Catholic Sex Blog

Not all the posts on this blog are about sex. Some are about marriage too, which is the only proper place for sex to take place.

I’ve just started on a book called “Covenanted Happiness - Love and Commitment in Marriage” by Msgr Cormac Burke, who recently visited Singapore. A friend in Family Life Society highly recommended this book and loaned me his autographed copy. Below are some extracts and adaptations from just the first chapter of the book.

Why modern marriages go wrong

Already in the first chapter, Msgr Burke pinpoints the cause of many modern divorces. Marriages fail when the spouses expect to find perfect happiness in their marriage. That is asking too much from a marriage. That is trying to find unlimited happiness, which humans are made for, in an earthly thing.

When humans forget God, only in whom one can find perfect happiness, and expects to find it in marriage, it puts too much pressure on the marriage, and the marriage crumbles eventually.

Happiness can be found in marriage, but not unlimited happiness; to ask perfect happiness of marriage is to ask for too much.

The purposes of marriage

The second reason Msgr Burke gives for modern marriages failing is that humans today tend to invert the order of priority in the purposes of marriage. We tend to think that marriage is for the expression and enjoyment of love, and then only, if at all, for having children.

We then conclude that happiness of marriage depends mainly or even exclusively on mutual love between spouses, and then only, if at all, on having children.

But is this what marriage is for? Perhaps people go wrong because they have not understood how marriage is meant to work. There are rules for making a marriage work, just as there are rules to life. Ignorance of the rules doesn’t excuse one from having to deal with the consequences.

For example, if I never knew about gravity or refuse to be subject to it, I can say I want to, and I have the right to, walk off a 20-storey building. Despite what I believe, I will still come crashing down, because my life is subject to the rules of life. Likewise, when I choose not to follow or do not know the rules of making a marriage work, and I set out on doing it my own way, my marriage will also come crashing down.

So what are the rules for marriage? How does one have find happiness in marriage? By understanding that married love is meant to become family love. Love in marriage is wider than mere married love. It is not meant to remain (and not likely to survive if it does remain) just the love of two people for each other. It is meant to spread out, to include more.

For most married couples, the true mutual love transcends the community of husband and wife, and reaches out to its natural fruit, the children, writes Msgr Burke, quoting from St. Josemaria Escriva. For special married couples who are not able to have their own children, their love reaches out to other children who have no parents to love them, and to formative and apostolic activities in favour of others.

The deliberate exclusion of children, in whole or in part, is almost certain to make any marriage work badly. This is a rule of life which is implicit in the Church’s teaching about the purposes of marriage and the relationship between them.

This does not mean that marriage is only for offspring, but it is equally for the happiness of the spouses. The key word is “equally”. Today, we tend to place more emphasis on happiness over having children.

Calculated happiness

A third main reason that Msgr Burke gives for so many marriages not working out today is the growing tendency not only to put mutual love before children, but to see actual opposition between these two purposes of marriage instead of seeing them as complementary.

Modern men and women seem to believe in what Msgr Burke calls “calculated happiness”. We believe that we can plan for happiness.

We know that love leads us to happiness. But what is love? I once asked a kid this question, and he said that love is the nice feeling that he gets when he is with someone he likes. Is that what love is? A good many adults also think so. In addition, many adults think of love in terms of personal satisfaction, rather than a rising towards an ideal, or self-giving, which implies struggle and sacrifice.

Happiness is the result of a generous dedication to someone or something worthwhile. Happiness is not something that can be bought with money or obtained through calculation. You can’t plan to be happy. Yet our modern philosophy is filled with cold calculations, many of which are quite selfish and quite mistaken.

The first calculation is that two people are sufficient to make each other happy. We see this when we see married couples say that love is the essential and all-sufficient constituent of married happiness.

The second calculation is that a certain number of children - one or two - may be a help to that happiness… or a hindrance.

The third calculation is that more than a certain number of children (two or three at a maximum) will certainly run counter to married love and happiness. Once you decide that a particular number of children will be detrimental to your married love, you can easily end up with any number - even one - as an obstacle to your married love. This is how birth control works in marriage.

When two people believe that there are made for each other, they may end up believing that they are not made for anyone else, and have no need for anyone else, even their own child. Should a child come along, husbands and wives, on becoming parents, feel some jealousy as they sense that they are no longer the exclusive object of their partner’s affections. This is a natural experience and it is natural that it will pass.

