tribe in order to both farm more effectively and create larger armies. The only other reason would be for individual instinct to pass on one’s genetic code. But really, how important and “immoral” would it be to choose not to pass it on. To choose not to have children. To have sex with someone merely for intimacy and care.
Sex in the past was about survival. Today, realistically, it is not. In fact, overpopulation is a real threat to the safety and safebeing of many communities and it forces tribes and nations to fight for resources that are too scarce to share (at least to scarce to share where both sides are healthy and not suffering). Wars, again unlike the past, could lead to mass death (i.e nuclear).
There are many things in the past, that made sense in the past but do not fit today. And trying to forcefully fit them in today’s society and world could bring more harm than good. The community is not at risk of collapse, as many couples will still have kids. But they’re usually, even in catholic families, controlled with contraceptives. This is so one doesn’t end up with such a large family where it (unlike in the past) would become a detriment as attention and care would be greatly lower per child and therefore cause harder problems to help them deal with the realities and threats of this world (drugs, porn, etc). Not to mention the financial strain it would put on the family as a whole, therefore being all the more a detriment.
The church’s philosophy is antiquated. Not to mention its history of believing that sex with ANY pleasure was wrong. Only with Vat II did this change. I am a catholic 21 year old male. Although being raised Catholic, i have grown to understand many unreasonable and illogical views of the church. I’m not afraid to dissent when i hear or read arguments that, even though well thought out and support the church, ultimately don’t stand up to reason and logic as you’ve tried to use.
I appraise your efforts and this “catholic sex blog” is a good place as ever to discuss this with reason and understanding instead of venom and vulgar language. The fact that you put in actual thoughts on “why” however flawed they are, are testaments to you using your mind.
Good meaningful argument, but out of place for today’s world and its realities that it gives us. I believe your formula would have worked for most of humanity up until the early 20th century, when humans could finally look to a future where societies and humanity in general did not have to rely on uncontrolled reproducing for the sole reason for childbearing in order to survive and be prosperous.
You don’t have to answer to both, only one would suffice.
(CW’s note to Martin: I have separated your comment into paragraphs for easier reading.)
Also, your point in say that contraceptives will lead to a breakdown in society is obviously exaggerated, but the idea that contraceptives will lead to a society of sexual indulgence is wrong.
I do also believe that sex is like food. Using this argument, i say that sexual indulgence is like gluttony. It’s an extreme and very unhealthy, yet the other extreme also exists, and that is the extreme of starvation. Sexual repression which is what the church’s belief is (abstinence until marriage) is equivalent to starving oneself from food.
Sure when one does finally get to eat it, they enjoy it and want it much more. This is not good either, as just with food, sex should be something balanced. In today’s world it is not balanced, but because of theological dogma, the pendulum is constantly being swung in both extremes instead of hanging in the middle.
In fact, sexual indulgence is a result of sexual repression as the mechanics of sex and human sexuality is still considered taboo. The religious establishment have made the problems worse as the teaching of sex being a sin except when in marriage with the purpose of reproduction have led to a culture were sex is inherently dirty and wrong.
When people break away from the evils of sexual repression, instead of finding a good healthy diet, they swing to the other extreme of unhealthy indulgence. Sex is like a pot of boiling water, put a cover on it (repression) and it needs an outlet. Some holes in the cover are needed for the pent up sexual frustration and repression to release. These holes represent prostitution, porn. We here in America have plugged up the hole of prostitution and as a result much more pressure is released through porn. If both are plugged up this results in a violent explosion of the pot (signifying sex crimes, rape, etc).
Teaching people to take off the cover releases the sexual repression which leads to indulgences and corruption. Condoms and contraceptives only to sexual indulgence because of the lack of sexual knowledge when it comes to the psychosexual development of their minds.
If people were taught how not to indulge in sex for secular health reasons, then they would listen much better than throwing religious reasons. They would not be taught to abstain and therefore starve themselves from sex, but would be taught to have protected, responsible, meaningful sex by developing their mental attitudes towards sex in a healthy way.
This world would be good in that people don’t have to be worried about babies popping up everytime, but would not become indulgent and addicted because they have been taught to have sex in a healthy non addictive, non selfish, but loving, caring sexual way.
Yes meaningful, fulfilling, healthy sex can be achieved without having to be open to have kids. Trust me : ). This is also backed up by numerous sex psychologists as well. Again, its basic purpose of reproduction can be ignored. It is not immoral to do so. And all arguments against this have been successfully rebutted.
(CW’s note to Martin: I have separated your comment into paragraphs for easier reading.)
Hi Martin,
Thanks for coming over to this blog. Yes, this one is the main blog. The Catholic Sex Blog was originally an interesting idea, but the admin controls over there aren’t as good as they are over here at WordPress.com, so I prefer to use this blog.
The basic reason you gave, that my argument fails because it is for a bygone era, has one problem. The problem is that this “bygone era” is an opinion, not a fact. In addition, if this era is a new one from the one in the past especially concerning sex, when did the change in era happen? If I had to put a time frame to it, I would say the era changed about the 1960s to 1970s, and the change was marked especially by the widespread availability of contraceptives such as the condom and the pill.
The idea that uncontrolled reproduction actually hurts and causes more suffering is actually based on an outdated idea. It was Thomas Malthus, author of the 1798 work “An Essay on the Principle of Population” that postulated that mass starvation would be an eventual result of “overpopulation”. This would be so, argued Malthus, because population increases geometrically, while food production increases only arithmetically. One major flaw in Malthus’ theory is that he did not take into account the technological advances that would come which served to largely increase the production of food.
Martin, have you ever heard of National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), also called The Kissinger Report? This document produced in 1970 explicitly laid out a detailed strategy by which the U.S. would aggressively promote population control in developing countries in order to regulate (or have better access to) the natural resources of these countries.
One of the factors that could interrupt the smooth flow of resources from less developed countries is a large population of anti-imperialist youth, and according to NSSM-200, this can be limited by population control. Elements of population control programmes include financial incentives for countries to increase their abortion, sterilization and contraception-use rates, indoctrination of children, mandatory population control, and coercion of other forms such as withholding disaster and food aid unless a less developed country implements population control programmes.
If you are interested, a document on giving a retrospective look on NSSM-200 can be found here:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_01kissingerreport.html
What is really outdated, Martin, is the idea that uncontrolled reproduction actually hurts and causes suffering, because it is based on a theory that came from 1798. Now that’s really a bygone era, wouldn’t you say?
