Family Planning

[mamacita]

I haven’t read every post so I hope I am not repeating someone else.

There is a tape (or cd) called “contraception, why not?” by Dr. Janet Smith, you can go to www.omsoul.com and get it. I have listened to it and I do recommend it. Very well explained

 

[StratusRose]

I haven’t read every post so I hope I am not repeating someone else.

There is a tape (or cd) called “contraception, why not?” by Dr. Janet Smith, you can go to www.omsoul.com and get it. I have listened to it and I do recommend it. Very well explained

Hehe, I provided a link already in another post.

 

[CatholicSamurai]

Enough is enough.

First of all, you need to understand what marriage really means before you even ask this question.

Marriage is an act self-giving/self-denial/self-sacrifice. How can you give of yourself if you’re being selfish with the use of contraception. You’re not willing to make a sacrifice. You just want the pleasure of sex without the consequence.

Being open to life demands sacrifice. If you’re not prepared for that then don’t have sex.

Let me give you an example… Stare at the cross and find out what self sacrifice means.

One cannot… CANNOT… equate man’s standards with God’s even if one is the most intelligent being on earth.

 

[1ke]

Why does the Catholic Church allow family planning using natural means but condemns family planning employing artificial methods as [gravely disordered] (edited by 1ke for correctness)

Because, simply, the church does not teach it is immoral to plan your family or to avoid having children for some period of time due to serious reasons.

The church only teaches that contraception is an immoral means of planning your family. Abstaining when you have a reason to avoid children has always been an acceptable means. Newer deveopments in science allow us to abstain fewer days than in years past. But abstinence remains the only valid means of spacing children.

Why?

Because each act of intercourse must be as God designed it-- both unitive and procreative.

No one is ever required to have sex with any particular frequency-- but every time you do engage in the sex act with your spouse it must be a complete act of unaltered sex.

That is the difference between abstaining and contracepting.

Here is a post I have posted in the past:

NFP and contraception are both methods of birth control. Birth control is just the spacing & planning of children.

The Church does not teach birth control is immoral. The Church teaches that contraception is an immoral means of birth control. Big difference.

Each marriage act (act of sexual intercourse) must be unaltered before, during, or after the act. No action may taken to alter the act because each act must be objectively unitive and procreative in order to be authentic and properly ordered as God designed.

Subjectively that particular act may or may not be procreative. For example, if someone is naturally infertile due to time of the month, post-menopause, already pregnant, etc, then an unaltered act of intercourse is objectively procreative but subjectively does not result in conception.

How does NFP meet this criteria? In NFP each marital act is objectively unitive and procreative. If you have reason to avoid pregnancy you do not engage in the act. That respects the objective elements that must be present in every act.

How does contraception fail to meet this criteria? When contracepting a couple engages in the marital act while simultaneously altering the act to nullify it’s procreative element-- either before, during, or after the act. Before-- sterilization, Pill, sponge, diaphram, condom, IUD. During-- withdrawal, masterbatory acts that don’t culminate in intercourse. After- morning after pill, abortion. All of these things alter the act either in anticipation of, during, or after.

NFP says: Don’t want to become pregnant at that time? Abstain and respect the act as God created it because we and the act serve God. Engage in the act when the woman is naturally infertile and never alter the act.

Contraception says: Don’t want to become pregnant? Have sex and mutilate the act because the act serves us.

NFP is not an alterative to contraception, it’s an alternative to complete abstinence.

shameful, vicious and a horrible crime?

The Church does not teach any of the above regarding contraception.

 

[1ke]

How can the marriage act between a husband and his wife in the post-menopausal age be both unitive and “procreative”? At that time the only meaning of sexual intercourse is unitive, a sign and celebration of the union between husband and wife. It cannot be procreative can it?

It is objectively procreative because the act is engaged in as God designed it. There is no alteration. The couple engages in the act in a complete and unaltered way. Subjectively, that particular act did not result in conception. Objectively it was completely procreative.

Contraception always alters the act.

 

[joemizzi]

Let’s focus on the basic issue:

1. The Catholic Church condemns contraception as a “sin against nature.”
2. It is said to be a sin against nature because “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children.”