What is unnatural is to avoid having a child so as to possess the spouse fully and selfish. This runs contrary to love. No wonder marriages which are deliberately childless tend to break down after a while.

Why have children?

We know that love involves sacrifice. The more we sacrifice for another person, the more loving we become, and the more lovable we become as a person.

It is not enough for married people to sacrifice themselves for their spouses. What really makes people come out of themselves is when they sacrifice themselves for their children. If married love improves when married people sacrifice themselves for each other, then parental love is at its height when married people sacrifices themselves for their children together. Shared sacrifice is one of the best bonds of love. Children, above all, are what spur a couple on to a moral greatness, write Msgr Burke, quoting Jacques Jeclercq.

On the other hand, if a couple leave untapped the capacity for sacrifice stored in their parental instincts, they are likely to end up, at best, half-developed and half-lovable persons.

- adapted from “Covenanted Happiness” by Cormac Burke

Note: All of Msgr Burke’s books may be found online at his website.

I attended a talk today on “Theology of the Body” given by Family Life Society’s Andrew Kong once. It was held in a function room in the National University of Singapore for about 50+ university students from the Catholic Students Society there.

Although I had heard Andrew speak on the subject before, it is always interesting to learn more about the huge topic. Realising that I gain something every time I explore this topic, I made up my mind to attend the talk, especially since the crowd would be a most interesting one. I looked forward to the question-and-answer segment at the end of the talk. University students are always full of interesting questions and viewpoints.

The talk held in the evening drew a good mixture of male and female students… boys and girls who would become ladies and gentlemen after listening to Andrew’s eloquent lesson on one of Pope John Paul II’s greatest legacies for the Catholic Church and the world at large.

One of the most interesting parts of the talk came when Andrew invited all present to imagine a particularly tantalizing scenario. Loud boisterous hur-hur-hur came from the young men present, laughter which masked their embarrassment, possibly from having viewed something similar during their private pornography viewing sessions. The louder the laughter, the more embarrassment it masked.

The other most interesting part of the talk was when someone asked Andrew about the female equivalent of lust. For males, lust (using of another person) usually manifests itself through sexual lust. Lustful males are pornography’s largest viewers. But what about lustful females? What is the female equivalent, asked a student.

Andrew’s response was to suggest romance novels. Immediately, the girls present giggled in embarrassment. That was an eye-opener for me. For while young men tend to laugh in embarrassment when their secret thoughts are laid bare in such a talk, Andrew expertly laid bare the secret thoughts of the young ladies present.

Just last week, I was speaking with a religious sister in her seventies, who shared with me that even at her age, she experiences the temptation to fantasize when she reads sexually explicit scenes in novels. Although romance novels are not her cup of tea, she sometimes encounters them in crime novels. When she does, she skims over them. Pope John Paul would call this “custody of the eyes”, a form of self-defense.

Incidentally, certain Korean drama serials came to mind when Andrew mentioned romance novels. It suddenly dawned on me (when it should have long ago) that these drama serials which draw the women by the thousands are none other than the female equivalent of pornography. It’s not pornography per se, because it does not meet the definitions of what pornography is, but it becomes apparent immediately that many ladies are as hooked to drama serials (and romance novels) as many men are hooked to pornography.

The results are expectedly similar. While pornography addicts become increasingly unsociable, and find increasing difficulty in relating to the opposite sex, women who are hooked to drama serials and romance novels also become increasingly unsociable, and also find increasing difficulty in relating to the opposite sex.

While pornography addicts may end up projecting their fantasies onto the women in their lives, resulting in unhappiness and dissatisfaction in relationships, drama serial addicts may also end up projecting their own fantasies of how a man should be onto the men in their lives, which also result in unhappiness and dissatisfaction in relationships.

There we find the line between reality and fantasy blurred. As we become accustomed to the images of men and women in our respective fantasies, we want our fantasies to become reality, and when we don’t get it (since it is impossible, that’s why it’s called a fantasy), we are dissatisfied with whoever we are with.

As no man or woman is perfect, and no reality can be fantasy, we will forever be dissatisfied, so long as we expect our fantasy world to become reality. It is easy to say that this can never happen to us as we are in full control of our senses, but people who are addicted are not free; they are not in full control of their senses. That is why the line between fantasy and reality is blurred. That is why lust is so dangerous to our humanity. It makes us less human, hence it dehumanises us.

