Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

[thewanderer]

Yeah, I could probably buy into that verbage but I still think we are nitpicking. Adding the word “ordered” is not going to really solve any problems here.

Well, its just that the way people commonly speak procreative implies that it has to be fruitful, ordered to procreation does not imply this the same way.

 

[Moore11]

Well, its just that the way people commonly speak procreative implies that it has to be fruitful, ordered to procreation does not imply this the same way.

Sure. I could see that.

 

[ahs]

Well I am trying to understand what you mean by serious and just. I am seeking to more fully understand your position. In an earlier post (and I apologize that I don’t have the # handy) you wrote: “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 am not sure I understand what you are saying but, to me, you seem to be saying:

“a reason to avoid” = “a just reason if the couple finds it a good enough reason to abstain from sex”…

Right. This probably fits similarly to what thewanderer had pointed out earlier…that I’m not being clear enough. In fact, I had clarified what I was saying regarding the first part of your post specifically…and I’ll tie it together here:
What I am getting at is “Moral Conscience” (CCC 1776-1802). With NBR/NFP, the Church teaches that it’s okay to avoid conception by utilizing only the infertile periods as long as there is a just/serious/grave reason. What the Church does not do is tell us what those reasons are. Each couple must decide that for themselves by using their properly informed conscience. The part that I have been hitting the most on is that this is for each couple to decide…none of us can discern the just reasons for another couple. What I have neglected is the part that the couple must first have a well informed conscience to properly discern this. I have alluded to that a few times, but most of my posts have been focused on the former…neglecting the later. I’ll have to be more careful about that.

Is that what you were asking?

To my way of thinking a couple with an improperly formed conscience (through bad catechesis, misinformation from priests, etc) could reach an incorrect conclusion about the justness or seriousness of their reason. In this case their reason would not be serious and just and their action would be sinful. However, because of their bad catechesis they may not be culpable or may have mitigated culpability for the sin. Of course I could be all wet.

Yes, this is my understanding…similar to a couple who is told they may contracept …except in this case (of NBR) their sin would be selfishness (or whatever else) instead of contraception.

Because it is possible and I think likely – that we all have improperly formed consciences in some aspect of the faith–it is extremely important that we always seek to continue to grow in our faith and properly form our conscience–it is a life long pursuit.

Yes, we are in total agreement here.

 

[whm]

• all pressures brought to bear in limiting “the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice”;

I would prefer to follow what Blessed JPII said and back off from pressuring people about the use of NPF. It is wholly their decision.

I am pretty sure he is talking about policies like China’s here.

 

[ValPal]

“Procreative” describes a result.

The result is oftentimes an impossibility.

“Ordered, per se, toward procreation” describes the manner in which the act is completed.

What exactly does ordering an act toward an impossibility mean?

by completing the act in the natural manner.

I completely agree with this statement, and it’s where the discussion should begin and end. That makes sense, is very understandable, and does not cause the massive confusion that the explanation does.

Completing the act in a natural manner and ordering it toward procreation are not the same; that is self-evident. The former includes all sex; the later includes some sex (unless the Church is using some definition of procreation that that means that opposite of begetting children, which would be odd).

 

[ValPal]

Well, its just that the way people commonly speak procreative implies that it has to be fruitful, ordered to procreation does not imply this the same way.

Nobody said that. “Procreative” obviously has to do with the bringing forth of children in some way, shape, or form. But for sterile people since that is not possible in any way, shape, or form, the impossibility of bringing forth children is obviously has nothing to do with procreation. This is self-evident.

 

[ValPal]

“a reason to avoid” = “a just reason if the couple finds it a good enough reason to abstain from sex”.

It is my understanding that there is no problem with this. There is no requirement that a married couple must have sex, and no “just reason” is required to abstain. They are perfectly free to abstain for the rest of their lives if they so wish. “Abstaining” isn’t NFP either; it’s simply abstaining, and the Church has never held it was sinful (excepting certain marital obligations; e.g., the situation where one spouse desires relations and the other continually refuses for no reason). If the couple wants to stop at two children and abstain for the rest of their lives, they are free to do so.

The reason to avoid comes in when the couple continually engages in sexual relations during the infertile period, and the reason they do so is to avoid having children. Basically, the couple is seeking pleasure without the children. This obviously cannot happen if the couple is abstaining.

