Archive for 2012

Questions regarding Female Sexuality and the Validity of Marriage

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

A woman has studied the theology of female impotency and the lack of female orgasm.  She relays her many questions and concerns to NFPI.  Following is John’s response.

JOHN:  With regard to your last sentence, I do not know if I can help you with many of your questions.  I did not read the references you provided because I do not think the various speculations about different types of orgasm are really pertinent to the basic question dealing with the validity of a marriage.  Also, the website references you sent have been removed.

Your primary question concerns the validity of a marriage in which the wife does not experience orgasm during the marriage act.  When two people marry, they have the God-given right to engage in true marriage acts.  These are acts which of themselves are ordained toward the generation of children.

If a man is truly impotent, he cannot physically engage in the marriage act.  He can never consummate the marriage.  So the marriage is null by reason on non-consummation, and it can and ought to be declared null and void.

If a woman has such an abnormality in her genitals that the marriage act cannot take place, then it is my understanding that such a marriage would also be null and void as above.

If a woman does not enjoy the marriage act, or if she enjoys it but does not experience orgasm, that does not affect the validity of the marriage act as by nature ordered toward the generation of children.  In the sacrament of marriage, there is a mutual gift of each to the other.  There is no guarantee of any particular amount of pleasure.  When both spouses focus on being a gift of self to the other, the odds of mutual happiness increase.  When one or both spouses focus on what the other is going to do for ME, the odds of marital happiness are not increased.

Moral theology has to deal first of all with the minimum requirements for the goodness or evil of an action.  After that, it can attend to matters that might be called “for better and for worse.”  For example, it might be that a particular wife’s ability to achieve orgasm is due to a lack of courtship on the part of her husband.  Let us say he is decidedly short on what we might call kitchen courtship, and all too rushed in the bedroom.  It might make for a more pleasant relationship all the way around if he would improve his courtship, but his shortcomings in this respect do not affect the validity of the marriage itself or the validity of individual marriage acts.   And while marital rape would be sinful on his part, even that would not render the marriage itself invalid.

I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant
Battle-Scarred

Free Birth Control

Sunday, March 18th, 2012

Natural Family Planning is:

Patch-free     Latex-free     Shot-free     Pill-free

Mutilation-free     Guilt-free     Pollution-free

Hassle-free     Chemical-free

Free Spacing of Births with Ecological Breastfeeding and No Abstinence

Systematic NFP with Chaste Abstinence during the fertile time if avoiding pregnancy with a sufficiently serious reason

Free charts          Free online NFP manual for the truly poor but a $10 donation is suggested for others.

NFP International at www.NFPandmore.org

Adapted from Ann and Steve Craig’s business card for NFP International

Breastfeeding as Super-Med

Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Imagine that you are pregnant and that your doctor tells you he has a newly discovered drug that is the best preventive medicine he has ever seen.  It will reduce your baby’s risk of various gastrointestinal infections by 64% compared to the babies of mothers who didn’t use this medicine.  Then he told you that if you used this medicine for more than three months, your baby’s risk of a common ear infection would be reduced by 50%.  And he went on about the other benefits.  Would you start wondering if your insurance covered this wonder-drug?  And should you invest in the manufacturer’s stock since it would certainly be going up?

You can stop daydreaming.  You can have this “wonder med” for free.  Just breastfeed.  Rich or poor, that is the best gift you can give your baby.

On February 27, 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published a revised policy statement on “breastfeeding and the use of human milk.”  The emphasis in this publication was on the protection of breastfeeding with regard to many diseases and in saving babies’ lives.  I don’t see how any mother can read this and then decide not to breastfeed her baby.  The evidence is overwhelming, that breastfeeding makes for a healthier baby.

The AAP recommendation is the same: breastfeeding should be done exclusively for the first six months with complementary foods added and breastfeeding continuing for a year or longer. And “all preterm infants should receive human milk.”

According to this new AAP statement, what are the benefits for the baby?  Below I have listed the benefits for 1) any type of breastfeeding and for 2) exclusive breastfeeding for 3 or 4 or 6 months.

For Any Breastfeeding
—incidence of otitis media was reduced by 23%
—incidence of nonspecific gastrointestinal tract infections were reduced by 64%
—preterm infants receiving only human milk had a 77% reduction in necrotizing enterocolitis
36% reduction of SIDS
—52% reduction in celiac disease when infant is fed only breast milk at time of gluten exposure
—31% reduction in risk for childhood inflammatory bowel disease
—15% to 30% reduction in adolescent and adult obesity
—each month of breastfeeding is associated with a 4% reduction in risk of overweight
—40% reduction of type 2 diabetes mellitus
—intelligence scores and teacher’s ratings are significantly greater in breastfed infants
—preterm infants who receive primarily human milk have significantly better scores for mental, motor, and behavior ratings at ages 18 months and 30 months
—greatly reduces the risk for neglect or abuse by the mother

For Exclusive Breastfeeding for 3 Months
—risk of otitis media was reduced by 50% with exclusive breastfeeding for more than 3 months
—asthma, atopic dermatitis, and eczema reduced by 27% in low-risk population and 42% with a positive family history
—30% reduction of type 1 diabetes mellitus
—children have higher intelligence scores
—children have higher teacher ratings

For Exclusive Breastfeeding for 4 Months
—risk of hospitalization is reduced by 72% with more than 4 months of exclusive breastfeeding
—risk of the severity of respiratory syncytial virus bronchiolitis was reduced by 74%

For Exclusive Breastfeeding for 6 Months
—risk of pneumonia had a four-fold increase with exclusive breastfeeding for 4 to 6 months of exclusive breastfeeding compared to those babies breastfed exclusively for more than 6 months
—risk of serious colds and ear and throat infections were reduced by 63%
—900 US infants’ lives saved
—1,000,000 infants’ lives saved in 42 developing countries
—20% reduction in risk of leukemia
—15% reduction in risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia
—could save $13 billion per year in the U. S.

Is there any benefit to the mother who breastfeeds?
Breastfeeding may provide her with natural child spacing due to delayed menses and may protect her from type 2 diabetes mellitus, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
(AAP Breastfeeding Policy, February 2012)

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor