Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

[ahs]

It’s the “intent” that is the problem, not the “abstaining.” Abstaining is not objectively sinful.

Okay, I think I follow. Is “intent” the same as contraception? Contraception is a sin because is DOES effectively separate the unitive and procreative aspects of an act that is taking place. With “intent” in NFP you have 2 scenarios…1) an act is not taking place (abastining) or 2) an act is taking place in the natural manner during a non fertile time (use of infertile periods).

Are either of those sinful (the “1” and “2” above)? Is the couple guilty of thwarting the procreative nature of an act that is naturally infertile? Is the couple not free to use the infertile period to have sex?

“Intent” doesn’t lead to the sin of contraception unless they use contraception. In this case of NFP, “intent” can lead to the sin of selfishness…provided they have no just reason to avoid conception. Do you agree?

When it comes to NFP, it is the action that is the issue, not the non-action. If it goes beyond intent, it is the action that matters.

Okay, what action is a couple taking against the procreative nature of an act when they engage in the act in the natural manner. Is their act of choosing to have sex in the infertile time a sin? No. Have they removed the procreative nature of this infertile act? No. Has their intent to avoid conception affected the fertility of an act? No (a couple cannot “will” themselves infertile can they?).

So, what “action” is this couple taking that is sinful?

A couple cannot separate the unitive from the procreative if they are not having sex; it is obviously impossible. However, the **intent of not wanting to have children **combined with the **having sex only during the infertile period **is an actual action that attempts to separate the two.

Please explain which sin is commited by a couple 1) not wanting children and 2) having sex only during infertile times.
Please explain how this attempts to separate the procreative from the unitive. The last time I checked, it was impossible to separate teh 2 aspects from an act when that act is taking place in the natural manner between consenting spouses. So, by having sex that ends in intravaginal ejaculation, how exactly is this couple attempting to separate the procreative nature? Seems to me they are attempting to provide the procreative components, and doing everything in their power to make sure the act is ordered toward procreation, even though the act is taking place in an infertile period.

 

[thewanderer]

It’s very correct, and you actually explain why:

It’s the “intent” that is the problem, not the “abstaining.” Abstaining is not objectively sinful.

When it comes to NFP, it is the action that is the issue, not the non-action. If it goes beyond intent, it is the action that matters. A couple cannot separate the unitive from the procreative if they are not having sex; it is obviously impossible. However, the intent of not wanting to have children combined with the having sex only during the infertile period is an actual action that attempts to separate the two.

This is why I strongly object to people stating there is nothing wrong with NFP because it is just abstaining. It’s attempting to focus solely on the area which is not the problem, and ignoring the part that can be problematic. NFP is not “abstaining;” the Church does not teach that.

I think we’re not fully understanding what each of us is trying to say. Yes, I agree with you 100% that it is the intent that is the problem, not the abstaining.

However, then you go on to qualify and say that the intent can only be sinful if the couple is using periodic abstinance, which, I’ll be honest, makes no sense to me at all. The intent is either moral or immoral based on whether or not ones desire to avoid children is selfish, ie, whether or not one has a serious reason to avoid. Since that is what makes the intent either moral or immoral (having a serious reason to avoid) then it doesn’t matter whether one is using complete or partial abstinance, it is possible for one to use either with a selfish intention.

I must say that I am really confused by you trying to classify intention as its own action… For the sake of understanding the morality of an action, intent is one of the aspects of an action which help determine whether or not it is moral, it is not considered an action in itself. And even if it were, it would be an “action” that is present in complete abstinance just as much as in partial abstinance. I honestly don’t understand why you think the intent for NFP can be selfish but for complete abstinance it can never be, that just doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[thewanderer]

ValPal, I’m going to ask you again for the Official Church teachings which lead you to think the way you do, I think they would be very helpful for this discssion.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Oh, sorry. The OP established such when he said exactly what the reason was. At that very moment it was established that as long as the OP and his wife discerned this was a reason to avoid, it became a just reason so long as they discern it to be so. I said “we” so as to preclude anyone from thinking that anyone except the couple has any say in the matter.