But, may I ask, even if we say for the sake of argument that the purpose of sex is “primarily” procreative, but can we say that the conjugal act destined “only” for the begetting of children?

Is it not also a sign and a joyful expression of the marriage union between husband and wife?

Would anyone say that the genital part of the body has been received by us FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than the generation of offspring?

Moreover, does not nature itself teach us that these two aspects – procreative and unitive – need not exist together (as in the infertile period and after menopause).

What is the purpose of a married couple (using NPF) for having sex in the infertile period? Is it not ONLY as the enjoyment of each other since they specifically choose that time to avoid pregnancy?

 

[1ke]

But, may I ask, even if we say for the sake of argument that the purpose of sex is “primarily” procreative, but can we say that the conjugal act destined “only” for the begetting of children?

No. The Church does not teach this.

HOWEVER, the what the Church does teach is that neither element may be separated. Each act must be unitive and procreative.

Is it not also a sign and a joyful expression of the marriage union between husband and wife?

Yes, but it is not only a sign and joyful expression of the marriage union.

Would anyone say that the genital part of the body has been received by us FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than the generation of offspring?

Yes, I would. Generation of offspring is the purpose of the genitals. Pleasure is a by-product, not the purpose.

Moreover, does not nature itself teach us that these two aspects – procreative and unitive – need not exist together (as in the infertile period and after menopause).

No it does not.

What is the purpose of a married couple (using NPF) for having sex in the infertile period? Is it not ONLY as the enjoyment of each other since they specifically choose that time to avoid pregnancy?

Certainly. That has already been covered. Avoiding pregnangy is not immoral for just reasons. Contraception is always wrong.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Sex has two parts as designed by God. The unitive and procreative, or the love-giving and life-giving dimension. God joined those two.

In the wedding ceremony the priest says “What GOD has joined together, let NO MAN separate.”

What part of that do people not understand. It is not up to us to artificially separate the two. Which is what birth control does.

NFP respects that the two go together. If you don’t want new life, you hold back on the luv. You don’t try to have one without the other. You wait until you can have both of them together.

That is respecting what God has joined.

And if a woman is naturally infertile, or has gone through menopause, the Church doesn’t say that because she’s not fertile there is a problem. Every act of intercourse must be OPEN to life. That is different from saying every act must BRING ABOUT life. That leaves room for God to act, even in the case of old people like Sarah or Elizabeth. Their union with their husbands was love-giving and surprise surprise, it ended up being life-giving too, for all things are possible with God.

What I don’t see touched on here much are the couples who play God and divide the love giving and life giving aspects and are not open to life. Then one day they decide they want children, and God doesn’t send them children. Years of contraception can do that. Or God sends children anyway. I have a second cousin that was born after her mother had her tubes tied.

God is God. When we try to play God and be the authors of life, we are taking upon ourselves that which belongs only to Him.

 

[Jay2]

Sex after menopause is one of Gods cruel jokes…

kinda like the one: “Wanna hear God laugh?.. Tell Him your plans!”

You can finally do it all you want to, 6x a day! You are with your spouse, together 35+ years in a loving/sharing/soul-binding situation, you may not be able to conceive, but your intent is true…But

Your body can barely get out of bed at this age for the requisite pee 3x times a night… let alone “do it” when the mood strikes!

 

[bluerose]

I always find it interesting how people manage to emphasize the importance of the unitative aspects of sex when discussing birth control. They seem to feel that the Church does not consider this important, that all the Church cares about is having babies.

If that were true, then why does the Church also condemn IVF? Is it not to emphasize the importance of the unitative aspects of sexual intercourse? If all the Church cared about was people having babies, why wouldn’t it encourage people to use IVF? Wouldn’t that fit the warped image some people have of the Church (babies = good; sex = bad)?

Both the unitative and procreative aspects of the marital embrace are considered important and DEFENDED by the Church. You can’t have one without the other, or you’re making a mockery of the beautiful gift that God gave us.

My husband and I have been open to life for almost nineteen years. We have one child by adoption, but we remember that Abraham and Sarah weren’t high school kids when Isaac was conceived! God’s will be done (and may He give us strength!)

 

[LittleDeb]

Let’s focus on the basic issue:

1. The Catholic Church condemns contraception as a “sin against nature.”
2. It is said to be a sin against nature because “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children.”

