Avoiding jargon, please can you explain "being open to life" to a non-Catholic?

[kapp19]

Is it right to say that only one of the functions of the digestive system is to digest?

 

[Hume]

However, what I am struggling with is why this the church’s teaching.

An orthodox answer will be that “why” does not belong to you. It belongs to The Author.

Given that the planet is now dangerously overpopulated

The devout will generally deny this.

What I am therefore wondering is why every sexual act has to have the potential of bringing about new life.

Because sex-just-for-fun is verboten. There have been times in the history of Catholicism where sex was viewed as fundamentally carnal - of the flesh, and not “of God”. In those periods, sex was solely for reproduction as to do it for any other reason was considered either an occasion or near-occasion for sin.

Those views are no longer mainstream in western Catholicism.

My second question is, why is “natural family planning” considered moral, given that it is essentially a method of contraception?

Honestly, because it provides a way for devout Catholics to attempt to practice a contraceptive intent without directly using banned contraceptive artifice (even as NFP makes extensive indirect use of artifice in order to increase effectiveness). And in theory, you’re only supposed to have a contraceptive intent for a limited duration.

However, this doesn’t really sound quite right to me. It sounds a clever argument to justify something that doesn’t quite make sense.

I’d be real careful. I got a temporary ban in the old forum for saying that very thing.

The way I see it is that the couple still has what you might call a “contraceptive attitude”. They are not really “open to life”.

It’s on this basis that quite a few very traditionalist and orthodox Catholics question even the morality of NFP.

It’s worth noting that in the US, it’s often estimated that over 90% of Catholics don’t follow Catholic teaching on contraceptives. There are a lot of priests that are sympathetic to this. My former priest was.

It’s quite a can of worms.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Is it right to say that only one of the functions of the digestive system is to digest?

I honestly don’t know. I am not a gastroenterologist.

@Hume Thank you for these answers. I think you offer a very cogent explanation of Catholic teaching on this subject.

 

[Hume]

kapp19:

Is it right to say that only one of the functions of the digestive system is to digest?

I honestly don’t know. I am not a gastroenterologist.

@Hume Thank you for these answers. I think you offer a very cogent explanation of Catholic teaching on this subject.

If you’re looking for an ancient and apostolic church, might I recommend Orthodoxy?

They’d slap me if I brazenly said that “they allow artificial birth control”. But the truth of the matter is that their economy of grace on the subject is much more generous than the Catholic one. You still have to request the dispensation (don’t know what the Orthodox word for that is, if it’s different), but they’ll grant it for pretty common-sense reasons (I’m a student, we’re broke, we already have # kids, etc.).

Naturally any method you use has to generally be considered non-abortifacient. So no “day after” pills.

 

[rosejmj]

Intercourse even with birth control can lead to procreation. The chances are just slimmer just as when one has intercourse on a non fertile day

 

[rosejmj]

I would use the better example of food. While it should nourish us it is not wrong to enjoy food or to eat in social settings

 

[kapp19]

So you are sure that sex has multiple purposes but not eating? Sorry… that is sounding a bit like special pleading, unless you’re a urologist or gynecologist. It doesn’t take an expert though to describe the basic function of either faculty: to preserve the self, and to preserve the human race. Sure, there are other things that occur, like pleasure, but the entire reason that the faculty exists in the first place is clearly due to the important goal of staying alive and keeping the human race going, respectively. So a willful act which essentially (by the nature of the act itself) cuts off the fundamental goal of the faculty (the very reason it exists in the first place) is going to be an affront against the One Who designed the faculty and gave it to us for those very important purposes (especially the latter - keeping the race going). On the other hand, one who simply hopes that a natural use of sex does not end with pregnancy, and even avoids the more likely times of this occurring, is, whatever the case, not making use of the faculty in a way contrary to its essential design, even though one might say there are other problems (which there CAN be). The reality is that one is still using the organs in the way they were actually designed to be used - this goes there, and only with this person.

While @Hume is getting “to the point” his bluntness glides over some of the truth, too.

 

[OddBird]

This is something I keep reading, as if couples who use contraception (or engage in activities that do not lead to pregnancy, such as oral sex) do not respect each other. Eventually, it begins to sound quite offensive.

Maybe the word “respect” is misleading. What is, I think, meant by this, is that there is a fine line between unitive intercourse and intercourse where pleasure becomes the main aim. This second kind can be problematic, because with it comes the risk of objectifying one’s spouse - of treating them as a means to one’s pleasure. It’s a bit different from “respect” in the usual sense.