Or do you believe you or I have any authority to say the OP did not have a just reason afterall? In other words, you are saying that, despite the OP saying he does in fact have a reason to avoid, and he and his wife find it serious enough to abstain from sex, that you do not agree that a “just reason” has been established, no? So, what would you say is the approved list of “just reasons” from which the OP could pull from to avoid a selfish act?

I was not aware that we were debating an issue to “win” something. I was under the impression that we were discussing Church teaching.

Is any and every reason just in your opinion? Is it possible for my wife and I to have a reason not to have kids–that is not serious or just? Or is the mere fact that I say I believe it is serious–make it so? Just trying to understand your thinking. Does this kind of reasoning apply to any other areas of morality? What makes the reason serious?

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

You do not believe it wil be established that a couple can decide for themselves whether they have a just reason? The Church actually says exactly that.

(Courtesy of severus68)
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

"234. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. "

So if such cannot be establihed in your mind, then doe sthat mean you reject what the Church teaches? Necessarily, this is exactly what it means, no?

From Humanae Vitae:

10…Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that the husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator…"

The spouses may decide but there are responsibilities involved in that decision and it is possible that if their conscience in not properly formed–they may reach a wrong conclusion–that they might not have a right order of priorities. People, at times, come to these threads because they are not sure that they have a properly formed conscience or properly ordered priorities with regards to some issue–so they come here seeking (name removed by moderator)ut.
We do them a diservice if we tell them whatever they decide is o.k. – it’s totally up to them.
It seems that if they give us their reasons and ask for (name removed by moderator)ut we should be able to provide our opinions on whether or not we find those reasons to be serious. I also think we should be able to do this without attacking each others opinions in the manner that is often done.

I, for one, am not clear if you believe that spouses can have a wrong reason and as such put themselves at risk or if you believe that if they think the reason is serious then that makes it serious or if you think using NFP makes it serious since that takes some sacrifice. I just am not clear what you are actually arguing–other than the spouses get to decide–which I don’t think anyone disagrees with. The question is can they reach an incorrect decision–i.e. use NFP for a non serious reason and wouldn’t that be sinful?

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Thanks everyone for your feedback, I’ve learnt quite a lot from your posts!

If you haven’t already guessed, this is my personal situation I’m talking about. Those that have judged me to be selfish have motivated me to examine my motives. I guess my two main reasons for wanting to limit it to 2 kids is fear and being tired.

Fear – I am not a high incomer earner and my wife works part time. We don’t agree with homeschooling so it’s not an option for us. I’m afraid I would not be able to provide for my family financially. However after reading some of your personal situations in family life, I’ve realized it’s not so bad. I didn’t know there are families out there that live so humbly. I still feel the fear…I know I must place my trust in God but my mind keeps playing up suggesting things like “what about those Christian families out there that actually die from poverty??”. On the surface this may seem silly but it’s just how I feel.

Tiredness – I realize I’m not the only one out there that is a tired parent and I take my hat off to all those parents with large families. Again my silly mind plays up suggesting something like “God gave them a greater capacity to love and endure more than I can”.

I enjoy your reading your posts and any feedback is welcome even if it may seem “negative”.

O.k. here are the reasons the O.P. gave–to the best of my knowledge. I think it is good the feedback has cause the OP to examine his motives. I think that it is good for all of us on an ongoing basis.

My question is are these “serious” reasons and what would make them such? Are there situations in which they would be serious and other situations in which they would not?

Peace,
Mark

 

[ValPal]

Okay, I think I follow. Is “intent” the same as contraception? Contraception is a sin because is DOES effectively separate the unitive and procreative aspects of an act that is taking place. With “intent” in NFP you have 2 scenarios…1) an act is not taking place (abastining) or 2) an act is taking place in the natural manner during a non fertile time (use of infertile periods).

Regarding #1:

There is no sin (generally*) in abstaining. Let’s assume that Couple #1 intends to avoid having children by using only the infertile period, and Couple #2 intends to avoid having children by use of ABC. However, both couples simply decide to abstain forever.

Has either couple sinned? Absolutely not. The is not action, and there is no sin in abstaining. Period.

*I stated generally because there are certain marital obligations that have to be followed; one spouse cannot simply refuse to have sex for no reason if the other spouse desires it. There are also examples in the Bible of requirements of having sex; e.g., Onan.

