Circular NFP reasoning

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

So then according to your logic, sitting on the couch watching ‘ON the Record with Greta Van Susteren’ not only violates the Church’s teaching on contraception, but does so more than a couple having sex and using artificial birth control!!! This really is what you are saying!!!

No, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex must never be separated, then it would seem LOGICAL to me that when a couple decides to engage in the act that the elements (sperm and egg) of the procreative aspect should be present inorder to claim that the couple is giving 100% of their FULL procreative potential to each other.

The church doesn’t teach that we need to be open to the unitive and procreative aspects while sitting on the couch watching t.v., or walking down the street, etc… we only need to be open to them when engaged in the marital act. This we both agree on. I don’t think an NFP couple is being open to the procreative aspect when they choose to have sex during infertile periods only. They may be doing nothing to sever the “instrinsic relationship” of the marital act but, nonetheless, they are no more open to conceiving than the couple who is using ABC.

You still maintain that they are withholding from each other by not having sex!

No, I maintain that they are withholding from each other by only having sex during a woman’s infertile period. I understand - now- the argument about not doing anything to sever the “intrinsic relationship” and agree that abstinence doesn’t do this.

So then every time the woman’s egg isn’t being attacked by out of control sperm cells, the couple violates the Church’s teaching?

I never said nor believe that the church teaches such nonsense.

Nobody has claimed that you cannot have sex with your spouse unless an egg is present…where did you get that idea?

I don’t believe the church teaches this either. You can certainly have sex with your spouse when an egg is not present, but just don’t turn around and tell me that you have both just given 100% of yourselves (procreatively speaking) to the marital act. You made a conscious decision to avoid the period of the fertility cycle when desire is at its peak and fertility its greatest. You may have kept the “intrinsic relationship” intact, but in doing so the procreative aspect’s full potential has been marginalized. I’m sorry if I fail to explain my logic any clearer.

I’m grateful for all the “food for thought” this thread has provided me. I can’t say I’m ready to sign up for NFP today. There are a lot more issues I have with that teaching that haven’t even been touched on in this thread and I do not wish to open another can of worms.

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

I’m saying that if the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex must never be separated, then it would seem LOGICAL to me that when a couple decides to engage in the act that the elements (sperm and egg) of the procreative aspect should be present inorder to claim that the couple is giving 100% of their FULL procreative potential to each other.
.

Ok I hear what you are saying and I think I may see where the problem is now. It is wrong to conclude that if the couple does not have 100% of their full procreative potential, then they have separated the two aspects of the act. They have not separated anything because when they engage in the sex act they are still giving 100% of what their bodies are naturally capable of producing. To separate the two aspects would be to partake of one aspect while actively rendering the other impossible. With abstinence they are not partaking of either, so there can be no separation.

We should only be looking at the moment when the act takes place and then we should ask the question: did the couple do anything (while engaged in the act or in anticipation of) that would render either the unitive or procreative apsect of the act impossible?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

javelin:

Yes, LanceO, we are at the same place.

DVIN CKS, I cannot, and do not intend to deny the truth of your logic. From where you start to where you end, the logic is fine. It is simply that I disagree with where you star – the premise of your disagreement.

When understood properly, the Church’s position is not circular, and not illogical. I used to believe that it was, but since then have come to a proper understanding (I think ) of the Church’s actual teaching, and it makes sense. I hope it can for you and Alan so that you may embrace it both intellectually and with assent of faith.

Peace,
javelin

Dear javelin,

It’s going to take me some time to catch up on all these posts, and to review HV and/or CCC as I think I might need to before coming up with the next move, so that this discussion doesn’t continue in circles. :whacky:

Meanwhile, in this post it seems you understand DVIN CKS’s point and logic, but start at different places. For the most part, my logic has been pretty well synchronized with hers, and from earlier I know you were among the few who seemed to understand me. If you don’t mind, would you please articulate once more what, in your opinion, the different starting positions are?

Alan

 

[bear06]

We should only be looking at the moment when the act takes place and then we should ask the question: did the couple do anything (while engaged in the act or in anticipation of) that would render either the unitive or procreative apsect of the act impossible?

This is the whole point!!! PLEASE READ ALAN AND DVIN CKS!!! If God so chose to put an egg in place, even when we don’t think it’s there, we are not doing anything to thwart God’s design to stop the conception of a child using NFP. We are open to the life that God wills. If we use a condom, etc. then we are trying to thwart the life that God is willing.

