If lusting after a woman is a sin, why did god make having sex so enticing?

*Wrong!* Please see Love and Responsibility.

 

Just did a quick google search, is this John Paul II's opinion or official church doctrine?

secondly I may have over simplified things but the catholic church's official doctrine on birth control is trying not to have sex during a woman's most fertile period

 

Agree with twhy. I don't disbelieve that that's what you learned in Catholic school, but I doubt that's what the Pope would tell you. As for birth control, the Catholic Church prefers NFP.

 

The Pope? What does he know about sex?

DD

 

in theory, if you don't believe in birth control other than this type of method, what does that say about your views about sex? you're basicly saying that all sex should have the possibility of resulting in procreation

 

Yeah NFP is the way to go. JP II's writings became what the church wrote up in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. The church had held since Augustine and Aquinas that 2 of the main ends of marriage where the procreative and unitive goods of the spouses. Sex is pleasurable for the spouses, helping in the unitive aspect.

This of course doesn't mean that chastity, or child rearing get thrown out the window. NFP can be abused like birth control, but the idea is that marriage and in particular the sexual act are the total giving of self to the other person. This giving of self must be open to life (why older couples and infertile couples don't have invalid marriages).

This is a great topic as I study for my Canon Law of Marriage final!

 

He's a human, and his line of thinking comes from Augustine, who knew quite a lot about sex.

Why don't you go back to hanging out with Matt Bullard?

 

I know right.

I guess Catholics are totally in the clear in this thread, since we're talking about lusting after women and not little boys.

 

1998 called, it wants its joke back.

 

As long as you give its righteous indignation back as well.

P.S. JERK STORE!

 

(apparently you need 5 characters to make a post, I was just going to have the smiley.)

 

But why is sex without marriage a sin? If it's consensual, it doesn't hurt anyone. So why is it wrong?

Overindulgence in food is harmful to yourself. The actions many people take in pursuit of money and power are harmful to themselves and others. But sex between consenting adults (as long as neither of them is cheating on a spouse) does not harm anyone.

 

I think talking about birth control may be a bit of a red herring in this conversation. This started from someone's assumption that some religion thought enjoying sex was wrong -- which the RC church doesn't believe. Even if they allowed no birth control and wanted you to procreate all the time, they still want you to enjoy ****ing the **** out of your wife while you inseminate her.

But they do allow birth control. NFP isn't being open to the possibility of pregnancy. Done right, you will not get pregnant. Of course, it has a higher failure rate than other, more modern methods, because it's more complicated. But, if I'm boffing my post-menopausal wife, for example, I'm not being open to the possibility of procreation. I'm just enjoying sex with the wife, and the church says that's fine and even good.

I think you're applying a secular world-view to a Christian ideal, so of course it's not going to make a lot of sense. You're using this moral imperative, "It's okay so long as everyone agrees and no one gets hurt." That's not mentioned in the Bible.

Besides, in real terms, in consensual unmarried sex where no one gets hurt, there is still potential for someone to be hurt. If a woman gets pregnant and the man bails (since he has no contractual obligation), the woman is hurt. Or, if the woman bails and the man has no access to his children, he is hurt. Or, a venereal disease is passed, someone is hurt. Or, if a participant is motivated by baser instincts than love or even lust -- like egomania, a desire for domination, or something like that -- the other could be hurt from the lack of respect or love. Or, even if committed with good intentions, if the relationship later breaks up, it hurts more with sex than without it. These things happen within marriage as well, but the covenant offers some protection. You can (and people do) get into the nitty-gritty of motivations, risks, and outcomes, but if you want to draw a clear bright line, marriage has the advantage of being very distinct.

 

Well, that's debatable. If some woman bangs every drunken douchebag that buys her a drink every night for 10 years, you don't think that's going to harm her emotionally somewhere down the line?

 

Its not a zero sum argument. yes, they allow for sex to be an enjoyed experience, sharing intmacy that you would not share with any other person. that being said, they still believe the main function of sex is procreation, or they would be okay with your wife taking the pill.

the nfp is a compromise that allows them to maintain their doctrine.

 

Also, on NFP, I think women would tell you that sex is most enjoyable during those periods of fertility (i maybe wrong, it would be nice for a woman to chime in) but assuming that's true, that ain't much compromise for woman.

which is the case for most male dominated organizations

 

The whole subject just goes to show how out of touch the church is with its members and how outdated it is. i mean, I know people plan to have sex at a woman's most fertile time when they are trying to have children, other than that, who schedules sex for the least likelyhood of getting pregnant. so you and your wife go to a romantic dinner on an anniversy and you come back home and both are in the mood and you both say no because its not on schedule

the whole topic is so damn ridiculous

 

NFP is not to be used as birth control. It's for those in financial need. My wife and I are having to do it now. It works on the concept of chastity etc.

The church doesn't separate the two aims of marriage. They are always together, unitive and procreative.

The doctrine against birth control is that it uses unnatural means to prevent the procreative aspect of a marriage, thus keeping the sexual act from being a total giving of self.

Some in the church do not like NFP because they see it as just another form of birth control. If done right however, it embraces the body's natural cycle, and it helps foster an understanding that chastity can still exist within the bounds of marriage.

Here's a better description than I could ever hope to give of the difference:
"As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person's answers to some very basic questions like, "What is marriage?" What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?" Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be "used", and it fails to acknowledge God's place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God's plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage. Every couple owes it to themselves to learn more about it!" http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html

 

Why is that for you to decide? NFP is about the spouses coming together. They could fully break the NFP schedule and get pregnant and if they were open to life, they'd probably be fine with that. If they were to keep the schedule, they'd have to find other more chaste ways to show their love for each other.

 

what do you mean why is that for me to decide? its just a senario dude