Regarding #2:

People continually and conveniently forget that using NFP for spacing/avoiding children requires a reason. That is not my opinion; that is the opinion of the Church. Thus “an act is taking place in the natural manner during a non fertile time (use of infertile periods)” is sinful without reason.

Hence, abstaining is never sinful or selfish regardless of intent. The act of having sex with intent to avoid children is sinful without reason.

People constant argue this backwards.

 

[ValPal]

ValPal, I’m going to ask you again for the Official Church teachings which lead you to think the way you do, I think they would be very helpful for this discssion.

Example: Sex between objectively sterile people cannot be procreative nor ordered toward procreation (by definition).

 

[Jennifer_J]

Example: Sex between objectively sterile people cannot be procreative nor ordered toward procreation (by definition).

Yes it can be. procreative describes the kind of sex not that the sex is actively producing children.

 

[ahs]

Is any and every reason just in your opinion? Is it possible for my wife and I to have a reason not to have kids–that is not serious or just? Or is the mere fact that I say I believe it is serious–make it so? Just trying to understand your thinking. Does this kind of reasoning apply to any other areas of morality? What makes the reason serious?

Peace,
Mark

Mark, I cannot tell you if you and your wife have a serious reason or not. I can only discern with my own spouse whether we have a just reason. It is certainly possible to have a reason that is not serious, and to avoid conception out of selfish motives…but I don’t have the ability to discern that for you. And while I can provide my personal opinion whether I think a reason is serious or selfish…I cannot call you selfish for relying on a reason that I personally find selfish, nor can I assume that you are acting out of selfishness. Recall that we are taught, in so far as possible, to interpret each others actions, words, or deed in a favorable way first (CCC 2478). If you need a list, of sorts, of serious or just reasons, all I can tell you is this:

…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…(Allocution to Midwives, Pope Pius XII)

I understand that some come here seeking advice and may not have a properly formed conscience. This is where we can provide Church teaching. But we are not free to judge for another couple whether they are being selfish. We certainly can state reasons that we believe would represent selfish reasons to avoid. But ultimately, only that couple and God can know whether they have a serious reason or not, or whether they are being selfish.

It seems that if they give us their reasons and ask for (name removed by moderator)ut we should be able to provide our opinions on whether or not we find those reasons to be serious. I also think we should be able to do this without attacking each others opinions in the manner that is often done.

Sure, I agree with you on that. But there is a line that has been crossed in this thread where some have gone past this and assumed selfishness. Comments suggesting that the couple does not trust God in the bedroom (your first comment in this thread before the OP gave a reason…we were to assume, at the OP’s suggestion, that the couple had no serious reason) or ones that accuse fertile couples of being selfish for “pontificating” whether or not to have a 3rd child (after the OP had revealed reasons)…these kinds of comments are a step outside providing our opinions on whether we find a reason to be serious or not…these comments represent a judgment about a person that we have no business making.

… here are the reasons the O.P. gave…My question is are these “serious” reasons and what would make them such? Are there situations in which they would be serious and other situations in which they would not?

For you they may be serious, for me they might not. We can discuss our opinions on the seriousness of the reasons all day and all night. But what we cannot do is say that a couple is selfish if these are their reasons to avoid…nor are we free to make uncharitable comments about whether they are trusting God in the bedroom or whether they are selfish for only having 2 children. Only that couple and God can know this.

 

[ValPal]

Yes it can be. procreative describes the kind of sex not that the sex is actively producing children.

Procreate means “to beget or generate” offspring. Procreative sex is sex that begets or generates offspring. People that cannot beget or generate offspring cannot procreate, therefore your statement is objectively false.

 

[ahs]

…abstaining is never sinful or selfish regardless of intent. The act of having sex with intent to avoid children is sinful without reason.

I think you mean “having sex, utilizing ONLY the infertile periods, with intent to avoid children is sinful without reason.”