The world has more than enough resources for everyone. So why are there countries in which people are starving to death? Simply because of countries like the U.S.. Did you know that although the U.S. has only 5% of the people in the world, it consumes 30% of the world’s resources? If you want to know why people in the world are suffering, take a look around you. See how much waste is being produced by the average American. Look at all the Americans who buy more than they use, and throw the rest away.
What is really causing unnecessary hurt and suffering among people living in poverty? The selfishness of people who are living well-off lives.
We find that there are many people who have more than enough wealth, but think that they do not. There are many people who choose to go for a holiday, upgrade to a better car or a bigger house, etc, instead of choosing to have another child. Is this not selfishness in action?
—-
Coming to contraceptives…
It is not proper to compare sexual abstinence with starvation, for the simple reason that if you go without food, you will die, but if you go without sex, you won’t die. The example of sex being like a pot of boiling water cannot be used for this reason. On the contrary, the mass media has it drummed into our heads that if we do not have sex, we will die. This idea is simply false. If it were true, we wouldn’t be here today, because our Catholic ancestors would have all died before they got married.
You mentioned that the point that contraceptives leading to a breakdown in society is exaggerated. Is it? I refer you to the change of era I mentioned in the second paragraph of this reply. What changed was the introduction of contraceptives. With this introduction, people no longer needed to repress their sexual appetite (they repressed it not because of church teaching, but because of the risk of pregnancy.)
What did the introduction of contraceptives lead to? Pope Paul VI made four predictions when he wrote his encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968. Let’s take a look and see whether the Church’s teachings are antiquated or wise:
1. Contraception leads to marital infidelity and moral decline.
The main reason why people commit less adultery before the 1960s was because of the risk of pregnancy. With contraceptives easily available, there was little reason for people to remain faithful. Contraceptives have led to manifold increase in divorces, abortion, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and venereal diseases. This should be enough to convince any skeptic that sexual morality is not the strong suit of our era.
This fear of pregnancy was also a main deterrent for young men and women, but the availability of contraception has led them to believe that they can engage in premarital sexual activity “responsibly”, as you yourself claim. But teenagers are about as responsible in their use of contraception as they are in all other aspects of their lives, such as making their beds, cleaning their rooms, and getting their homework done on time.
2. Abuse of power
Paul VI observed that the widespread acceptance of contraception would place “a dangerous weapon… in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies”. I’ve already outlined this above in the U.S. NSSM-200.
3. Unlimited dominion
Paul VI’s warned that contraception would lead man to think that he had unlimited dominion over his own body. Sterilization is now the most widely used form of contraception in the U.S.; individuals are so convinced of their rights to control their own bodies that they do not hesitate to alter even their own physical make-up.
The desire for unlimited dominion over one’s own body goes beyond contraception, and to the production of “test-tube babies”, euthanasia, and the use of organs transplanted from those who are “nearly” dead.
4. Lost respect for women
Pope Paul VI argued that “the man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment and no longer as his respected and beloved companion”. The Church’s teaching on contraception is designed to protect the good of married couples’ conjugal love. When spouses choose to disobey, they endanger their own happiness. I have a good friend whose marriage ended in a divorce after only five years, and he attributes it largely to their use of contraception.
Martin, you may be confident of saying that you respect your girlfriend at the age of 21, but will you still be able to say this 20 years down the road? Are you willing to put your relationship at risk by continuing to use contraceptives?
Contraception allows for marriage to become less child-centred and more focused on the emotional side of marriage. I see it clearly in your comments. With contraceptives, people don’t stick together for the child. They stop seeing marriage as intrinsically linked to kids. When problems arise, people think it’s better to divorce - even if they do have kids - because they see marriage in primarily emotional terms.
Second, contraceptives allow more women to stay in the workforce after they married in ways they would not have before. Thus married women become more career-focused and economically independent. Women therefore feel freer to divorce because they have more economic and social resources.
If needed, I can explain in greater detail how the use of contraceptives result in the breakdown of marriage. Or you can read it here:
http://ccli.org/nfp/morality/socialscientist.php
Do you know that married people experience greater happiness in sex than non-married people? This is because of commitment. There is something about the intimacy and vulnerability inherent to sex that makes commitment so important. Conception has made it easier for people to have premarital sex, but it has also reduced the quality of sex because it fosters uncommitted sex.
In other words, if you want good sex in your marriage, don’t use contraceptives.
—-
Now I know that you’re thinking that if we have sex without contraceptives, we’d have babies popping up all over the place. This too is an outdated idea. There is something called Natural Family Planning (NFP). NFP is not the same as the old outdated rhythm method. In fact, NFP has a failure rate of 1%, the same as the contraceptive pill, but without all the side effects that come with the pill. Incidentally, the failure rate of the condom is 15%, which explains why there has been an increase in the number of unplanned pregnancies since the condoms became popular as a means of planning pregnancies.
There are numerous advantages to NFP, one of which is better quality sex which leads to longer-lasting marriages. The rate of divorces among couples using NFP is 2%, compared to the rate of divorces among couples using contraceptives, which is about 50%.
There are many well-written articles on the topic of contraception, so I won’t begin to reproduce (pun intended) them. Here is one good article that contains responses to all the claims you have brought up and more:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202fea2.asp
Feel free to discuss this further.
God bless, and Happy New Year!
Catholic Writer
You use the start of this bygone era when the sexual revolution came. But you don’t get the point that the reason to have sex depends on how much society has advanced in medicines, technology, which would put a better start at around the turn of the 20th century. It was then that sex, because of advances in medicine, was not needed to replace the many children that died in their youth because of diseases. It was the first time in human history for many things concerning humanity, society, its survival at the individual level and therefore sexuality. Therefore, whether you want to admit it or not, it’s a bygone era.