———

Visit my main blog.

Some time ago, I received an email that said that the Singapore government is going to amend the Penal Code, particularly pertaining to homosexual behaviour. One of the amendments is to legislate that anal and oral sex, if done in private between a consenting adult heterosexual couple aged 16 years old and above, would no longer be criminalised.

I haven’t been in touch with the local blogosphere, but I wonder if anyone wrote headlines like “Government says OK to be cocksucker”?

In addition, People Like Us (PLU) (a gay advocacy group in Singapore) has written a document saying that the proposed reform is discriminatory and prejudicial to Singapore’s interests with the following reasons:

1. It damages family and public life by encouraging deception and dishonesty (pretending to be straight). when people try to avoid discrimination and conflict;

Speaking of deception, I wonder how many people have been influenced by gay advocacies and activists to believe that they cannot live a chaste life? After all, there are a number of testimonies from former gays who have become straight and lead chaste lives. Is the deception not created by gay advocacies in the first place - that gays cannot change their behaviour? Isn’t homosexuality a psychological illness? Haven’t psychologists and pastors treated homosexuality with success?

If gay advocacies encourage homosexuals to act out their sexual desires, do they also encourage heterosexuals with a fondness for young boys and girls to act out their sexual desires? If not, isn’t that discriminatory as well?

2. It creates pressure to emigrate, thus

(a) undermining Singapore’s desire to retain our native talent pool. Somewhere around 10 percent of each generation is GLBT and to bleed population each generation through such discriminatory policies is unwise and near-sighted;

Not true that 10 percent of each generation is GLBT. This myth is based on Alfred Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” which used biased research methods.

In his book, Kinsey made the statement that “ten percent of males are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55″. However, he also stated that only four percent of the males used in his study “are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives, after the onset of adolescence”.

Do you see the difference between the two statements?

While Kinsey was making the claim that 10 percent of males delve into homosexual behaviour for at least three years of their lives, he actually reported that only four percent of those men surveyed claimed to remain exclusively homosexual for the rest of their lives. Yet, for years, homosexual advocates have quoted Kinsey as the ultimate authority proclaiming that 10 percent of the population is indeed homosexual. People will believe what they want to believe.

The truth is that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual, as shown by these more findings concluded using more sophisticated research methods:

- An article in The Wall Street Journal (March 31, 1999), “Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy” found that less than five percent of men and women have had any homosexual contact in their lifetime. Not only does it make this claim but also goes on to explain that “no more than three percent of men and considerably fewer women claim to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.” These findings came from a review of more than 30 surveys in America, Europe and Scandinavia.

- The Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 2.3 percent of “sexually active men aged 20 to 39 have had any same-sex gender sexual activity during the last 10 years”, and only 1.1 percent of these men said that they have been exclusively homosexual within this time frame. (”Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States”, Family Planning Perspectives 25, no.2 (March/April 1993) 52-56

- Milton Diamond from the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii makes the statement that, using the largest figures available, the findings are still only “five to six percent for males and two to three percent for females”. It’s important to understand that this study represented all individuals who have ever engaged in any kind of same-sex behaviour. (”Homosexuality and Bisexuality in Different Populations”, Archives of Sexual Behaviour 22, no.4, (1993) 303.

What’s amazing is that even some individuals who identify themselves as gay agree that the 10 percent myth is untrue. This matters because gay activists are knowingly promoting a lie. They are declaring to the world that homosexuality is “normal” and should be accepted as such. They’re hoping that the more people begin to think homosexuality is normal, the more their identity will be accepted by the majority of people.

But if you think about it, this reasoning is lame. For instance, 10-15 percent of Singaporeans suffer from alcoholism, but we don’t accept this behaviour as normal or healthy. Even if 95 percent of the population is addicted to alcohol, we still would not think of it as normal - or acceptable.

We go on with PLU’s reasons:

(b) splitting families when we say at the same time that stable and supportive families should be the bedrock of our society;

3. It undercuts Singapore’s attraction for potential incoming talent, so critical for our future;

Not so applicable now that we know that only 1-3% of the population is homosexual. Still, I have to admit that gays are extremely talented. Life is fair. Will come back to 2(b) later.

4. It restricts the ability of the government to respond to the threat of HIV, when government agencies feel that they cannot engage with the gay community in any way except a condemnatory one. Failure to deal with HIV in the gay community puts the larger community at risk.

Ah ha! There’s something fishy about this reason, don’t you think? Isn’t PLU admitting that HIV is prevalent in the gay community?

One of the myths that many of us believe is that AIDS is as much a risk for heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. However, there are two points to note here.

1. Homosexual male relationships are rarely monogamous and those involved are more at risk for life-threatening illnesses.

Many studies have found out that the average male homosexual is far more promiscuous than the average heterosexual. The following are findings in one of the most extensive studies conducted by researches A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg:

- 73 percent of gay men had over 100 partners
- 58 percent of gay men had over 250 partners
- 41 percent of gay men had over 500 partners and
- 26 percent of gay men had over 1,000 partners

Source: A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1978), 308, Table 7.

Another study (”The Homosexual Lifestyle and Sexual Practices”, The Berean League (June 1991)) reveals that two homosexual researches found that 73 percent of adult male homosexuals had sex with boys age 19 or younger. Any heterosexual guy who has slept with that many women would be considered a sex addict. Yet, this seems to be the norm among homosexuals.

While there are some who would promote the myth that homosexual relationships are no different than heterosexual ones as pure fact, there are also those from the gay community who admit it to be a false statement. Andrew Sullivan, a prominent conservative gay author, says that gay couples adhere to a very different moral standard than straight couples do. He says their moral standard is one in which “a greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets” exists. (McWhirter, D. and Mattison, A., The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Prentice-Hall 1984).

The same source mentions two researchers who professed themselves to be a gay couple came to the conclusion that gay relationships between men rarely survive if they are not open to outside sexual contacts.

So much for stable and supportive families… How do you support infidelity?

2. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected heterosexual intercourse is 1/715,000. The risk of contracting AIDS from a single act of unprotected homosexual intercourse is 1/165. (Tom W. Smith, “Adult Sexual Behaviour and the Risk of AIDS”, Family Planning Perspectives 23, no.3 (May/June 1991), 104.)

It is an undeniable fact that the potential for an individual to become infected is much more pronounced for homosexual men.

“Hard as it may be to understand, some gay men have unsafe sex because they want to get HIV - or at least skate close to the edge. Danger can be erotic, even the threat of contracting a deadly disease,” reported a Newsweek article. The article also quoted a University of Florida student saying, “If someone has AIDS or HIV, that kind of lionizes them. It’s heroic, like fighting the battle… When you get with someone who has HIV, it’s like being with someone greater than you are.” (Mark Peyser, “Deadly Dance”, Newsweek, Sep 20, 1997, 76)

Here is the most important thing among my initial thoughts:

Studies have indicated that the body’s natural immune system is broken down by repeated exposure to semen during anal intercourse. Also, the tearing and rupturing which can take place during such intercourse exposes the individual to infection by manifold serious and fatal diseases. Of these, AIDS is the most well-known and the most dangerous.

Source: Larry Burtoft, Ph.D, Setting the Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality (Focus on the Family 1994) 32-33

PLU calls for the amendment not to apply only to heterosexual couples, but to all people. I feel that there should not be an amendment in the first place. Anal sex is wrong, whether it be for homosexuals or heterosexuals, because of this abovementioned reason.

There is great physical danger in circulating the myth that homosexuals are not at a greater risk for contracting AIDS than homosexuals. People’s lives are at stake! Of course, there are other risks for those who are involved in homosexuality: isolation, heartache, confusion, disillusionment, abandonment, etc. When you’re living outside of God’s will for your life - whether by experimenting or willfully embracing any other sin - you will feel the effects one way or another. And probably the biggest result of living a sinful life is not having peace with God.

Now other than this last paragraph, there has been no mention of God at all, so don’t any atheists come and write that “It’s because of bullshit like this that’s why I’m an atheist”, as someone did before…

Most of the information in this post has come from an excellent booklet “Straight Answers - Exposing the Myths and Facts about Homosexuality”. I found this at the Anglican St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Singapore.

More information about homosexuality and living a chaste Catholic life can be found here.

Now as a final section to this post, you might be wondering: What can I do to help someone struggling with homosexuality?