Sure. But it’s not the sin of contraception. Contraception does something to an act which is taking place…it actively removes (or attempts to) the procreative nature of the conjugal act. With NFP, either an act is not taking place…or when it is taking place, it is done in the natural manner with no action to thwart either aspect of the act. In fact, an action is actually present in that act that preserves the procreative nature of the act by means of intravaginal ejaculation. The couple has not made the act infertile by their timing of the act (it was infertile on its own) and now engaging in it, they preserve the procreative nature of the act. The act is not “procreative”, but it is “ordered toward procreation” in the manner in which it is carried out.

Example: Sex between objectively sterile people cannot be procreative nor ordered toward procreation (by definition).

Yes it can be. procreative describes the kind of sex not that the sex is actively producing children.

An act does not need to be “procreative” in order to be “ordered toward procreation”.

 

[ahs]

Procreate means “to beget or generate” offspring. Procreative sex is sex that begets or generates offspring. People that cannot beget or generate offspring cannot procreate…

Right! And the Church does not say that each act must yield in this begetting. It says that each act must be “ordered, per se, toward procreation” (CCC 2366). The act need not result in pregnancy, nor be capable of it, per se, (naturally…as in infertlity) …it must simply be “ordered toward” procreation…which describes the manner in which the act is completed.

 

[ValPal]

or when it is taking place, it is done in the natural manner with no action to thwart either aspect of the act.

It is being done with the specific intent to avoid at all costs (granted, in a natural way) having children. And the Church recognizes that there is an issue with this, hence the need for a reason to do so. Once again, the Church takes no issue with abstaining, which is “no-action.”

An act does not need to be “procreative” in order to be “ordered toward procreation”.

This statement is self-contradictory and nonsensical. It’s like putting on a pair of prescription glasses so that I can order my blindness toward sight.

 

[severus68]

From Humanae Vitae:

10…Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that the husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator…"

The spouses may decide but there are responsibilities involved in that decision and it is possible that if their conscience in not properly formed–they may reach a wrong conclusion–that they might not have a right order of priorities. People, at times, come to these threads because they are not sure that they have a properly formed conscience or properly ordered priorities with regards to some issue–so they come here seeking (name removed by moderator)ut.
We do them a diservice if we tell them whatever they decide is o.k. – it’s totally up to them.
It seems that if they give us their reasons and ask for (name removed by moderator)ut we should be able to provide our opinions on whether or not we find those reasons to be serious. I also think we should be able to do this without attacking each others opinions in the manner that is often done.

I, for one, am not clear if you believe that spouses can have a wrong reason and as such put themselves at risk or if you believe that if they think the reason is serious then that makes it serious or if you think using NFP makes it serious since that takes some sacrifice. I just am not clear what you are actually arguing–other than the spouses get to decide–which I don’t think anyone disagrees with. The question is can they reach an incorrect decision–i.e. use NFP for a non serious reason and wouldn’t that be sinful?

Peace,
Mark

It is up to them. However, the Church has given some guidelines on how they should make their decision. Their decision is between them and God.

 

[thewanderer]

Example: Sex between objectively sterile people cannot be procreative nor ordered toward procreation (by definition).

What do you mean by objectively sterile? two people of the same sex?

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, I am asking if you could provide me with the actual text of the official Church teaching which is confusing you. You say you have read up on this, well so have I and I do not find it confusing or illogical at all, but that is because we have a very different understanding of what the Church’s official position is. That is why I am suggesting that you bring up the official passages which confuse you, either I will learn something new or I might be able to help you see that the Church’s position is actually perfectly logical. However, since we clearly have different opinions as to what the Church actually teaches this conversation will not be able to get anywhere unless actual official Church teaching is brought up.

 

[fpt]

The fact of practicing the marital act in the intention, only, of expressing love is not sinful, per se.

The fact of practicing the marital act in the intention, only, of bonding of love is not sinful, per se.

The fact of practicing the marital act in the intention, only, of having conjugal fun, and conjugal pleasures and orgasms, is not sinful, per se.

The fact of practicing the marital act in the intention, only, of making a baby is not sinful, per se.

The fact of practicing the marital act in desiring no baby , or in wanting no baby, is not sinful, per se.

The fact of practicing the marital act in the intention of avoiding the wrong effects of concupiscence, is not sinful , per se.

