What is sex for?

I am convinced of the value of Humanae Vitae: the fruits of the sexual revolution leave us in no doubt  that the liberal attitudes it gave rise to have not, on balance, been to man’s benefit even though there might have been some good things happen in recent decades (for instance it’s good that such things can be discussed)

It seems the sexual urge is, in many cases, a little too strong for us to cope with.  It certainly causes a whole lot of problems – although homosexualtiy is the one most in our minds just now, fornication and adultery aren’t the best thing for us, either.  However, I don’t want to go down the road of saying sex is a bad thing, in a throwback to “Lie back and think of England”, something you only suffer because you have to.  That is dangerously near some heresy or other, and I’m sure the Church doesn’t want us to think like that.

There is no doubt our immune system is a good thing; people whose immune systems are compromised are vulnerable and those of us with a strong immune system are lucky.  However, it appears sometimes the immune system can go into overdrive and cause trouble in the form of an allergy or a disease.  That doesn’t make the immune system a bad thing; it’s a symptom of the dis-ease with which we have lived since the Fall.  Could the same be said of human sexuality?  It’s maybe a bit out of kilter, too.     

Whereof on cannot speak thereof one should de silent.

Apologies for the several typos in my post above.  Still, I stand by every word – even those with letters missing!

NFP works in tandem with the reproductive cycle of the woman’s body and does not frustrate it as in the manner of artificial contraception.  There is no fudge involved.  Artificial contraception works against conception during fertile and infertile periods and is a constant barrier against the Natural order.  NFP presents a healthier and more spiritually fulfilling alternative to the toxic effects of contraception.  The Church specifically forbids the use of NFP for strictly anti-conception reasons and will only allow exceptions in cases where a pregnancy is not an option for severe medical or economic reasons.  

Ah! Beethoven’s Missa Solemnis – it’s been my favourite piece of all music from my early 20s to my present 70s.
Sadly, last year’s performance at the BBC proms was very pedestrian.

theroadmaster said: ”Once you promote artificial contraception as a solution, abortion is not far behind….”

On the contrary, if you succeed in preventing  ”artificial” contraception ["artificial" tablets and "natural" thermometers nonsense operating here, I think] abortions are MORE likely to be seen as a solution to unwanted pregnancies.

How CAN you say there’s no fudge involved?

Both of what you call “natural” and “artificial” contraception are designed for the same purpose: to allow sexual intercourse without procreation.
 

I wonder if Ann can accept the validity of evolution and natural selection?
Most Catholics, I believe, can do so – but rarely do they consider the consequences.
 

I think the very opposite is true as seen from 
the depressing figures in terms of the astronomical rise in the abortions for the US and the UK over the last 40 years or more.  At least 40-55 million have been procured in the America since the inception of the insidious law resulting from the Roe v Roe judgement in 1973.  It was no coincidence that the contraceptive bill became more widely available over this period.  This in itself encourages more risky behavior, and thus when it fails, it usually involves a trip to the abortion clinic.  In the US, clinics report that 50% of their abortion referrals are for contraceptive failures.  

The picture is not much better in the UK where the most recent figures for 2010 records a figure of 189,574 for residents of England and Wales but if you factor in the number of terminations for non-residents i.e 6,535, it comes to a horrific 196,109.  Local health dispensaries and pharmacies are well stocked with contraceptive advice leaflets and birth control pills and yet the slaughter of nascent life in the womb goes on.  Go figure.

I am Catholic and live my faith as best I can. I do though believe with all my heart that homosexuality is in no way sinful. God created these people exactly as they are ~ gay. He loves all.

An evolutionist would say that whether or not  3%  impresses you or not (and assuming this statistic is correct),  the form sex takes in humans is the way it is because it actually is the most successful means for propagating the species according to natural selection.

So ironically I think you might have both evolutionay biologists and the Catholic church taking issue with your point of view.  Hardly a good place to be.

Nobody has ever died of AIDS by following the Church’s teaching.

Nobody will ever die from AIDS by following the church’s teaching.

This is a fact. Deal with it.

Just as pleasure is the motivation for eating, whilst sustaining the body is the purpose, so pleasure is the motivation for, not the purpose of, sex.