The best thing you can do for someone you know battling the sin of homosexuality is pray! Ask God to give you opportunities to show your care and concern for them and pray for the strength and courage to share the truth in love. Here are some steps to remember:

1. Remember that all of us have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. So, be willing to share about your own personal struggles and temptations.

2. Don’t condemn. People have not “chosen” to “have homosexual feelings” the way some choose to live in a certain city. To describe it this way is to convince them that you have no understanding at all about their experience - and no sympathy for it, as well. Know that the core of the homosexual struggle is rejection.

3. Don’t start citing all the problems with homosexuality. Consider how rarely exhortations convince someone to give up alcohol or smoking. But don’t go to the opposite extreme either. Unquestioning acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate “alternative” may seem at first to be the only compassionate option. But there are better and more appropriate approaches that show concern and understanding, yet deal with the reality of the situation.

4. Try to prevent the problem before it occurs. Openly discuss the subject of homosexuality with your friends or anyone you are close to who may be struggling. Familiarize yourself with the causes and address them at an early time. Help them understand the risks.

5. Share specific avenues of help like Courage that has helped thousands of people in the midst of their struggle with homosexuality. Give them hope that change is possible! Even if the person is defensive and resistant, a specific route of assistance that is lovingly offered may be followed some day down the road.

6. Show love, concern and gentleness as you point the way to healing.

Now if only I knew all these things eight years ago, then my four friendships with homosexuals might have turned out better…

Back to the amendment, Singaporeans must know that once the law is passed in favour of the gay agenda, there’ll be no turning back the gradual undermining and destruction of the biblical family values, as well as the freedom to preach godly sexuality standards, as is now happening in parts of Britain, Australia and the U.S.

As a lay Christian, you can do your part by sending feedback to the government at www.reach.gov.sg. Scroll down to “Something to SAY?” You’ll know it by the big green question mark. Click on “Email Us today”.

The subject line should always mention: Penal Code Amendment

All you need to do is write something like: “With respect to the coming Parliamentary debate on the above subject, I would like to state that I’m against passing laws to allow same sex marriages or homosexual practices.”

A parent could send in something like: “I have three young children and I’m against any legislation that allows for same-sex marriages.”

Other possible statements:

“I don’t hate homosexuals, but I don’t believe their lifestyle is good for the future of our country.”

“I believe that real family is made from Dad and Mum, not Dad & Dad, or Mum & Mum.”

“Please don’t allow our country to be influenced by people who are confused about their own gender. Please don’t legalize same-sex marriages.”

We Catholics are always saying things like “The Church should…” This time, the onus falls on our shoulders to be that Church to do something about the morals of this country. Play your part in imbuing the country with Christian values today!

I’ve just finished reading a book called “Contraception and the family - The immorality of contraception and its effects on family life” by Fr. Roberto A. Latorre. Below is a summary of my reflections on contraception together with some excerpts from the book.

I’m not going to write much on the use of contraception outside marriage, because all forms of extramarital sex, be it adultery, fornication (prostitution), pre-marital sex, bestiality or sodomy are against marriage. I’m going to focus more on the use of contraception in marriage. We’ll discuss other topics in another post.

Naturalism vs Natural Law

There is a common misunderstanding that the Church considers contraception immoral and sinful because it is artificial. In other words, it involves some interference with our normal biological processes. Conversely, periodic continence, or Natural Family Planning (NFP) is not immoral because it does not interfere with those processes. If this were true, then the use of other artificial things like medicines, dentures, prosthetic limbs, etc would be immoral too.

The position of the Church is based on Natural Law, not on naturalism.

Naturalism maintains that something is immoral if it goes against the laws of nature, nature here being understood as biological nature. The seriousness of a sin depends on how much it disrupts the natural balance. This position is found in certain naturalistic sects of “new age” inspirations, but not in the Catholic Church.

Natural law doctrine, on the other hand, maintains that something is immoral if it goes against human nature, not just biological processes. Its conception of human nature is based on a “total vision of man” (see Humanae Vitae, no. 7) as a person “in unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations and of all other specific characteristics necessary for the pursuit of his end.” (See Veritatis Splendor, no. 50)

Human nature is ultimately based on the plan and ordination of the Creator. We can know this ordination, and therefore the contents of the natural law, by looking at what is according to right reason.

