I really have a problem as to how NFP fits in under this type of thinking. Sure, I understand that NFP does not alter the act at all, and so the marital act is completed as intended, with its natural tendency toward procreation still in tact–so the church’s current definition of “procreative” is still met by NFP sex.
However, the description you give above:"…free, faithfully, and fruitfully. If you do not give your fertility to your spouse,you are not uniting with your spouse as we are called to…"
Christcnection1 speaking of contraception says, "It is as if they say to one another: “I will not give myself to
you entirely. You can have all that I am except my fertility. This
you cannot have and so I will hold it back from you.” Was not the
vow an expression of total giving? With this reservation, the
sexual union fails to be an expression of total giving, and
therefore of total love.
"
Earlier in this thread, You said about contraception, “You cannot unite with your spouse in the marital act by withholding a part of yourself in that act. You are withholding your fertility.”
If all of these statements are true, then how does the Church accept the practice of NFP!? Again, I understand that NFP does nothing to alter the sexual act, and therefore keeps the “procreative” look to the conjugal union in tact; but choosing to engage in marital relations only during infertile time is absolutely withholding fertility from one another. It is most certainly not a complete self giving which most in this thread are saying is essential for the conjugal act.
–Rico
Rico,
I believe that what you have brought up is a topic for another thread, however, I will give it it’s just due and provide an brief explanation to the question that you are posing. Basically your question is (as I undertand it) how can the Church endorse NFP when there are times that the woman (biologically) cannot get pregnant, basically the infertile times.
What you need to understand is that NFP aka Natural Family Planning does nothing to disrupt the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital embrace. You withhold nothing from your spouse. With contraception, artificial contraception, you do that.
The confustion lies within the infertile times. It bewilders me sometimes that when someone thinks of a Catholic marriage in which the couple practices NFP they automatically assume that they just have sex when they can have a baby. That is not the case. Let’s look at the Catechism for more clarification:
*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*
What can be taken from that is that we, in a Catholic marriage, are free to engage in the marital embrace with our spouse whenever we want to. We know that we must always remain open to life. It may not happen after a certain act, we may know that going into that act, but we are open to new life.
Within a Catholic marriage we are called to be open to life when we engage in the marital act. But we are also taught to know the limitations of our family. If the time is not right for another child we have to either remain abstinent or make love during the infertile times.
You have to remember that there are two aspects to the marital embrace. Procreative AND unitive. Too often, those that take the position that you are forget the unitive. In the unitive apsect of the act this is the part where we give ourselves to the other completely. This is the part where we renew our wedding vows. This is the part where we mirror Christ. Remember “this is my body…give up for you.”
Why should we forget that part of this act. If the wife is infertile at a given time during that month, should the couple not be allowed to unite and come together to share their love for each other and to renew their wedding vows. When they come together, they are still open to new life. Biologically it does not happen, but there is a possibility and they are open to that. NFP does not frustrate that option.
Please take the time to read books by Christopher West. Read “Holy Sex”, read anything on Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. A lot of these books will help to explain things.
), I may participate in the marital embrace with my husband, able to share my fertilty with little concern for pregnancy, precisely because I know that fertility is naturally low.