 

[ahs]

Originally Posted by ahs:
“Procreative” describes a result.

ValPal:
The result is oftentimes an impossibility.

Hence the reason the Church says each act must be “ordered, per se, toward procreation” (CCC 2366, italics in original) and not “procreative”.

ahs:
“Ordered, per se, toward procreation” describes the manner in which the act is completed.

ValPal:
What exactly does ordering an act toward an impossibility mean?

The Church says, “Ordered, per se, toward procreation” (CCC 2366) and I have described what this means several times now. Perhaps you should read the Catechism. In short, it mean having sex in the natural manner.

ahs:
by completing the act in the natural manner.

ValPal:
I completely agree with this statement, and it’s where the discussion should begin and end. That makes sense, is very understandable, and does not cause the massive confusion that the explanation does.

Then why are you continuing to equate “procreative” with “ordered, per se, toward procreation”? Why do you continue to equate a “result” with a “manner of completion”? Why do you equate a “consequence” (pregnancy) with a “natural aspect” (procreative nature)?

Completing the act in a natural manner and ordering it toward procreation are not the same; that is self-evident. The former includes all sex; the later includes some sex (unless the Church is using some definition of procreation that that means that opposite of begetting children, which would be odd).

What?! Can you please provide for us the portion of Church teaching you are referring to that you find so confusing…yet you seem unable to produce?

Or perhaps you can please explain how ordering sex toward procreation only includes some sex while completing the act in a natural manner includes *all *sex in your mind.
That actually makes no sense…since the Church’s teaching is that “each and every marriage act remain ordered, per se, toward the procreation of human life…” (CCC 2366) which mean…all sex.

 

[thewanderer]

Nobody said that. “Procreative” obviously has to do with the bringing forth of children in some way, shape, or form. But for sterile people since that is not possible in any way, shape, or form, the impossibility of bringing forth children is obviously has nothing to do with procreation. This is self-evident.

Which is why the word procreative is misleading. Such couples, however can still have relations in such a way that they are ordered towards procreation, however, which is why hat is better than just saying procreative.

 

[thewanderer]

It is my understanding that there is no problem with this. There is no requirement that a married couple must have sex, and no “just reason” is required to abstain. They are perfectly free to abstain for the rest of their lives if they so wish. “Abstaining” isn’t NFP either; it’s simply abstaining, and the Church has never held it was sinful (excepting certain marital obligations; e.g., the situation where one spouse desires relations and the other continually refuses for no reason). If the couple wants to stop at two children and abstain for the rest of their lives, they are free to do so.

The reason to avoid comes in when the couple continually engages in sexual relations during the infertile period, and the reason they do so is to avoid having children. Basically, the couple is seeking pleasure without the children. This obviously cannot happen if the couple is abstaining.

This is not quite true. It is just as possible for people to abstain completely because of a selfish desire to avoid children as it is for them to abstain partially. In other words both can be just as sinful, depending on the reason for abstaining.

You seem to be confused about what NFP is. It is simply a way of gaining more precise knowledge about one’s fertility so that One can make more accurate prudential jdgements as to whether or not it is responsible to have relations at any given point in time. A couple could use NFP and never end up having sex while they are trying to avoid, for some couples this does happen, and they are still using NFP even though they never had relations. All NFP to avoid is is simply using more accurate knowledge of ones fertility for abstaining when you are most fertile. Beyond that, anything else you do is no longer a part of NFP, you could have relations outside his timeframe or you could not. In other words, NFP is simply abstinence based on more accurate knowledge of one’s fertility.

 

[ValPal]

This is not quite true. It is just as possible for people to abstain completely because of a selfish desire to avoid children as it is for them to abstain partially. In other words both can be just as sinful, depending on the reason for abstaining.

This implies that couples must have sex, which is simply not true, which the Church has never taught (barring specific circumstances involving orders from God, e.g., Onan). I doubt that if I went to confession and told the priest I have two children, that my wife and I no longer wish to have any more children, and that we agreed to abstain for the rest of our lives, that he would require me to go home and have sex.

I find it extraordinarily odd that a couple with two children can have a selfish desire to avoid children. They are objectively open to having children! They’re objectively open to life! What is so difficult to understand about that?

