Abstinence-only Sex Ed

I do think other Christian denominations teach contraception is acceptable - perhaps partly because they do not view marriage as a sacrament, even though they do see it as very important - but there was widespread opposition to it until recently, historically speaking.

If by "not view marriage as a sacrament" you mean they allow divorce, then yes. I'm not completely sure what "sacrament" means in Catholic terms - does it just mean "sacred" or something more specific? But I would agree that Protestants have a less idealistic take on marriage than Catholics do, although they discourage divorce and I've never heard of a minister recommending it in counseling. (In abusive situations, I don't think any church, Catholic or Protestant, would object to a divorce, but that's a special situation compared to, say, adultery or irreconcilable differences.)

The actual Protestant take on birth control is that it would be immoral to have a child you can't afford, or to risk pregnancy if it's likely to kill you. Also, people who are carriers for a terrible illness like Huntington's disease would be welcome to use birth control to avoid the possibility of giving birth to a child who will grow up to suffer a disease like that.

The problem with the "make use of infertile times" method that you mentioned is that it would never, ever be accurate for any woman in my family. We have hormone imbalances and are so irregular that there's no telling when we're fertile. My mother skipped periods so often that she had to convince her doctor to give her a pregnancy test when she thought she was pregnant with me. He didn't believe her until the results came back.

Also, do Catholics allow their daughters to take bc pills for hormone imbalances? Because bc pills are actually the safest and usually most effective treatment for ovarian cysts that can lead to cancer. I was given bc pills as a teen, and it had nothing to do with sex for me.

 

If by "not view marriage as a sacrament" you mean they allow divorce, then yes. I'm not completely sure what "sacrament" means in Catholic terms - does it just mean "sacred" or something more specific?

It is something a bit more specific. There are seven sacraments in Catholicism - baptism, communion, confirmation, reconciliation, holy orders, annointing of the sick, and marriage. They are the signs of grace, instituted by Christ, communicated by the Church through the Holy Spirit. (At the Reformation, I believe, Luther taught that there were only two sacraments, baptism and Eucharist (communion), which is one of the differences between the Catholic and Protestant churches.) Sacramentalism is expressed partly in that Catholic marriages are performed as part of a Mass. It is seen as instituted by Christ in that his first recorded sign was at the wedding in Cana and that he taught the holiness and permanence of marriage. The marriage bond is symbolic of the bond between Christ and the Church, and of the covenant between God and His people; so God is a part of the marriage and the marriage is ordered toward Him. So marriage really is seen as a sacrament.

In abusive situations, I think you're right that no church would object to a divorce (or if there had been some duress on either party in entering into the marriage). The Catholic equivalent to a civil divorce proceeding, though, is annulment, which would imply that the sacrament was never present.

The problem with the "make use of infertile times" method that you mentioned is that it would never, ever be accurate for any woman in my family.

I can't speak with total authority about NFP because I don't teach it, but I have studied it in detail and my understanding is that even with irregular cycles, it works because it depends on each woman's own cycle. That is, whether you are regular or not, your body will still follow a hormonal cycle which can be tracked by temperature, texture of mucus, and so forth. But I will admit I don't know what the case is where a given woman's cycle is completely and totally irregular.

Also, do Catholics allow their daughters to take bc pills for hormone imbalances? Because bc pills are actually the safest and usually most effective treatment for ovarian cysts that can lead to cancer. I was given bc pills as a teen, and it had nothing to do with sex for me.

I don't think Catholics have any problem with taking birth control pills for hormone imbalances, precisely because it has nothing to do with sex. The object in that case is not to impede procreation. I believe the Church also makes distinctions between known and unintended consequences, and intended consequences. That is, if you know that taking bc pills will have the effect of impeding procreation, but are doing it to serve the primary purpose of taking care of your body and stopping and illness, then it is permissible because you do not intend the secondary effect even though you know it will happen.

 

I think it's ineffective. We have one of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the world, and we don't have sex education courses, largely because religious organizations will call any such program "anti-family." Of course, the statistics obviously mean nothing to them: that countries with sex-ed have less teen pregnancy. People are going to have sex, whether Bush wants them to or not. He can either find a way to prevent teen pregnancies, or keep everyone ignorant, and have more teen pregnancies.