I am pleased to see your knowledge on the matter by bringing up Thomas Malthus. Ironically, he was also opposed to contraceptives. You are most correct that this idea of overpopulation was brought up back then. It goes to show that in the past people existed who realized the limits of this world. His idea of fixing this was to place the burden on the poorer classes by having them being “moral”, specifically his antiquated labeling of abstinence. Sad indeed. Anyways, he had one major flaw in his theory, as he did not predict the coming technological advances. The industrial revolution indeed muddle up his prediction as agriculture technology advanced so that people were able to farm much more land than ever before. Actually this is only part of what messed up his idea, as colonialism became popular and many western countries were able to simply take the resources needed to sustain a growing population. At the cost, of course of the poor natives of their territories. There have been more modern researches who ironically made the same mistakes back in the 70’s as people such as Paul Ehlrich wrote books with a Malthusian type of thinking. People like him didn’t take into account the coming grain production increase by 250% worldwide. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html
So it seems you are right, Malthusian was wrong and the argument that overpopulation is NOT a detriment to the world and that the idea of overpopulation itself is merely false. Incorrect. Overpopulation is very real, and to attempt to refute it is equivalent to refuting the idea that global warming is real. However, agricultural productivity has declined in many world regions in the past ten to 20 years due to overdrafting of groundwater (such as has occurred on the North Plain of China) , overgrazing, extensive slash-and-burn and resulting soil exhaustion and erosion. The energy for the increased agriculture was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation. This has happened all over the world, and it was due to meeting the needs of an exploding population. The Henry Kissinger report is indeed a Malthusian thinking in that it puts all the blame and effort to secure a prosperous nation by coercing the low class, or in this case, third world countries. This has been used as ammunition by pro-lifers, not necessarily in your favor against contraceptives, but against abortion. Malthusian thinking in its basics, in that the world will have trouble sustaining a growing population is correct. It’s the answers they have to it in forcing ONLY poverty ridden countries to control population that is wrong. You didn’t present a good counterargument to convince me that the overpopulation is not an issue. In fact noted professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, David Pimentel , and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says the study. The only way you could refute this would be to say that their research is merely showing that they are in a pact with the devil to go against the church’s standing against population control. That the devil is behind it all. LOL. That’s all you could argue, but no one seeing our little talks here would ever have credibility in you again. http://www.energybulletin.net/281.html
Your resorting to using the argument that America is at fault is showing more of the weakness in your argument. Although it is true that we consume a lot of fossil fuel and have been quite irresponsible when it comes to power consumption, hence SOME correctness with your statement about our consumption, it is agricultural consumption that takes the forefront of the whole issue of overpopulation. People gotta eat you know. Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the United States and Canada. It is up to us to sustain a growing world population.
By 2025, it is expected that the U.S. will cease to be a food exporter due to domestic demand. The impact on the U.S. economy could be devastating, as food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually. More importantly, millions of people around the world could starve to death without U.S. food exports. They could increase their own agricultural farming, but this would mean even more devastation to the already fragile ecosystems. And this is food. Something that we need much more than electricity and gas. We won’t be able to sustain the world’s population anymore because of our own growing population. Overpopulation is real, and it can’t be blamed on the U.S. Throwing in the NSSM report just shows that some politicians can be selfish. We are all in this together, connected. Considering a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population is projected to double by 2050. As the population expands, an estimated one acre of land will be lost for every person added to the U.S. population. Currently, there are 1.8 acres of farmland available to grow food for each U.S. citizen. By 2050, this will decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current dietary standards. You could counter that we are in general fat and overweight and could use to lose some pounds. This is because of eating the WRONG things, not about eating too much. We need food, and we can’t sustain the rest of the world’s growing population. This enevitably brings us back to population control and therefore contraceptives when it comes to sex. These are facts supported by the world’s researchers who care about our future. What is outdated, is the argument that overpopluation does not exist and has no impact on our world. That is not only outdated, but sorely ignorant of the facts.
Again, you try to use supposed selfishness from our society as the only reason why the world is suffering without looking at the facts of overpopulation. You try to (in a somewhat strange way) tie that into selfishness of the couple to not have kids. You don’t do a good job at convincing me or any readers that choosing to have an easy life without kids is evil and immoral. OR selfish, which is defined as caring only for yourself and no others. I still care very much about my girlfriend, and I do right by her. And her by me. You just state that choosing to upgrade a computer over having a child is evil. LOL! Yes, quite evil my friend. Im glad you put that nicely into a short clear sentence.
Addressing the comparison of sex with food. It actually makes sense when you open your mind. When I used starving oneself as an analogy, I didn’t mean to death. To make it clearer, if I was to not eat breakfast or lunch, I would therefore be abstaining from food. I would be hungry and yes, when dinner finally came, I would greatly enjoy it. Of course im not going to die just because I skipped those two meals, as neither would one die abstaining from sex. But is this healthy? NO. Just as it is necessary to have a balanced diet, it is necessary to have a balanced sexual lifestyle. It is not about starving to death as you interpreted it. It’s about being healthy and harmonious with ones sexuality. Im comparing the two as they are correctly alike in that all humans must be balanced and harmonious. This is not an opinion of mine, it is supported by leading psychologists who have studied the human mind. To rebute this would again mean bringing up the idea that the devil is behind all the research and that they are trying to corrupt us. You never said why the pot of boiling water can’t be used as an analogy, except that you hint at sex not being something integral in us. No we won’t die. But you cannot deny that sex and sexual feelings are not a part of who we are. And the repressive culture and its religious roots are perfectly represented by the cover that fits over the pot, prostitution and pornography being what lets out steam, with the explosion of the pot representing the continuing pressure when prostitution and pornography is blocked up and the resulting explosion being sex crimes. (its been shown in studies that in areas that porn is available, crimes such as rape are drastically down). It makes sense, but you just seem to refuse without an argument except that you try to change my argument Into one that says we must have sex or we die, when I obviously never made any claim or motion to such an argument. It therefore still stands.
Your argument about contraceptives leading to a decline in morality and your continuous reference to the late 60’s early 70’s cultural revolution is quite easy to negate because of an overlooked issue that you set yourself up with. You make the claim that before the cultural revolution, people didn’t have sex outside of marriage, because of the risk of contraceptives. It seems like grandma and gramps weren’t so “chaste” afterall. Here is the information and link. Came out a few months ago. Note how even Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who advocates abstinence and prolife policies admits that this research is probably right. Only the conservative group representative doubted it, but obviously because she didn’t want to accept the truth. And yes, unless you believe in conspiracies that leaders are trying to make us hedonists, it’s honest researched info. They (gramps) had premarital sex too. A lot, they just never openly talked about it. So no, the condom didn’t herald an age of premarital sex. It was already happening. Nicely takes care of your two paragraphs there.
And to your argument that teenagers are not responsible enough to have safe sex, maybe its because of the lack of education. It’s show that without good education when it comes to sex and staying safe, that more pregnancies occur in teenagers. The current abstinence programs have only led to higher birth rates among teenagers, obvious failure there.