 

[kapp19]

Beyond that, “respect” can be used in many ways, and seems to be in relation to the “end” of human flourishing as perceived by the “respecter” in the strict sense. I might say I love and respect someone, therefore I will euthanize that person as he wants. Or I might say that I love and respect him, so therefore I will not do that same thing. There is a psychological experience and behavior, and there is the broader moral framework which that experience and behavior fits into. The former might have the same psychology as the latter, yet I think we would want to say that the former is not respecting “correctly.”

 

[Rau]

But if a couple are making sure that they only have sex on the days of the month when they can be reasonably certain that pregnancy will not ensue, is this not basically a method of contraception?

It is a means to avoid pregnancy (an aim, or intention, or purpose) and in general there is nothing wrong with that intention.

Contraception as the term is used is a type of act that corrupts the sexual act. It is that act that is held to be immoral - not its purpose.

I’ll leave other aspects of your question to others.

 

[Rau]

It sounds to me as though you will likely reject Catholicism in your search.

 

[Rau]

Yes, a Catholic priest did once say to me that people who don’t want to have children can’t get married. I didn’t agree with him. I know plenty of couples who got married not wanting to have children (or not able to, on account of being a same-sex couple and hence unable to conceive naturally with each other).

Your agreement is not “relevant” in the sense that the priest was simply quoting to you the rules for marriage in the Catholic Church. Persons who declare a firm intention to never have children can’t be married in the church. Persons of the same sex can’t be married etc.

 

[Gorgias]

So you are sure that sex has multiple purposes but not eating? Sorry… that is sounding a bit like special pleading

That’s how it sounded to me, too. On one hand, in service of her argument, she ‘knows’ that there are multiple, mutually exclusive and independent ends to sex; on the other hand, when there’s no argument to present, there’s no knowledge of bodily functions. Hmm…

What is, I think, meant by this, is that there is a fine line between unitive intercourse and intercourse where pleasure becomes the main aim. This second kind can be problematic, because with it comes the risk of objectifying one’s spouse - of treating them as a means to one’s pleasure. It’s a bit different from “respect” in the usual sense.

And, in fact, @EmilyAlexandra, @OddBird has hit on a theme that St Pope John Paul II wrote about in his book “Love and Responsibility”: even when the unitive aspect of marital sex is considered, it can turn into a mere exercise of obtaining pleasure for oneself, rather than an activity which leads to the unity of the couple.

Thought experiment: Suppose there was a natural food a person could ingest that would make them infertile for a short period of time. Would consuming this food and then having sex be considered contraception and immoral?

Catholic moral theology takes into consideration the ‘intent’ of the moral actor. If the intent were to become infertile and subsequently “take advantage” of this infertility, then ‘yes’.

 

[Rau]

There seems to be a concerted effort over the centuries by the Church to divorce pleasure from sex.

Over the centuries? Divorce it from pleasure - does that mean to assert it is not pleasurable? I really don’t know what You are trying to say. Can you present the evidence that leads to your conclusion?

 

[OddBird]

Surely the two can exist in equal measure.

They certainly can coexist. What matters is the intent - does one have sex in order to satisfy one’s own need for pleasure, or does one have sex as a way to bond with one’s spouse and share in God’s creative act ? Of course, there is pleasure in both. What the Christian tradition is weary of is pleasure becoming it’s own end, not because pleasure is bad but because that often tends to objectify sexual partners, or potential sexual partners whose worth is then judged according to the self-gratification one expects from them.

 

[Vico]

…

Q1. What I am therefore wondering is why every sexual act has to have the potential of bringing about new life.
A1. Unitive and procreative means sexual thoughts and acts not done in isolation from the spouse and willingly done in the proper human mode of reproducing.

Q2. My second question is, why is “natural family planning” considered moral, given that it is essentially a method of contraception?
A2. It is not moral in itself. St. Pope Pius XII wrote in 1951:

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Note also:

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession - Papal Encyclicals

 

[Lara]

If overpopulation were really a problem, you’d see people being happy that 569,000 have died from Covid, or, at the very least, breathing easier. Every time there is a flood in which say, 30,000 die, we should all feel permission to have 30,000 extra children. But nobody thinks like that. People who believe the myth of overpopulation aren’t any happier losing a family member.

The essential problem is distribution of people worldwide. In Canada, where I live, I can go out for a walk and see nobody in the middle of the day. Each house has just over two people in it.

Another thing is we all overuse resources, using far too much water per person. Even I, at 4.5 cubic metres per month, use far too much water… and I’m frugal. So we could have far more people if we used less.