 

I think it's ineffective. We have one of the worst teen pregnancy rates in the world, and we don't have sex education courses, largely because religious organizations will call any such program "anti-family." Of course, the statistics obviously mean nothing to them: that countries with sex-ed have less teen pregnancy. People are going to have sex, whether Bush wants them to or not. He can either find a way to prevent teen pregnancies, or keep everyone ignorant, and have more teen pregnancies.

I seem to remember my sex-ed course as one that focused on the biological functions of the body as it related to sexual reproduction. When the subject of birth control was mentioned, condoms were given the same time as abstinence. Being a Catholic, I already knew what my fatih taught, but I thought it was alright to know what a condom was.

The reason we have higher teen pregnancy rates is because we live in a culture of permissiveness. America has become so accustomed to political correctness that it's somehow improper to suggest that one ideology is somehow wrong. Sex, as a part of the married life, is seen as old fashioned, and controlling of our individual rights to freely explore our sexual desires and appetites whenever we want to.

The Catholic Church sees this attitude (of permissiveness) as innappropriate, mainly because the primary nature (and end result) of sexual expression is that of procreation. Indeed, it can be said that sexual intercourse feels as good as it does (at least to most people) so that they would continue to healthily propogate the human species. There is an enormous responsibility we human beings have been given with the power of our own reproduction. Society today wants to disregard that responsibilty in favor of wanton abandon, with no consequences to the participants - hence, birth control.

There's much more to my view, but not tonight. Must set some sleep.

Best,

Tadji

 

Tadji, good points. But you seem to be able to maintain your Catholic beliefs even while living in our permissive culture. I am similarly able to maintain all of my non-mainstream beliefs no matter what the Joneses are doing. This, I think, is what you were saying - one can hear about condoms without needing to go have sex. Learning about BC made me, if anything, MORE worried about doing it - I was taught that no BC worked 100%, and I took that to heart.

Some Christians in Tennessee, back in the 1920's, were so scared any new idea would turn their children into atheist heathens that the state sued a teacher for teaching the theory of evolution (which he did NOT put forth as fact). The court found that teachers in Tennesse muust spend equal time on the theory of evolution and Genesis, and to this day, that's how it is. So I guess we must conclude that kids in Tennessee have the willpower of an abused puppy, changing their whole religious beliefs on the spin of a dime everytime someone suggests something new.

Of course, that's not true. I'm just saying that if you think your kids have so little faith that they'll abandon it if they so much as hear about other beliefs or opinions, you need to lock them in the attic and keep them away from all human beings. Or perhaps we must conclude that some parents have so little faith in their kids know what poor parents they've been, and therefore figure their kids will rebel at the first opportunity.

 

We live in a more permissive society, it's true. But some kids are going to have sex, regardless of what we tell them. We can tell them not to and expect them to obey, or we can accept the fact that some of them will, and try to prevent teen pregnancies from resulting from this. Dubya seems to think by keeping them ignorant of condoms and other methods of birth control, he will somehow stop them from having sex. The children who receive a comprehensive sex education might decide it's better to wait, or at least take precations, thus lessening the problem.

 

The reason we have higher teen pregnancy rates is because we live in a culture of permissiveness.

Yeah... maybe if we kept hiding the girls that got pregnant (by sending them to "boarding school" or to care for a "sick aunt" or whatever), fewer teenage girls would get pregnant.

Seriously, pre-marital sex is nothing new. It's just that teens don't feel as obligated to marry or hide a preganancy as they used to. I don't think that encourages more teen sex. (Actually, I guess a lot more things are permitted in today's culture, which might lead teens to think that sex has no consequences, which might lead to a higher teen pregnancy rate - but teenagers would be having sex and getting pregnant anyway. They always have, and they always will.)

 

You know, humans DO hit puberty between about 10-13 years of age. If people don't like that, maybe they should complain to God or Darwin, depending on their beliefs. We're designed to start not only having sex but reproducing by our teen years. The fact that we've built a society that doesn't reflect our natural inclinations doesn't make those inclinations go away.

Notice it's mostly females here arguing that "yeah, people should have morals, but many teens will always have sex" and it's mostly males arguing, "No, we can have a world that's 100% free of sex outside marriage as long as no one hears about it!" I wonder why the perception is so different between the genders.

 

"The reason we have higher teen pregnancy rates is because we live in a culture of permissiveness"

Actually the countries that are more permissive than the US and have better sex education have lower teen pregnancy rates.

 

Notice it's mostly females here arguing that "yeah, people should have morals, but many teens will always have sex" and it's mostly males arguing, "No, we can have a world that's 100% free of sex outside marriage as long as no one hears about it!" I wonder why the perception is so different between the genders.

