Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

[severus68]

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.

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.

This was a homily given in Australia. To quote more of that I quoted earlier:

"the Holy See has presented a Charter of the Rights of the Family based on the natural rights and values common to all humanity. It is addressed principally to Governments and international organizations, as a “model and point of reference for the drawing up of legislation and family policy, and guidance for action programmes”.

Among the principles which the Church vigorously upholds in every circumstance there are the following, which I call to your attention:

• the inalienable right, of spouses to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order . . .";
• all pressures brought to bear in limiting “the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice”; "

and more.

I did not quote out of context, I did not put words in the Pope’s mouth as I quoted.

I would suggest you do not accuse others of misleading.

 

[Moore11]

This was a homily given in Australia. To quote more of that I quoted earlier:

"the Holy See has presented a Charter of the Rights of the Family based on the natural rights and values common to all humanity. It is addressed principally to Governments and international organizations, as a “model and point of reference for the drawing up of legislation and family policy, and guidance for action programmes”.

Among the principles which the Church vigorously upholds in every circumstance there are the following, which I call to your attention:

• the inalienable right, of spouses to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born, taking into full consideration their duties towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society, in a just hierarchy of values and in accordance with the objective moral order . . .";
• all pressures brought to bear in limiting “the freedom of couples in deciding about children constitute a grave offence against human dignity and justice”; "

and more.

I did not quote out of context, I did not put words in the Pope’s mouth as I quoted.

I would suggest you do not accuse others of misleading.

You are making this sound suspiciously like “the Church should get out of our bedrooms.”

You posted your response in response to me saying the couple should find a good and holy priest to help guide them. Do you feel that is inappropriate advice? Do you feel the Church should not “influence” it’s members to be fruitful and multiply? Do you feel that getting spiritual and orthodox advice in this so very important area is not a good idea?

What I am hearing is “it is between a couple” That the Church is to be silent on this very important issue. Hopefully I am wrong.

You seem to want to make this point very badly. Even to the extent of taking something that is talking about forced sterilization, forced abortion, and child limiting laws and equating it with someone who holds the opinion that more couples should be more open to life. I just dont see what you see.

I am curious as your dog in the fight. Are you married? Is this an issue you have some personal experience with?

 

[severus68]

You are making this sound suspiciously like “the Church should get out of our bedrooms.”

You posted your response in response to me saying the couple should find a good and holy priest to help guide them. Do you feel that is inappropriate advice? Do you feel the Church should not “influence” it’s members to be fruitful and multiply? Do you feel that getting spiritual and orthodox advice in this so very important area is not a good idea?

What I am hearing is “it is between a couple” That the Church is to be silent on this very important issue. Hopefully I am wrong.

You seem to want to make this point very badly. Even to the extent of taking something that is talking about forced sterilization, forced abortion, and child limiting laws and equating it with someone who holds the opinion that more couples should be more open to life. I just dont see what you see.

I am curious as your dog in the fight. Are you married? Is this an issue you have some personal experience with?

Please stop trying to make this personal, again. You can just stop responding to me. BTW, you make the same point over and over again - that others have the right to interfere in a couple’s decision when the Church has made it clear that they do not.

 

[Moore11]

Please stop trying to make this personal, again. You can just stop responding to me. BTW, you make the same point over and over again - that others have the right to interfere in a couple’s decision when the Church has made it clear that they do not.

that has not been made clear. It is open to interpretation. Your interpretation from a out of context homily and what constitutes interference has been made known. Others are free to disagree. And it is open to the definition of what “interference” is. I suppose JPII could have been referring to exactly what you think but in that case I guess the Church herself is guilty of interference… Technically I guess posting on any thread like this any sort of opinion would be "interference… But bottom line is you cannot assert a right that the OP has not asserted himself in the thread. The OP welcomed (name removed by moderator)ut/interference.

If you dont want to interfere, then dont.
I suppose both of us could stop responding.
The Church also has made it abundantly clear that openness to life should be preached. But under your definition I guess that is interference. I will ask you again to elaborate on your personal experience with this as you seem to be quite passionate about it. I will also ask if you think that the advice to the OP to seek counsel from a good and holy priest is appropriate?

I notice that several times some in this thread have stated that "it has been settled, when it obviously has not. I guess I am not the only one making the same point again and again.

I think both of us are :banghead:

I understand that you may be annoyed by this whole conversation and I dont want to add to that. If you wish to continue a conversation I would be happy too and if you wish to move on that is fine too.

