Jimmy,
Again, I find that this is a very beautiful way of thinking about sex, as a human reflection of the divine love. But I don’t think that it can really be used as an argument, despite its devotionary value.
I’m not talking about just sex, but a complete union, which, yes, involves the whole body. I’m not even sure what we’re arguing? Are you wondering why each act must be procreative? It’s really just a question of what is Love? Is true love not a total and complete union? While it seems like you’re searching for answers, I hope you don’t limit yourself by compartmentalizing the faith from the body. There is a divine truth in everything that God has created and everything that He has done for us, especially as revealed through Christ. This includes everything about our body. Why has he created us this way? Why has he created sex the way it is? Why is it the only way he’s created for us to produce offspring? Why did he give woman a fertility cycle? Why do we experience pleasure from it? Why has God created us male and female? To really understand these questions, we need to have a deeper understanding of why the relationship between God and His people is understood as a marriage. In the Old Testament, the faithlessness of the Jews is described as adultery, and in the New Testament, Christ says He is the bridegroom. St. Paul tells us in marriage, men should be like Christ the bridegroom, and women should be like the Church, the bride. Then he also says that this is a great mystery. I don’t know about you, but a mystery seems to be something we don’t understand fully, and we need to search for the truth here.
I’m a little confused, are you looking for answers to your questions that make no reference to God? It kind of seems like faith-based reasons do not satisfy your search for answers. The great thing about the Catholic faith is that faith and reason never go against each other. We can speak on the natural law too (not that I feel like I am fit to do so), but the natural law looks at how we are naturally created.
I agree that certain uses of contraception are selfish. But, there are a few things that I can’t see: first, why it is that each specific act must be procreative- viz., there must be no interference by the participants in the possible fertility of the act- if (1) the contraception is used for a grave reason; (2) the totality of sexual acts performed by the couple are procreative; and (3) the couple is prepared to take responsibility for the child should the contraception fail (as it sometimes does). Second, I can’t see how it is that any single use of artificial means of birth control is at least objectively selfish while natural methods aren’t; I’ll grant for the sake of argument that contraception is equivalent to saying, “I give you everything but my fertility,” but couldn’t NFP be interpreted as saying, for example, on the husband’s part, “Because I’m only having sex with you at certain times, I’m accepting everything about you but your fertility”? True, NFP is a negative method of birth control, while condoms, diaphragms, etc. are positive, but with an openness to life, unselfish motivations, and the procreative aspect (considered on a greater scale of marriage in its entirety) behind either one, what’s the real difference?
- What are some grave reasons why you would NEED to use contraception as opposed to NFP?
2 + 3 ) Just because the couple is prepared to take responsibility, by using contraception, wouldn’t they rather not have the child, even if slightly? Isn’t the pregnancy largely a “mistake” with the use of contraception (I’m not saying children are mistakes at all, but the pregnancy may be viewed as one)? An “oops”? Honestly, I’m not married, so I haven’t had the opportunity to practice NFP, but I don’t see how using it, a child will ever be a mistake. There’s a lot of power in NFP because you recognize the times that God can work and bring a new soul into the world. In John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, he says we actually are co-creators with God, and I can see how much reverence and responsibility that would grow in the couple.
Actually, with NFP, you are saying quite the opposite of “Because I’m only having sex with you at certain times, I’m accepting everything about you but your fertility.” Fertility is NOT just a few days of the month, but fertility refers to the woman’s whole cycle. With contraception, you completely disregard the woman’s fertility. It really doesn’t matter where in her cycle she is. With NFP, it respects the woman’s fertility, recognizing the times when life is likely to be conceived and when it isn’t likely to be conceived, which respects the woman and God. I would also say, fertility becomes the couple’s fertility, and not just the woman’s fertility.
If there is no difference, then why not just use NFP? I’ve heard someone, I think Christopher West, say that contraception wasn’t invented so that people wouldn’t have babies. There already was a 100% effective way to not have babies – abstinence. Contraception was invented, by, surprise, a man, to indulge in sex without the consequences, like children! Contraception is naturally ordered against conception.
Now, can NFP still be used with a contraceptive mentality, as in to not have kids with the only good reason being not wanting kids? I do believe the answer can be yes, but I’d imagine NFP to be too hard to practice for anyone with that reason to successfully practice it when contraception is so readily available. We’re called to be generous with life, but there may be grave reasons as to why a couple cannot have more kids, such as illness, or tight finances, or exhaustion to the point where the family dynamic is in jeopardy. The Church does not explicitly say what are grave reasons because it will be different for each family, and also because we absolutely do have the capacity to prayerfully discern whether we do have grave reason or not. Basically, we should look outside of our own wants (or not-wants) in all of this.
There’s a talk by Janet Smith you can hear/read on
omsoul.com called “Contraception, Why Not?”. You may want to check it out. The MP3 is right on the front page under her photo or read it here
omsoul.com/pamphlet135.Contraception-Why-Not-transcript-and-study-guide.html keep scrolling to the bottom to see the transcript.
Thank you for your post, though; you brought up a good point about parenthood.
What is most necessary to nurture spiritual children? Love. What is Love? This is just everything that we’re talking about. Is authentic love not total and life giving (not just that it can create new life, like how in Christ we have new eternal life, but how it gives it’s own life, like how Christ died for us)? What prevents any of us from loving as fully as we can? Sin. People with same-sex attraction are absolutely called to have spiritual children. Same-sex attraction is not a sin in itself. However, I don’t necessarily believe that two people in a homosexual relationship can have spiritual parenthood “just as celibates can” because it’s quite different. Our ultimate goal is union with God. Celibates sacrifice sex for the kingdom of God, for union with God. Men imitate Christ and marry the Church. Women imitate the Church and marry Christ. Two people in a homosexual relationship are in a relationship that do not reflect the relationship between Christ and His Church, the Bridegroom and the Bride. So they’re quite different situations. I’m not saying that there will be absolutely no fruit from people in homosexual relationships, but I think it will be quite limited just due to the nature of the relationship. I’m sure anyone who’s battled any sin can attest to the fact that sin prevents us from allowing God to work in us and through us, which I would imagine is everyone.
You may want to look up couragerc.net.
Sorry if I’ve rambled. And perhaps all these points have been brought up, but I haven’t been able to keep up with all the posts. May not be able to respond much as I have wrist tendonitis and it’s hard to type.
God bless!
