|
|
August 4, 2005Every Sperm is Sacred?Got an interesting email from another blogger, a fairly new Catholic, who is having a little trouble believing something. He writes:
I am sharing this with you because I am sure this fellow is not the only one confused out there. I am surely no spokesperson for the church, for that matter, I’m not even an “expert,” in this subject. I am only a Catholic laywoman who has thought long and hard about all of this - as many of us Catholic laywomen have! The teaching, first off, is not - specifically - “every sperm is sacred,” although, it must be said, when you’re talking sperm and ova you are talking about essences - our essential selves, which are derived from the deepest parts of our beings, and you are talking about the material which was designed specifically for the purpose of assisting God in the creation of humanity. God loves us into being - we are begotten. Our creation is no accident, but the Love of God made manifest, and the “tools” or “materials” that He uses for that creation - committed love and the mysterious and miraculous products of that love - do, simply by their designation as “tools of God” demand a certain respect and recognition, because they are a great deal more than the equivalent of nasal mucous or earwax. They are the essentials of human creation, and therefore they are of staggering value and import. In THAT sense, yes, every sperm is sacred. Buddhists understand this, and so do Taoists. They, particularly Taoists, will go out of their way not to “waste” their seed or their sexual energy, because they understand how powerful it is, what a pure force is contained within that material, and within that energy. Mystics from pretty much all traditions will tell you that the energy and product of one’s sexuality, if treated with respect and conservation, contributes to their overall mental and spiritual well-being. Somehow, when the wisdom comes from the East, people go, “ooooh, wise and mystical!” When the same wisdom comes from the West, they say, “ooooh, repressive, obsessive and mean!” If you are only going to consider sperm and egg as by-products of humanity and human sexuality, you’re never going to understand what it is the church is trying to say. If you accept that they are more than mere by-products but literally these “Divine Materials,” then the teaching becomes much more understandable. As to the teaching that every sex act must “hit the target,” (that’s a rather, errr, colorful way to put it), it simply means that every sex act, if it is truly to be respectful of God’s design and creation, must be opened to the possibility of new life, to God and to His will as to whether or not new life will be created. If the couple is NOT open to that possibility, if they take steps to suppress that possibility, then they have - essentially - excluded God from the act. It is, really, kind of an ultimate surrender, an ultimate trust. For Christians who routinely say, “Thy Will Be Done,” it is where the rubber meets the road. No pun intended. This is how I related it to a Protestant emailer who was rationalizing the use of birth control as something that “if God really wants to, he can overcome (the pill or the condom) because he is God.” He wrote:
Yes, I understand his point. But that is a fast bit of rationalization - I know because when I was younger, I subscribed to pretty much the same notion. “You’re God, you can do anything, so if you really want me to have a baby, you’ll make that happen even if I’m using a spermicide, a condom and taking the pill…” All true…but that’s not surrendering. It is barricading oneself in but with an overall view of “well, if the fortress is breached, I’ll sign the treaty!” Surrender - “not my will but thine be done” - is the ultimate goal. It comes with an open door, not a barricade, or it is not surrender, at all. Yes, it’s a difficult thing to communicate to people. Some accept it…some don’t. I don’t judge anyone, because I’ve walked the whole walk, myself. What one must keep in mind is that what the church is putting forth is an IDEAL. And that’s part of the job of the church, to teach and inform us as to what the ideals are, and in this case, the ideal is that we humans remain open to the will of God, in all circumstances. That’s a tall order, and one that we cannot possibly meet without Grace. But the church does understand that we, in our imperfect humanity and willfulness, will very likely not meet that ideal - it tells us that there is no way we can even begin to meet the ideal if we are not at least trying to, if we’re not asking God’s help and grace in doing so. Nevertheless, if the church did not put forth the IDEAL, it would be terribly, sinfully remiss in its teaching, because it would basically be telling people not to bother to strive for perfection in our openness to God’s will because “it’s not possible.” A fatalist message is never a good one, particularly when Jesus tells us in the Gospel that “…with God nothing is impossible.” (Mark 10:27) One of the jobs of the church is to help us find our openness to God - to help us to maintain that openness to His will, so that we might reach our own best and highest spiritual potential, because we are not called to dwell in darkness but to live in the light, and in holiness. We are called to holiness: “Be holy as my Father in heaven is Holy.” Holiness is not something that we can compartmentalize. If we are holy, it is a permeation of our entire being, and our holiness will be reflected in all that we do, in our every action and choice, and the path to holiness begins with an openness to God, in whom we live and move and have our being. If holiness is our quest, there can then be no limits to our openness. This is not a difficult thing to understand, at all. It is difficult in practice, but the church is not here to baby us along and make the roads wide and smooth. Christ told us the way is narrow, and not easy. What was it Chesterton said, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” Quite right. So, you see - the church has no choice but to teach this truth, even in a season of sneering disregard and mockery. The truth is we are not all little gods but offshoots and creatures of the One God, who wishes to bring us back to him. The Way back has been made known, and the church has the duty to keep pushing us along the road, knowing we would rather take the easy way, knowing we’ll look for shortcuts, knowing we will sometimes step off the path and say, “it’s too hard…” The church has no choice - she must