You made a mistake bringing in the Pope to prove your point. He is merely a theologian. Not a sociologist, psychologist, etc. Although they might have elementary knowledge of these fields, they are in the end theologians. These men try to see the world and all its works through their own beliefs instead of being independent of them and allowing themselves to accept the real facts, the real reasons behind events. You are bringing in someone who is merely fitting what he sees in his own world to fit his beliefs, without even considering the vast research done by sociologists around the world. He merely looks at the obvious, and as a child immediately connects it to the church’s teachings, even though other factors are more importantly at play.
Factors such as women lacking education to survive on their own, therefore choosing to stay in an unhappy marriage. As they gained education and became more than the “childbearer”, they then realized that they had more voice in how they were treated. You seem to believe women today are treated bad, but because of uncontrolled childbearing, and their ONLY roles seen as bearing children, women of the past were therefore treated good. (:s ) Using your formula you probably believe that women are, because of their original purpose, only supposed to get married and make babies. These marriages in the good old days weren’t always happy. The woman had little say in it, because her livelihood depended on the income and financial security of the husband. Women were treated as second class citizens, and while today some choose to lower themselves to become sex objects, most choose to make something of themselves. Instead of choosing to have kids. Evil, selfish, let the readers decide.
Divorce laws introduced in the 60’s that merely made it easier than previous laws to divorce. This was due not to the contraceptive, but to the much ignored rate of divorces prior and the difficulties which made illegal divorces common. In fact, even in the “chaste” years of the 50’s women were commonly lying to courts in order to get a divorce. The divorce rates shot up years later not because of any direct and provable connection to the contrceptive, but because of the no-fault divorce system which allowed people to divorce for any reason. This was a result of people lying and accusing their mates of causing physical injury, even though these were lies to get around the laws and get a divorce. Again, there are many other provable and direct factors at play which the high church and its leaders sooo conveniently ignore.
“Church’s teaching…to protect the good of married couples’ conjugal love.” Undoubtebly that’s what they believe. “When spouses choose to disobey, they endanger their own happiness.” REALLY? Who says this, the POPE? Cardinals? Etc? Again, they are merely theologians, men who spend too much time studying and thinking religious dogma and how they can forcefully fit in our world. Instead of independently studying and referring to factual research done by professionals. So again, no need for me to argue against such a unbased claim.
But I will throw in my own personal life and those around me to cement the argument. My uncle and aunt have both recently turned 50. They have been together since they met in their mid 20’s. But because they wish to continue to have the same fun they did when they were young, they chose to not have kids. They chose contraceptives instead. According to the argument made by the church, and innocently defended by you, their marriage should have ended years ago. OR at least been put a “great risk”. Quite humurous. They, among all my aunts and uncles, probably have the strongest, not to mention funnest, marriage of all. They are never bored, they don’t have the responsibility of kids and raising them, they go off to other countries and have adventures. He works at NASA and she’s a head accountant at firm, which would have made childrearing difficult. Do t hey fit the definition of selfish (which is caring only for oneself, regardless of others). Hmmm, having fun doesn’t seem to be inherently selfish. And its already been soundly rebutted that individual couples such as my aunt and uncle choosing not having kids doesn’t affect society, so no need for me to cover that ground.
Another use of my personal life closer to home is that of my parents. Again using your formula, they are putting their marriage at risk by having contraceptives. They decided to have two kids because they both realized the stresses and inabilities to focus on individual children because they themselves came from large families and know this firsthand. My father had 5 siblings, my mother had 6. They remember clearly those pressures they faces. We are lower middle class citizens, and we’re already straining financially by just putting me through college. I have 1 sibling. They chose to have 2 kids because they correctly guessed that it would be too expensive and stressful (based on their childhood lives) to have more. They could have had more, but chose not to. Are they selfish (caring only for oneself, regardless of others). They sure don’t fit it. They cared for me and my brother and have had good marriage. It doesn’t seem that there marriage is on the fritz, but then again, the church knows (as do you supposedly)more about their marriage than they do. Again, just proving more than I need to that arguments based on theologists is foolhardy at least, harmful to society and individual couples such as my parents at worst.
Again, you refer to my current relationship. I don’t know if ill stay with her, as no one knows the future. Not even the catholic church. But I know that by using contraceptives im able to stay with her NOT because I got her pregnant, but because we care for each other very much. Also your arguments underlying belief is that because marriage is only about childbearing and rearing. “ I see it clearly in your comments”. You are seeing the world through dogma my friend. Again, people do get divorces, but it has nothing to do with contraceptives. Instead, again, its about the woman being able to support herself on her own. I am against divorce, but you are trying hard to connect divorce with contraceptives, which in the last paragraph in rebutted. You make marriage seem as if it HAS to be a choice between child centered, and emotionaly centered (dealing with the couples feelings I think you mean). Again, the whole, “choose one side or the other, no balance exists” kind of mentality that people resort to using when their arguments are failing. Easy, again, my parents centered their marriage around us. But they also dealt with their own emotional part of the deal. They sometimes fought and argued, but they always worked it out and solved the issue. The same happens with my childless aunt and uncle, as they’ve had some heated disagreements in the past but have never considered divorcing from each other. In fact its easy for them, because they love each other and couldn’t think about living apart. Its not about kids, although in my parents marriage it factors in because me and my brother exist, that is not the main reason they stay together. It’s because they love and respect each other and have good, healthy, calm lives despite what their church would like them to have (churning out the babies).
Unhappy marriages are better tied to stupid decision making early on and “accidents” such as unintended pregnancy that forces them (in the past) to marry because of unwed stigma, even if they are unhappy throughout the marriage. Irresponsibility and mistakes of humans can be discussed in another time, but unhappy marriages are not just today’s world. They’ve existed in great numbers throughout the past, only difference is that today they split. Again, im against divorce being taken so lightly, but I am refutting your weak argument that divorce is linked to contraceptives.
“Do you know that married people experience greater happiness in sex than non-married people?” I don’t refute that marriage and the sex in marriage is great. You are not supporting your belief with a viable argument that contraceptives and not having children are bad. Choosing not to have kids have nothing to do with commitment. Unless you believe having kids cements relationships, they do. But it’s for the wrong reasons. They would stay together because they had uncontrolled pregnancy in their relationship as ordered by the church. Therefore they have the new responsibility to care for a child, even if it means putting aside their own happiness. Of course, this doesn’t hold up for long anyways, as divorcees usually already have children. The idea that children cement the relationship is an old idea that has been tested and has largely failed. Or else today’s culture would be divorce free. Again, marriage hinges not on the false belief and argument you make that making babies will make it better. I hinges on whether or not they actually love each other. Selfish you say, well it seems like jesus and his church would rather have people unhappy as long as they have sex only to make babies.