Using NFP we are using the tools that God has given us which does not alter His design plan for our bodies, will and intellect.

The Church does not say (I think I’ve got this right) that we have to be procreative everytime we have sex. It’s basically saying that we must not try separate that aspect if God is willing it to take place. The NFP couple is never doing this since they are providing all of the tools necessary if God is willing conception to take occur.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

We should only be looking at the moment when the act takes place and then we should ask the question: did the couple do anything (while engaged in the act or in anticipation of) that would render either the unitive or procreative apsect of the act impossible?

This is the whole point!!! PLEASE READ ALAN AND DVIN CKS!!! If God so chose to put an egg in place, even when we don’t think it’s there, we are not doing anything to thwart God’s design to stop the conception of a child using NFP. We are open to the life that God wills. If we use a condom, etc. then we are trying to thwart the life that God is willing.

Shucks. Just when I thought we were making progress, we swing 180 degrees the other way and overshoot again. For a while there I was focusing on the idea that man was trying to “play God” and avoid children by using one technique or another, and that was bad because we were separating the unitive and procreative aspect, at least by 98%-99%.

Now it sounds like we’re saying we really aren’t separating the unitive and procreative aspects, because we are not to look at the overall pattern of spousal communication, but at specific acts, in which case we have not specifically acted to separate them any more than God does, even though we have, for example, strategically timed it so we “just happen to know” that the procreative aspect is down 98%-99% of full potential. That is the “intrinsic” level I believe Martino was referring to. It is a very low potential, but it is still there.

If this is the criterion we are to use, then that indeed does damage to the “NFP more effective than ABC” counter-argument, because even though you might have 1%-5% procreative potential during fertile “time” with ABC, you have reduced it artificially below the “intrinsic” level, which might be 30%-75% or so. (I just made those numbers up)

The problem, and the reason this is causing another extreme 180 shift rather than shifting to center, is that in ignoring the entire communication pattern of spouses and focused on one act, we have lost the condemnation against using NFP when we’re not supposed to. Therefore, looking at each individual act and deciding whether we have artificially interfered with “intrinsic” procreative potential for that act, isn’t going to work unless we are to allow NFP for any reason whatsoever.

Using NFP we are using the tools that God has given us which does not alter His design plan for our bodies, will and intellect.

God gave us all things. We did not create tools except those which come from God. It’s what we do with those tools that matters. Hypodermic needles made from materials given by God and formed through God-given human will and intellect can either be used to euthanize an old person or administer life-saving drugs. None of this alters the design of the body, just affect its functioning.

The Church does not say (I think I’ve got this right) that we have to be procreative everytime we have sex. It’s basically saying that we must not try separate that aspect if God is willing it to take place. The NFP couple is never doing this since they are providing all of the tools necessary if God is willing conception to take occur.

But they aren’t. They don’t have to be procreative every time they have sex, but they certainly know how to avoid the times at when they would be procreative thus avoiding being procreative at all, for all intents and purposes.

Besides, if the NFP couple is never separating the two aspects of sexual union, why is it that NFP is only allowed when there are “serious” reasons. If NFP weren’t messing around with fertility, it would be sanctioned for any reason.

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Alan,

we have lost the condemnation against using NFP when we’re not supposed to. Therefore, looking at each individual act and deciding whether we have artificially interfered with “intrinsic” procreative potential for that act, isn’t going to work unless we are to allow NFP for any reason whatsoever.

You’re trying to lump the reasons together. There’s no reason to do so. Humanae Vitae doesn’t do so, so why should we characterize Catholic doctrine as doing so?

Marriage has a natural and Divinely revealed purpose just as each marital act has. The Church teaches that NFP ought not to be a license to be selfish. God said, “be fruitful and multiply.” That’s an essential element of the purpose of marriage.

When considering the purpose of marriage … The Church is not against childless marriages. The Church is against human actions which intentionally render marriages childless, as well as against human actions which, for frivolous reasons, are contrary to having additional children.

When considering the purpose of each marital sex act … The Church is not against non-procreative sex. The Church is against human actions which render sex acts instrinsically non-procreative.

If you doubt the above is an accurate summary of Catholic doctrine on this matter, please point out why.

Using the above understanding of Catholic moral theology regarding the purpose of marriage and the purpose of each marital act, is NFP immoral? No. Not unless it is used to render the marriage childless or to avoid God’s command to “multiply” due to frivolous reasons.

