Delicate question about sexual morality within marriage

[ElizabethAnne]

“It’s not all about what you feel. It is about what actually is. Drugs and barriers interfere with a natural human act of intercourse which, de facto, interferes with the unity of the procreative and unitive aspects of sexual intercourse.”

So planning your sex around your menstral cycle is not interferring with the “natural human act of intercourse?” And are we supposed to be seperating the “procreative” and “unitive” aspects of sex? The word unitive is what I was talking about when I spoke of feelings. So if it’s not about procreating, and not about feelings, then what is it? If it’s both, then any form of birth control would be wrong. If it’s either one, then why would any form of birth control be wrong?

Another point is the fact that our rules and laws are seperated into so many different books and articles. When did we stop relying on the Bible (the word of God) for our guidance?

Hello pira114!

I do not understand how you have reached your conclusions. How do you determine that in order for sex to be both procreative and unitive, birth control is always wrong?

As others have said, sex is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Being “procreative” does not mean that every act must produce a new life, but each act must not impede new life.

I would strongly suggest that you read “The Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. It is based on Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” It’s not a very long read and cuts to the heart of what the pope was getting at. There are plenty of Biblical reasons why the Church teaches what she does, and these are outlined in West’s book.

West gives this analogy for explaining why artificial birthcontrol is wrong: Three couples walk by a church. The first couple goes in to pray. The second couple has another obligation to go to, so they pass by but hope to come back another time. The third couple goes inside the church and behaves disrespectfully, yelling and disturbing the peace of the sanctuary.

The first and second couples are doing nothing wrong. The first is seeking to conceive and inviting God to bring new life into their marriage. The second has a good reason to abstain at that time. There is nothing inherently wrong with abstaining, there are plenty of reasons couples do so.

The third couple, however, decides that they know better than God’s plan for sex. They choose to have sex although they do not wish to conceive, and they artificially render that act of intercourse sterile.

God bless you.

 

[CathChemNerd]

pira114:

The question remains unanswered.

If one form of birth control is allowed, why is any other not? What’s the difference? I would be more than happy to reverse my position on this issue if someone could explain it in a logical way.

By the way, I’ve read Scripture over and over. NFP is not mentioned. So it’s not really between me and God. It’s between me and the Church, isn’t it?

Hello Pira,

Since you’ve been through Scripture over and over, you’ve no doubt come across the story of Onan in Genesis. He was to raise up seed for his brother after his brother died, but he withdrew in the original “coitus interruptus” (which is what we’ve been talking about on the post). And what did God do? He smote him for spilling his seed. And this ain’t from the Church, it’s from God.

All forms of artificial birth control or coitus interruptus or whatever intentionally thwart the design of the marital act as authored by God. Lovemaking is to be a total gift of self, not a holding back of anything (including our fertility). Now if one of the partners is naturally infertile, then no action of theirs is intentiionally thwarting the design of God. Basically, when we use ABC we say to God, “I’ll let you anywhere into my life except the bedroom.” But that’s where letting God in can give you the most exhilirating highs…

CathChemNerd

 

[Augustine]

ElizabethAnne:

As others have said, sex is meant to be both procreative and unitive. Being “procreative” does not mean that every act must produce a new life, but each act must not impede new life.

I’m not trying to fan any flame, just trying to understand. So, forgive my ignorance when I wonder whether NFP sounds a bit as a loop-hole…

 

[OhioBob]

Augustine:

I’m not trying to fan any flame, just trying to understand. So, forgive my ignorance when I wonder whether NFP sounds a bit as a loop-hole…

I guess I don’t understand the view that sees NFP as a loophole.

In NFP, a couple chooses periodic abstinence. The act does not occur. If it doesn’t occur, there can be no barrier placed within the act to obstruct the creative will of God. How people see that as being a contraceptive loophole is beyond me, but then again, I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I thought ElizabethAnne used a nice example from Christopher West that illustrates the difference quite well (at least to me).

I used to naysay NFP because I would rationalize that “God could make this condom break if he wanted to” or God could make this spermicide not work if he wanted to" and in that way, there wasn’t really an artificial barrier created to God’s will (he being omnipotent and all).