In other words, don’t use baby making as a way to make commitment to save a marriage.
In other words, you want good sex, contraceptions don’t make a difference. Except that they are used by responsible people who want to control how many (if any) children they have. In fact, they might feel a little better knowing that they don’t have to worry about having kids pop up everytime they have sex. Secure sex=worry free sex as does secure sex=life of marriage that is in your hands, not in chance.
Using catholic online catholic organizations as a support to your arguments is weak. They are biased based on theology instead of actual research. Any research they do is to only comply and strengthen the church’s own baseless teachings on the matter. On the contraceptive claims website, it quotes Thomas Aquinas admits that not all truths of the faith can be proven by reason. The article claim is quoted : “Even if the teaching against contraception were not infallible (not that I’m suggesting it is, mind you), according to the Second Vatican Council the teaching must be obeyed.” So, by using this, even if it doesn’t make sense (as in the church’s stance on contraceptives has been soundly refuted by actual personel knowledge, experience, and research done by others, we should follow EVEN though it is not supported by reason. Just cuz. Again no need for me to clarify anymore than that for our readers.
A final rebuttal by former NFP which shows the folly of NFP. “Sam and Bethany Torode, former advocates of NFP-only, have redacted their position to include barrier methods and explain their current theology this way:
We also see honest congruity with the language of the body by saying “no” to conception with our bodies (via barrier methods or sensual massage) when our minds and hearts are also saying “no” to conception. We don’t believe this angers God, nor that it leads to the slippery slope of relativism or divorce. We strongly disagree with the idea that this is a mortal sin…. it’s a theological attack on women to always require that abstinence during the time of the wife’s peak sexual desire (ovulation) for the entire duration of her fertile life, except for the handful of times when she conceives. http://www.openembrace.com/
-The fertility awareness and statistical forms of NFP require periodic abstinence, known as continence, most commonly 8-10 days of each menstrual cycle. It is common for the woman’s sexual desire to be highest on those fertile days, and low in other parts of the cycle. That the couple must abstain from sex during the woman’s periods of peak sexual desire may be deeply frustrating for both partners, and lead to feelings of isolation.
-Some methods of NFP require up to six months of research and observation (and abstinence) in order to collect baseline data, so these methods cannot be immediately implemented by a new user.
-Couples seeking the lowest risk of pregnancy (less than 1% per year) may be required to abstain for more than half of each menstrual cycle.
-For women in certain situations - breastfeeding, perimenopause, or with hormonal diseases such as PCOS - abstinence may be required for months at a time.
When taught in the context of Catholicism, this church teaches that orgasmic acts outside of intercourse, such as consummated masturbation and oral sex, are morally incompatible with the correct practice of NFP. Some couples are not comfortable with this restriction. Periodic abstinence also limits spontaneous sex. http://www.uihealthcare.com/topics/familyplanning/fami4535.html
Using NFP as your argument goes against your base arguments that sex is only for reproduction. Obviously NFP is geared to “controlled pregnancy” but in a different, more “natural” way. Doesn’t matter what way, it still goes against your theologically based beliefs in the unwavering supremecy of the church’s knowledge of such issues. It goes against the church, NFP does. And YOU my friend are therefore going against the church by supporting and using it in your arguments. :O
Note how I used independent factual references, instead of going to an obviously biased site. That is the only way you will win with reason and logic.
God bless, and a happy new year to you too!
A fine article. Your correspondent can find further information at our website, wwwNFPandmore.org. There’s a free downloadable NFP manual. On on the home page “and more” section, he will find an article on “understanding Humanae Vitae.” Keep up your good work.
John F. Kippley
“Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality” (Ignatius)
Hi John,
Your manual is very easy to read. I like it!
Thanks and God bless,
Catholic Writer
Hi Martin,
Before anything else, I invite you to scroll all the way up this post. Read the third paragraph and see what I’ve written about sex and its purposes. However did you get the idea that my argument is that sex is only for reproduction?
Other than the other post which you commented in previously, I have never said anywhere else that sex is only for reproduction. That post which I mentioned was written for a different reason and was arguing from a different position. Hence, the reason why I have now closed comments for that post.
I see you have worked hard in trying to refute my argument, and I will do my best to give you a reply that is worthy of your time. But I must say that you are mistaken that my argument is that sex is only for reproduction. Hence, I will skip over the parts that refer to this since we agree on that. Also, for your ease of reading, I have separated out the sections according to topic, as it seems that we cover a variety.
—-
On overpopulation:
If it is true that from the turn of the 20th century, sex, because of the advances in medicine, was not needed to replace the many children that died in their youth because of diseases, then how do we explain the baby boom generation? War kills many people too, and continue to do so.
As I understand it, you’re saying that overpopulation is a real danger because of the factors that contribute to the lack of natural resources, that is, the overusage of resources in the world. If these factors were reduced through the use of technology to discover and refine renewable resources of energy, the world would have sufficient resources to last us indefinitely, wouldn’t it? What is preventing us from channeling additional funds to discover these renewable resources of energy? It comes back to the same root - selfishness or greed.
From Kissinger Report 2004, we see that overpopulation is not an issue because the entire continent of Europe is experiencing a population collapse due to natural causes. I use the example of Europe because when it comes to population control, Europe is facing the greatest threat to itself. Europe is now losing 1.6 million people per year, and it will lose 1/4 of its population in the next 45 years, declining to 2050. This means that by
2050, the average European will be 52 years old. By contrast, the average African will be 31 years old.
At present there are 5 workers for every 1 retiree in Europe. In 2050, it will be only 2 workers to 1 retiree. This means that Europe will have a much higher retirement age, less healthcare for more money, and there will be a massive push for euthanasia. This is one of the economic consequences of widespread population control. Another social consequence is that in order for Europe to prevent population collapse, it’s got to have a massive immigration from Africa, Latin America, and Islamic nations. This will lead to a whole myriad of problems, the most serious of which would be a heightened level of social conflict between observant Muslims (who integrate poorly into secular societies), and other religious and cultural groups.