teach it. How we receive this information and how we apply it to our lives depends entirely on our own choices, on our own determination of whether or not the quest for holiness is worth the giving up of our own sensibilities and our own feeling of control. But control is often an illusion. How many people do you know who used the pill, used a condom, were diligent in their birth control and STILL got pregnant? It happens all the time. Because the products of our human sexuality contain enormous power - power too many of us simply do not appreciate. And God will do what He will, sometimes, whether you’re open to it or not…in hopes that you WILL become open, and more open, to his loving gifts. If you look in scripture you will never see a baby referred to as anything but a blessing from God. But we live in an age where things are topsy turvy, and we often mistake our blessings for chains and our chains for blessings. ALL OF THIS supposes fertility, of course. The church understands and respects nature - sooner or later fertility ends, that does not mean sex ends. One of the common misunderstandings is that “the church says sex must always and only be about procreation, and if it’s not possible, then sex is a sin.” This is nonsense. Sex is the gift and privilege of married couples, both pleasurable and procreative. When fertility has come to an end, when the possibility of new life is no longer there, that means the procreation part has ended, not the pleasure. And please remember, folks…what I am trying to communicate here is what I have come to understand through my reading and talking with priests, etc. I’m no expert. I do have a catechism, somewhere…I’ll have to dig it out! Update: I’d like to point out that I am in no way suggesting that people should simply “do their own thing because the ideal is too hard.” I am not saying “wink, wink, the church teaches this but you aren’t expected to listen!” Quite the contrary, I have tried to make the point that simply because this ideal is difficult is no reason NOT to ask for the Grace to be able to achieve it, and that Jesus himself tells us nothing is impossible with God’s help. If anyone does not comprehend my saying that, I would respectfully ask them to re-read what I have written. I can’t believe I have to spell that out, but I guess I do. Hmmm…here’s a can o’ worms I shoulda kept closed! http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/08/04/every-sperm-is-sacred/trackback/ 73 Responses to “Every Sperm is Sacred?” |
As such, I can tell you what my own understanding is, and it may help some who just dismiss the stance of the Church as utter nonsense.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
“…must be opened to the possibility of new life, to God and to His will as to whether or not new life will be created. If the couple is NOT open to that possibility, if they take steps to suppress that possibility, then they have - essentially - excluded God from the act.”
Are you saying that even if that were the case- that couples understood that- that sexual activity for the sake of pleasure is to be subjugated? What about couples beyong child bearing years? Might not one conclude that sexual activity at that stage is therefore redundant?
August 4th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
SCA, My question would be about people god has rendered infertile. Since the act cannot be open to the possibility of life, does that mean those people should be celibate?
August 4th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
No, I’m not saying that pleasure is to be subjugated. The church teaches that sex is pleasurable for both partners, and JPII, in writing his theology of the body specifically mentions that a husband is duty bound to make sure the woman’s pleasure is not ignored (I’ll have to find that line…)
And I’m not saying that once child-bearing is impossible, sex should stop - that is foolishness. The church understands and respects nature - at some point, the whole ability to procreate stops…but again, that’s on God’s timetable, not ours.
People get all caught up with this stuff - it’s really pretty simple. Sex is good, sex is both pleasurable and procreative. While you’re married and fertile, be open to God during your lovemaking. When that possibility ends, well…yahoo and yippee kayay!
I suppose I’d better put up an addendum!
August 4th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
LOL…I thought the way you phrased it was pretty good. To put it in diet terms. “It is ideal that you only eat good calories- proteins, dairy, etc. But it’s really hard to only eat stuff that is good for you” Kinda reads like “okay, you’re going to eat cake sometimes, but you shouldn’t eat it at all- so cheat sparingly”
August 4th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Well said- Like Stepahnie, I laughed.
That said, I want to be clear- Does every single act have to have the same objective? Can’t there be a desire for procreaton and at the same time, a desire for the pleasures shared?
August 4th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Well…of course! God plants the desire and makes it so very pleasurable because it’s meant to keep the species going, though! Yes, yes, yes, the Catholic church wants you to enjoy lovemaking, it wants you to get lots of pleasure from it. It simply is teaching that pleasure should not be absent or exclusive of God!
I gotta go find that statement from JPII in the Theology of the Body thingie…
August 4th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
I am said young blogger LOL
well argued, but I still don’t buy it
And I certainly won’t go around telling non-Catholics about it. I always thought, when I studied Buddhism, the whole “never ejaculate” thing to be weird. I won’t propagate the “only hole-in-ones please” 
I think that sex should neither be only goal-oriented minutemanship nor too regulated and thought through.
To me, being open to having kids has to be enough. If someone wants to tell me where my swimmers have to go, that’s the point where it starts to get really comical
I mean, if one had swimmers once a month - but a healthy young man such as oh I don’t know, can have swimmers several times a night. To say that they HAVE to hit the target every time is something I just do not agree with. Certainly, the unitive aspect of said event is great, but a lil variation ain’t bad either. Sure, one may start in one place and finish elsewhere but to make this the criterion for being a good Catholic (not that you did, but some do) is laughable.