However, I never had a problem conceptualizing the difference between abstinence and contraception.

Go figure.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Augustine:

I’m not trying to fan any flame, just trying to understand. So, forgive my ignorance when I wonder whether NFP sounds a bit as a loop-hole…

I think it’s worth mentioning that NFP is not, in most cases, used as a way to prevent all pregnancies. NFP is a process by which a couple can, based on certain body signs, determine the likelihood of fertility on any given day. They can use that information to seek pregnancy or postpone it for the time being. It requires a couple to be in constant communication about their physical desires, emotional needs and family planning. The couple balances all of that with God’s help.

This has really helped my husband and I to understand the power and sacredness of sex. We understand when I am fertile – when we could potentially have a child. My husband reacts to this information with awe and affection. Although we are currently postponing, we are reminded monthly of the new life that God has in store for us someday soon.

Augustine, I do not see NFP as a loophole. Could you explain why you think it is so that I will better understand your view?

 

[mercygate]

Augustine:

I’m not trying to fan any flame, just trying to understand. So, forgive my ignorance when I wonder whether NFP sounds a bit as a loop-hole…

Yes! In a way it is. Before we understood procreative physiology, the only way a couple who needed to postpone pregnancy for serious reasons could do that was to abstain completely. Now that we have NFP, people claim it’s just the same as ABC – which it is NOT. But as Janet L. Smith asks, “If it’s the same as contraception, then why don’t you use NFP?” – People invariably respond: “But that would be completely different!”

 

[JK_s_Mommy]

Just my two cents … here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

"**2370 **
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. "

This can be found online:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

Blessings to you all …

 

[pira114]

Bottom line: Intentionally having sex only when it is impossible to get pregnant, is the same thing as intentionally obstructing the creative will of God. That’s what using artificial contraception is called. I don’t see how you can really separate the two. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hold anything against any of you who use this method. I’m a die hard Catholic. I just think some of the things we do are subject to arguement by their own design.

 

[mercygate]

pira114:

Bottom line: Intentionally having sex only when it is impossible to get pregnant, is the same thing as intentionally obstructing the creative will of God. That’s what using artificial contraception is called. I don’t see how you can really separate the two. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hold anything against any of you who use this method. I’m a die hard Catholic. I just think some of the things we do are subject to arguement by their own design.

But God created the system to have considerable “fertility down-time.” NFP works with the system, not contra the system. And an informed conscience requires serious reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

 

[OhioBob]

pira114:

Bottom line: Intentionally having sex only when it is impossible to get pregnant, is the same thing as intentionally obstructing the creative will of God. That’s what using artificial contraception is called. I don’t see how you can really separate the two. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hold anything against any of you who use this method. I’m a die hard Catholic. I just think some of the things we do are subject to arguement by their own design.

With all charity and a big smile , I think that your “bottom line” is nonsense. Even someone who doesn’t use NFP knows that there are times during the cycle when it pregnancy is unlikely (I hesitate to use “impossible” because I have seen some “impossible” pregnancies). Using your logic, someone who is intimate at these “obvious” times (during a period, when already pregnant, etc. is “intentionally obstructing the will of God”. I doubt that is what you propose.

Whether a couple practices NFP or not, they make a conscious decision of the will whether or not to be intimate at any particular moment. NFP provides an awareness of the natural cycles of fertility such that a couple might know whether that moment had a higher or lower probability of conception and that information might factor into their decision at that moment.

The difference with contraception is that although the couple has made a conscious decision to be intimate, they have taken steps on their own to create an obstacle to conception. The distinction is obvious, but difficult to accept since our society has embraced the contraceptive mentality with such enthusiasm.

In my case, it took me a while before I realized I just didn’t want to accept the reality of what I was doing. I suggest that if you can’t see the difference between NFP and contraception you either aren’t looking hard enough or don’t want to see.

Keep looking.

 

[mercygate]

OhioBob:

I suggest that if you can’t see the difference between NFP and contraception you either aren’t looking hard enough or don’t want to see.

Keep looking.

Yeah. It can take a while for the “eureka moment” on this one because we’re so ingrained in our culture to think of sex-at-will-without-consequences is an entitlement.

