tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post2234951272493157800..comments2024-03-26T11:33:59.219-06:00Comments on Religion in American History: Holy Sex!Paul Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13881964303772343114noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-57102607777058890172008-09-12T21:46:00.000-06:002008-09-12T21:46:00.000-06:00This blog is unofficial and not truthful! I disag...This blog is unofficial and not truthful! I disagree, wholeheartedly, with your statement that "96% of Catholics use artificial birth control". Hmm. Why are there so many Catholic families with so many children? <BR/><BR/>We are allowed to use only Natural forms of Family Planning. There are several methods (which, undoubtedly, use abstinence! there's an idea--) to postpone or prevent a pregnancy. However, we must always be open to the gift of transmission of life, which is an end of the Marriage Act. <BR/><BR/>No, I don't think you read this book very well at all. It's too bad you couldn't try to write something that was ACTUALLY TRUTHFUL.EKFHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00035980249270419026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37589721331585843.post-23902910516768744942008-08-27T05:13:00.000-06:002008-08-27T05:13:00.000-06:00First, I find it interesting that you would call H...First, I find it interesting that you would call Holy Sex! soporific though you've apparently not even read an excerpt.<BR/><BR/>Second, you wrote, "Such items and behaviors [as climax outside the woman and contraception], according to Popcak, lapse into 'eroticism,' which 'treats sex like a common street drug you take to make yourself feel better.' Don’t strain yourself looking for evidence to support this eroticism thesis."<BR/><BR/>I wonder, what "evidence" one should expect. Any act to deny the procreative nature of sexual intercourse becomes an act of personal (or mutual) pleasure ONLY. In other words, something you do to feel better only...like a common street drug that has no other benefit. If you're doing it for the mere sexual pleasure, this would be eroticism, which has as its focus mainly the arousal of sexual desire of the subject for an object. <BR/><BR/>In fact, I would argue that by removing the procreative element, you necessarily remove the unitive element. By its nature, two things happen as a consequence of the marital act - procreation and unity. If you intentionally remove one or the other, it's not the marital act. It is immoral (abusive) to excite the body for the marital act and to use it for something other than its intended and proper purpose.<BR/><BR/>Or, perhaps more simply, by denying procreation, one withholds some love (passion) from the act and turns it into something mutually selfish, not mutually self-giving, thereby eliminating the unitive effect.<BR/><BR/>The point, as it were, is based on reason and not "evidence". Or did you expect something more empirical?<BR/><BR/>(I should note that neo-paganism comes into this through the discussion of "eroticism", which is rooted in the worship of a <I>pagan</I> Roman god (Eros). Those practicing eroticism in the modern age would be neo-pagans for their "modern" worship of a pagan god. But I suppose Horned God works the same.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, as far as the numbers of Catholics using artificial contraception, the number has no bearing on the morality of the act. I just saw a "Leave it to Beaver" episode in which Ward says to Beaver, "A thing is either right or wrong. If it is wrong, it's wrong no matter how many people do it." This is a simple moral truth.<BR/><BR/>I'm posting this anonymously because I'm not sure I came upon this site randomly but felt the need to post a comment. No need to thank me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com