From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Bookcat]

There is not one telos to the sexual activity, but two. Sex in marriage is for the good of the spouses, and the unitive purpose of sexual union is still served in sex employing other hypothetical forms of BC.

"In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act: the one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. This is what the encyclical teaches (cf. HV 12).

Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act deprived of its interior truth, because artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.

It can be said that in the case of an artificial separation of these two aspects, there is carried out in the conjugal act a real bodily union, but it does not correspond to the interior truth and to the dignity of personal communion: communion of persons. This communion demands in fact that the “language of the body” be expressed reciprocally in the integral truth of its meaning."

~Bl. Pope John Paul II

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP840822.htm

 

[Nate13]

There is not one telos to the sexual activity, but two. Sex in marriage is for the good of the spouses, and the unitive purpose of sexual union is still served in sex employing other hypothetical forms of BC. These specifics are where natural law begins to show it’s problems, and why philosophy of ethics has moved on in the 700 years or so since Aquinas. There isn’t one single purpose for sex, there is the procreative, and the unitive. HV says these, officially, can NEVER be separated. I’m saying I can’t philosophically see why they must always and at every instance be together. It’s not a realistic model of how married, real life actually works. Now, I really must go, my wife awaits and, GASP, we actually ARE in the midst of trying to serve the very procreative purpose of sexual union that you seem to think I’m railing against! Blessings to you.

wow you really don’t get it? There are not two people in the bed there are 3 (forgot God ) You forgot to mention that marriage is how we show how we are created in the image and likeness of God, and where we become one flesh. The one single purpose of sex is to show our love for God. Keep trying to get the image of the altar out of your head. It’s not an analogy it is the truth of what is occuring. It is the altar at which both the bride and the bride groom give themselves completely to each other and to God. In marriage we make a covenant with God, and on the marriage bed we consummate that covenant before God.

 

[Odell]

Odell, I knew we were going to get your story eventually. Thank you, I really identify with your contraception struggle. You had me close to tears.

I’ve done some reflecting on the questions in your OP. Spiritually, I think that couples who use NFP tend to do so because they desire total submission to God. Humble obedience to His will must be an indescribable experience. To share this with your beloved in the marriage covenant seems like heaven on earth. It reminds me of the St. Ignatius prayer:

Take, Lord, and receive all my liberty,
my memory, my understanding,
and my entire will,
All I have and call my own.

You have given it to me.
To you, Lord, I return it.

Everything is yours;do with it what you will.
Give me only your love and your grace,
That is enough for me.

Imagine being able to surrender your marriage and marital embrace to God in this way. I’m trying so hard to do this. Imperfectly, but I’m still trying.

I think this is the best explanation I’ve heard. Thanks for this post.
I belive this is what NFP provides us.

 

[Blacksword]

wow you really don’t get it? There are not two people in the bed there are 3 (forgot God ) You forgot to mention that marriage is how we show how we are created in the image and likeness of God, and where we become one flesh. The one single purpose of sex is to show our love for God. Keep trying to get the image of the altar out of your head. It’s not an analogy it is the truth of what is occuring. It is the altar at which both the bride and the bride groom give themselves completely to each other and to God. In marriage we make a covenant with God, and on the marriage bed we consummate that covenant before God.

Thanks, but I do get the imagery, quite well in fact. It doesn’t, however, dictate as a matter of necessity though that the Rule regarding how all sex is supposed to end is infallibly revealed truth, or that other sexual expression between husbands and wives and BC methods are therefore deficient. I’m sorry, but YOU don’t get that this does NOT logically follow. In the end this cannot be reasoned to, but must be just accepted as such if you are inclined to accept it on FAITH.

Look, my parents are Baptists, they had three children and then my Father got a vasectomy. They have an incredible marriage, and I could only wish mine was as happy as fulfilling as theirs has been. There is NOTHING deficient or “unloving” about their marriage, and it’s frankly highly arrogant and self-righteous of strangers on an internet forum to dictate how defiled you happen to think their marriage is based on an extreme, FALLIBLE encyclical statement of the Pope! Now, your reasoning is failing to convince me otherwise, and it’s NOT because I’m lacking some important capacity of intellect, rather, it’s because reasoning alone fails to convince on this issue. I’ll go my way and keep my heart open to God, how about you do the same, in humility and charity? Thank you.