As already discusses, when considering the morality or immorality of each marital act, neither abstinence from sex nor the sex during naturally infertile periods are human acts that intentionally render sexual acts instrinsically non-procreative.

 

[bear06]

Alan, I’ve said time and again that there are two aspects to the Church teaching on NFP.

Let’s go over this again: #1 is reason/intent and #2 is method.

You flitter back and forth from one argument to another and act like they don’t go together or that they are in conflict.

The forum is not working well tonight so forgive my lack of quote highlighting here.

<<<< God gave us all things. We did not create tools except those which come from God. It’s what we do with those tools that matters. Hypodermic needles made from materials given by God and formed through God-given human will and intellect can either be used to euthanize an old person or administer life-saving drugs. None of this alters the design of the body, just affect its functioning.>>>>>>>>

This isn’t sound theology. God didn’t give us condoms, hypodermic needles, or any man made object. He gave us the knowledge to develop these things and he gave us free will to use them properly or improperly. Man did the rest. This is in no way my logic but the logic of many sound Catholic saints and others and I’ve read this many times.

<<<<< But they aren’t. They don’t have to be procreative every time they have sex, but they certainly know how to avoid the times at when they would be procreative thus avoiding being procreative at all, for all intents and purposes.>>>>>

Once again, Alan, you can choose to ignore this but the NFP couple is open to life because if God did allow and egg to be present (and this has happened before no matter how educated people are at NFP) the couple does nothing to thwart conception from occuring if God wills it.

<<<<<Besides, if the NFP couple is never separating the two aspects of sexual union, why is it that NFP is only allowed when there are “serious” reasons. If NFP weren’t messing around with fertility, it would be sanctioned for any reason.>>>>>

Once again, you are separating the two parts of the teaching. We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply but God has given us prudence which we are to excercise in ALL matters. We can take anything God has given us and abuse it whether it be the knowledge of NFP, food, knowledge of medicine, etc. This is why God has given us a divine institution to teach us how to excercise our free will without poisoning ourselves in the process. This is part of his promise to be with us always.

This is logic Alan, just look around. Intent/reason and method go hand in hand all around us.

You are ignoring the answers and setting up more straw arguments because you don’t want to see the answers. You can keep saying that your searching all you want but I’m definitely getting the feeling that you are just searching for people and arguments to back up your position.

Let’s also nevermind that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. If you could just get that through your head then maybe you could start looking at why the Church is right instead of why the Church is wrong.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

You flitter back and forth from one argument to another and act like they don’t go together or that they are in conflict.

Funny. I thought y’all flittered back and forth like they did go together or that they are not in conflict.

bear06:

AlanFromWichita:

God gave us all things. We did not create tools except those which come from God. It’s what we do with those tools that matters. Hypodermic needles made from materials given by God and formed through God-given human will and intellect can either be used to euthanize an old person or administer life-saving drugs. None of this alters the design of the body, just affect its functioning.

This isn’t sound theology. God didn’t give us condoms, hypodermic needles, or any man made object. He gave us the knowledge to develop these things and he gave us free will to use them properly or improperly. Man did the rest. This is in no way my logic but the logic of many sound Catholic saints and others and I’ve read this many times.

If I understand you correctly, then I agree with the saints and others. God did not give us hypodermic needles, but He gave us the materials and the human will and intellect to form them into the needles. That’s what I meant to say. When you say it is in no way your logic, I tentatively take it to mean that you actually agree with it but are saying it is not just your logic. So it sounds like we are in complete agreement here.

bear06:

AlanFromWichita:

But they aren’t. They don’t have to be procreative every time they have sex, but they certainly know how to avoid the times at when they would be procreative thus avoiding being procreative at all, for all intents and purposes.

Once again, Alan, you can choose to ignore this but the NFP couple is open to life because if God did allow and egg to be present (and this has happened before no matter how educated people are at NFP) the couple does nothing to thwart conception from occuring if God wills it.

I do not choose to ignore it. What you choose to ignore is that if ABC has a higher “failure rate” than NFP, then the ABC couple is actually less likely to thwart conception in any given marital act if God wills it. Luckily I thought we had already pretty much trashed the “open to life” argument because clearly the ABC couple is more “open to life” than the properly practicing NFP couple.