Oh and of course this leads to another conclusion - if someone is doing NFP - they can’t have any male orgasms on the off days? would female orgasms be ok? the female orgasm isn’t tied to procreation after all. One would never have TIME for making luuuv with all these regulations in mind !
It reminds me a bit about the god figure in a Somerset Maugham story, where god says, “ah these humans, they really think I care so much about what they do in their bedrooms”.
Here is what I hold to be true :
- Be married
- Be faithful
- Be open to having kids
That’s Church teaching. Any further details should be up to the couple. There is nothing in Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition saying “Thou shalt always ejaculate in your wife’s vagina”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, heh. Sure, some theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, said so. But, he thought oral sex was wrong to begin with. Other theologians said *giggle* that the woman must never be on top (missionary position, anyone?). It seems some celibate people spend a whooole lot of time thinking about regulating sex
- Be married
- Be faithful
- Be open to children
That’s what we were taught in RCIA.
August 4th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
I think I’m beginning to get it. I think.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
I am sure someone named SigmundCarlandAlfred has a tendency to over-analyze
But - don’t hehe.
If I thought about all these minute regulations I’d rather have no sex. I don’t like big government. There is such a thing as a free will and conscience. If one thinks every swimmer has to make it to the sea, they should do so, without feeling holier than thou or me. Brrr I can’t stand Puritanism, especially not in the Catholic Church!
August 4th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
Gerald…free will is all over what I just wrote. Our choices and decisions, in the end, are merely a reflection of how linearly, or laterally we wish to climb the path of holiness. The church is still obliged to teach the ideal, and to point out that anything apart from that ideal is a willful decision - or choice - to exclude the workings of God in what one does. In that SHE has no choice.
If one is going to consider “sin” as something more than simply “being bad” but of making conscious choices to exclude God…well, now…that’s when people REALLY get ticked off!
August 4th, 2005 at 3:20 pm
the Monty Python song the header is from goes like this: (the movie shows a disgruntled, childless Protestant couple looking out the window, where dozens of Catholic children (all from the same parents) play)
I’m a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They’ll take you as soon as you’re warm.
You don’t have to be a six-footer.
You don’t have to have a great brain.
You don’t have to have any clothes on. You’re
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Anchoress - just to get you on record: are you saying it is official Church teaching that every swimmer has to make it to the sea?
I wrote the Monsignor about this hehe
EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR: You’ll forgive me, G, but one verse of the Monty Python song is quite enough!
August 4th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
From Genesis 38:1-10
1And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.
2And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
3And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.
4And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.
5And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
6And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.
I don’t claim to speak for God or even for the Catholic Church (heck I’m a Baptist) but here is an example, and a pretty powerful one that would make it seem birth control in any way is sinful to God. Just my opinion. And, Anchoress, you are right. There comes a time when procreation is not possible but still the sex drive is there. However, I doubt God meant for sperm to be placed in someone’s mouth.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Jeanette, you’re wrong I’m afraid. Onan was struck down for refusing to do his duty to his dead brother, id est getting the widow pregnant. If you deduce an argument against birth control here, you’d also have to deduce that nowadays men have to marry their dead brothers’ wives. Oh, and polygamy too possibly
August 4th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
In those days if a man died childless his brother was to marry the widow and the first child would be the first husband’s (the one who died) so as to carry on his name.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Appreciate your point, Gerald, but then again God never changes, does He?
August 4th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
The referance to free will is of course, ultimately, the most important one.
The spiritual road or path we take, is uniquely our own-as is our individual definition of God. That said, in the end, it is our personal relationship with God that defines our belief and intent- and that relationship is best judged by God alone.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Good analysis, SCA, and free will is what it’s all about with God. We choose to do things and it may or may not please Him, but He has given us free will. If someone has a big hangup about wanting oral sex, he or she is free to choose to do so. I’m certainly not going to police them. And every sexual act does not result in pregnancy. If so we would all have thousands of children.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I am not Catholic, not do I follow in any way this particular doctrine, but it has always struck me as interesting anyway.
Being ‘open’ to the possibility of having children is the basis for a lot of Christian sexual doctrine. From what I understand, the areas you are in control of (not using birth control, having sexual relations with the opposite gender, ejaculating in the vagina, having sex only in marriage) are what you need to do to make sex ‘holy.’ The areas you are not in control of, fertility for example, are God’s problem an not something you need to worry about.
This actually creates a fairly strong reason to be opposed to homosexual marriage but not marriages of the elderly or the infertile on the grounds that marriage is about family and procreation. I haven’t seen to many Christians extending this argument out in that way though.
This philosophy does raise some interesting questions as technology evolves though. If a married woman is infertile but her infertility could be corrected through a simple procedure, is she commiting sin if she doesn’t get the procedure done because she doesn’t want kids (or doesn’t want kids at this time)? Does how simple/expensive/dangerous/ this procedure is make a difference in this equation?