For some people, eating at McDonalds every night would be pleasurable, but it would wreak havoc on their health. In a similar way, having a desire for intercourse with persons of the same sex may be pleasurable for some, but it will not be good for them either physically or spiritually. Just as we can abuse our appetites, we can abuse our sexuality. We abuse our sexuality when we separate it from its dual purpose – unitive and procreative.

Your, “argument,” still amounts to “if we want to do it, then surely God wants us to do it.” This is no argument at all. It should be known as “The God wants us to” fallacy.

I very much doubt that you have ever read Humanae Vitae. See the excellent reply from Savia D’cunha below.

But that’s not the essential point. You are simply saying that if you’re smart enough you can have sex and no procreation without using the tablets – i.e. just by using the body’s own chemicals and a “natural” thermometer.

Do you realise that you’re really, here, embarking on the “organic” food versus chemical fertilizer grown food argument.
The manure can only do its job if it’s broken down into the chemicals.

One “solution”, as envisaged by some, for homosexuality?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/20/forcible-castrations-dutch-catholic-church 

Simple! 
No fornication, therefore no Aids
or any other nasty diseases or unwanted pregnancies. 
In the Good old days when we were Good, we didn’t have Aids. 
Anyway condoms are not 100% safe.
Be good

Have you ever heard of percussionist Dame Evelyn Glennie?

Profoundly deaf but a cracking musician!

some interesting and thoughtful comments to add to the debate. They may take us where you don’t really want us to go though….You should do the biblical/humanae work anyway and self-publish on the web. However the biblical narrative taken as a whole also includes things that we really wish it didn’t, such as rape , torture, forced marriage etc. 

I never claimed condoms were 100% safe, of course abstinence is the safest and I would advocate that.

However because the Church has made out condoms to be intrinsically evil – then people that would ordinarily wear them are having sex with no protection at all. Therefore spreading the disease.

Your pal Mencken is wrong.  Catholics are NOT permitted to use ANY methods of contraception.

however, Mencken is not alone in his/her ignorance.  Many Catholics make the mistake of thinking it is OK to space births as and when, as long as they are using Natural Family Planning and it is now commonplace for this to be taught in courses for engaged couples or even in schools.  Now there is nothing wrong to teaching about it, but the Church does NOT say you can use NFP routinely.  Far from it.

Only for very grave reasons and for a limited period of time, is a Catholic couple permitted to use their knowledge of the woman’s fertility to avoid conception, understanding that if a conception occurs, that child is to be welcomed as would be any so-called “planned” baby. 

Catholics are not permitted to use their knowledge of the natural cycle to space births routinely.

More anti-Catholic propaganda nailed, one hopes…

But in those exceptional cases, the couple need to make sacrifices. They have to practice self-restraint.  Find other ways to express their love during the woman’s fertile days.  They can’t take pills or use devices to prevent conception – there’s no comparison between the two.  Surely you can see that?  Oops! Silly me!  When people are determined to savage the Church’s moral sexual teaching they cling to the propaganda machine as if their wrong-headed thinking depended on it.  Which, of course, it does!

You are totally confused.  The whole point is that the couple ABSTAIN on days when the woman is fertile.  They use their knowledge of when the woman is likely to conceive to AVOID conception by abstaining from sexual intercourse (or to hopefully conceive).   

Hence, the couple find other ways to show their love for each other etc etc. 

There is nothing inconsistent about the Church’s position although some ignorant Catholics make it appear so by thinking they can “plan” their families as they wish using NFP. That is CONTRARY to the Church’s teaching.

No, Sir, it is your lack of clear thinking that is the problem.

The Church teaches that every “marriage act” must be open to new life.  If you abstain from the “marriage act” you cannot be open to new life.  Straightforward, so far, yes?
If - for grave reasons such as serious illness – the couple do not want to conceive another child if possible (and I stress “if possible” – there’s ALWAYS a possibility with NFP)  then they can abstain from the marriage act when nature tells them the woman is likely to be fertile.

To simplify further: there is no rule that a married couple have to engage in the marriage act 24/7.  When they do, they must be open to the possibility of a child. They can work out when the woman is likely to be fertile and abstain from relations (although Uncle  George tends to turn up without phoning which can be a nuisance. Just as well the biscuit tin is always kept filled). Whatever, whenever, if a child is conceived he/she is to be welcomed and not disposed of.  Comprenez?

Got it! We can’t know better than God – that’s the key, Sugar Plum!