No, no, you might say, I am rendering the marital act infertile in one case when it is naturally infertile in the other. To that I submit that NFP renders the marital relationship infertile (again, to at least the degree that ABC renders the act infertile) by using man-made, scientific means often complete with calendars, thermometers, mathematics and other tools to facilitate having sex without the consequence of having a baby. It would seem like the withdrawal method (though I do NOT recommend it to anyone) is actually more natural.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued from last post)

bear06:

AlanFromWichita:

Besides, if the NFP couple is never separating the two aspects of sexual union, why is it that NFP is only allowed when there are “serious” reasons. If NFP weren’t messing around with fertility, it would be sanctioned for any reason.

Once again, you are separating the two parts of the teaching. We are supposed to be fruitful and multiply but God has given us prudence which we are to excercise in ALL matters. We can take anything God has given us and abuse it whether it be the knowledge of NFP, food, knowledge of medicine, etc. This is why God has given us a divine institution to teach us how to excercise our free will without poisoning ourselves in the process. This is part of his promise to be with us always.

No, I am trying to juxtapose the seemingly disparate parts of the teaching together to see how they work. If NFP never separates the unitive from procreative, then why is it unacceptable unless for serious reasons? The fact is, that while NFP does not involve and action to render the act infertile, it does render the marriage temporarily infertile.
Humanae Vitae:

Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Why is it that “direct sterilization” is condemned, even if temporary, while “indirect sterilization” of the marital relationship, through NFP, it OK?

The flip side is:
Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

This is an extremely fine distinction to make.

You are ignoring the answers and setting up more straw arguments because you don’t want to see the answers. You can keep saying that your searching all you want but I’m definitely getting the feeling that you are just searching for people and arguments to back up your position.

Perhaps I do have bias against accepting the teaching, but I try not to let that get in the way of seeing a truly comprehensive explanation.

To be fair to the posters on this forum, I just reread Humanae Vitae and I think y’all have done a great job at representing its point of view, probably in a stronger way than the document itself. If I had started with Humanae Vitae, it would have been difficult to get past some of the more far-fetched (not to mention slightly sexist) objections to ABC that it contained.

Let’s also nevermind that the Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals. If you could just get that through your head then maybe you could start looking at why the Church is right instead of why the Church is wrong.

If it gets down to infallibility, then really no explanation is needed. One simply has to state the rules and I can either accept them or not. I have my reasons for not yet buying into the “infallibility” of the Church, which I’ll spare you for the moment. As I have said before, I don’t have anything riding on this, so the argument is academic for me. If you want, start (or find) a thread with a complaint about contraception and I’ll jump in and see if I can win for the Church’s side.

Clearly, there is a credibility problem because the majority of registered “Catholics” disagree with the Church on matters of contraception. Most NFP articles I’ve seen preach to the choir. If I find a really good way to defend the Church’s teaching about this, I promise I will write an article for our diocesan newspaper as a guest columnist, as I did with centering prayer when I became sold on it.:yup:

Alan

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

The fact is, that while NFP does not involve and action to render the act infertile,

ABC, rendering the act outside of the order that it is destined in God’s designed=immoral. Correct, ABC is immoral. NFP does nor reqrite the act.

AlanFromWichita:

it does render the marriage temporarily infertile.

However, in terms of contraception the only concern is what is done to the act of the marital embrace alone.

AlanFromWichita:

Why is it that “direct sterilization” is condemned, even if temporary, while “indirect sterilization” of the marital relationship, through NFP, it OK?

Because, God allowed us in his generosity to not be veritable baby factories by designing into our being both an automatic period of extended infertility following birth and the ability to learn to exercise mutual self-control, give praise to him and follow Him more closely through observation of the wonder of His creation. However, sin is stil involved here if NFP is used for an unjust reason. It is not the sin of contraception but probably best described as a sin of selfishness (a contracepting couple would probably be quilty of this also.

AlanFromWichita:

Clearly, there is a credibility problem because the majority of registered “Catholics” disagree with the Church on matters of contraception. Most NFP articles I’ve seen preach to the choir. If I find a really good way to defend the Church’s teaching about this, I promise I will write an article for our diocesan newspaper as a guest columnist, as I did with centering prayer when I became sold on it.:yup:

Alan,
Seriously…when the rest of the lemmings go running off of the cliff do you go running too? This may sound harsh but this is how you are describing the rest of the Church when you use it as an argument to justify objecting to an infallibly declared teaching that has so much written about it (human sexuality, and there are over 6,000 pages of origional Catholic Teaching).