This means that the natural moral law is the unique way in which man carries out the plans and purposes of God for the creatures of the universe. Brute animals fulfil God’s purpose for them by blindly following their instinct. But man fulfils his end by using his freedom following the light of his reason.

The conjugal act is a gift of love

The conjugal act should not be considered merely as giving vent to an instinctive urge. Passions and emotions have their rightful place in marital relations, but in order to be truly human, the spiritual element should always prevail.

Like a friend tells me, “The human body only has enough blood for one head to function. Don’t let it be the head down there.” Even when making love to your wife, you should be in complete control of yourself, otherwise there is no freedom, and your gift of yourself is devoid of meaning. Your act of conjugal love changes from one of “I give myself to you in this act of love” to “I can’t help it. I can’t control myself. I need to have sex.”

It is easy to see why wives would feel used when their husbands treat them as a vent for their instinctive urges. This is one reason why some couples feel unfulfilled during sex - because they are being made use of as objects, instead of being treated as persons.

Contraception tends to minimize human control over the person’s sexual behaviour, because with contraception, you can do it anytime. That is one of the main reasons people use contraception - so as to be able to do it anytime they want to. Or feel that they have to.

Contraception makes the conjugal act less human because it implies lack of dominion and self-control, in favour of the sensual and erotic aspects of the conjugal act. On the other hand periodic continence, when morally justified, encourages self-mastery.

Who is more in control of himself? The person who can have sex anytime and any place he wants, and the person who can control himself and really make himself a total gift to the only person he loves? Equally applicable for women.

Both contraception and Natural Family Planning (NFP) are ways to plan the family. But where contraception favours instinct, NFP favours the will.

Fruitfulness of the conjugal act

The fruit of marriage is children. The point of contraception is to avoid children while still engaging in sexual activity, even during the woman’s fertile period. The point of NFP is to avoid children, for the time being because of serious reasons, by abstaining from sex during the woman’s fertile period.

This is the main problem that people have with contraception and the use of NFP. Isn’t NFP just a “natural” way to contracept? NFP is not meritious because it’s “natural” and biological (see above “Naturalism vs Natural Law”). It is meritorious because it is geared towards human nature.

Does the conjugal act have to be fruitful? What about those couples who are childless? What about those who get married knowing full well that they are past the child-bearing age?

Just because these couples cannot have children doesn’t mean the conjugal act cannot be fruitful. We do not judge the fruitfulness of the conjugal act by its results. The act itself is fruitful regardless of the outcome.

The object of marriage is not just any kind of sexually-related activity. The object of marriage is geared towards a sexual act which by its very nature is procreative. Other unnatural sexual activities such as masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, etc, have no place in marriage because the are not open to life, not procreative, not fruitful.

Contraceptive sex by its very nature is not fruitful, not procreative. It doesn’t matter when you have contraceptive sex, it’s not procreative. It doesn’t matter whether you have sex when the woman is fertile or not, because the act is not procreative.

The conjugal act by its very nature is always fruitful, regardless of when you have it. When a couple abstains from sexual relations during the fertile periods, they are indeed avoiding a new life, but then, they are not engaging in an act that is ordained to life.

As you see, it is the act itself that we are talking about, which makes each contraceptive act closed to life, and each conjugal act open to life.

It must be noted, however, that a couple who practises periodic continence must be morally upright, sincerely seeking the will of God and collaborating with his plans. That is why they must have proportionately serious motives to abstain from sexual relations during the fertile periods.

Their main motive should not be just to avoid a new human being, as that would fall into a contraceptive mentality. They should be thinking of another legitimate good (health, family well-being, etc) which, after having weighed all the circumstances in the presence of God, overrides the great good it means to have another child at the moment.

In other words, the intention of using NFP to space out children must be there. The use of NFP should be accompanied by generosity and a positive view of children as the fruits and crowning glory of conjugal love. And for a Christian, he should not lose sight of the dimension of the cross of Christ and the need to have confidence and trust in God as our loving Father.

Effects of use of contraception

Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae had already predicted what would happen when countries accept and approve of the use of contraceptives - the general lowering of morality, the loss of respect for womanhood, the human rights abuses of government in this field (Humanae Vitae, no. 17).

We compare the other European countries with Poland where the Church has succeeded remarkably, thanks to then Cardinal Karol Wojtyla’s (later Pope John Paul II) influence.

