sex in heaven

[popestpiusx]

If they are not equal, then how can we engage in an act that places the lower over the higher? How is it any different than contraception in that case, at least as far as intention is concerned?

[Guest Aluigi]

you cannot place the lower over the higher. they are inseperable. every sexual act must be open to life and unitive.

[Apotheoun]

The conjugal act is a single act, and so it isn't divisible into parts; thus, the procreative and unitive principles interpenetrate each other and are inseparable from each other, and as such, they form a single whole. The conjugal act is by definition the uniting of the spouses in a communion of love that is, and must always be, open to the gift of new life. To see the two principles of the conjugal act as standing somehow separately from each other, is to fail to understand the true purpose of the marriage act as God intends it.

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

I understand that. My point is, in agreement with you, that they can't be two separate ends. This is why, (and I will have to better explain this later), it seems to me that NFP, at least on the practical level, tends toward a contraceptive mentality. It seems to practically seperate the two, even if giving a nod to the procreative. It seems to say "I am open to having kids" at the same time doing everything possible short of actual contraception, to not have kids. Is it possible to have two conflicting desires at the same time? Example:

Two married people desire the unitive act. They do not want to get pregnant at the time. They know they must be "open to life", so they wait until it is almost impossible to naturally conceive to engage in the unitive act? We even refer to NFP in terms of its effictiveness to prevent pregency. This seems to be possible only if we are taking the act in itself as a good apart from the procreative aspect. Thus we have two separate ends. I may very well be missing something here, but I can't think of what it would be. Any help?

[jmjtina]

NFP is also used to concieve children. Ask Bro.Adam for the password.....MANY practicing faithful couples who will be glad to share what NFP really is.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 26 2004, 12:54 PM'] I understand that. My point is, in agreement with you, that they can't be two separate ends. This is why, (and I will have to better explain this later), it seems to me that NFP, at least on the practical level, tends toward a contraceptive mentality. It seems to practically seperate the two, even if giving a nod to the procreative. It seems to say "I am open to having kids" at the same time doing everything possible short of actual contraception, to not have kids. Is it possible to have two conflicting desires at the same time? Example:

Two married people desire the unitive act. They do not want to get pregnant at the time. They know they must be "open to life", so they wait until it is almost impossible to naturally conceive to engage in the unitive act? We even refer to NFP in terms of its effictiveness to prevent pregency. This seems to be possible only if we are taking the act in itself as a good apart from the procreative aspect. Thus we have two separate ends. I may very well be missing something here, but I can't think of what it would be. Any help? [/quote]
It can fall into that type of mentality, and that surely must be guarded against. Fr. Brian Harrison has written a wonderful article on this topic. Here is a link to that article:

[url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html"]Is Natural Family Planning a Sin?[/url]

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:57 PM'] NFP is also used to concieve children. Ask Bro.Adam for the password.....MANY practicing faithful couples who will be glad to share what NFP really is. [/quote]
I have the password, I know what NFP is, how it works, and most of the arguments for it. Thanks for the offer, but most of people say is just repeating what the NFP propaganda (I don't mean that term in a negatve way) states and I have all the books and pamphlets already. My questions go deeper than that stuff will address.

[jmjtina]

Glad to hear that. That article Todd posted seems to go (hopefully) in the direction you are asking.

Pax.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Nov 26 2004, 04:12 PM'] It can fall into that type of mentality, and that surely must be guarded against. Fr. Brian Harrison has written a wonderful article on this topic. Here is a link to that article:

[url="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html"]Is Natural Family Planning a Sin?[/url]

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Thank you. Fr. Harrison is a brilliant theologian. I've take a look at the article.

[jmjtina]

opps, double post.

Edited November 26, 2004 by jmjtina

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 26 2004, 01:46 PM'] Adam, You state that it's annoying when people get offended.....and yet [i]your offended[/i].


I have to agree with Pio Nono, you need to read some of his works, such as [i]Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility [/i]instead of isolated statements that obviously fuel your bias towards him. Read his stuff, then you'll be able to get a better grasp of what he is teaching and where many of us are coming from.

God Bless!