If you want to convince me that ABC is okay or that it is plausible to think that ABC is okay then you need to explain the following: How does it respect the natural order written into the body? OR There is nothing intrinsically evil about intentionally changing the way God created us (not respecting the function of our body as God designed it)?
To have a remotely resemblingreasonable objection to the Church teaching against ABC you need to answer at least one of the two above questions.

If you wish to contend that NFP is wrong then you need to show me how abstinence is intrinsically evil?

The reason for these two sets of questions are simple…ABC operated inside (by rewriting)the order of the act and NFP acts outside of the order (by respecting design) of the act in question.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew Sauer

 

[CatholicMatthew]

DVIN CKS:

No, that is not what I’m saying. I’m saying that if the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex must never be separated, then it would seem LOGICAL to me that when a couple decides to engage in the act that the elements (sperm and egg) of the procreative aspect should be present inorder to claim that the couple is giving 100% of their FULL procreative potential to each other.

Regardless of the couple’s natural fertility/infertility it is always moral for them to have marital relations. The point is the allowance of the potentiality not what percentage is available of procreation potential. The point is that the design that is there is respected.
DVIN CKS:

No, I maintain that they are withholding from each other by only having sex during a woman’s infertile period. I understand - now- the argument about not doing anything to sever the “intrinsic relationship” and agree that abstinence doesn’t do this.

This is why the Church teaches that abstinence must be undertaken for only just (serious…grave)reasons.
DVIN CKS:

I don’t believe the church teaches this either. You can certainly have sex with your spouse when an egg is not present, but just don’t turn around and tell me that you have both just given 100% of yourselves (procreatively speaking) to the marital act.

What the Church says is that a.)abstinence is not intrinsically wrong b.)respect for the God designed order of sexuality must be maintained by the couple.

The NFP couple has, in body language (not always in mind but that is a seperate sin), even in the infertile times given of themselves completely through the sign of total respect for the power God designed the marital act for. This power is sooo important because it is how we participate in a Divine function.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[CatholicMatthew]

DVIN CKS:

…but your ability to procreate is.

CCC 2370: "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil".

Abstinence IS an action (look it up in the dictionary) and it is something you do “in anticipation of the conjugal act”.

However, this specifically talks about something that is done proceeding the act, during or after the act that renders the act sterile from the development of its natural consequences. Temporary infertility designed into the cycle, by God, is not a direct action taken by the couple and you do believe it is moral to have intercourse their don’t you?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew Sauer

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

Then you must be basing your argument on something other than the intentional separation of unitive and procreative functions. Abstinence per se doesn’t do that, but periodic abstinence, strategically timed with scientifically derived strategy, does that, specifically and intentionally. If it didn’t, it couldn’t claim such a high “success” rate.

We need to correct part of what you said before you can understand what is meant.

1.) We must respect the procreative DESIGN of the marital embrace
2.) The function does not have to occur to respect the DESIGN.
3.) ABC elminates the design
4.) NFP respects the design (as their is natural fertility and infertility designed by God)
5.) While NFP can be used with high success it does not change the way the act is performed (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART–the way the act is performed is what is important to the intrinisc nature) only timing which cannot be shown to be intrinsically wrong (you can try but you will fail).

AlanFromWichita:

How is NFP for conception prevention not at odds with the Church teaching that the unitive and procreative function must never be separated?

Unitive and procreative aspect is not equal to achieving of the function of the aspect, aforementioned. The act is still ordered (per se destinatus) towards procreation. That is to say its ordered destination respects God’s design–not mans. The person who thinks they know how male or female fertility should work (the act of co-creation with God–the only way we are able to create) better than God is an idolater. Pure and simple whether or no they know it (that would change cupability. The same as anyone else that changes the body from the way God changes it.

AlanFromWichita:

I’ve heard it taught that sex with ABC is a lie, because love is a language whereby the couples disclose themselves fully in the marital act or something like that. I say that if you knowingly and intentionally do it only during infertile periods, it is like one spouse whispering the truth to the other only while the other is asleep or is otherwise not able to hear.

No, because they are not changing themselves from the way they naturally are at the moment.

AlanFromWichita:

I am not trying to dissuade anyone from using NFP.

Good, because even if ABC were moral, all things equal, we still would never use it.

AlanFromWichita:

I just object to those who say THIS method of separating procreation and unitive functions is a sin and THAT method isn’t because one uses a “brute force” approach to evading God’s fertility plan and the other uses clever, strategic timing tricks to evading God’s fertility plan.

