Re: Catholic views on sexuality
Submitted by F.O.D. on August 25 1999 at 14:47:02
In reply to Catholic views on sexuality Submitted by Heather on August 24 1999 at 21:13:47
|
Nice article, though I could pull a number of holes in the logic. Like is it really reasonable to distinguish between "natural" contraception and "man-made" contraception. Seems to me they are really much the same thing: in one case you have man applying his mind to natural biological temporal cycles to come up with a form of contraception - the "rhythm method", officially sanctioned, and in the other case you have man applying his mind to natural biochemical cycles to come up with another form of contraception - the "pill", officially forbidden. Their objection to alternative forms of contraception would appear to be grounded more in some kind of technophobia than in any real respect for God's order of nature, or otherwise the rhythm method would also be forbidden. But I appreciate the attempt they are making at continuing to honour God in the way they ask us to relate to Creation, and I am glad to hear their affirmation of conjugal (not merely procreative) sexual love. Still, the article doesn't seem to really address the question of why every sexual act must be potentially procreative. This seems to be, as you said, a prior assumption. Funny, those Monty Python boys really did know their stuff..."every sperm is sacred"... (what about the other 20 million odd that don't make it to the egg? Maybe the Church ought to be teaching in-vitro fertilisation to be mandatory, since it typically leads to the fertilisation of several ova at once - triplets and quadruplets. A much more efficient improvement of fecundity). Thanks for the article. Fod |