I would stop worrying about overpopulation. Remember, we WANT Catholics to comprise a bigger percentage of the world’s population. We need more Catholics to vote for good things like pro-life policies, not more people voting to destroy the definition of gender etc…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I would stop worrying about overpopulation. Remember, we WANT Catholics to comprise a bigger percentage of the world’s population. We need more Catholics to vote for good things like pro-life policies, not more people voting to destroy the definition of gender etc…

I know I certainly do.

Every time I see a faithful, orthodox Catholic family with several children, I say to myself “now there is the future of the Church!”. Catholic women who have four, five, six children are my heroines, and if they stay home and homeschool, so much the better. The husbands who work to support these families are, likewise, my heroes.

I considered just staying out of this particular thread, but I’d just like to state a few things:

• “Being open to life” means never deliberately placing any artificial barrier to the marital act, that would render conception impossible or highly improbable.
• Paul VI was very explicit that each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life.
• Therefore, any appeal such as “we’re wiling to have children, but there are times we are not willing to allow this act to be open to life” is contrary to Church teaching.
• NFP has evolved to such a state that, if properly used, it is just as effective as artificial means.
• In the past century, there has been what I call “reason creep” to justify the use of NFP. In the past, the Church taught that there have to be “grave” or “serious” reasons to use NFP. The Catechism now says “just” reasons. Is this development of doctrine, or something else? I don’t know. There is a school of thought among some Catholics that NFP may be used for any reason whatsoever — the very use of NFP, according to these people, indicates a couple’s bona fides, no further need to justify.
• The question of whether a couple must intend, if God wills it, and if they are physically capable of it (i.e., not sterile), and if there is no other grave physical or psychological reason, to have at least one child, for their marriage to be valid, is an open question.
• After much discussion on these forums, earlier this year I drafted an inquiry to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF, once known as the “Holy Office”) on these questions. It has been almost six months and I have heard nothing. Given conditions in the world this year (i.e., COVID-19), I do not expect ever to get a response. If I do, I will post it here on CAF as well as my own blog.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In mulling all of this over, I have even wondered if “just not wanting to have a child” could be considered a just, grave, or serious reason to avoid having children, using NFP, within a prospective Catholic marriage — “yes, we know that most people who get married want to have children, and we never intend to use any other means than NFP, but because [insert one’s reason here], that is just something we don’t feel like we can ever do — if, in spite of using NFP throughout the duration of the marriage, a child does come, we will welcome and love that child, and yield to God’s Will, but aside from that, it’s just not something we can consider doing”.

Though their method of birth avoidance was never specified (presumably they used ABC), this was basically the reasoning of Gabrielle and Carlos Solis in Desperate Housewives, which if you knew what to look for — and I did — often took on aspects of a Catholic morality play. I often commented that they must have Catholic writers — you had to be Catholic to “get” some things on that show, such as the connivance concerning a possible annulment of Carlos and Gabrielle’s marriage. The show credits began with an animated rendition of the Adam and Eve story, complete with the apple.

I would actually be willing to give leeway to that argument — “well, if you just don’t feel like you can do it, then I will respect your decision”. I just have to wonder what kind of marriage that would be, for a child to come into — “we never wanted to have children, but you happened anyway”. To my way of thinking, that’s a real problem. (Such a couple might consider never sharing that sentiment with their child, but then what about all the family members, friends, and so on, with whom this couple might have shared their wish never to have children?) But I’d give anybody justice — in a world of fully traditional, orthodox Catholics, I’d be a flaming liberal.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Q2. My second question is, why is “natural family planning” considered moral, given that it is essentially a method of contraception?
A2. It is not moral in itself. St. Pope Pius XII wrote in 1951:

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Well, there goes the argument that “using NFP is never sinful”.

I have been mulling over the question of “why were the reasons once required to be ‘grave’ or ‘serious’, and now, per the Catechism, they only have to be ‘just’?”. I could accept the idea that perhaps the Holy Spirit has led the Church to have a more lenient teaching on NFP than in decades past (NFP has only been “known” for about a hundred years, if that long), because for many people in the modern world, circumstances dictate that they have fewer children, than people in their circumstances would have had in past years. In the affluent, industrial and post-industrial West, having more than two or three children is extremely difficult. Many mothers have to work and rely upon day care for their children who are not of school age (or even those of school age, where extended afternoon care is needed — been there, done that). One-income families, once the rule, are now the exception. So I feel people’s pain — because I’ve been there — and I can understand why they would see the need to limit the number of children they have. Maybe the Church does likewise.