 

[Blacksword]

"In the conjugal act it is not licit to separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one and the other pertain to the intimate truth of the conjugal act: the one is activated together with the other and in a certain sense the one by means of the other. This is what the encyclical teaches (cf. HV 12).

Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act deprived of its interior truth, because artificially deprived of its procreative capacity, ceases also to be an act of love.

It can be said that in the case of an artificial separation of these two aspects, there is carried out in the conjugal act a real bodily union, but it does not correspond to the interior truth and to the dignity of personal communion: communion of persons. This communion demands in fact that the “language of the body” be expressed reciprocally in the integral truth of its meaning."

~Bl. Pope John Paul II

That’s great, also none of the quote above is infallible, nor was it promulgated with such intent. You can keep quoting fallible statements of a Pope all you want, that won’t get us anywhere, sorry. I know your position and why you hold it, inrrmain unconvinced. As I said before, as soon as this teaching is declared ex cathedra as infallible dogma, I’ll unhappily accept it all in it’s every nuance.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP840822.htm

 

[Bookcat]

That’s great, also none of the quote above is infallible, nor was it promulgated with such intent. You can keep quoting fallible statements of a Pope all you want, that won’t get us anywhere, sorry. I know your position and why you hold it, inrrmain unconvinced. As I said before, as soon as this teaching is declared ex cathedra as infallible dogma, I’ll unhappily accept it all in it’s every nuance.

My position?..such would not be terribly that important …but it is not just “my position” it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church…that is what is really important.

So it is rather than my “position” it is part of my being Catholic.

Your understanding here is not correct. Such is a big fallacy.

As I said before…we are Christians…we are Catholics…we do not just hold and believe and live that which is declared “ex cathedra”!!

Such an idea is contrary to the what we are and believe as Catholics.

We are to hold and profess the Catholic Faith…and we are to give our assent to the Teachings of the Catholic Church …the assent proper to each teaching.

Even if something is not infallible (not that I am saying that this is not) there are other kinds of assent that must be given.

 

[sw85]

There is not one telos to the sexual activity, but two. Sex in marriage is for the good of the spouses, and the unitive purpose of sexual union is still served in sex employing other hypothetical forms of BC. These specifics are where natural law begins to show it’s problems, and why philosophy of ethics has moved on in the 700 years or so since Aquinas. There isn’t one single purpose for sex, there is the procreative, and the unitive. HV says these, officially, can NEVER be separated. I’m saying I can’t philosophically see why they must always and at every instance be together.

They are always together because the unitive *telos *itself derives from the procreative and is, in a very real sense, subordinate to it.

Procreation does not, after all, end with conception. Pregnancy renders the mother-to-be vulnerable and in need of care, and the child she will eventually bring into the world is likewise in need of care (and also proper instruction). This implies a continuing obligation on the part of both parents to one another and to their child, an obligation that necessarily implies commitment (i.e., in the form of marriage, which is why premarital sex is sinful).

In short the unitive *telos *serves the procreative: it guarantees (or at least increases the likelihood) that the child produced by the sexual act will be brought to term and raised properly.

 

[TasteAndSee]

This is why I think the statistic of 90+% of Catholics using contraceptives isn’t going to change any time too soon, but rather than really delve into the reasons for this, it is easier to just say these people are either plain ignorant or selfish nymphomaniacs who view their spouses as sex objects and will get the unhappy marriages they deserve. No real conversations seem to be happening and nobody seems to be all that willing to at least consider that perhaps the reason it’s not resonating is because the Church was actually quite wise all those centuries she taught that NFP (back then it was the rhythm method, of course) was only to be used in really grave situations, wise in that She recognized how damaging it can be at least to some couples to practice it over the course of 20-30 childbearing years.

But what do I know, I am just a regular person strugging through life the best way I can, making the best decisions I can for my family given my own limitations and realities and hoping that God will forgive me for my weaknesses and inability to live some of the cold, hard realities of Church teaching.

I don’t recall anyone on this board calling any ABC users the things you suggest, and certainly this thread represents a conversation on the topic. Does it not? Have you even read the whole thread or are you just interjecting for the sake of stating your opinion, once again, that ABC is good?