Todd! Peep the other thread about unitive and procreation.
hope it's warm in stubie! [/quote]
I don't feel like logging off, but Adam was reading over my shoulder, and he says:

A couple problems here. First of all, I never said that I was offended; I said that the Pope's theology is offensive. It's not the same thing. Plus, those are completely different connotations. Secondly, I don't possess the "offended" (and yet [b][i]your offended[/i][/b]). You need a verb somewhere. On a more serious note, I don't have time to address these points because I am not at home, but I will get to that when I can.

[mulls]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Nov 25 2004, 05:44 AM'] I also pray i can dunk from the foul line [/quote]

nah man, it's heaven, ya gotta think bigger....

let's say from half-court at least

[jmjtina]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 26 2004, 11:04 PM'] I don't feel like logging off, but Adam was reading over my shoulder, and he says:

A couple problems here. First of all, I never said that I was offended; I said that the Pope's theology is offensive. It's not the same thing. Plus, those are completely different connotations. Secondly, I don't possess the "offended" (and yet [b][i]your offended[/i][/b]). You need a verb somewhere. On a more serious note, I don't have time to address these points because I am not at home, but I will get to that when I can. [/quote]
:crackup:

ya'll are just like flowery and me. Don't ya hate it when they read over your shoulder? Only [i]my[/i] sibling kinda.........smells. :ph34r:

shhhhhhhhh, don't tell flowery........ :hide:

correcting my usage of the verbs, huh?

















have you read Love and Responsibility? or TOTB?

If not, you can't really state it's offensive if you haven't read his theology on marriage as a whole. well, I wouldn't.

Pax.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you haven't read [i]Theology of the Body[/i] and [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] you really can't have an informed opinon on the teaching.

Edited November 27, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:20 AM'] If you haven't read [i]Theology of the Body[/i] and [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] you really can't have an informed opinon on the teaching. [/quote]
Likely.

I love TOTB...:wub:

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/28 - First Sunday of Advent

As a man who bills himself as trying to be a philosopher, I feel I must step in here to clear something up.

People say that they are offended by the Pope's "theology" - the only theological work on the subject of sex that the Pope has printed is his [i]Theology of the Body[/i].

[u]Love and Responsibility[/u] is a [i]philosophical[/i] work. That means that his argumentation and conclusions all come from basic human reason, not from revealed truths. So, if you're offended by his [i]philosophy[/i], or don't agree with him, don't sit around like a monkey in a zoo, throwing feces at his work. Just because it's "new" or because it sounds offensive to modern ears (heavily influenced, by the way, by Victorian England) isn't a reason to dislike his philosophy.

If you disagree with the Pope, find one of his arguments and attack one of his premises - give me YOUR argument, since he has given you his. You can't just take a shotgun to the book and hope to be taken seriously. Find an argument, find a premise in the argument you don't like or don't agree with, and [i]construct an argument against it[/i]. Otherwise, deal with it.

I've spent a good amount of time studying the Pope's philosophical thought, and if you give him his basic assumption (that the human person is the kind of thing which must love and be loved), then everything in [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] follows.

I'm no theologian, so I can't address his [i]Theology of the Body[/i].

[Guest]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 11:10 PM']
nah man, it's heaven, ya gotta think bigger....

let's say from half-court at least [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Pio Nono, while I cannot yet call myself "theologian" or "philosopher" I am studying towards becoming both and I must say that I agree with your previous post. [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] is clearly a philosophical work, and, in my mind, his conclusions are both valid and sound. His work in the [i]Theology of the Body[/i] may be "new" in structure or presentation, but there is nothing unorthodox or contrary to the faith within it. In fact, rather than following the line of Anselm and creating an idea and then applying Scripture to it, the Holy Father's [i]Theology of the Body[/i] follows more in the line of the early Eastern Fathers, as it takes Holy Scripture as its basis and is constantly referring back to it. He draws heavily from Genesis and the letters of Paul. While I am certainly not an authority on the subject, or even in a position of mastery over the material, I must say that in my mind there is absolutely nothing in the Holy Father's [i]Theology of the Body[/i] that would lead one to consider it as being heterodox, or even in theological error, besides a natural bias against the subject matter itself.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Guest]

u guys are to smart -_-



God Bless

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/30 - St. Andrew

Bump - I want to see a well-prepared argument.