 

[severus68]

that has not been made clear. It is open to interpretation. Your interpretation from a out of context homily and what constitutes interference has been made known. Others are free to disagree. And it is open to the definition of what “interference” is. I suppose JPII could have been referring to exactly what you think but in that case I guess the Church herself is guilty of interference… Technically I guess posting on any thread like this any sort of opinion would be "interference… But bottom line is you cannot assert a right that the OP has not asserted himself in the thread. The OP welcomed (name removed by moderator)ut/interference.

If you dont want to interfere, then dont.
I suppose both of us could stop responding.
The Church also has made it abundantly clear that openness to life should be preached. But under your definition I guess that is interference. I will ask you again to elaborate on your personal experience with this as you seem to be quite passionate about it. I will also ask if you think that the advice to the OP to seek counsel from a good and holy priest is appropriate?

I notice that several times some in this thread have stated that "it has been settled, when it obviously has not. I guess I am not the only one making the same point again and again.

I think both of us are :banghead:

I understand that you may be annoyed by this whole conversation and I dont want to add to that. If you wish to continue a conversation I would be happy too and if you wish to move on that is fine too.

I have not disputed that the Church teaches ‘openness to life’. I am objecting to and disputing anyone’s assertion that they can question the decision of a couple as to the use of NPF to limit the number of children. There are no two ways about it, the Church has made it clear that the decision belongs to the couple. A few have quoted from different places, not just the last one I quoted. Suggesting to someone who is unsure and seeks advice that they see a priest to help in the decision is not interference. Telling them what decision to make, is interference.

 

[thewanderer]

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

Yes, when you seperate the intent from the means one sees that it is not the means, but the intent which causes the act to be immoral. However, you are missing out on the point that the act itself becomes immoral because of the intent used. So that particular act of abstaining would be immoral.

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

Please read HV #16.

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

This is one way to read it, if you assume that the Church carefully phrased it that way to try and imply that. The thing is, that it is also possible that the Church was not speaking as carefully as she could have in this case. This is what I find most likely because of the Church’s teaching on how to deterine whether or not an act is immoral. To figure this out there are a couple of things that need to be kept in mind. The morality of each individual act must be examined in its own right, you can’t start confusing different acts together to determine their morality. Next, the three aspects of an action that determine whether or not it is moral are the intent, the means, and the circumstances. So, if you wish to claim that when NFP is done selfishly it is immoral because of the action of having sex during the infertile period you need to look at that action by itself and see whether or not there is anything immoral about it.

ok, having relations during the infertile period while intending to avoid conception. Is this immoral?

Intention: to bond with one’s spouse
Means: Normal sexual relations
Circumstances: the couple is validly married

Now which one of these three aspects is immoral? I can’t see how any of them are, but if I am missing something feel free to let me know.

You might be wondering why I did not include the intention to avoid children into this equation. The reason for that is because if I were to do so I would be mixing the intention of two different actions together. Nobody has relations for the sake avoiding children. They have relations for pleasure, or to bond with their spouse, or avoid concupiscence etc. but no one is so stupid that they say " Ok, I want to avoid children, so how will I accomplish this… I know!! I’ll have relations with my wife!! That will help me acheive the end of avoiding children!" So when a couple has relations during the wife’s infertile time the intention involved with each particular action is never to avoid children. They might also at the same time desire to avoid children, but that desire is not linked at all to the action of having relations during the wifes infertile period, instead it is linked to the abstinance involved in the wife’s fertile period.

 

[whm]

You might be wondering why I did not include the intention to avoid children into this equation. The reason for that is because if I were to do so I would be mixing the intention of two different actions together. Nobody has relations for the sake avoiding children. They have relations for pleasure, or to bond with their spouse, or avoid concupiscence etc. but no one is so stupid that they say " Ok, I want to avoid children, so how will I accomplish this… I know!! I’ll have relations with my wife!! That will help me acheive the end of avoiding children!" So when a couple has relations during the wife’s infertile time the intention involved with each particular action is never to avoid children. They might also at the same time desire to avoid children, but that desire is not linked at all to the action of having relations during the wifes infertile period, instead it is linked to the abstinance involved in the wife’s fertile period.