And until 1930 all Protestant churches taught that too. Why the change? It was actually the Catholic Church who has emphasized that it is also for unity, yes primarily for begetting children but also for unity of spouses. Puritans wanted sex to occur only when fertility was present.

Scripture didn’t change. It has always condemned contraception. Please study the history of your church and share how it came to believe something different about Scripture around 1930.

Normally I would say, “Welcome to the forums!” but I am not sure you are wanting to be welcomed. Ah heck, I will say it anyway. Welcome to the forums! I hope your stay here is blessed and charitable.

 

[Mickey]

Would anyone say that the genital part of the body has been received by us FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE than the generation of offspring?

Yes, I would. Generation of offspring is the purpose of the genitals. Pleasure is a by-product, not the purpose.

Correct. Case in point: Practicing homosexuals participate in the sexual act only for genital pleasure.

 

[Mickey]

And until 1930 all Protestant churches taught that too. Why the change?

I’ve never been able to receive a reasonable answer to that question.

 

[StratusRose]

I’ve never been able to receive a reasonable answer to that question.

Well, it’s important to remember that it was the Anglican Church, the church founded on Henry VIII’s divorce, that was the first to allow this. I believe it was Margaret Sanger and her minions who were pressuring Christian religions (Catholics and Protestants) to accept this moral anomaly. One of her main arguments was that poor couples could not afford to bring more children in the world, so the Anglican Church changed the rules to accomodate them. Then the flood gates opened…

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ahh… I understand now.
Our OP here has, in other posts here on CAF, left links to his personal website…
justforcatholics.org/

I believe he’s trying to save us.

Mr. Mizzi,
I’m sorry if you were misinformed at some point during your life about the Catholic faith… but clearly you lack a true understanding of the teachings of the church. Your arguments are without merit and do not represent a true understanding.

Please study the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that you can form a more realistic argument against the church.

 

[StratusRose]

Ahh… I understand now.
Our OP here has, in other posts here on CAF, left links to his personal website…
justforcatholics.org/

I believe he’s trying to save us.

Mr. Mizzi,
I’m sorry if you were misinformed at some point during your life about the Catholic faith… but clearly you lack a true understanding of the teachings of the church. Your arguments are without merit and do not represent a true understanding.

Please study the Catechism of the Catholic Church so that you can form a more realistic argument against the church.

Haha! I had a feeling this is what his purpose was…this thread is so blatently obvious that joemizzi does not understand the teachings of the Church, that have been CONSISTANTLY taught for 2000 years. How can you try to refute teachings you do not fully understand? Protestants have been struggling with this dilemma for over 500 years.

Sorry, but we have already found the Truth. Once you go Vatican you don’t go back again!

 

[PaulinVA]

I love how people try to convert others by showing how wrong they are.

Does that really work? I don’t think so. I think people convert because they see what others have and want it.

Joe, are you really expecting people who are members of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church, the repository of wisdom of the church fathers, to abandon the church handed down from Jesus Christ, because some guy with a computer in Malta tries to poke holes in NFP?

 

[Mickey]

I believe he’s trying to save us.

He is a reformed baptist cut in the same mold as James White. His website consists of a serious of strawmen that are knocked down with misinformation and questionable theology. Dr Mizzi may truly believe he is helping to “save” people from the Catholic Church. But I think it is rather dishonest to promote a website which attempts to attack the Catholic Church from all angles.

 

[drawnhome]

One of the very best ways to understand this whole concept is to listen to Christopher West’s CD’s, “Theology of the Body”. It is a wonderful explanation, and if possible listen to these CD’s with your spouse. What an affirmation of God’s design for us! You come away from this feeling like you have received a gift, not like you are sacrificing something.

God Bless You

 

[joemizzi]

The Church does not teach any of the above (shameful, vicious and a horrible crime) regarding contraception.

(words in brackets added)

I think you are wrong. In one of its official documents, the Catholic Church denounes contraception as shameful, vicious, and a horrible crime.

Check out Pope Pius XI encyclical “Casti Connubii”:

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is **shameful **and intrinsically vicious.
2. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this **horrible crime **and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”