 

[ValPal]

What do you mean by objectively sterile? two people of the same sex?

How about an 80-year-old couple, where the wife had her uterus and ovaries removed, and the husband had chemo and radiation therapy rendering him sterile. The same exact rules apply to the them.

I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear, I am asking if you could provide me with the actual text of the official Church teachinug which is confusing you. You say you haave read up on this, well so have I and I do not find it confusing or illogical at all, but that is because we have a very different understanding of what the Church’s official position is. That is why I am suggesting that you bring up the official passages which confuse you, either I will learn something new or I might be able to help you see that the Church’s position is actually perfectly logical. However, since we clearly have different opinions as to what the Church actually teaches this conversation will not be able to get anywhere unless actual official Church teaching is brought up.

I offered you a basic concept after stating that I wasn’t going to. If you want to address the issue further, start another thread.

 

[ahs]

It is being done with the specific intent to avoid at all costs (granted, in a natural way) having children. And the Church recognizes that there is an issue with this, hence the need for a reason to do so. Once again, the Church takes no issue with abstaining, which is “no-action.”

“Avoid at all costs”…except they are engaging in an act in a natural manner, and there is a chance, although slight, that pregnacy may result. Remember, when they engage in the act, they do it in the natural manner…everyting is there except the wife’s natural fertility accoridng to her natural cycle. I would not say that they are “avoiding at all costs” because they are actaully having sex. If they were avoiding at “ALL” costs, then they’d stay permanently abstinent until their serious reason waned.

This statement is self-contradictory and nonsensical. It’s like putting on a pair of prescription glasses so that I can order my blindness toward sight.

No, it is not contradictory. “Procreative” does not equal “ordered toward procreation”. Your example places the object in the wrong place. The corresponding terms would be “visible” and “ordered toward visibility”. Let’s have a look (pun intended )

My computer screen is visible to me, because it is right here in front of, not hiding, sitting here in the open for me to see it, AND becase I have sight…I am able to see it. I have sight, the natural use of my eyes, and I see it. My computer screen is “visible”. It is also “ordered toward visibility” because it exists in a state of being able to be visible to those with sight.

If I am blind, my computer screen doesn’t suddenly dissappear…it’s just not visible to ME. So, my computer screen is “ordered toward sight” by virtue of it being here, not hiding, sittign out in the open for anyone to see. But for me, it is not visible because I do not have my sight.

Back to sex. Sex is “procreative” when I complete the act in a manner that gets my wife pregnant. She becomes pregnant and therefore we had “procreative” sex.
Sex is “ordered toward procrestion” when my wife and I complete the act in the manner which could lead to pregnancy…even if pregnacy does not happen.

“Procreative” decribes the result. “Ordered toward procreation” describes the manner in which the act is completed.

It can get more complicated than this as well…but let’s digest just this much at a time. Back to Church teaching on sex…

…the Church does not say that each act must yield in this begetting. It says that each act must be “ordered, per se, toward procreation” (CCC 2366). The act need not result in pregnancy, nor be capable of it, per se, (naturally…as in infertlity) …it must simply be “ordered toward” procreation…which describes the manner in which the act is completed.

I believe thewanderer has a very good point in asking you to provide the actual Church teaching that is confusing you. Having you provide that would help us all to better understand where the confusion rests. AS an act of charity, it would be to my benefit and to thewanderer’s benefit for you to provide us with this teaching you are referring to…since it seems to be clear to you that YOU have the correct understanding and thewanderer and myself do not. Certainly you don’t want us to go forth in ignorance do you?

 

[ValPal]

Sex is “ordered toward procrestion” when my wife and I complete the act in the manner which could lead to pregnancy…even if pregnacy does not happen.

“Does not” is not the same as “can not.”

“Does not” means the possibility exists. “Can not” means an impossibility. “Can not” does not apply to your quoted statement above.

Sterile people, by definition, can not procreate, order sex toward procreation, nor contracept, since bringing forth children is an impossibility. This is as blatant as the day is long, and it is simply pointless to argue otherwise.

I know what the Church means and intends to say, but the explanation, IMHO, does not put forth the idea properly, and leaves all non-Catholics and many Catholics simply befuddled.