Actually I can see people intending to have sex during the infertile period with the intention of avoiding children. They could intend to have sex then to “hold them over” so to speak through the fertile period. They could intend to have sex now so they are not (as) tempted to have sex during the fertile period.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually I can see people intending to have sex during the infertile period with the intention of avoiding children. They could intend to have sex then to “hold them over” so to speak through the fertile period. They could intend to have sex now so they are not (as) tempted to have sex during the fertile period.

Maybe… I see what you are saying… but wouldn’t, or at least couldn’t, that just be a matter of avoiding concupiscence? Which would not be an immoral intent, but would rather be a good one?

At any rate, it is not something which would call for a different criteria for the need of serious reasons as opposed to those needed for complete abstinance. Serious reasons are needed in either case because without them one’s intent is selfish and therefore one would be behaving in an immoral action. I truly cannot see how partial abstinance would require more serious reasons than complete astinance.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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?

Yes. Thank you. I think we are in agreement.

 

[whm]

Maybe… I see what you are saying… but wouldn’t, or at least couldn’t, that just be a matter of avoiding concupiscence? Which would not be an immoral intent, but would rather be a good one?

Yes, I think that avoiding concupiscence would be the proper intent in that situation. That is a very biblical goal (St. Paul I Corth 7 and thereabouts). I think though that a couple or one of the couple could have a more problematic thought process. I think it really does matter what is going through their heads.

At any rate, it is not something which would call for a different criteria for the need of serious reasons as opposed to those needed for complete abstinance. Serious reasons are needed in either case because without them one’s intent is selfish and therefore one would be behaving in an immoral action. I truly cannot see how partial abstinance would require more serious reasons than complete astinance.

In general I agree, perhaps not for exactly the same reasons, but the way I see it the more serious the reason to avoid pregnancy, the more abstinence appears to be the more logical (although not the emotional) choice. I do think that avoiding sexual sins is an important factor. For some NFP will help to avoid sexual sins (as opposed to abstinence), for others it might be easier to avoid sexual sins through total abstinence. Mortal sin is very dangerous and grave situation. Danger of mortal sin might be a grave reason to actually choose NFP or even sex without NFP over total abstinence. Although marriage is suppose to quell some of that disordered desire towards sexual sins, so hopefully that becomes less of a factor for couples as time progresses.

 

[MarkInOregon]

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.

I don’t believe this is 100% true. Our sin is not only an individual matter between us and God. It is also between us and the Church. Our actions affect the whole body of Christ and not just ourselves. My sin does affect you and that is why it is so damaging–not only may it condemn me but it may also hinder your salvation. That is why we must be reconciled to the Church. Now in this particular area it may be hard, to well nigh impossible, to have enough facts to judge the action (I would think in all cases we don’t have enough information to judge a persons heart, formation or culpability) but that doen’t mean there action has no effect on the body of Christ and is not the concern of all Christians.

Peace,
Mark

 

[severus68]

I don’t believe this is 100% true. Our sin is not only an individual matter between us and God. It is also between us and the Church. Our actions affect the whole body of Christ and not just ourselves. My sin does affect you and that is why it is so damaging–not only may it condemn me but it may also hinder your salvation. That is why we must be reconciled to the Church. Now in this particular area it may be hard, to well nigh impossible, to have enough facts to judge the action (I would think in all cases we don’t have enough information to judge a persons heart, formation or culpability) but that doen’t mean there action has no effect on the body of Christ and is not the concern of all Christians.

Peace,
Mark

This is a decision which the Church itself says is for the couple and only the couple to make.

 

[Em_in_FL]

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

Incorrect.
“Procreative” is an adjective used to describe how the action of “sex” is done.
“Procreative sex” means sex done in a way that could bring about procreation. (basically the husband must finish inside the wife).
Fertility is not part of that equation… temporary infertility during the cycle or permanent infertility at any time. Fertility is not part of the equation. Infertile couples (at any point in time) can have “procreative sex”… because the husband can finish inside the wife during any of those times.

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.

Procreation requires fertility to be present. See above.
If fertility is necessary, we would morally be obliged to ONLY have sex during the fertile phase… which we’re NOT. So therefore, fertility isn’t part of the equation.

ALL infertile couples (at whatever point in time that they are infertile) can have “procreative sex”, because the action is ordered toward procreation (if fertility is actually present).

Marital sex is twofold, in nature… both unitive and procreative… these must not be separated.
All married people (even infertile) can have unitive and procreative sex.
Separation of this twofold nature is where problems arise, therefore abstaining from the whole act is the only way to avoid conception.