I was reading a book on the evolution of the human brain and then I stumbled upon the irony of the Filipino Catholic clergy’s position against contraceptives. They insist that the only function of sex is to make children. Whoa! That’s exactly what animals do! The savage beasts in the jungles mate only to breed. In the entire animal kingdom, human beings are one of the few species that mate for emotional reasons and long-term bonding. Sex for love and joy, it turns out, is uniquely human, and our local venerables would insist that we forswear what is human and revert to what is primitively animalistic.
Make up your minds, guys. If we were made in the image and likeness of God, why insist that we act like animals? We can express love in poetry, music and paintings and, yes, through sex. Apparently you guys don’t care what is being expressed (namely, love) because you are so fixated on the “how”(namely, sex). In fact, by opposing divorce, you actually insist that couples remain together even after the love has faded, and presumably have sex even in the absence of love. Don’t you think that that’s the real sacrilege?
read the whole essay by Raul Pangalangan
“They insist that the only function of sex is to make children.”
Perhaps Raul needs to know what the clergies really say…
“Make up your minds, guys. If we were made in the image and likeness of God, why insist that we act like animals?”-Raul Pangalangan
Good question, Atty. Raul. But the local guys, being followers of the foreign guys, have no other choice but to follow the instructions coming from their foreign bosses else they’ll be stripped of their authority over a very lucrative business, :).
And, by the way, Atty. Raul, being a member of the congregation managed by the foreign guys, aren’t you morally, or spiritually, duty-bound to follow as well the instructions from the foreign bosses? Are you not afraid your soul might be damned to hell by them?
hundreds of years ago the church said the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. whoever believes otherwise is burned alive in public. Only recently they acknowleged the world is round. It’s just a matter of time before they accept human sexuality. perhaps a hundred more years or so…
[…] more on Stuart Santiago This entry was posted in news and tagged Lastest, News. Bookmark the permalink. ← Lastest […]
@baycas
yup! this is NOT what the teaching says.
The teaching says Sex is for procreation and not recreation. Not surprising coming from people who took a vow of chastity to deprive everyone else of a little fun and frolic
it’s fun to make fun…
but “im pairness” (as one tv texter spelled the phrase), Catholic teaching says sex is both UNITIVE (where conjugal love and joy exist) and PROCREATIVE; and you cannot dissociate one from the other.
following your logic, it’s really too bad sex is not the same as the mechanism or physiology of urination and ejaculation wherein urine ceases to come out as semen passes out, and vice-versa.
oh, how everyone will love it when there is presence of a “stop-and-go” mechanism for the egress of sperm…thus enjoying the “recreation” sans the “procreation.”
Bert,
As a Catholic, Raul Pangalangan’s lack of knowledge on his Church’s teaching, I think, does not warrant ETERNAL DAMNATION.
Maybe Raul was absent when the teaching was taught or the teachers failed to teach him or make him understand the teaching.
I believe Raul’s misconception
On sex, love, joy and contraception
Only requires further Catholic education
And, most probably, INTERNAL REFLECTION
“..Catholic teaching says sex is both UNITIVE (where conjugal love and joy exist) and PROCREATIVE; and you cannot dissociate one from the other.”-baycas
Exactly, baycas. I think I tend to agree with Atty. Raul and with MB. As you said you cannot DISSOCIATE ONE FROM THE OTHER, according to the church teaching, right? Which means that even a married couple cannot be allowed by the church teaching to indulge and enjoy sex for recreation purposes only without having to think of having a baby by doing it, am I making sense? Therefore, if I am to be persnickety about it, it will point to the same thing…that the church teaching allow only sex, even in married couple, for procreation purpose only even if they don’t forbid the conjugal couple from enjoying it too, if they can :D.
The operative word, baycas, is ‘UNITIVE’. You ‘CANNOT’ take away ‘procreation’ from the sex act, whether one enjoy it or not.
the problem with this clerical authorities is that their one-track minded interpretation of biblical doctrines hinges on the principle that such teachings of the Catholic faith are inerrant and infallible.
Which means there is no way that faithfuls can be misdirected unless they blindly accept these doctrines as the only source of divine truth
Bert,
I fully understand your point and you are right in your logical assertion. That’s exactly a non-Catholic would think…well, even a non-practicing Catholic like Raul for that matter.
Bert,
You said how non-believers of the Faith basically think about sex, i.e., “recreation” can be separated from “procreation.”
Partly in medical terms, such as what I brought forward few comment posts above, there is only one male “tool” (a term I encountered here in previous blog posts) for: (1) urination and (2) ejaculation. There is an inherent mechanism to stop one from occurring while the other process is going on.
However, in perfectly-normal males performing “recreation” and “procreation,” the so-called “tool” for these sex processes is also one and the same.
How come there is no “shut-off valve” to control the exit of sperms?