Well, I'm a man, but a gay man, so maybe that explains why I'm arguing the traditional female view.

Actually the countries that are more permissive than the US and have better sex education have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Indeed. That's part of my point. So many people are afraid that talking about sex will encourage people to do it. And yet those other countries that have the sex-ed programs we fear have statistics that prove exactly the opposite.

 

You know, humans DO hit puberty between about 10-13 years of age. If people don't like that, maybe they should complain to God or Darwin, depending on their beliefs.

In a way, it doesn't really make sense as a health issue really. The babies of teenage mothers have more health problems and lower birth weight, and pregnancy is more dangerous to young girls than to older teens and women in their twenties. I'm assuming it's because the girl is still growing that the babies tend to be smaller and the pregnancy and childbirth more dangerous.

So yeah, I would be inclined to say biology MESSED UP if girls can become pregnant at an age when it's not healthy for their bodies.

Edit: I AM TYPING AWFUL TONIGHT. BLAME NATURE!!!!

 

In a way, it doesn't really make sense as a health issue really.

Well, if your life expectancy was only about 40 years, it would make sense to start reproducing as soon as possible.


The babies of teenage mothers have more health problems and lower birth weight, and pregnancy is more dangerous to young girls than to older teens and women in their twenties.

I wonder if that's why people used to be so short?

Again, if you had a really short life expectancy (and were expected to die in childbirth anyway), having children while still in your teens would make sense.

We've increased the average life expectancy in the last couple of centuries; it's a shame we didn't perfect birth control along the way.

 

Isn't the healthiest time for a woman to have a child the 20s? Peak of physical health and all?

And it's kind of self-defeating to start reproducing at an age when you will be even more likely than usual to die during the birth of your first child.

There was a very young girl in my area who became pregnant at age 10 after being raped. She wasn't able to tell she was pregnant, being so young; she found out at 6 months. She couldn't carry the pregnancy to term. She had to deliver at either 7 or 8 months. Considering delivering then was a death sentence for a newborn up until this century...

*Shrug* What can I say, nature has messed up on plenty of things.

 

Rebecca, what we're trying to say is that, regardless of medicine allowing us to live twice as long as we used to, the human body is designed to start breeding around 13 years old. As Womberty said, the important thing in evolution or God's design (depending on your beliefs) is not whether you die in childbirth, but that you continue the species by breeding. Therefore, humans used to marry around 13 quite often - Priscilla Presley and my great-grandmother did, and that was just last century. And they started families as soon as conception occurred.

The fact that we can make conscious choices to do otherwise is a whole new ballgame. The fact that we have more like 80 years to live iss not something our bodies are evolutionarily designed to cope with. So the body's instinct and our conscious choices often are at odds with each other.

This will never change.

 

Yep, just pointing out that I honestly believe nature messed up - and who could argue against that, most probably agree - since it's bad both for the mother and the offspring to have a baby at that age.

 

Well, the lifespan was once much shorter, so take that into account.

 

Rebecca, I do see your point. There are a lot of things about the human body that seem like "nature messed up". For one thing, we're physically capable of reproducing before we're even really able to take care of ourselves - I mean, a 13 year old boy can father a child, but can he defend it from predators? I'm sure this situation must have happened in times past, and I guess some 13 year old boys managed to protect their families and others failed. But it seems like we should hit puberty closer to when we're full-grown.

 

That's amusing. Our bodies don't fit into the ideal to which we aspire, therefor it is nature's fault; some sort of biological flaw that gives us the ability (and desire) to reproduce before we are "ready".

Yeah. Nature surely must be mistaken. Flawed.

 

Cheveyo, the flaw I pointed out isn't one of ideals, it's one of evolutionary logic. So yeah, it's a flaw. Most species have some.

 

Unless the species used to live in tribes in which the younger members have the children and the older members protect them. Remember that the unit of a family, fending for itself, is a modern creation.

 

Good point. And in THAT case, from an evolutionary perspective, people who die in childbirth shouldn't be reproducing anymore anyway, since they will probably pass that weakness on to their young.