August 4th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
If a married woman is infertile but her infertility could be corrected through a simple procedure, is she commiting sin if she doesn’t get the procedure done because she doesn’t want kids (or doesn’t want kids at this time)? Does how simple/expensive/dangerous/ this procedure is make a difference in this equation?
A very good question, Dave.
And meant for better educated minds than mine!
August 4th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
I guess I’m one of those weirdos who believes God means what He says forever. If God has sealed a woman’s womb, I see no necessity for her to do something to unseal it. If God wants her to have children He will unseal her womb with or without a doctor’s help; probably without.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
You know, I can’t ever get myself too worked up about things like the specifics of where the man “finishes up.” It seems like focusing on a crack in the ceiling while your house is in flames around you.
I’m far more concerned about the many Catholics (including liberal clergymen) who support abortion “rights”, wink at adultery and fornication, and tell us we’re intolerant if we believe there is a moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
But then, I haven’t read “The Theology of the Body” yet. I admit to being baffled by many of the specific Church directives on sex.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Jeanette - rules change - the Israelites had polygamy, but we don’t, in fact we must not. (unless the ACLU..heh). You can’t deduce a condemnation of birth control from that story, since what was condemned was, as you rightly stated, his refusal to do his fraternal duty. If you give up on that rule and on polygamy, you can’t claim that the birth control part doesn’t change.
btw - in German, one word for masturbate is “onanieren” - as you see, there they make the mistake of equating what Onan did (or didn’t do) with masturbation and say that’s why it’s wrong.
Fact is, we don’t live under Mosaic law. We don’t stone adulterers. Sure, adulterers get stoned, but in a different way
the Old Testament stoning didn’t give you the munchies.
On a general note, the Jews didn’t start with a full understanding of God, it gradually increased, which can be clearly seen in the changes of their theology. God doesn’t change. But the perception we have of Him becomes - ideally- more refined.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
I thought the anchoress’ explanation of church teaching was excellent. For another excellent explanation of Church teaching on human sexuality, try Pope Paul VI’s humane vitae encyclical. As an orthodox Catholic who believes in Papal infallibility, this as the final word for me.
August 4th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Sex gets people fired up
Even in blogs hehe. Speaking of blogs, click my name to visit mine! Today I am offending liberals and conservatives 
I don’t concern myself much with were to finish up and I don’t think the Church should either. At this time, I am wayyyy behind…I am not even dating
August 4th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Gerald,
Do your thing! I’m not your conscience and I do not speak for God. So do whatever you think is right.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
Jeanette,
If God ‘means for a womb to be sealed’ does that mean procedures to correct infertility are wrong?
Conversely, could I claim that if God wanted me to have kids he would cause the condom to break?
August 4th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
If God has sealed a woman’s womb, I see no necessity for her to do something to unseal it. If God wants her to have children He will unseal her womb with or without a doctor’s help; probably without.
Hmmm. I work at a Catholic hospital and we have infertility doctors (a few of them nationally known) on our staff. The chairman of our OB Department is a strict Catholic and active in the pro-life movement, and yet he clearly has no objection to the infertility doctors.
Your argument could be used against many medical treatments. “God gave this person diabetes and will cure him or her of it if He wishes. No need to use insulin.”
That, I believe, is the viewpoint of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
This is where it’d be helpful to have more married Roman Catholic priests, like the Eastern Catholics do - talking to a Roman priest about sex and marriage can be like talking about colors with the blind.
There, I said it
And it’s not a “liberal” thing. Not one iota of Church teaching would be violated if celibacy became optional again. (as opposed to female ordination) I think it’d be good to have both married and unmarried priests. Each has its virtue. In fact, in San Diego we have at least one married Roman Catholic priest (convert).
August 4th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Donna, Jehovah’s witnesses don’t oppose medical treatment - they only refuse blood. I believe you are thinking of the Christian “Scientists”.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Gerald, there are plenty of married, ordained deacons who could talk to you about this.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
If a woman realizes that she is having trouble concieving, she can’t just stay with her hands crossed and do nothing. Usually the doctors attempt to figure out what’s going on, and then work some kind of treatment for the problem.
If the infertility is irrevocable, even after being examined by science, then, I would understand. But how many women were considered infertile before, and after treatments, being able to have a child?
Hey, my (former) sister-in-law was supposed to be “infertile”. As a Catholic, was she supposed to cross her arms and just say “Whatever, Lord”? She didn’t, and now there are pictures of my 7-year-old niece all over our house. A cutie one, very smart and very active - she almost turned the sig.other into a rag doll, from all of the jumps and gym acts she tried on him.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
I’m still waiting on an official response as to whether it is sinful if not every swimmer makes it to the sea
I don’t think so and reject this attempt at big government
And we haven’t even gotten into the right or wrong of “completed” cunnilingus or cunnilingus in general! Esp. since it can be “completed” over and over again within a short amount of time and there is no connection to procreation at all - does someone view that as wrong, too? The female orgasm isn’t tied to procreation as the male one is after all. St. Thomas Aquinas sure thought it was wrong. Other clerics thought the woman being on top was wrong.