So you see, what is threatening the world, especially in the developed nations is not the problem of overpopulation, but in fact, it is the problem of depopulation. France launched their “France needs babies” campaign in 1986, but it hardly worked. The German state of Brandenburg offered to pay its citizens $650 to have a child, but that didn’t work too. Not surprising when you consider that people have been told for decades that raising a child would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In Singapore, where I come from, my government has recognized the threat that a declining population would cause our vibrant economy, and has begun offering cash bonuses and tax incentives to couples with more children.
As for food, yes the U.S. and Canada are major exporters of grain, but is this helping to solve the world food shortage or is it adding to it? What the U.S. and Canada is doing is selling food to countries and thereby benefiting economically from the poorer countries. If the U.S. and Canada really want to help the food shortage, what they will do is to help the other countries to develop their own technologies so that they can produce enough food of their own. But no, they are reluctant to do that because that is cutting off their own economic advantage. Again, we come back to greed and selfishness. If all the world’s countries pooled their technologies together and shared what they had, we would have far more than enough food to feed the whole world and more. Unless you’re saying that the world is not big enough for all of us…
The main issue at hand is the human person. Is the human person good or bad? If we think that the human person is good, we will not fear overpopulation because more people is good. We just need to find ways to accommodate everyone. Conversely, if we think that the human person is bad, or at least some human persons are bad, then we will do what we can to eliminate humans so that the rest of us can enjoy a good life.
- We do this through abortion - we selectively abort babies that we deem will not live a life of good quality. We abort babies who are disabled or will be born in poor environments.
- We do this through euthanasia - we kill off the older people because they are of no use to us and represent a burden (economic included) to our society.
- We do this through capital punishment - we kill off the people who present a perceived threat to society.
What gives us the right to decide who is to die and who is to live? How can we determine what a person’s quality of life will be? We do this only because we believe that we have total dominion over the human body, and this comes about from a contraceptive mentality. It is exactly what Pope Paul VI predicted in 1968 would happen to societies that accept contraception.
In addition, we focus on the emotional aspect of marriage and ignore the procreative aspect, since we think human persons are not good. We can only effectively do this with the help of contraceptives. It comes back to selfishness and greed. The reason why we choose not to have more babies is because we want to maintain our current selfish, greedy lifestyles. Having another baby would seriously jeopardise our lifestyles as we will be forced to be more generous with our time and money.
Take a moment to consider this, Martin - what is the real reason that we are afraid to have more people in our world?
Overpopulation (whether real or perceived) is simply a reason to justify our selfish lifestyles. In addition, if we are afraid of overpopulation, it really means we are afraid of sharing, and we believe that not all humans are inherently good. It also means that we think that we are superior to the baby in the womb that will take up our resources. Better to prevent it from being born.
—-
On the analogy of food and sex:
I would say that occasional fasting is indeed healthy, both physically and spiritually. This is why in almost every religion, we will find periods which people fast. Physically it is healthy to fast occasionally because it helps to clear the body of toxins. Spiritually it is healthy to fast occasionally because it builds up self-control and it teaches us to appreciate what we have as well. This is also the Church’s attitude towards sex. This can be clearly seen in the practice of Natural Family Planning, which requires couples to abstain from having conjugal relations for a few days every month.
Conversely, if one were to eat whenever he wanted to, he would grow fat and unhealthy, wouldn’t he? Likewise contraceptives allow people to have sex anytime that they wanted to. What does this produce? It produce people who are not able to control their sexual appetites and it also produces sex addicts. Consider why it is only in the recent 40 years or so that the world experienced a sudden increase in the number of sex addicts. You will find that it matches the time when contraceptives came onto the market. Mere coincidence? I don’t think so.
You are right that sex is integral to who we are. The Church teaches us that the normal vocation of a person is that of marriage, and it affirms that the proper place of sex is in marriage. In other words, the Church is saying that for the majority of us, we are all called to have sex in marriage. Assuming a person lived for 80 years, and he got married at the age of 25. He would still be able to have sex for more than half of his life. What is the repression that you keep talking about? Repressed sexual feelings to have sex outside of marriage? The Church is right to condemn such a practice. How would you feel if your girlfriend went out and had sex with another guy? How would she feel if you did the same?
Did you know that adultery is the number one cause of divorce in the world? If you are having sex with a woman that you are not married to now, what is to stop you from doing the same after you are married, especially when your feelings for your wife have died out?
—-
On pornography:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that pornography and prostitution are avenues for people to let off sexual tension so that there will be less sex crimes. Is that correct? Unfortunately such a theory is also outdated and it has already been discredited. What is true, however, is that sex criminals copy what pornography depicts. A study titled “Thrill Killers, a Study of America’s Most Vicious Murders” by Charles Linedecker, reports that 81% of these killers rated pornography as their primary sexual interest. Dr. W.L. Marshall, in “Criminal Neglect, Why Sex Offenders Go Free” (1990) says that based on the evidence, pornography “feeds and legitimizes their deviant sexual tendencies”.
In one study of rapists, Gene Abel of the New York Psychiatric Institute cited, “One-third reported that they had used pornography immediately prior to at least one of their crimes.” In 1984, the U.S. Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence reported, “Testimony indicates that an alarming number of rape and sexual assault offenders report that they were acting out behaviour they had viewed in pornographic materials.”
The facts show it clearly, Martin: More pornography equals more rape of children and women.
(Source: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/09/pornographys_li.html)
—
On chaste living and contraceptives:
Sure, I believe that our gramps weren’t so chaste, but they sure were a lot more chaste than we are today. They sure didn’t go around telling the whole world their sex lives. Sure they did have extra-marital affairs, but believe me, it was a lot less frequent. Socially, it was unacceptable, so people did it in secret. Pregnancies blow that secrecy. Hence, fewer people took risks less of the time. But you’re right. People have been having pre-marital sex since the time of Abraham.
Even in Jesus’ time, which is why the apostles wrote letters condemning such behaviour. Trust me, people were just as promiscuous then as they are today, which is why the Church’s teaching remains the same and is equally applicable. You see, Martin, by using such a quote, you are actually weakening your own argument that the Church’s teaching is antiquated. If the teaching was applicable then, it is equally applicable now.
Neither contraceptive nor abstinence-only programmes have been very successful in reducing teenage pregnancy rates, unfortunately. But this actually lends credibility to the argument that teenagers are not very responsible.
—-
On Pope Paul VI:
Not all popes are theologians, mind you. Our current Pope Benedict XVI is a theologian, but Pope John Paul II before him was a philosopher. Pope Paul VI who wrote the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” had two fields of specialty - diplomacy and student work. As an archbishop, he worked on social problems and to improve relations between workers and employers. Indeed much of his papacy focused on social problems and it is no surprise that the encyclical he is most remembered for deals with the social problems of accepting widespread contraception.