 

[Augustine]

OhioBob:

I suggest that if you can’t see the difference between NFP and contraception you either aren’t looking hard enough or don’t want to see.

It may be the former, I’m afraid.

Thank y’all for your kind answers. I’ll have to mull more about this. Hopefully, before I have to defend NFP over ABC.

 

[leaner]

It’s usually a little of both (we’re all human, after all, and not wanting to recognize the harder path as the right one goes along with that…at least for me). If/when you reach the same conclusion as the church has, it is a bit scary, b/c it means you have some seriously hard work to do (abstaining, charting, all of it is work in the beginning, but becomes a pretty cool way of life in the long run). I’ve been there and still struggle on a daily basis to see the “logic” thru my own wants/needs. I pray for strength and clarity to see what it is that God wants for me and my DH and how he has laid out the path for me to achieve it…sometimes it’s uphill, in the snow, but it’s always there for me to follow…

 

[Jocelyn]

PIra,
I completely understand 100% where you are coming from. I want to use NFP only because it is what the church teaches. Sometimes, I still don’t see the difference between ABC(excluding the pill, of course) and NFP. I pray everyday that the lightbulb click on about this subject.

Here is my thought on the subject. I have written this before so it maybe a repeat for some of you…

In my area one doesn’t need to look far to meet a person who comes from large families. I am not talking about famlies of 4-7. I am talking about families of 15-20. I am from a rural area where farming was the living and income of these families. Most families were very poor. They did not have a valid reason for not having children. I don’t believe a valid reason could exist. They did not use income as a valid reason. A farming family never knows what the income will be of that year. (I am grew up on a farm.) They were truly always open to God’s will.
These people, I believe, were truly trusting in God to provide and they did not use NFP. Would they have used NFP if they had known about it? When I asked one of my grandmother’s friends she said that she loves all of her children dearly but absolutely she would have used NFP. Imagine all the children that would not have been born had she known about NFP. She said that whenever her husband wanted to have sex, she did. This woman is 89 years old and gave birth to 16 children.

I have heard the argument of,“If this this certain saints parents had used ABC then that saint would not have existed.” But I can turn that statement around and say,“If that saints parents would have practiced NFP then that saint would have not existed.”

I can’t see how using NFP is being open to the will of God when a couple is purposely not having sex during ovulation. In my opinion a couple is still saying “NO” to God. If the timing is right and dh and I want to share our love in the marital embrace, how am I being open to God’s will if I say,“Not tonight hon. I am fertile.”

My husband is comfortable with withdrawl. I have been talking to him about NFP and that it is what we should practice because it is what the church teaches and to be quite honest I am scared of going to hell. He is warming up to the idea. We will see where the NFP road leads us.

I called the religious ed director in my parish to see if NFP classes were held. She sounded scandalized and didn’t know what I was talking about. I told her that in some parishes, NFP couples teach others how to use NFP. It surprises me that I live in such a Catholic area, and no NFP classes are held. This frustrates me, because I really want that light bulb about NFP to go off in my head. I have read Christopher West’s book on Theology of the Body. Still, no lightbulb.

Anyways, do I truly believe in what the church teaches about bc. No, I don’t. Do I thind the church uses NFP as a loophole? Yes, I do.

Hopefully the lightbulb about NFP will go off in my head soon.

 

[OhioBob]

Jocelyn:

…Hopefully the lightbulb about NFP will go off in my head soon.

I know it can be confusing. It certainly was for me. I thought of an analogy that makes some sense to me…

It is the will of God that we give to the poor. Now suppose that every two weeks, a certain working person receives a paycheck for his labors. Now God doesn’t demand that each time this person is paid that he will give his entire paycheck to the poor. That might be the ultimate expression of holiness and “saying yes” to God, but the individual must use his/her conscience and will to prayerfully determine what is possible at that moment given other righteous needs the individual might have. On some paydays, the individual may give a great deal to the poor, on others he/she may be unable to give due to other family needs (food, shelter, education, etc).