Remember it is the procreative ends or aspects of the act…not the function. When you say function you tend to think of the actual accomplishment of the function as the standard more than respecting the design. BTW, you must respect the procreative power in order to have unity.

AlanFromWichita:

Perhaps I should ask more about NFP-based methods of pregnancy avoidance. Do they use calendars? Do they use any form of mathematics? Do they require thermometers? If so, how can they be said to be any more “natural” than, for example, the withdrawal method?

What is used is method dependent. The reason it is more natural is it respect the God designed order of creation designed into fertility.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew :banghead: (at times I feel this way)
Also of Wichita…are you going to the Men’s retreat this weekend Alan?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Alan,

Why is it that “direct sterilization” is condemned, even if temporary, while “indirect sterilization” of the marital relationship, through NFP, it OK?

Nature causes natural infertile periods, not human acts.

I give up. I’ve answered this on several occasions. You obviously prefer to rail against the caricature of Catholic doctrine you’ve created.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

itsjustdave1988:

Alan,

Why is it that “direct sterilization” is condemned, even if temporary, while “indirect sterilization” of the marital relationship, through NFP, it OK?

Nature causes natural infertile periods, not human acts.

I give up. I’ve answered this on several occasions. You obviously prefer to rail against the caricature of Catholic doctrine you’ve created.

I’m sorry if you feel frustrated. I recognize that I don’t easily surrender, kind of like the lyrics in the song:
"Hold Me Jesus" by Rich Mullins:

Surrender don’t come natural to me…
I’d rather fight you for something I don’t really want,
then to take what You give that I need…

Perhaps you have answered other questions that sound similar, but I don’t think I’ve ever asked this one before. Nature does cause natural infertile periods, but it is human acts that ingeniously synchronize with them to render the marital relationship sterile, even if for a period. I understand if you’re getting frustrated and don’t want to answer; several times I’ve thought about giving up this whole argument myself and leaving it up in the air. Believe it or not, when I started to do that I got PMs from some of my “opponents” anxious to see what objections I’d come up with next! Maybe I make a good practice dummy for apologists.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicMatthew:

Also of Wichita…are you going to the Men’s retreat this weekend Alan?

Oh, I wish. I know it’s going to be great.

Unfortunately, weekends are bad for me, because I’m currently unemployed except as church musician and finding substitutes can sometimes be difficult. On Saturday I have 4:00 Mass at St. Anthony, for which finding a sub can be difficult. Actually this weekend I have the pleasure of playing during a service for the first time at Holy Savior at 8:00 and 11:00 (and I’m not sure yet but possibly the 5pm Sunday) while Maggie fills in for me at the 8:00 at All Saints.

I have seen a couple of the “Brave at Heart” videos at Central Christian Church. A guy who worked with me on the Wichita Supplier Diversity Task Team last year invited me to a couple monthly Saturday morning breakfasts where they were going through that series. It was great; it was all about how men have become wimps and need to learn how to be men again.

I really wanted to see this Catholic adaptation of it.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear Matthew,

After reading HV, I don’t disagree with what you are saying compared to what it’s saying. The problem I have to this point is that there are a number of stand-alone claims that individually make sense, or at least cannot be refuted. When they are put together, however, there are multiple ways of doing that depending on whether your desired outcome is to equate NFP with ABC or to differentiate them. It seems the Church is strategically putting them together to differentiate the practices while I am doing the opposite. At this point I don’t consider it a foregone conclusion that either one is more “logical.” Of course, if one accepts the infallibility of the Church, and if the teaching on contraception is considered infallible, then all logical arguments are irrelevant. On NFP-ABC, I am a bit wishy-washy in that I haven’t seriously latched on to either side, but on infallibility I have a serious objection to that, though I won’t elaborate at the moment.

CatholicMatthew:

Alan,
Seriously…when the rest of the lemmings go running off of the cliff do you go running too? This may sound harsh but this is how you are describing the rest of the Church when you use it as an argument to justify objecting to an infallibly declared teaching that has so much written about it (human sexuality, and there are over 6,000 pages of origional Catholic Teaching).

I understand the lemmings argument. I have sat on a jury full of lemmings ready to convict a man 11-1 based on an emotional response to the prosecutor and the social status of the defendant, when the critical “evidence” was a statement that 11 of the jury was convinced a witness said but did not. A readback of the testimony proved me right, and one of the 11 said he would have to change his vote to agree with me while the other 10, though they admitted I was right about the actual facts, still maintained their “guilty” votes because they were cowardly, racist lemmings. (BTW, we voted 12-0 to convict on the other of two charges because there was good evidence on that.)