 

[Blacksword]

My position?..such would not be terribly that important …but it is not just “my position” it is the Teaching of the Catholic Church…that is what is really important.

So it is rather than my “position” it is part of my being Catholic.

Your understanding here is not correct. Such is a big fallacy.

As I said before…we are Christians…we are Catholics…we do not just hold and believe and live that which is declared “ex cathedra”!!

Such an idea is contrary to the what we are and believe as Catholics.

We are to hold and profess the Catholic Faith…and we are to give our assent to the Teachings of the Catholic Church …the assent proper to each teaching.

Even if something is not infallible (not that I am saying that this is not) there are other kinds of assent that must be given.

Okay, then you give this teaching the assent you believe due, and I will do the same based on the reading, research, prayer, reflection, and consutation I have done with my confessor in this matter. You know, we are agreed that teachings of the Church are owed varying levels of assent. That’s not the issue: rather, it’s what level of authority, and therefore assent, is owed to this particular teaching. Where does fallibility begin and end, where is divine revelation and where is possible human error? And though it may be clear for you, the manifest evidence of reality, with many serious Catholic theologians, and lay people, not to mention priests and even bishops, taking positions of varying degrees of separation from aspects of Humanae Vitae and it’s level of authority, is that the issue is far from clear and simple. As I said, if it’s in the Creed, if it’s declared ex cathedra as infallible, that will end the discussionfor me. Until then, God bless.

 

[Corki]

Okay, then you give this teaching the assent you believe due, and I will do the same based on the reading, research, prayer, reflection, and consutation I have done with my confessor in this matter. You know, we are agreed that teachings of the Church are owed varying levels of assent. That’s not the issue: rather, it’s what level of authority, and therefore assent, is owed to this particular teaching. Where does fallibility begin and end, where is divine revelation and where is possible human error? And though it may be clear for you, the manifest evidence of reality, with many serious Catholic theologians, and lay people, not to mention priests and even bishops, taking positions of varying degrees of separation from aspects of Humanae Vitae and it’s level of authority, is that the issue is far from clear and simple. As I said, if it’s in the Creed, if it’s declared ex cathedra as infallible, that will end the discussionfor me. Until then, God bless.

The teaching is authoritative and definitive. It requires assent from Catholics. Consultation is a great thing. However, can you produce even one Church document that gives the contrary position?

 

[Calliso]

Just wanted to apologize for being part of a thread hijack—I honestly came in mid-thread and showed very poor posting etiquette by not really paying attention to the original post, just responding to the posts immediately preceding mine.

I virtually never get into NFP discussions online and am not really sure why I did last night. In my 40s now and reflecting upon a lot of what I am seeing in fellow conservative Catholic marriages at the 15 and 20 year marks, I just know that something is very wrong with how people are living out their marriages. I honestly do believe that NFP is contributing to the problems, but I feel it’s not so much the method as the tactics used in trying to convince people to use it, much of which seems to be fear-mongering (will burn in hell if you don’t—and you and your spouse will do nothing but treat each other as objects and have a deservedly hellish marriage if you choose anything but NFP). This whole notion that your spouse is just one condom away from treating you like an object in a porn magazine is not a healthy one. And it doesn’t jibe what so many people actually experience. Human nature being what it is, most people base their decisions on their own experiences and those experiences they observe in the people around them, for better or worse. When the Church quits speaking to the real human experience, her message does not resonate with the masses.

This is why I think the statistic of 90+% of Catholics using contraceptives isn’t going to change any time too soon, but rather than really delve into the reasons for this, it is easier to just say these people are either plain ignorant or selfish nymphomaniacs who view their spouses as sex objects and will get the unhappy marriages they deserve. No real conversations seem to be happening and nobody seems to be all that willing to at least consider that perhaps the reason it’s not resonating is because the Church was actually quite wise all those centuries she taught that NFP (back then it was the rhythm method, of course) was only to be used in really grave situations, wise in that She recognized how damaging it can be at least to some couples to practice it over the course of 20-30 childbearing years.

But what do I know, I am just a regular person strugging through life the best way I can, making the best decisions I can for my family given my own limitations and realities and hoping that God will forgive me for my weaknesses and inability to live some of the cold, hard realities of Church teaching.