It is interesting to note that his four predictions on the acceptance of contraceptives have all come true in the past 40 years. Don’t you think his words are worth looking more deeply into?
I can’t argue against personal sharings, because they are neither right nor wrong. All I can say is that if your parents chose not to have any children like you are considering, we wouldn’t be discussing this today.
—-
On marriage and children:
The Church does not teach that couples should have more children than they can afford. This is a mistaken belief. What the Church teaches is that couples should as have as many children as they can raise within their means. Also, the Church does not require people to stay in unhappy marriages. Civil divorces can be obtained, but not remarriage. The Church also grants annulments for those who were married because of stupid decisions. We can talk about that another time if you want to know more.
Let me put to you this question: If two people can get married simply because they love each other and not have kids, what is to prevent a brother and a sister from getting married? They love each other too. They can live without kids as well. Or again, what is to prevent a father and his daughter from getting married?
Having kids cements a relationship especially when love has died out. When a husband and a wife have kids and raise them, it offers them a chance to rediscover the love they have for each other. It offers them opportunities to go through hardships together. Nothing binds people more closely than having gone through hardship together. Without children, there is no reason for two people to stay together once the love dies out. Yes, they can get a divorce, but only if they believe that a child is better off without his parents living together. In some cases, this is true though, but many people are getting divorced for reasons other than these, such as “incompatibility”.
About having kids pop up every time, there is Church-approved method of natural family planning, which offers the same failure rates as the pill, without all its negative side-effects on women’s health.
—-
On infallibility of Church teaching:
About the infallible statement, it was given in response to the claim that the Church’s teaching on contraception is not infallibly proclaimed. It does not mean that if research shows that there are moral reasons why contraception is okay. We have to resort to Church teaching here, because no scientific research can ever be used to determine whether something is moral or immoral. But for the most part, I have not even brought in the moral reasons why contraception is immoral. You have completely misunderstood that section and misused it. Incidentally, have you nothing to say about the rest of the article? If so, I take it that you agree with it.
—-
On NFP:
http://www.openembrace.com is an interesting site. It does show one couple’s journey to better understand NFP, and realise that it’s not a free ticket to having no children. Indeed NFP is not meant to be used as a contraceptive. That is when it becomes just as harmful to a marriage. It is not the condom or the pill but the contraceptive mentality that is harmful.
Let’s take a closer look at the advantages and disadvantages of NFP in the site you gave:
Advantages:
- It is safe (the Pill is not)
- costs nothing, except for books or counselling about the method (good for poor couples as well as rich)
- a woman learns a lot about her body cycles and changes (her husband too! The woman can know the exact day in which her ovum releases the egg!)
- can help plan and prevent pregnancies (other methods cannot plan pregnancies; they can only prevent them)
- partners are encouraged to work together and develop better communication
- enjoyment and spontaneity of sex; not having to use barrier methods or devices
- no medicines or devices to cause health risks
- acceptable to most religions
- no medicines, chemicals or devices necessary
- lowers risk of divorce (one point they left out is that married couples using NFP have only 2-3% divorce rate as compared with the national average of 50%; too large a difference to attribute to mere coincidence)
Disadvantages:
- a complete understanding of the method is required (couples acquire both theoretical and practical knowledge)
- self-discipline is needed to chart signs of fertility and to observe the rules (discipline is necessary to be a developed and healthy adult)
- it cannot be used for several months while gathering baseline information (which is why couples normally start a few months before their wedding)
- it restricts spontaneous sex (we’re not animals that give in to their passion and desires; we are humans who can control ourselves)
- up to 15 days a month may be unsafe for sex (experienced users can reduce this number)
- self-control is required on those days a woman may be fertile (self-control is bad because? On the contrary, lack of self-control which contraceptives promote is harmful)
- some women cannot use it, especially if periods are irregular (only true for rhythm method, but not for NFP. This point is incorrect. NFP is designed for any woman, regardless of their cycle regularity)
- it does not protect against STDs (but fidelity to one partner does; contraception on the other hand promotes sexual promiscuity among unmarried people)
John Kippley who commented just after you did also provides a link to his website where you can find a “How-To” manual for NFP. I think I’ll go download it and read it. Maybe you will want to as well.
God bless,
Catholic Writer
I would just like to add to the comments about pornography that while it may be positively related to sexual violence, it is not positively related to normal expression of sexuality. According to a survey by a condom company, Japanese men use pornography more and have sex less than any other men in the world. (Ive lost the source but google it.)
Though as you pointed out, the church’s teachings technically say that sex isn’t solely for reproduction (a change that was made in Vatican II), it’s easy to see that saying sex must always be OPEN for reproduction is really not different from rewording it to say it must be ONLY for sex. Therefore, although the church says it also for other purposes, the idea that sex is almost solely for reproduction still prevails in catholic teachings.
Wars do not kill nearly as many people as diseases. Casualties among troops and the civilian population are nowhere as high as the deaths attributable to diseases, plaques and pestilence. And these figures are only in today’s world. Black Plague ring a bell? According to the World Health Organization list compiled http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_2_en.pdf , diseases today STILL are the primary cause of death. Though obviously it still has been reduced greatly from the past due to antibiotics, etc. Argument rebutted.
You don’t seem to have understood the passage where I state that while developed nations have used many resources such as fossil fuels, which are not as immediate a threat as lack of food resources. Again try to circumnavigate what was argued and proved by researchers that we might not be able to continue to feed other nations. “What is preventing us from channeling additional funds to discover these renewable resources of energy?” This only applies to fossil fuels, which again, we are not talking about.