Your point seems to be that I am characterizing the faithful in the Church as a bunch of sycophantic lemmings, and I certainly have seen a great deal of that behavior locally, although many of them put on one face when talking to church authorities and in committees and then have quite a different story in the parking lot afterwards. (Are they “two-faced” or “multi-faceted”?) I am not characterizing those posting to me on this thread, especially after enduring this many posts, in that way.

I assume your question to me is about whether I’m using popular beliefs as a bandwagon to justify my own reasoning. Simply put, no. The majority can easily be wrong, but they also need to be more honest so their issues can be dealt with. I believe if more people would quit being wussies and speak up, and if the Church defenders did not make them feel intimidated for disagreeing with “centuries of experts” there might be some actual dialog. As it is, most won’t make waves; they would rather just stay covert and use ABC and deal with the mixed guilt feelings that go with it. They sit in the pews and chuckle at the priests jokes then turn right around and do whatever they are going to do the rest of the week. One would never know their real feelings if it weren’t for anonymous surveys.

In an ideal world, everything the Church said is true would be automatically accepted by the overwhelming majority of the sheep, and she would have no need to explain herself. Also in an ideal world, the Church would not have such a problem with internal corruption. I honestly don’t get how the Church’s leaders can behave so poorly, knowingly let it continue until they are externally forced to deal with it, and still maintain we should believe every word they preach on morals.

I’ll answer your other concerns in another post. This one’s getting long.

Peace,
Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Alan,

Nature does cause natural infertile periods, but it is human acts that ingeniously synchronize with them to render the marital relationship sterile, even if for a period.

Correct. Where is this contrary to the teachings of Humanae Vitae? Does HV prohibit sex during infertile periods???

Let me say this one more time, as you seem to think I haven’t addressed it…

It is not a human act that renders the sex act instrinsically (by the nature of the act itself) non-procreative. It is nature that does so.

The Church is not opposed to sex that is not procreative. The Church is opposed to human acts that render sex instrinsically (by the nature of the conjugal act) non-procreative.

This is what Humanae Vitae teaches. Your “circular reasoning” hypothesis is based upon some other understanding of Catholic doctrine that I do not believe to be taught by HV.

Each and every sex acts must retain their instrinsic relationship to procreation. That is what being “open” to procreation means. It does not mean that one cannot have sex during infertile periods. It relates to the instrisic nature of the conjugal act. You ignore the qualifier intrinsic and presume to believe the Catholic Church teaches against all sex acts that cannot be procreative. That’s absurd. Human acts are that which are to be considered as moral or immoral, and HV only prohibits human acts that render sex, considering the nature of the conjugal act itself, non-procreative.

Yet, the purpose of marriage is to “be fruitful and multiply.” So those that choose to be unfruitful for frivolous reasons, viewed in the context of marriage, are also acting immorally, even if they use NFP. This is immoral for a different reason than the natrual purpose of each marital act, but due to the natural purpose of marriage.

Can infertile men or woman still have sex according to the Church? If the answer is yes (and that is indeed the answer), then I suggest that you DO give up your flawed understanding of Catholic moral theology and start to listen to others who have attempted to patiently explain it to you. Otherwise, it will remain clear that you don’t really want to know what Catholic doctrine is, but prefer instead to remain “confident” in your opposition to what what Catholic doctrine isn’t.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Alan,

You said:

First, we are told by NFP articles and by the Catechism that “artificial” birth contraceptive methods are immoral because they strive to make procreation impossible.

Yes, but why? Why is it immoral? Because sex is knowingly or willingly non-procreative? No. Otherwise, a post-menopausal woman could never be allowed to have sex according to Catholic doctrine. Neither could a sterile man. Since this is not the case, then perhaps there’s a nuance of this Catholic doctrine that is misunderstood. Perhaps you’re gonna have to look deeper into “why.”

Humanae Vitae (HV) tells us why. HV tells us we can have sex that is willingly and knowingly non-procreative. However, when it is our human acts that render the conjugal act, in its essence, non-procreative, we act immorally.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

HV, 11: “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”

How do we interpret the above? All sterile people (temporary or permanent, no matter the cause) are not to have sex? I don’t think so. That’s certainly never been the intent of the Church or else they would surely have prohibited even naturally sterile men and women from marital conjugal acts and the Church would have also prohibited NFP in every and all cases. It has not.