Guys there is a Church-approved way of separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sex (up to a point). It’s called natural birth control. The Church says it works, but not 100% of the time. Same with condoms or other artificial birth control methods. Yes, Raul Pangalangan was absent when they taught that in Catholic school (if he went there). How that sentence got past editors of the PDI is amazing.
As for the shut-off valve to control the exit of sperm, there is one. You can train for that too. Modern sex therapists have taken techniques from ancient Taoist and Tantric sex techniques. The technique takes months to master, so I heard. It involves using the pubococcygeus muscle (the one you use when you want to keep from peeing). The Church should study these techniques for use by married couples. That way the husband can have an orgasm without ejaculation.
” The Church should study these techniques for use by married couples. That way the husband can have an orgasm without ejaculation.”
this contradicts the church’s view of love and sex completely.
pangalanan shld just focus on the law if he can’t consult proper theologians. his interpretation is a joke even for a lawyer. whos the editor of the opinion page? disappointing. i should stop my inquirer subscription
Eureka! Those are excellent propositions, Jeg.
Nonetheless, as GabbyD has pointed out, I doubt your theses will pass muster when they are subjected to the Church’s “inquisition.” They run counter to the Catholic teaching that the Unitive purpose is inseparable to the Procreative one.
Besides, the “muscle control” you are referring to will become an unnatural method already…as in you are now “tweaking” the design of the 2-in-1 process of sex.
Let me give an example on how that probably ancient “muscle control” works. It’s called retrograde ejaculation or “dry orgasm.” The ejaculate goes back into the urinary bladder; its egress possibly blocked by the “muscle control.” In effect, there is still ejaculation during the orgasm.
Other times “muscle control” produces multi-orgasmic experience as the point of ejaculation is prevented by such method. It’s like holding the urine flow – this time controlling the ejaculation with stop-and-go motions. Oh, how such technique fulfills the “recreation” part! But do you think the Church will allow such hedonistic sexual experience?
This may also be an unreliable form of birth control and therefore Natural Family Planning (NFP) still has to be employed or a “rubber” still needs to be worn (or whatever desired contraception that is available to be used).
interesting thread, guys, if unexpected ;) sexual recreation that’s creative, yet non-creative? basta in the name of love and joy, yes!
” The Church should study these techniques for use by married couples. That way the husband can have an orgasm without ejaculation.”
More trouble there guys, the female part of the conjugal partnership, if she’s modern enough, will surely howl a strong protest, :).
and then again maybe not, bert ;)
But do you think the Church will allow such hedonistic sexual experience?
What makes you think such a thing is necessarily hedonistic? The man and the wife are using sex in its unitive aspect. Arent we guys supposed to have multiple orgasms, or allowed to last longer so as to give more to our wives?
If using those techniques is unnatural, then so is Natural Birth Control. Natural Birth Control makes use of technology and techniques to determine whether or not the wife is ovulating. If it were completely natural, then the man and wife would just boink and leave it up to God whether or not it will result in a baby. The fact that the Church allows you to check for ovulation first before you boink means they approve of sex between man and wife purely in its unitive aspect. Unitive here being the word they substitute for the man and wife giving each other pleasure in order to cement the bonds they have for each other. Sex, especially the pleasure part of it, should be a major subject of study by the Church (participated in by the non-celibate members of it of course).
Angela’s right. This thread has taken a rather unexpected turn. :-D
and now that you mention it, jeg, this natural birth control thing is soooooo unnatural. women are horniest when they’re ovulating, and yet that’s when we’re expected to abstain. bad trip.
Oops, and I thought the blog post expects such a thread…
Anyway, what’s more NATURAL than two persons very much in love and having to simultaneously orgasm (multiple at that) into one.
And what’s more UNNATURAL than a male having to prevent ejaculation or control it to go a 180-degree turn. This is probably a modification of the forbidden act of “onanism.”
Only NFP fulfills such unitive AND procreative process. Imagine multiple orgasms from both male and female rolled into one while exchanging body fluids (or aptly, while the man is ejaculating inside the woman). Still, a new life may begin from such unifying SEX, LOVE, JOY.
The End.
—–
Yehey! It’s 10/10/10.
and what’s more UNNATURAL than a female having to have sex when she doesn’t feel like it but it’s “safe” kasi so sige na nga ;(
All these talks led me to believe that the Catholics Church teaching on family planning and birth control is aimed solely for the benefit and consumption of the male member of the conjugal partnership with utter disregard of the welfare of the female half.
mismo, bert ;) so i love all this talk of sexual techniques for the male in aid of joyful sex for both male AND female, for a change
Wait till you hear the catechism on how a married couple will not heed Raul Pangalangan’s “call of the wild” (“tawag ng laman”).
Well, I will leave that part to the clergies.
“Animals mate to breed,” so says Raul.
It’s the “nature of the beast” or the basic instinct of animals.
Raul forgot that what sets humans apart (from animals) is our higher instinct of determining choice…choice to go against the “nature of the beast.”
Contraception is one choice (going against our basic characteristic as living things able to propagate)…regardless if it is naturally done or artificially carried out.