Yes, God’s will is to give to the poor. And every dollar that the person receives in pay is a blessing from God and theoretically available to be given to the poor. If that person takes those dollars and squanders them (gambling, drinking, or otherwise abusing his gift) then he has removed the possibility of using those dollars for charity. To me, that would be obstructing the will of God – saying “no God, I’d rather waste your gift”.

If on the other hand, the same person on a given payday is unable to give to the poor that day - that he must use some or all of those particular dollars to support another family need - that is not refusing the will of God. Those dollars were not squandered. They were still available to be given to the poor. However, the individual in that situation made the decision that other family issues were a greater need at that moment. The next payday the situation might be different.

God’s will is that we give to the poor. Not that we give every dollar we have and ignore other needs of our families, but that we not squander the gifts that he has given us and, prayerfully, that we give to the best of our ability.

Similarly, God’s will for married love is that we are open to life - we don’t “squander” the gift of marital intimacy by making it unavailable for life. Each act of intimacy is unobstructed and open to God’s will. However, we may decide that other family needs require us to abstain from intimacy during the most fertile periods. We haven’t squandered a gift or thwarted God’s will. We have saved that gift for another time.

God doesn’t say, “You’re fertile, go have sex!”. He provides the cycles of fertility so that we can “be fruitful and multiply” and gives us the intellect to know and understand the workings of his gift and to prayerfully discern the family size that he intends for us during our lifetime.

Not a great analogy, I know, but maybe it will help in some way.

Blessings.

 

[thechrismyster]

CathChemNerd:

Hello Pira,
the story of Onan in Genesis. He was to raise up seed for his brother after his brother died, but he withdrew in the original “coitus interruptus” (which is what we’ve been talking about on the post). And what did God do? He smote him for spilling his seed. And this ain’t from the Church, it’s from God

I was taught that the lesson of the story is that the brother had a duty to father a child with his brothers widow in that time period. and the smittiness came as a result of not obeying old covenant laws. It was a disobeying of the law of Moses that angered God. and Onan didn’t ‘spill his seed’ singlehandedly (bad, bad, BAD pun… deep apologies) - he was in the act of sexual relations with his brothers widow.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Strongly suggest visiting a Web site:

www.ccli.org

It’s the Couple to Couple League, which is quite expert on Natural Family Planning.

 

[pegrok]

From what I’ve read about the sin of Onan, Onan was smote (or smitten?) for his withdrawal. If you read the passages containing the Onan account, there were 2 or 3 other people who broke the law of the levrite, but they were not smote (smitten) like Onan was. This sin was particularly bad to God. Seems like one of the other sins was that a man (father?) did not arrange another marraige for a close relative widow (daughter-in-law?) so that she had to become like a prostitute. This was a breaking of the law of the levrite, but the Lord did not smote (smite) the man. Anyway this is what I remember.

 

[Thomas_Jude]

Pira writes:

“Intentionally having sex only when it is impossible to get pregnant, is the same thing as intentionally obstructing the creative will of God.”

By the same logic:

There is no difference between dieting and bulimia. Both serve the purpose of losing weight. The bulimic intends to lose weight just like the dieter. What’s the difference?

 

[TableServant]

Regarding NFP vs. artificial contraception.

Maybe I’m missing the question here, in re-reading past posts. Let me state a couple of things about the two different methods in question (ABC… and NFP):

In speaking of sexual relations, one of the “criteria” is that the couple be open to life. That doesn’t mean that every time they have sexual relations, life will result, but that it may. They are not opposed to the creation of life. With NFP, one is still open to the possibility of conception - one can never be 100% certain that one is/is not fertile - sure, 99.8%, maybe, but in that 0.2%, the couple is still OPEN to the possibility of conception. So, even when a couple is purposely NOT having sexual relations during the wife’s fertile (or, her presumed fertile period), if God were to give them the gift of a child - she was off by a day or so in her calculations, or whatevery reason - the couple is not opposed to that life.

In artificial contraception, one is taking ACTIVE steps to opose the creation of life. In fact, using several of the means of artificial contraception available, one can be said to be taking a life!

Some might find this a very fine distinction, in that the couple who is using NFP does not desire to conceive at this time. But the desire to not become pregnant does not mean that one is not open to the possibility, e.g. if conception does happen, will the couple accept the new life?