Here, in terms of doctrine, there is a strong tradition of both orthodoxy and academic excellence. Pastoral programmes are vigorous and there is a very strong Christian life. One sign of this is the abundance of vocations. While other European countries and importing priests to fill the ranks, Poland is sending out its Polish priests to other countries.

It would not be wrong to say that the problem of vocation shortage in a country is linked to the use of contraceptives. While it is hard to tell directly whether a country’s people uses contraceptives or not, we can have a good idea of the usage by looking at the country’s abortion laws.

Abortion is the fail-safe for contraceptives. All contraceptives have a certain failure rate. As such, when people use contraceptives, there will be a certain percentage of women who will get pregnant anyway. Because of the contraceptive mentality, these children are unwanted. Hence the solution to these women’s “problem” is abortion.

No one can support the use of contraceptives without supporting the legalization of abortion. These two are directly linked to each other.

Pope John Paul II summed up in Familiaris Consortio, no. 32, why contraception is intrinsically evil:

“The innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.”

Big words, but take them slowly and you will see the beauty and truth in those words.

Effect of contraception on marriage

Pastoral experience has shown that contraceptive practice often leads to a weakening of the love and mutual respect of couples. Perhaps without realizing it, their outlook towards each other and their attitude towards their relationship begins to change. They see themselves as accomplices rather than as partners. There is uneasiness deep inside.

As the quality of their love deteriorates, discords are less easily resolved, the temptations to infidelity become harder to resist. It would not come as a surprise if a correlation can be established between marital breakdowns and contraceptive practice.

If you love them…

One of the ways of appealing to the masses in the use of contraceptives is the slogan, “If you love them, plan.” This was used in the Philippines. But this is a deceptive form of advertisement because the idea of “planning” here is that of diminishing. It would be more accurate, and less appealing, to say, “If you love them, have less of them.” However, the contradiction is immediately obvious. The contradiction arises from the fact that contraception is a lie.

The alternative Christian slogan to this is, “If you love them, let God plan.” In NFP, couples are following God’s plan, and God is the best planner there is. With contraception, couples are excluding God from their plans. We are not the arbiters of the sources of human life, but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator (Humanae Vitae, no. 13).

To use an analogy, ministers of the altar have to follow the prescribed rules and guidelines of the liturgy as laid out in the GIRM. If a priest chose to change the liturgy as he saw fit, he would no longer be the minister of the altar, but an arbiter. And we immediately know that what this priest is doing is wrong; he doesn’t have the power to decide how the liturgy should be. Likewise, couples do not have the power to decide when and where life should be created. We are called to cooperate with God to bring new life into the world.

We hear this a lot: Man cooperates with God’s plan to bring new life into the world. But how does Man cooperate with God? Unlike other creatures, man’s reproduction entails the exercise of freedom, a gift that only humans have. This is why our use of our sexual faculties is a deeply moral act.

- adapted from “Contraception and the family - The immorality of contraception and its effects on family life” by Fr. Roberto A. Latorre

First, what is a sin? This is a big topic, but I’ll just write what I think the people asking this question want to know. There are two kinds of sin: mortal sin and venial sin.

There are three conditions that must be fulfilled before a person is considered to have committed a mortal sin:

1. Freedom of choice - a person must have been able to make the choice before an act is considered a sin. Coercion to make that choice lessens the seriousness of the sin.

2. Gravity of sin - the act must be a grave matter.

3. Fullness of knowledge - the act was committed with the sinner’s full knowledge of the gravity of the sin, and his or her deliberate consent.

Venial sin is sin whose object is a grave matter but committed without full knowledge of the gravity or without full consent. In other words, there is actually no sin that is not considered grave, but that’s beside the point here.

The point in this question is: do you have any choice at all about what you are dreaming? If your answer is “yes”, then you should be able to never have any nightmares at all. I mean, who would purposely want to have nightmares? Therefore, your answer would probably be “no”. If there is then no consent in your choice of dreams, then that means that having wet dreams is not a sin.

In fact, having wet dreams is nature’s way of “releasing sexual tension” in your body, of getting rid of excess sperm that is made by your body. For those battling the temptation of masturbation, wet dreams can even be seen as a sign of encouragement, because you only have wet dreams if you do not masturbate for a period of time.

Answer: No.