If the couple wishes not to have sex, they don’t have to have sex, regardless of reason.

 

[ValPal]

Which is why the word procreative is misleading. Such couples, however can still have relations in such a way that they are ordered towards procreation, however, which is why hat is better than just saying procreative.

Maybe I’m just thick, but I still don’t get how sterile people have sex ordered toward procreation. By definition, it makes no sense, no matter how many times people state it means something else.

Part of the issue may have to do with the fact that so much of that pertaining to marriage deals with people that can actually have children, and the concepts and documents were formulated with that in mind. Nowadays, it is much more common for infertile (either natural or unnatural) people to marry than in the past, due to waiting much longer to getting married, divorce and remarriage, etc.

 

[thewanderer]

This implies that couples must have sex

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons to abstain that have nothing to do with whether or not you want to have children. Tiredness, being emotionally drained, neither party being in the mood, wishing to abstain for the sake of spiritual reasons, as a sacrifice etc. All of which are perfectly fine because none of them are selfish. But if a couple abstained because one of them was using sex as a weapon to get their way, say, then they would be abstaining for selfish reasons and theri action would be wrong because of the selfish intent. That doesn’t mean that they have to have sex, it means that they need to eradicate the selfish intent and then from there they can make a new decision of whether or not to abstain, and if they still decide to abstain, this time for non-selfish reasons, then it is totally 100% aok. The point is they could be abstaining for selfish reasons whether or not they are using NFP. I really don’t see how anybody could possibly deny this.

, which is simply not true, which the Church has never taught (barring specific circumstances involving orders from God, e.g., Onan). I doubt that if I went to confession and told the priest I have two children, that my wife and I no longer wish to have any more children, and that we agreed to abstain for the rest of our lives, that he would require me to go home and have sex.

I find it extraordinarily odd that a couple with two children can have a selfish desire to avoid children. They are objectively open to having children! They’re objectively open to life! What is so difficult to understand about that?

If the couple wishes not to have sex, they don’t have to have sex, regardless of reason.

Nobody here is claiming that every couple with 2 children and avoiding more are being selfish. There are plenty of people where 2 children really is the limit of what they can handle, and for such people it really is not selfish to stay at 2 children. But are you really trying to claim that it iwould be absolutely impossible for a person with 2 children to ever desire to avoid children for a selfish reason? I’m sorry but thats just BS. Having 2 kids does not somehow magically make a person immune to selfishness. We’re all human, it doesn’t matter how many kids we have or how many good works we’ve done we are all still capable of (and often prone to)selfishness in all sorts of forms. It is something we have to fight with throughout our entire lives, in all areas of our lives. There is no magic number of kids that makes a couple immune to selfishness, that is just not how human nature works.

 

[ValPal]

Not at all. There are plenty of reasons to abstain that have nothing to do with whether or not you want to have children. Tiredness, being emotionally drained, neither party being in the mood, wishing to abstain for the sake of spiritual reasons, as a sacrifice etc. All of which are perfectly fine because none of them are selfish. But if a couple abstained because one of them was using sex as a weapon to get their way, say, then they would be abstaining for selfish reasons and theri action would be wrong because of the selfish intent. That doesn’t mean that they have to have sex, it means that they need to eradicate the selfish intent and then from there they can make a new decision of whether or not to abstain, and if they still decide to abstain, this time for non-selfish reasons, then it is totally 100% aok. The point is they could be abstaining for selfish reasons whether or not they are using NFP. I really don’t see how anybody could possibly deny this.

It appears to me from the above that the intent is the issue, not the abstaining. Therefore, the sin is in the intent, not the abstaining.

I really don’t see how anybody could possibly deny this

The Church does not teach abstaining is sinful (unless there is an obligation to have sex).

Please read HV #16.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Note that “well-grounded reasons” applies to engaging in marital intercourse only during the infertile times, not simply abstaining.

 

[Moore11]

Maybe I’m just thick, but I still don’t get how sterile people have sex ordered toward procreation. By definition, it makes no sense, no matter how many times people state it means something else.

.

Not to get too graphic but it means that a couple is obliged to have sex in the way that sex is ordered to procreation. For instance if a woman has cancer and has her reproductive organs removed she must still have sex in the way in which it is ordered to procreation. For that is how God intended sex to happen. Through no fault of her own she is infertile through the sex act. She must still sexually act as though it is ordered to procreation. This is why homosexual sex is wrong as it can NEVER be ordered to procreation. Quite simply that is not how those body parts are designed to be used.
I dont understand your hangup here.