You mention de-population as proof that overpopulation does not exist. Again, you don’t see the bigger picture. I don’t argue that de-population is not a problem, it exists and has caused issues such as you mentioned in central Europe. You are putting it in terms of looking only at individual nations. You even state, and I’ve researched the proof, that immigration to these countries are high. That shows you that when you focus on a certain area of the world, population might seem to be dropping and it probably is. But it is when you take a step back and look at the overall population growth of the world that you see the problem. Many of those immigrants coming to Europe are from Africa. Even with the exodus from impoverished and AIDS plagued Africa, the population there is still growing and therefore spilling onto other continents. It doesn’t matter when you look at the whole picture whether or not a race of ethnicity of people disappears because of their infertility (purposely or otherwise). Europe is being replaced by immigrants just shows that their population is declining, but what matters to this argument is that overall world population is still increasing in most parts of the world. I do commend you for bringing it up (de-population) but that is merely an issue at the nation-state level not, more importantly, at the global level where population growth ultimately matters. As a result your argument there completely fails as a result of you overlooking the bigger picture.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/wp02.html
“Census Bureau projections show this slow-down in population growth continuing into the foreseeable future,” stated the Bureau’s brief on the findings. “Census Bureau projections suggest that the level of fertility in many countries will drop below replacement level before 2050… In 1990 the world’s women, on average, were giving birth to 3.3 children over their lifetimes. By 2002 the average was 2.6.” Of course, this value still ensures the continuing rapid growth of the human population as a whole, even if some regions may decline.”
“If the U.S and Canada really want to help the food shortage, what they will do is help the other countries develop their own technologies so that they will have enough food of their own.” Agricultural techonology is not exactly a military secret. You can’t just make food out of thin air. It requires land and deforestation and therefore elimination of many natural habitats. Again this brings me back to the passage in which I used facts showing increasing agriculture to meet the growing population is damaging the world greatly. I notice you didn’t attempt to refute that, because even you yourself understand that it’s a fact that can’t be ignored.
“If all the world’s countries…shared what they had, we would have far more than enough food…” No we would not. Again, my argument is taken care of in my other post. Agricultural resources are different than oil resources. Facts themselves refute your statement. Maybe you should go back and read carefully what I presented. Or, maybe you have already, and I would understand your predicament in successfully refuting it.
“Unless you’re saying the world is not big enough for all of us”. Ummm, I believe that’s what overpopulation is about.
“Is the human person good or bad. If we think the human person is good, we will not fear overpopulation because more people is good.” That statement right there shows that even you seem to understand that overpopulation is real. Now you move on to defend overpopulation by relying on people being good or bad. I don’t see how you could have given this point much thought, as it doesn’t matter whether a person is good or bad. It’s still overpopulation, with the earth being stripped of its resources to successfully feed them, regardless of good or bad individuals. Your point here fails miserably.
You start talking about abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. You completely stray off topic as these don’t help your arguments about overpopulation and preventing it with contraceptives. You’re talking about the elimination of life already existing. A Whole other topic. Therefore, those parts are skipped due to being off topic and having no viable connection to contraceptives. Again referencing the pope does not help and in a another paragraph I will Again show you why.
“In addition we focus on the emotional aspect of marriage, and ignore the procreative aspect, since we think that human persons are not good.” Just because we ignore the procreative aspect does not mean that we think that “human persons are not good”. If I don’t want to eat the orange, it is merely because I don’t feel like eating it today. Does this mean I don’t like oranges? I don’t have to make that any clearer for our readers.
“The reason why we choose not have more babies is because we want to maintain our current, greedy, selfish lifestyles.” Again, as in the last post I define the word
Selfish : devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
Using the definition of the word, your arguments using this word to describe those who use contraceptives doesn’t hold at all. Although there may be SOME that are selfish, selfishness is not relegated and defined by contraceptive use. There are selfish people and nonselfish people that use contraceptives. You try to make it a catch all for all those who use contraceptives. A person who uses contraceptives in no way necessarily fits ANY of the descriptions in the definition. Yes having a baby would jeapardize ones lives as some just are not ready, and they know it, to have a child. Maybe they don’t want the INCREDIBLE responsibilities that would accompany just one child, much less having more kids. When a couple decides to use contraceptives to put a cap on how many children they have, they are thinking of both their own interests (do they want more stress which comes with more children), and are thinking about the children they already have, to ensure that they are able to be tended to and cared for efficiently. Something that greatly breaks down with more kids. And if a couple doesn’t want any kids at all, again they don’t fit the definition of “selfish”. They would be concerned with their own interests, that why they choose contraception, but it does not fit the part of the definition which is integral in labeling someone selfish. “regardless of others”. At this point, there is no “others” that we speak of. They (hypothetical kids) don’t exist in their lives at this point. Therefore, your continuing argument using the word selfish when connected to contraceptives falls apart, as yes there may be people who fit this definition, but it is not due to the contraceptive as most others do not fit it. This will be explained latter in this statement.
Again as stated in the past posting, and in this, overpopulation is real and you yet to refute it successfully with any convincing evidence or arguments showing that it’s false, you even seem to admit it and defend it by stating that more good individuals is good for the world and therefore (somehow) overpopulation is not seen as a threat.
On to your critique of my anology of food and sex:
“I would say that occasion fasting is indeed healthy, both physically and spiritually.” Ok. It is not. Even though there are websites that proclaim that fasting is healthy, but MSNBC investigation will be the most useful as we cannot trust questionable minor sites. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16282567/
And another showing health warnings from the growing “fasting” trends. Again they are using independent studies and factual information.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595886/
And just because religions do it, does not mean they have any factual research to back up their claims. Religious leaders merely declared it so, and people followed like obedient sheep. Maybe feeling dizzy was why they adopted it. Afterall, drug use ALSO was common in most religions. Again refutted, Directly.
NFP is quite strange as it claims, as you’ve said, not to be a? contraceptive. Yet why is it done? To regulate familie sizes, albeit in a so called “natural” way? Considering the church’s teaching that sex must be open for procreation, NFP would fit this but only on a technicality. As the idea behind it is still to regulate and CONTROL to some degree the chances of getting pregnant. Contrary to what the church teaches. Which is again, to be open to procreation. The idea behind NFP is still birth control. There is no reason to conclude therefore, that “artificial” birth control is evil but “natural” is not. You could argue with me on the canon law behind it all, but what really sinks your NFP argument is the success rate in correlation with the actual amount of people using it. Only 1.5% of Americans use this. Therefore promoting its success rates is misleading. If I had 4 people try out a product that I had, and 3 out of 4 liked it, I could then market it with the success rate of 75% satisfaction among people and that “3/4 people were greatly satisfied”. But as you can see this is greatly misleading as very few people actually participated, and considering your NFP is nearly nonexistent, the success rates for these same reasons are negated. There’s nothing really wrong with choosing it, but it is in no way necessary for a “good marriage”. It should not be a mandate for catholics to follow. No reason for it, since we have, artificial contraceptives. NFP argument closed. (Chandra, A; Martinez GM, Mosher WD, Abma JC, Jones J. (