HV continues: “the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.” Hmmmm. This clarified HV 11 a bit more, no? When a naturally infertile man has sex with a woman, or a naturally infertile woman has sex with a man, does man’s initiative make the conjugal act non-procreative? No. The reason the sex act is non-procreative is due to nature, not man’s initiative.

I suggest that HV, rightly understood, teaches that it is our human acts that are either moral or immoral depending upon whether or not those human acts (as opposed to natural sterility) severes or retains the intrinsic nature of each and every conjugal act. A naturally sterile woman or man, therefore, is not prohibited from marital conjugal acts, even if they are temporarily sterile due to nature.

How about abstinence? Is that immoral. No, it is natural and necessary. Can one use NFP to have a childless marriage? No. Not due to the purpose of each sex act considered in and of itself, but due to the purpose of marriage. God commands that we 1) “be fruitful and multiply” while at the same time we are called to 2) be responsible parents. We have to do both. NFP is not intrinsically evil (considering the use of each marital act), so the use of NFP to have no children is not evil due to the instrinsic morality of NFP. Therefore, the use of NFP can only be considered evil depending upon the circumstances in which it is used. It’s like sex. It is not instrinsically evil, but can be evil depending upon it’s use.

If the circumstances in which NFP is used is to oppose both 1) and 2) above, then NFP is evil.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicMatthew:

If you want to convince me that ABC is okay or that it is plausible to think that ABC is okay then you need to explain the following: How does it respect the natural order written into the body? OR There is nothing intrinsically evil about intentionally changing the way God created us (not respecting the function of our body as God designed it)?

First, thank you for giving me the option of making a plausibility argument for ABC being okay rather than a serious case in favor of ABC. It helps me realize you are not challenging me to provide something I’m not claiming to provide (nor have any vested interest in providing).

Based on this, I’d say you could make a case against direct sterilization, as HV does, because that changes the way God created us. OTOH, I can think of several ways where we intentionally change the function of our body as God designed it. For example, with vaccinations we are intentionally “infecting” the body with the goal of forcing the body to change its immune system and that isn’t evil.

Maybe this is a weak argument but right now I’m feeling weak after some very strange experiences at Mass today. I’ve never been to weekday Mass at the St. Paul Newman Center before; my wife talked me into going. It was an old priest I’d never met, who in the honor of St. Pio feastday, told a story about when he visited “Father Pio” in 1954, and attended Mass with Pio in a private chapel with like five people there. It was so weird; my eyes started dripping uncontrollably during the relatively brief sermon. When the priest talked about Fr. Pio’s ability to read souls and even kicked people out of confession if he knew they weren’t sorry, I had a sudden craving to be “read” by Pio because I don’t even know if I ever feel sorry for anything I do. Then I didn’t know about going to Communion and I presented my tongue but he stuffed the host into my hands instead. I’ve never had that happen before and he wasn’t doing it to other people, so I didn’t know if it was because I was crying or what. Then there was a lunch afterwards and the priest came around to the table and I could hardly speak to him. He was very nice and said I should come back next week, so I guess I will, God willing. More on that later, maybe, but I’m still shaking a bit.

If you wish to contend that NFP is wrong then you need to show me how abstinence is intrinsically evil?

I don’t contend that abstinence is intrinsically evil. Under certain conditions, one could perhaps make such a case but I won’t at this point.

I could contend, however, that strategic periodic abstinence for the specific purpose of avoiding babies without prolonged abstinence is the moral equivalent to temporary sterilization, which HV does claim is intrinsically evil. This is the point that I must not be getting across, that while each individual act is free of intervention, the marital relationship itself has been temporarily rendered infertile. Of course, if God wants to He can arrange conception during “infertile” times, but of course that doesn’t differentiate it from temporary sterilization.

Sorry if I’m not making too good a case. Frankly I’m more interested in whatever was going on at Mass and with Pio and that old priest. Oh, yeah. Also the priest told me after Mass that Fr. Pio was also known for bilocation, which was really weird because I was just telling one of my children about bilocation yesterday, where I read about some priest who slumped over in a chair for like two days and when he came out of it he said he had been in Rome helping the Pope, and there were witnesses at both places. I remember that from a book about saints I read at adoration a year or two ago. I have no clue why this priest told me that just right out of the blue.

Alan