My conclusion :
- Be married
- Be faithful
- Be open to children
other than that, up to the couple.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Donna, The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully apparently) is God is capable of doing anything, and He doesn’t need a doctor to do it. Yes, He sometimes uses doctors to help Him, but if He wants to make an infertile woman fertile He can and has done it. That’s my point. Nothing more and nothing less. I have no problems with medical procedures to help the infertile.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
Jeanette - we meet Christ in others, that includes doctors.
old story:
During the flooding season, things got worse than expected and the water level reached the rooftops. A man decided to wait on his roof for help. After about half an hour, a boat comes along, the man on the boat says “say, do you need any help?”, the man says “no thanks, God will save me”. So the boat travels into the distance, the water level gets higher, when all of a sudden, another boat comes along, again he is asked, ” do you need any help, we’re going somewhere safe?” the man declines and says “no thanks, god will save me”, so the boat goes off. Now the water is really, really high and all seems lost when a helicopter comes along and says, “Quick, give me your hand, we’ll get you somewhere safe!” To which the man replies, “NO, GOD WILL SAVE ME!” so the helipcopter leaves and the man eventually drowns. He arrives at The Pearly Gates and asks St Peter, “I don’t get it, why didnt god save me?”
St Peter says” HE SENT YOU 2 BOATS AND A HELICOPTOR, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?”
August 4th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Gerald,
I think the anchoress did answer your question in the affirmative.
“As to the teaching that every sex act must “hit the target,” (that’s a rather, errr, colorful way to put it), it simply means that every sex act, if it is truly to be respectful of God’s design and creation, must be opened to the possibility of new life, to God and to His will as to whether or not new life will be created. If the couple is NOT open to that possibility, if they take steps to suppress that possibility, then they have - essentially - excluded God from the act.” Excluding god from that act, consciously closing the act to the possibility of conception, is a sin.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
NO, No, anchoress…I love this discussion! Definately a fun can of worms to be open.
Not that I disagree with you, mind!
Gerald, I think you are totally betraying your liberal roots with your beliefs
August 4th, 2005 at 4:47 pm
But hehe - making luuv can go for a few hours with multiple “hits” - I really wouldn’t think of going to Confession if in the whole process some swimmers were left stranded
let’s say 2 out of 3 hit the target 
not good enough?
I better stop now.
Also, I’d rather not think about religion, priests, church during lovemaking.
oh one more thing
oral sex isn’t sex! Ask Bill Clinton
oh and one more thing, directed at Stephanie. You say “Excluding god from that act, consciously closing the act to the possibility of conception, is a sin.” But that’s exactly what NFP and any other method does. the whole looking at mucus and taking temperature thing, the condom, the pill etc are all for the purpose of NOT getting pregnant. Isn’t having sex on the “off days” exactly “closing the act the possibility of conception” ?
Wouldn’t the only really “open” sex be to play russian roulette and have sex regardless of fertility?
I think it doesn’t matter as long as you don’t kill conceived life. These details are Kafkaesque, it’s like being Josef K. wandering through the pits of bureaucracy.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
don’t be knockin’ my favorite hobbies, homies ! don’t be player-hatin’ yo.
Speaking of players -> the Red Sox just won their 8th game in a row
August 4th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
so lemme get this straight, Jake: You’re saying a man must never climax through anything but vaginal intercourse it seems. I disagree. That’s beancounting in my opinion, but great if someone likes that. But, it doesn’t make me a bad Catholic in my opinion. With this strict and narrow a standard there’d be 5 Catholics left.
Must a woman also not climax from anything but vaginal intercourse? That one sure would result in lots of long faces.
I mean, a healthy man can climax time and time again, but a woman can do so even more often.
August 4th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
oh and - on the fertile days - must a man not perform cunnilingus since they can’t have sex afterwards since they’re not open for business that day?
Clearly from what I read here, a man must not be made to climax on the off days. When I first heard about the whole NFP thing, I thought “well, at least one can get fellatio.” Seems that’s fallacious (lol). Good luck selling that one
Maybe once I am older and the swimmers get tired (right around age 95), I’ll agree
August 4th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Jake- You hit the target!! I remember talking to our priest about oral stimulation and he said the same thing (I’m pretty direct). He also mentioned Onanism, J, much to my dismay. I don’t look at this openness as being holy or trying to be Holier than anyone else, I just want to please my Lord. It’s a struggle, and very rarely I get off that narrow road and the swimmers don’t get to the sea, I guess. It’s sinful, I’m not being open to life and I try harder to do better. I think that’s human nature and willfulness. God wants us to love him freely, and then leaves it up to us as to how much love we can give back to Him.
NFP is a major Catholic practice, not of birth control, but of using one’s own body to remain abstainant during our fertile time of the month. My husband and I use said method, shakily because I don’t take my temp or chart at all, but knowing my body and cycle is an awareness we both appreciate and actually, the intimacy is a turn on as we anticipate (probably tMI, sorry).