Hmmm. So basically what we're saying is that our bodies are still evolutionarily adapted to some entirely different culture from the one we've so recently invented for ourselves, and maybe people shouldn't be so appalled when humans do exactly what their bodies are programmed to.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of overriding instincts when common sense is better - our logical minds are ALSO a part of our evolution, and when a mind suggests "Restrain your anger and don't beat that person up" or "Don't have sex with this person because it will upset the person who's actually currently helping you raise your offspring", you should do what your mind says. But any teaching that goes contrary to instinct should start from the perspective of acknowledging that instinct, then explaining why something else should override it.

Morals are NOT a religious phenomenon: they are the common sense realization that it's not smart to do to another person what you'd rather not have him do to you (because chances are, he'll do it right back). That's why that rule is found in every religion - not because religions invented it, but because the whole desire for religion sprung from that one basic idea.

The confusion begins when we classify sex between certain consenting individuals as "immoral", and the people involved don't feel either party is being hurt. This is a confusion teens often express - why is it wrong if no one's getting hurt? My mother's married parents had more kids than they couldl afford because her mother had a depressive disorder and pregnancy gives you euphoric mood swings - therefore I consider the married sex between my grandparents to have had selfish and immoral results, because all of their kids suffered from extreme poverty AND self-esteem issues (once they were out of the womb, they were not worth Grandma's attention).

So MY definition of immoral sex is hardly simple enough to fit into "married" or "not married" or "straight" or "otherwise". None of these categories address the real problem - who, if anyone, including potential offspring, will be hurt by a particular sexual relationship? If the answer is "almost definitely nobody" (which is as close to 100% certainty as is possible), then it's moral.

 

Well said, Treecave.

 

Seriously, pre-marital sex is nothing new. It's just that teens don't feel as obligated to marry or hide a preganancy as they used to. I don't think that encourages more teen sex. (Actually, I guess a lot more things are permitted in today's culture, which might lead teens to think that sex has no consequences, which might lead to a higher teen pregnancy rate - but teenagers would be having sex and getting pregnant anyway. They always have, and they always will.)

womberty - Yes, teenagers would be having sex anyway if we didn't have the permissive culture we do today, but I really question the assertion that things have always been the way they are, it's just people used to get married to hide unwanted pregnancies. Just to go by out-of-wedlock births, in 1950 the percentage of births among whites was 2 percent and among African-Americans, 18 percent. Today, it's 22.5 percent and almost 70 percent, respectively. I find it hard to believe that the levels could be ten times or three and a half times greater today, with the only difference being the pregnant girls got married in the 50's. That would be an awful lot of girls being pregnant when they got married. I'm not saying it never happened -- of course it did -- and for the moment I'm not making any commentary about what I think about the fact -- but I do think it's misleading to say that people have no more sex outside of marriage in today's permissive culture than they did 50 years ago.


A couple of interesting articles and reports have come out recently suggesting that the countries that are having the greatest impact on stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa (Uganda and Senegal) are ones that emphasize a "comprehensive behavior change-based strategy" -- that is, abstinence, delaying the age of first sex, and fidelity. They encourage condom use for highest-risk people (like prostitutes) but not in other contexts. Conversely, the countries with the highest infection rates (Botswana and Zimbabwe) are the ones that both have the most condoms available and the highest rates of usage. Might abstinence education be having some type of effect? Certainly seems that way. Here's the US Government report and one article discussing its findings.

 

We're forgetting to factor in that you don't have realistic abortion OR adoption stats from before.... I dunno, probably 1972 (Roe v. Wade). There was SUCH pressure to hide pregnancy that:

1) Girls were sent away to give birth, and no one ever knew the scandalous secret that a baby had been born. All neatly off the record. (By the way, I suspect much of the gap between the higher rate of black pregnancies and lower white pregnancies is due to the simple fact that whites had/have better resources for hiding births. Plus, what position in society did a black female stand to lose through scandal? Her seat on the back of the bus? There would be less drive for them to cover up such "scandals".)

2) Girls had abortions - just not in clinics with sterile equipment, and certainly not with any records being kept.

3) Everyone pretended not to notice when a married couple's first child came 7 months after the wedding instead of 9.

It's like trying to make a serious comparison between sexual harrassment nowadays and back in the 1970's, before all the laws and lawsuits that are common now. There are more "cases" of sexual harrassment now than ever before, but this may be because now people come forward, and before they felt it was hopeless so they just took their lumps as best they could.

 

Everyone pretended not to notice when a married couple's first child came 7 months after the wedding instead of 9.

This is what I was talking about - I think it happened rather frequently, but it would take a systematic examination of marriage and birth certificates to have any kind of statistics on it.