 

[severus68]

I am pretty sure he is talking about policies like China’s here.

He may well have been, thank you. However, he did not state that it was only a one direction principle. With all the rest quoted here, it is clear that the Church itself says that the decision is that of the couple itself.

 

[ValPal]

Not to get too graphic but it means that a couple is obliged to have sex in the way that sex is ordered to procreation.

It should just be ordered toward the way nature intended it…no contradictory terms or phrases, and applicable to those sterile or non-sterile. And its easy for everyone to understand.

Personally, I think the conjugal relations in the sacrament of matrimony should be ordered toward spiritual unity between spouse and God. Too often people focus on the physical aspects of marriage and forget the spiritual aspects.

I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Moore11]

He may well have been, thank you. However, he did not state that it was only a one direction principle. With all the rest quoted here, it is clear that the Church itself says that the decision is that of the couple itself.

I think just taking one thing out of context was confusing as well. I also took it to be talking of societies like china. It is important when quoting to recognize and allow others to see the context. Including this nugget from the same homily.

a community of persons in which the love between husband and wife must be fully human, exclusive and open to new life.

But rather than finding quotes taken out of context and trying to bend them to our own arguments it is better to not put words or intents in the Holy Father’s mouth that he may or may not have wanted.

anyone who wants to read the whole thing in all the context can read it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19861130_perth-australia_en.html

Also of note is that this was a WYD homily.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by severus68 View Post
He may well have been, thank you. However, he did not state that it was only a one direction principle. With all the rest quoted here, it is clear that the Church itself says that the decision is that of the couple itself.

But rather than finding quotes taken out of context and trying to bend them to our own arguments it is better to not put words or intents in the Holy Father’s mouth that he may or may not have wanted.

anyone who wants to read the whole thing in all the context can read it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19861130_perth-australia_en.html

Also of note is that this was a WYD homily.

---

Yes context – as when he goes further and speaks on what impedes a couple from being open to life — sterilization – contraception – and worse abortion. This does not apply to a couple using NFP.

Now an inalienable right goes both ways. Just as it is wrong for China to impose that couples not have more than 1 child – it would be equally wrong to impose that a couples have not less – for example – 4 children. The right to spacing and number of children is left to the couple and only to the couple.

. The moral order demands that the rule written into the processes of life by the Creator in the act of creation should be always and everywhere respected.** The Church’s well-known opposition to contraception and sterilization is not a position arbitrarily taken, nor is it based on a partial perspective of the human person.** Rather it expresses her integral vision of the human person, who is gifted with a vocation that is not only natural and earthly but also supernatural and eternal. Moreover, the Church’s understanding of the intrinsic value of human life as an irrevocable gift of God explains why the Second Vatican Council speaks of “the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life” and considers abortion as an "unspeakable crime".

[/QUOTE]

 

[severus68]

But rather than finding quotes taken out of context and trying to bend them to our own arguments it is better to not put words or intents in the Holy Father’s mouth that he may or may not have wanted.

anyone who wants to read the whole thing in all the context can read it here.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1986/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19861130_perth-australia_en.html

Also of note is that this was a WYD homily.

---

Yes context – as when he goes further and speaks on what impedes a couple from being open to life — sterilization – contraception – and worse abortion. This does not apply to a couple using NFP.

Now an inalienable right goes both ways. Just as it is wrong for China to impose that couples not have more than 1 child – it would be equally wrong to impose that a couples have not less – for example – 4 children. The right to spacing and number of children is left to the couple and only to the couple.

. The moral order demands that the rule written into the processes of life by the Creator in the act of creation should be always and everywhere respected.** The Church’s well-known opposition to contraception and sterilization is not a position arbitrarily taken, nor is it based on a partial perspective of the human person.** Rather it expresses her integral vision of the human person, who is gifted with a vocation that is not only natural and earthly but also supernatural and eternal. Moreover, the Church’s understanding of the intrinsic value of human life as an irrevocable gift of God explains why the Second Vatican Council speaks of “the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life” and considers abortion as an "unspeakable crime".

Thanks.