Who thinks sex cannot be pleasurable for Catholics? That’s kinda stereotyping and assuming we’re quite the prudes, eh? Do we really have that reputation? and, where’s Darrell?
As to infertility, where would one draw the line? I knew a woman that had Spina Bifida and so they did invtro in a surrogate. The first egg died, as the second, they aborted the third because it tested positive for SB as well, and #4 was a perfect boy. Three lives gone for the need of one couple to get a perfect child. sHE wasn’t even infertile! $$$$ opens many doors, i’d say, that should remain closed.
Gerald, I humbly suggest you take up a strenuous hobby or something and forget about your little swimmers for a while:).
August 4th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Gerald,
I suppose I should be clear- sorry, you probably don’t know I’m not Catholic- or conservative! Lazy of me not to identify myself as kinda the resident liberal
NFP- you can still get pregnant on “off days”- it’s less likely, but still very possible. Sperm can live inside for up to 14 days… so you may THINK it’s safe but…well, my sister didn’t think she could get pregnant “one time during an unlikely timeperiod” (edited to clean it up a bit)” but 9 months later my youngest nevvie was born, so she was still open, and God took her up on it 
Same with another sister, who thought breastfeeding made her “safe”- umm, not so much.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
I don’t think God gets irate if the swimmers only make it 2/3 - in baseball that’s prettty good! Sometimes one cannot help grounding out to second base.
Hey, at least I think that’s funny!
Alright, enough for me, before this gets really ugly hahaha
y’all do what y’all want
August 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
my jaw hurts due to the things I cannot type here
I better go take my boat out
August 4th, 2005 at 5:35 pm
I’m beginning to feel like a voyeur.
Interesting remarks, here.
August 4th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Sigmund - don’t even go there
Did I mention I am from Vienna? Europeans are supposedly less prudish, maybe that’s why I never heard any of this argumentation in Austria, which is a historically Catholic country.
Marriage, fidelity, openness to children is already a task many fail at, I really don’t need mjinute regulations about how to be faithful, esp. since, like St. Augustine, lust is my “thing” (eeeeeeeeeewwww). Some things are easier for some than for others
August 4th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
In closing - this is really an insider discussion, tending towards legalism and scrupulosity. The average churchgoing Catholic has never even heard of the “swimmers” thing, which I still don’t believe is Church doctrine. I am waiting for a response from high up
I think it’s quite a stretch from openness to having children to scooping up the last swimmer, but hey, if that works for you, that’s wonderful.
August 4th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
How does all of this square with the concept of abstinence and the use of the rhythm method? I find myself wondering if your description could be interpreted to mean that one should attempt to exercise no control over the size of one’s family at all. If abstinence and the rhythm method are permissible, where is the line between closedness and openness to God’s will?
August 4th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
I’m married and childless, not by *my* choice, but God’s, apparently.
In the 14 years my husband and I have hoped for “yes,” God has said “no.” Does this mean our lovemaking is pointless? “Fruit”less, yes; pointless, no. We are one flesh, as we are called to be. We cleave to each other, as we are called to do. And I’ll tell you, when lovemaking *always* has a tinge of sorrow, that’s a deep and singular bond, too deep to share with any other person.
I know there are those who would say our union is less — in every possible way. I know because I’ve heard them, they’ve oh-so-lovingly told me so.
How I wish this weren’t true, but they are always fellow Christians.
Go home and look to your own beds, I wish I’d have said to them. Come talk to me after you’ve soaked that bed with tears, after you’ve pounded the walls of heaven, wondering if they’re soundproof, still hoping for that elusive yes.
Do that, and we’ll talk, I wish I’d had the nerve to say.
How can one judge what God alone holds in His sovereign hands? How can one pile judgment on top of sorrow and add to another’s burden?
We must honor God and look to our own beds.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Several years ago, a very embarrased girl friend (happily married) was involved in a very similar discussion on line. She contacted her bishop with the question and got the following answer.
Oral sex is okay as long as it is foreplay, and agreeable to both parties.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
OMG, Tracey!!! Don’t you believe that for one second, one nanosecond… what insensitive lies people produce. What gives anyone the right to say your union is less… I’m stunned. In God’s eyes, you are as equal as any and all.
Don’t let their hateful words get you down, please? They are wrong, no matter their intentions. I’m so mad. Please consider me a fellow Christian, even though some discount Catholics as such, and listen to me. What you are and all you have are precious in God’s sight and you are absolutely right: God holds all Truths in his sovereign hands, my friend.
August 4th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Anchoress,
I think Gerald is tweaking you with regard to NFP. He asked the same question on his blog, and he responded (so I know he saw it) and he didn’t ask for clarification (so I believe he understood it). Here’s how it went:
August 4th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
Oh, and Gerald… I thought the Cafeteria was Closed
August 4th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Aww Tracey. My heart goes out to you. And for people, any people, to kick you when you are down…karma is a bitch, as I’m sure they’ll find out.
August 4th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
Anchoress- good discussion!
