Circular NFP reasoning

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlanFromWichita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
martino:
As soon as you say “so what” to the importance of “natural order” then you invite all kinds of things.
Click to expand...
The only “natural order” I’m concerned about here is the one described in the union of married couples.

To stand by your claim above you must first assume some type of “domino theory”. You are elevating this one catholic teaching (the ban on contraceptives - which IMO is a marginal one compared to others like adultery) to say that if change were accepted on this one point, then all the other teachings on sexual morality would collapse one by one. I don’t by that. The Church isn’t that frail.
 
DVIN CKS:
The only “natural order” I’m concerned about here is the one described in the union of married couples.

To stand by your claim above you must first assume some type of “domino theory”. You are elevating this one catholic teaching (the ban on contraceptives - which IMO is a marginal one compared to others like adultery) to say that if change were accepted on this one point, then all the other teachings on sexual morality would collapse one by one. I don’t by that. The Church isn’t that frail.
Click to expand...
NO, what I saying is that we cannot separate the two fundamental aspect of sexual relations; the unitive and the pro-creative! You said that they could be separated and it is “no big deal.”

If you follow your idea( that they can be separated), to its logical conclusion; then en vitro fertilization is OK. The thing that makes it wrong is that it separates the pro-creative from the unitive; the same thing goes for surrogate mothers and a few others. It is actually the reverse of ABC were the unitive exists without the pro-creative.

You may say this is all very marginal but (please take no offense at this) your opinion means absolutely zero when it comes to natural law or Church teaching. I do not mean that to be rude but if everyone used their own opinions to determine reality, this world would be much more messed up than it already is. Remember, it is also the abortionist “opinion” that abortion is a good thing for society.

This has nothing to do with the frailty of the Church and I am not placing this teaching above all the others. I am stating the fact that if we separate the unitive and pro-creative aspects of the conjugal act then we open the door to a variety of sins. This is why the Church is so adamant about the whole “chastity in marriage” thing!
 
I know this argument is probably a little to simple for most but have you actually thought of the titles we’ve been using here? ARTIFICIAL birth control and BARRIER methods. If it’s artificial it’s not natural and if it’s a barrier it’s separating.

Please go here and read articles. While I think most have done a great job, maybe the answers would be clearer to some here.

christopherwest.com/works.htm
 
martino…don’t worry no offense taken. I enjoy the sharing of ideas and it is helpful to hear how others perceive my opinions. 🙂

I agree with you…my opinion means nothing in the eyes of the Church. However, my opinion is what shapes my reality. In order for me to try and “reform my conscience” I have to start with what I hold to be true and chip away at it. I certainly do not expect to change anyone’s mind here.

I agree that the procreative and unitive aspects should be coupled together. I’m concerned with one thing and one thing only: whether each and every act of marital sexual intercourse must be “open” to the conception of new life. The church claims that the two aspects can NEVER be separated and by “re-ordering” them it somehow weakens the unity of the marital bond, “degrades” the spouses in some way, cuts into the “depth” of the experience, yadda, yadda, yadda. Some like to claim that it changes the meaning of the marital bond completely. I don’t see that happening…at least not in my own marriage. If you are one of the many who’s marital bond has been strengthed by NFP, that is SUPER. If it has helped foster a more respectful and loving relationship between you and your spouse, that is also SUPER. Let’s just not assume that couples that don’t practice NFP lack all those things. I can assure you that my marriage is very well intact physically, emotionally and spiritually. 👍

As a married Catholic I feel my marriage has been open to new life (as is evident in the three wonderful kids I have been blessed with). My husband and I are now working hard to raise our children in the Catholic faith and be the teachers that the Church demands that we be. So, I feel that I have obeyed my marriage vows by accepting children into my marriage. Does the fact that my husband and I are no longer open to a pregnancy somehow diminish the unitive bond we share (and have shared) every time we have sexual intercourse? We don’t think so. Do we think God is a lesser part of our union because we choose not to be open to another pregnancy? Most certainly not! Most of you by now are thinking that we don’t think we’re doing anything wrong because our consciences are not well formed. That could be very true.

I agree with you that as a society we have a lot of moral issues to grapple with (i.e. genetic testing and manipulation of early human life to assure a “perfect” child). The Church has every right to be concerned about these and other moral issues. What doesn’t sit well with me is the church’s jump from this concern about overall attitudes and patterns of conduct to its judgments about particular forms of birth control and its condemnation - as the gravest sort of sin – of contraception in any instance and for any purpose.
 
bear06…is there one article in particular from that website that you are recommending? There are so many to choose from.
 
I’d recommend them all (actually, I’d just suggest reading the book because whatever he addresses in short in these articles he addresses long in the book) but for this specific debate 2, 4, 6 and 8. None of them are that long. It’d probably take less time than going back and forth on this forum 😉
 
great suggestion, bear06! i wonder how many times it has been reccommended on this thread to read Christopher West…!!! i’m so glad dvincks wants to take a look!
 
Everyone here seems to want to know why the procreative aspect of the marital embrace cannot be removed. I am confident I know the answer and I am confident everyone else does too. Now to make you realize it.

What makes the marital embrace so special? (That is unique enough to call it making love)

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
 
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
Everyone here seems to want to know why the procreative aspect of the marital embrace cannot be removed. I am confident I know the answer and I am confident everyone else does too. Now to make you realize it.

What makes the marital embrace so special? (That is unique enough to call it making love)

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
Click to expand...
Good point! Here is another way to put it:

What makes the love giving aspect of the marital act untive is the total self giving of both husband and wife; this self giving is materialized by the love giving **(pro-creative) **aspect. It is then impossible to have one without the other because they are mutually reliant on the other for their existence.

