Sorry for my delayed response, I don’t have regular internet access. I’m writing with the intention of being direct, I hope none of it comes off as unkind.
Ok this is interesting…tell me if I’m getting this right. I feel that I do give myself fully bc the desire for children is absent in me, that’s why I was having trouble with that phrase. But what you are saying is, included in that phrase and the word unity is it’s not just about two spouses giving themselves physically and emotionally, it’s about bringing God into each act as well?
The problem here is that you’re using your feelings to dicate your actions. Feelings are changeable, they’re based entirely on emotion, which is not bad if you’re using them to influence your decisons, but very bad if you’re using them to direct your actions. Just because you
feel as though you’re giving yourself fully doesn’t mean you actually are. If you were aware of how much more fully you could be giving yourself, you would realize that your feelings are based on limited experience and limited understanding.
You are not sharing the desire for children, when you give yourself fully, so whether the desire is there is unimportant, you are simply giving yourself, without reservation, which includes your ability to concieve children, not barring off aspects of yourself. If you are contracepting, certain aspects of your emotional and physical self are closed off in the process, which denies the act full unity.
God is also necessary for full unity, because it is only with and in God that we are able to love. This does not mean that atheists are unable to love and have happy marriages, because God is still present in their lives, even if they fail to recognize him, but the intimacy and unity that
could be is not there because they have not pursued the greater intimacy that is possible for them.
if the couple says to themselves, to God, to the priest who is about to marry them, “we won’t use artificial contraception but if NFP fails, we will give any and all children that result up for adoption.” What is your take on that? Basically they are saying, we won’t abort. But that’s as far as they’ll go, welcoming-wise.
The couple is not aborting and they are not contracepting, which is a great step towards welcoming life, but they aren’t actually
welcoming life. A good priest would continue the discussion: “Why
exactly are you refusing so completely to raise up your children? What is it about having children that you’re afraid of?” He would also, in my opinion, refuse to marry them, because they are only willing to avoid evil, they aren’t willing to actually do good. And also because in that case, they would be using NFP in a contraceptive sense (in other words, their mindset would be contraceptive, even if they weren’t employing articficial means).
Could you tell me exactly why some is NOT better than none? Sex within a marriage promotes fidelity for instance. So isn’t giving yourself, whether it’s truly your whole self or not, better than none, if none could lead to lust or even infidelity? That’s just an example, I could probably think of more…
For the same reason that spending
some nights with your husband and other’s with another man is wrong. Or giving some of your faith to God, but reserving the rest “just in case”. It pollutes that which is given. There is a verse in the New Testament…(I’m awful about quoting chapter and verse, it’s somewhere outside the gospel)…saying that God would rather you be hot or cold, it’s that insipid temperature in between that turns his stomach and causes him to spit you out. Marriage is much like that, if you give yourself only halfway, you’d be better off having given nothing at all.
…wondering why that makes sex with ABC so definitively illicit. It seems to me that a couple should get to decide for themselves - as opposed to the Pope or Church Fathers etc - what will result in more unity - having joyful, passionate, loving sex, or sitting on opposite sides of the room bc they know if they get close it’s going to lead to lustful thoughts and feelings.(totally exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Maybe for some couples, restraint has a positive effect on their marriage, but there’s no way that’s true for me. We show our love in other ways all the time! If neither person wants children, sex with contraception is totally self-giving, everything else is partial. Sex is not just about the body or pleasure (at least in a marriage), that we all agree on. It seems the Church does not fully recognize the positive effect - the emotional bond - that results from sex, even when a contraceptive is used.
Couples
do have to decide for themselves, but that doesn’t make it any less a wrong decision. Having contraceptive sex may result in more sex, but that doesn’t translate to more unity. Also, it’s hopeful that the married couple is mature enough to be able to spend time together without either needing to have sex or being forced into lustful thoughts. The essential point is that NFP is not meant to be used on a permanent basis for couples who never, ever want children. It is meant to be used only as a sort of “worst case senario”, indicating that there are other serious and undesireable issues in the marriage that need to be changed and that the couple is hoping to change.
The Church really does realize the intense emotional bond that all sex creates between the couple, which is why the Church is so insistent that sex not be misused, and misdirected into
merely a “I feel really good and lovey when we do this” sort of drug for couples. It’s more than that, and the opportunity for procreation can’t be removed without doing damage to the whole.
Hope that all makes sense.
Blessings.