Hey donlt worry about highjacking everyone does it! lol, Its how these discussions tend to go!
Anyway I think you make a very good point here. I think the way NFP is taught is a big part of the problem. In addition to this other people have mentioned that they felt lied to by their NFP teachers that NFP was sugarcoated and they weren;t really prepared for the harsh reality that awaited them. But yeah I think it is rather problematic when things are looked at in such a black and white way. That if you use a condom you are automatically using your spouse that you will go to hell that you donlt really love your spouse if you use contraception in your marriage. And yes it doesn;t fit with what many people have experienced. I mean sure I have seen people on these forums say they felt used when they were on the pill or their husband used condoms or whatever but some of also even said that things were better before they starting using NFP and they never once felt used and that they felt even closer and more in touch/bonded with their spouse before! So yeah when they read later on about how their actions were apparently unloving and using and so on I am sure many scratch their heads and go that makes no sense!

But yes sadly it is easier to just point fingers and accuse people of being selfish and unloving and too focused on sex. And yeah it would make sense that part of the reason perhaps the Church says NFP is only supposed to be used rarely is because of the damage it can do. Of course the problem comes though is that unless someone either has infertility issues and has a lot of trouble getting pregnant or wants a ton of kids most will find themselves using NFP for most of their childbearing years. And some of these people will turn to condoms or even in some more extreme cases like yours and turn to sterlization. Are these people bad people selfish people who donlt love their spouses and just want to use them for sex? I am willing to say that in most cases probably not. In many cases they are just doing their best to hold themselves and their marriage together!

 

[Bookcat]

Okay, then you give this teaching the assent you believe due, and I will do the same based on the reading, research, prayer, reflection, and consutation I have done with my confessor in this matter. You know, we are agreed that teachings of the Church are owed varying levels of assent. That’s not the issue: rather, it’s what level of authority, and therefore assent, is owed to this particular teaching. Where does fallibility begin and end, where is divine revelation and where is possible human error? And though it may be clear for you, the manifest evidence of reality, with many serious Catholic theologians, and lay people, not to mention priests and even bishops, taking positions of varying degrees of separation from aspects of Humanae Vitae and it’s level of authority, is that the issue is far from clear and simple. As I said, if it’s in the Creed, if it’s declared ex cathedra as infallible, that will end the discussionfor me. Until then, God bless.

Again…you have various misunderstandings…

(as if the Creed is going to state all one has to believe!..or all that one is to reject! (Perhaps I had better send an note to your wife to warn her that you do not reject adultery cause it is not in the creed! (now if course I know you do …but you see my point)…our YES in our Profession includes more than just the explicit words there…it for examole also includes the teachings regarding what we are to assent to!)

(even the lower assent required of religious assent of intellect and will…would mean one assents to it and follows it …one actually gives religious submission of intellect and will!)

And even if 400,000 “theologians” would reject this teaching of the Church or a Confessor would say one could do so…they would all be in error and of course contrary to the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

And as *Pope John Paul II *noted in 1987…“The Church’s teaching on contraception does not belong in the category of matter open to free discussion among theologians. Teaching the contrary amounts to leading the moral consciences of spouses into error.”

And as the document from the Church instructing confessors in regards to their guiding of penitents stated…the teaching regarding contraception is to be “held as definitive”. Which certainly does not leave any room for them advise otherwise.

Period. No if’s ands or buts.

Any confessor who tells someone they can use contraception is acting in a gravely sinful way and is acting contrary to their priesthood and their role as shepherds.

 

[Bookcat]

"Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful. "

~ Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

 

[Muze]

Umm… “Adult faith” means you don’t need to depend on other people (or a Church) to hold to sound doctrine. Rather it means that you “rightly handle the word of truth.” Those things speak to an independence from leaning on a catechism and encyclicals and bull that come from others.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Umm… “Adult faith” means you don’t need to depend on other people (or a Church) to hold to sound doctrine. Rather it means that you “rightly handle the word of truth.” Those things speak to an independence from leaning on a catechism and encyclicals and bull that come from others.

Basically, we get to pick and choose what is true/ what is false.

 

[Bookcat]

Umm… “Adult faith” means you don’t need to depend on other people (or a Church) to hold to sound doctrine. Rather it means that you “rightly handle the word of truth.” Those things speak to an independence from leaning on a catechism and encyclicals and bull that come from others.