To separate them would be like separating the two sides of a coin!
 
here is a silly thought…if contraception is "disordering the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex, shouldn’t people who use contraception be labeld “contracep-tics” and be viewed by the church as people who are “sexually disordered” since they are not following the “natural law”?

This thought came when I was pondering the analogy so many people give about eating and the two fold purpose of that act – (nutritional and pleasurable). I believe anorexics and bulemics were used as an example. Although I do not believe the Church refers to eating disorders as “intrinsically evil”, so at least these folks are off the hook morally speaking.

Better still…why don’t we call those who use contraception “contra-sexuals”. This way, we would be putting those people in the same boat with practicing homosexuals who are also not following the natural law and engage in behavior that is “disordered” and immoral.
 
DVIN CKS:
here is a silly thought…if contraception is "disordering the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex, shouldn’t people who use contraception be labeld “contracep-tics” and be viewed by the church as people who are “sexually disordered” since they are not following the “natural law”?

This thought came when I was pondering the analogy so many people give about eating and the two fold purpose of that act – (nutritional and pleasurable). I believe anorexics and bulemics were used as an example. Although I do not believe the Church refers to eating disorders as “intrinsically evil”, so at least these folks are off the hook morally speaking.

Better still…why don’t we call those who use contraception “contra-sexuals”. This way, we would be putting those people in the same boat with practicing homosexuals who are also not following the natural law and engage in behavior that is “disordered” and immoral.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what you call it, the fact is that the Church does oppose couples that use contraception! What else do you want them to do besides change the language? Changing the language for political purposes is a liberal tactic anyway. The Church just tells the truth and leaves the spin doctors to the everyone else.

What name would you like the Church to call those who suffer from bulemia? You forgot to include that part.
 
Ever notice, when abstaining during a fertile time because of the need to avoid pregnancy, that the connection betweent the pleasure of our sexuality and its life-giving power are poignantly highlighted?
 
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (Humanae Vitae, 10)

The reason artificial birth control is immoral is because it is an act, that is by its instrinsic nature, opposed to natural law, whereas abstinence is not.

Abstinence from sex is not opposed, by it’s instrinsic nature, to natural law. Responsible married couples understand that abstinence is required (e.g. “Honey I have a headache”). The act of NOT having sex is not instrinsically evil (otherwise, Jesus and Mary have some splainin’ to do).

Actions which intentionally prevent the release of ovum to conceive are by their intrinsic nature, opposed to the purpose of the marital act. Likewise, actions which intentionally prevent the release of sperm to conceive are by their intrinsic nature, opposed to the purpose of the natural purpose of the marital act.

Abstinence from the marital act is not the same as willing the purpose of a marital act and not willing it at the same time.

Marital acts during infertile periods is not, by the intrinsic nature of the act itself, opposed to conception. In other words, the marital act itself retains its intrinsic relationship to procreation. The lack of contraception is not by acts opposed to natural law, but due to the natural lack of fertility. The key word in Catholic moral theology regarding this teaching is “intrinsic.”
 
40.png
martino:
What name would you like the Church to call those who suffer from bulemia? You forgot to include that part.
Click to expand...
I believe the church calls those people bulemics.

Give the church time…I’m sure she’ll eventually come up with a proper name for the “Contraceptuals” or did I originally call them “Contrasexuals”? Oh well…take your pick…
 
Duhhh…how could I overlook the obvious??? The Church DOES have a name for these people. She calls them “Sinners”!
 
DVIN CKS:
I believe the church calls those people bulemics.

Give the church time…I’m sure she’ll eventually come up with a proper name for the “Contraceptuals” or did I originally call them “Contrasexuals”? Oh well…take your pick…
Click to expand...
You have a very distorted view of the Church. You are now claiming that the Church is engaged in name calling! Do you think the Church invented the term “homosexual”? And do you find the term “heterosexual” to be offensive as well?
Your arguments have now become silly. You are drawing conclusions that are not based on any facts. Ok, we get it, you like to contracept and you think the Church is wrong, you cant back it up so you attack the Church in general. Common tactic, never works, but hope you feel better about it!
 
40.png
mercygate:
Ever notice, when abstaining during a fertile time because of the need to avoid pregnancy, that the connection betweent the pleasure of our sexuality and its life-giving power are poignantly highlighted?
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. It seems the only way to completely give of oneself would be to engage in marital activity during the fertile time. To avoid that time would be to lie to one’s own sexuality because you are denying its full potential. Anything less than that is all relative.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
That’s a good point. It seems the only way to completely give of oneself would be to engage in marital activity during the fertile time. To avoid that time would be to lie to one’s own sexuality because you are denying its full potential. Anything less than that is all relative.

Alan
Click to expand...
Alan, either you or I have dramatically misunderstood the point that Mercygate was trying to make! Go back and read what was said.
 
To avoid that time would be to lie to one’s own sexuality because you are denying its full potential.
Click to expand...
I disagree. By your standard, anytime I felt the urge to have sex with my wife, I ought to do so or else I’d be “denying” my full potential, regardless of other serious reasons for abstinence in marriage.

Sexual abstinence is not intrinsically opposed to natural law. Humanae Vitae excludes actions that by their instrinsic nature, are opposed to the purpose of the marital act (procreation). Neither sexual abstinence nor marital acts during an infertile period violate the following: “**each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” **(HV, 10)
 
I thought mercygate was speaking of sexual abstinence “making the heart grow fonder” making those times one does not abstain even more amazing. It’s like the prelude to the “honeymoon” all over again. Perhaps I misunderstood as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top