August 4th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Tracey, those sorts of passive aggressive types who would dare to judge the richness of your love or your marriage because they have children and you do not is just the nastiest, lowest and most insecure sort of evil. Everyone has their crosses to bear, and the cross of infertility is a very heavy one,indeed. These folks who would dare to be in your face about it will have crosses of their own to bear. I wonder if their mean little spirits will be large enough to endure it? Boy, that makes me mad!
August 4th, 2005 at 9:44 pm
Tracey said:
Go home and look to your own beds, I wish I’d have said to them. Come talk to me after you’ve soaked that bed with tears, after you’ve pounded the walls of heaven, wondering if they’re soundproof, still hoping for that elusive yes.
God said that same “no” to my mom. The answer remains to this very day. I have a small cross-stich sampler hanging over the computer that she made for me which reads: “Neither flesh of my flesh, nor bone of my bone, but always my own”.
I know “God works in mysterious ways” is not a comforting answer. But I truly believe that God had the best interest of both my parents and myself in mind when he chose.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:51 am
Tracey,
People who criticize you because you have not been able to have a child are not worth the time you spend worrying about what they think. They are rude, crude and socially unacceptable, to say nothing of not showing a loving and Christian spirit. God bless you and your husband.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:53 am
On the other hand, Tracey, as fertile as I was if I had not used birth control the same people would have been calling me names for having too many children. They just can’t be satisfied, and they are not the ones you should be trying to please anyway.
August 5th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Ah, you’re right, Jeanette. They would have indeed!
And, no, I don’t try to please them; they’re impossible — “rude, crude, and socially unacceptable,” as you say. But I *am* always stunned to see a lack of Christian love among Christians.
I think that should be stunning.
August 5th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
I think it is interesting that some people seem to be saying “But I like this practice, and I don’t want to give it up, therefore whatever the Church teaches about it must be wrong and ridiculous.”
What we should be saying is “This is strange, and I have never heard of this teaching before. Why does the Church teach it, and is this something I should be considering, even though it is hard, and would involve me giving up something I like to do?”
I’m not sure anyone has given a clear answer, so I will say that yes, completed male oral sex is prohibited by Church teaching, as is masturbation. Uncompleted oral sex as a form of foreplay before sexual intercourse seems to be allowed.
Some forms of infertility treatment are allowed, and others are not. Treatments that heal something wrong with the body, such as unblocking a fallopian tube are allowed. Treatments such as IVF in which conception takes place apart from sexual intercourse are prohibited.
These two teachings are actually related. If anyone is curious as to the whys, and how these things are all related, I would suggest reading Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West. It is in question and answer form, a quick and easy read, and relates teachings to the Theology of the Body.
I would also like to add to the Anchoress’s great explanation, that the Church knows that we often fall short of the ideal, and that is why we have the sacrament of Confession.
August 5th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
When discussing this subject, I find diet metaphors (as suggested above) eminently useful.
The sexual and food appetites are each driven by a base human need. We want to eat, and we want to have sex. The ultimate end is similar, too: the sustaining of human life.
As for the means, sex without the possibility of procreation is very much like eating without the benefit of nutrition.
For example, say you’re feeling hungry: Will you have a balanced meal, or just dig into a can of ready-to-spread frosting?
One will gratify, while the other will titillate and provide some fleeting gratification. Which can one live on?
All one needs to do is look around at those who habitually choose the most attractive foods over the most nutritious; or who dwell on feeding the appetite (gluttony) with little regard for the effects this has on the body. Flabby, sluggish, unhappy people; diabetes and other disorders; early death.
IME, a similar thing happens to those who pursue sex as an end in itself. They eventually become unable to appreciate wholesomeness in themselves and others. It’s all about the momentary gratification of desires. Inevitably, sadness and ill health follow, despite layers of denial.
Of course, no metaphor is perfect. That’s why it’s a metaphor. If two things were the same, there would be no point in showing the similarities.
But the parallels between these two are uncanny.
August 5th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Gerald, thanks for inspiring this lively conversation! (Seriously!) The thing is, there is way more to understand about these teachings than can be posted in a format like this. Before you make your mind up, PLEASE look into a couple of sources - JPII’s Theology of the Body and Christopher West’s writings on Theology of the Body are great places to start. There are also tons of sources on the internet without having to wade through a whole book. Unfortunately, I’m not surprised that this wasn’t covered in your RCIA process - my husband converted 3 years ago and had the experience. As you said yourself, I think that catechists are afraid of offending/scaring people. It’s too bad, really. Ironically, these teachings are part of what brought me deeper into the church, not away from it. Good luck with your search!
August 5th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
[...] even HERE to see what it might be about. Posted by: Carol @ 5:45 pm Posted In: Laundry Room | Permalink |MAIN [...]
August 6th, 2005 at 2:44 am
[...] The Anchoress has a most excellent post up and don’t let the title, “Every Sperm Sacred”, scare you off. Please read it, it’s worth it. The Anchoress succinctly tells of a few spiritual matters in her article, for me, that don’t even concern the sperm being sacred issue. [...]