See Pope Benedict Above…

such would be not an adult faith…any more than those Christians who did not depend on the St. Paul or the other Apostles for their doctrine…but made up their own…including their sexual “morality”…(just read his letters to Corinth!)

Paul was very clear…such is not the approach to take.

 

[Nate13]

Thanks, but I do get the imagery, quite well in fact. It doesn’t, however, dictate as a matter of necessity though that the Rule regarding how all sex is supposed to end is infallibly revealed truth, or that other sexual expression between husbands and wives and BC methods are therefore deficient. I’m sorry, but YOU don’t get that this does NOT logically follow. In the end this cannot be reasoned to, but must be just accepted as such if you are inclined to accept it on FAITH.

Look, my parents are Baptists, they had three children and then my Father got a vasectomy. They have an incredible marriage, and I could only wish mine was as happy as fulfilling as theirs has been. There is NOTHING deficient or “unloving” about their marriage, and it’s frankly highly arrogant and self-righteous of strangers on an internet forum to dictate how defiled you happen to think their marriage is based on an extreme, FALLIBLE encyclical statement of the Pope! Now, your reasoning is failing to convince me otherwise, and it’s NOT because I’m lacking some important capacity of intellect, rather, it’s because reasoning alone fails to convince on this issue. I’ll go my way and keep my heart open to God, how about you do the same, in humility and charity? Thank you.

Haha you referred to my explanation as “pagan” and then ignored it. I’m not asking you to believe what I say only to realize that it IS a logical argument. When marriage/sex/love is viewed from the perspective I laid out, you see the difference between contraception and NFP. Obviously you don’t like the imagery, and don’t like God spying on what you do in the bedroom or at least that is what I got from it. All I’m saying is that you should concede that there is a difference between contraception and NFP when it is viewed this way. The imagery I laid out isn’t something I came up with. JPII has referred to the marriage bed as an altar and gone in to more explanation. You can disagree with the premise but you can’t disagree the conclusion based on that premise. Also in terms of relatives having great relationships. Ends don’t justify the means.

 

[Calliso]

I don’t recall anyone on this board calling any ABC users the things you suggest, and certainly this thread represents a conversation on the topic. Does it not? Have you even read the whole thread or are you just interjecting for the sake of stating your opinion, once again, that ABC is good?

Usually no they aren;t called nymphomaniacs and the like directly. But I have seen it implied for instance that people are too focused on sex and using their spouse and so on. And I dont think she was just talking about in this board either. Also where did she say that ABC is good? Basically I think a big part of the problem it seems is that sometimes negative assumptions are made about those who have troubles with NFP and are open about it and those that for the good of their marriage for instance decided to use condoms or whatever.

 

[Muze]

See Pope Benedict Above…

such would be not an adult faith…any more than those Christians who did not depend on the St. Paul or the other Apostles for their doctrine…but made up their own…including their sexual “morality”…(just read his letters to Corinth!)

Paul was very clear…such is not the approach to take.

Gee… Paul calls the Corinthains “spiritually immature” in Chapter 3 (vv1-3). Maybe you should take some time to actually study the book before commenting.

In fact, Paul’s point to the Corinthains in their first letter was to point out their immaturity in both spirituality and practical matters, and to exhort them to become mature, so they could make proper judgments!

Nowhere in 1 Cor 3 does Paul tell them to read the Catechism or clutch blindly to the doctrines they’ve been taught. Indeed, Paul is instructing them so they will become mature and make their own decisions wisely.

 

[Nate13]

Usually no they aren;t called nymphomaniacs and the like directly. But I have seen it implied for instance that people are too focused on sex and using their spouse and so on. And I dont think she was just talking about in this board either. Also where did she say that ABC is good? Basically I think a big part of the problem it seems is that sometimes negative assumptions are made about those who have troubles with NFP and are open about it and those that for the good of their marriage for instance decided to use condoms or whatever.

No the problem is people get confused between talking about the intent of the person and the means they use to act on it Contraception can be used with a good intent per say and the person using it has no ill will at all. We are saying that despite that the means they use is wrong and has implications to the sexual act whether they realize it or not. Janet Smith compares using contraception in a marriage, to being like someone putting a drop of poison in your orange juice every morning. You don’t know its there but it will have its affect on you no the less.