August 9th, 2005 at 8:29 am
August 9th Extravaganza
There is nothing quite so exciting as attending a grand function in the middle of a storm. Thunder, lightning and high winds…. Possibly hail… As soon as the lights go out, we suspect that the music will stop, the chaperones…
August 11th, 2005 at 5:01 pm
GBS’s suggestion that it is sufficient to be generally open to the idea of children hit the streets 40-some years ago, after Humanae vitae was published. It was immediately sent to the doghouse.
At first pass, the Church’s teaching is pretty straightforward. Anchoress and Jake hit most of the right points. That the Church sticks so strongly to its understanding of sexuality may seem narrowness. It is really faithfulness to a vision of breathtaking scope and beauty.
Let’s take the easy part. St. Augustine wrote that when a husband and wife have sex and hope that they do not conceive, they “have reason to regret”. Why would he say such a thing? Because they have not completely aligned their wills with God’s will; they are half-way to setting their will against God’s, and setting your will—will, mind you, not your desires, however intense—against God’s will is the basic, formal definition of sin.
Every conception is the result of a partnership comprising the husband, the wife, and God. Creating a human being is a big deal, so when a couple use sex but shut God out of it, it is a serious sin. Don’t get hung up and distracted by whether conception occurs, or is likely to occur, or is even physically possible. Submitting to God’s will leaves the outcome in God’s hands, which makes the outcome irrelevant from the human perspective. (The whole “swimmers hitting the target” business is not only tasteless, smirky, and smarmy: it is Gumby theology, and rhetorically it is a strawman. Put it out of your mind, lest it make your brain hurt.) What the Church teaches is that the act be formally complete; that’s all. This will get us to Onan, but it first brings us to something Jake mentioned, the unitive aspect of sex.
Every sacrament is unitive, since by giving grace it unites us with God. Three sacraments have a further unitive quality, in that they unite us with the Mystical Body of Christ, viz., Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders (these are the sacraments that, as the nuns told us, “leave an indelible mark on your soul”, and that one can receive only once). One other sacrament has a further unitive quality: matrimony, which unites the man and woman and which one cannot receive again until the bond is ended by death.
That the marriage bond is something special we might surmise. It would be strange if such intimate partners with God did not have something special between them. Beyond surmise, we have Jesus’ word that the bond is effected by God. St. Paul tells us how awesome the marriage bond is: when Paul gropes for words to describe Christ’s relationship with His Church in the Mystical Body, he speaks of Christ the bridegroom and the Church the bride. When he talks about the marriage relationship, he compares it to the relationship of Christ and the Church.
The body is clearly part of this bond; a valid sacramental marriage does not exist until it has been consummated, and the Church has always rejected those, ancient and modern, who would reject the body out of disgust. In line with this, my 12th-grade apologetics teacher, Fr. Comey, S.J., (possibly influenced by writings of Karol Wojtyla), compared conjugal sex to reception of the Eucharist: a physical and spiritual union of self-giving (and equally sacramental—yes, sex gives grace). Even without reference to Onan, contraception and non-coïtal sex are clearly contrary to the nature of sexual union and virtually sacrilegious.
You are right, I think, that Onan wasn’t punished for masturbation, exactly, but neither was it just a matter of shirking his duty to raise up seed in his brother’s name. Onan was, indeed, punished for spilling his seed upon the ground. There is other stuff going on; the key is in the book of Ruth.
The law in question, as written in Dt 25:5, says “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” Verses 7-10 provide that if the brother refuse this duty, the widow should publicly humiliate him, so, obviously, failing the obligation was not a capital offence. What’s more, Judah and Shelah, Onan’s father and younger brother, evade the obligation without incurring divine wrath. (Gen. 38)
This conclusion is supported in Ruth, the only other place in the Old Testament that I know of that the brother’s obligation comes up. As we shall see, this is no accident. The book of Ruth is the story of the widowed and destitute Ruth’s efforts to get a wealthy distant kinsman of her husband to marry her. In this case, another law is also involved, Lev 25:25, which provided that if a man has to sell his property, his kinsmen should buy it back into the family. A man with a closer claim than Boaz is interested in the land, but does not want to marry Ruth. So he contracts with Boaz before the town elders to cede his claim to both. There is no suggestion that this is improper, no pointed to references to the fate of Onan.
All of this suggests that Onan’s offense must have been more than just breeching Dt. 25:5; it must have been directly related to going in to her and wasting his seed upon the ground. (Depending on the translation, it is more or less clear that this is Onan’s constant practice.) He was not just evading his responsibility by abstaining. His wickedness lay in violating the formal completeness of the sex act, in obstructing its unitive nature, and in a similar way, in failing to complete the obligation he had undertaken by marrying his brother’s widow.
But probably even this is not why the Lord slew him. Tamar, the widow, eventually becomes pregnant by Judah through a ruse. One of the children is Perez, Perez is the direct ancestor of Boaz, and Boaz is the great-grandfather of David (Ruth 4:18-22). And Jesus, of course, is of the line of David. Onan had to go because his selfishness and deception was keeping Providence from establishing the line from which Jesus would be born and through which God’s promises to Abraham would be fulfilled.
October 22nd, 2005 at 10:17 pm