From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[sacredcello]

Here is an excerpt from the CNA article:
Bishop Jean Laffitte warns against overemphasizing sexual aspects of Theology of Human Love

Teaching Sexuality in the Modern World

Although Bishop Laffitte praised the intent behind popularizing John Paul II’s teachings on human sexuality, he underscored the “risk” of transmitting a narrowed vision of them. He stressed that in today’s world, human love and sexuality have been “disfigured,” and Church teachings on the subject need to be spread as a means of evangelization, accessible to all people.

In response to those who say the philosophical and anthropological topics involved in the late Pope’s teachings are too complex for the average person, Bishop Laffitte said he believes anyone “of good faith can always be sensitive to mystery.”

“Even when a person cannot read and write, when he falls in love with someone he enters into an extraordinary mystery,” the bishop said.

Regardless of a person’s level of intellectual knowledge, he “has the same experience” when he falls in love as even the most educated person.

Bishop Laffitte also cautioned against taking a casual or “vulgar” approach to discussing human sexuality in the context of Church teachings.

“Man and woman have sinned,” he explained, “and in our bodies we bear the consequences of this wound in our nature.”

He said it’s ultimately “unrealistic” to think that we can discuss or treat the issue of human sexuality in a casual or indifferent way, or ignoring the reality of sin.

“There is a dignity” and a “respectful expression of love and design” needed, Bishop Laffitte emphasized.

 

[Warrior1979]

I can sympathize, but I think you’re wrong. It is not true that there is no reason ever to eat a candy bar. A candy bar has calories. Calories are one of the purposes of eating. So, even though you may say that a person doesn’t need those calories, and those calories are unhealthy, and I’d even give you that we’re all probably committing more acts of gluttony more than we realize–it’s still arguably different.

Candy bars are not essential to life and are only eaten purely for pleasure. If someone is stuck on a dessert island and a crate of Snickers Bars washes ashore, I won’t argue that they should not be eaten, but otherwise they are not completely necessary.

I love candy bars but avoid them like the plague because of the effects they have on the body.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Interesting though it wouldn;t surprise me if they would have frowned on menopausal and pregant women having intercourse.

The Early Fathers were pretty specific in their teaching. It doesn’t make sense that they would omit such a detail as it would affect so many people.

Of course then again they may have “allowed it” solely for the purpose of fulfilling the marital debt certainly not for pleasure or uniative purposes or at least I seriously doubt!

It would be pointless to teach against pleasure in marital relations. It’s inherent in the act for men and should be present for women too.

In Genesis, God tells us husband and wife become ‘one flesh’. If that’s not unitive, I don’t know what is. Both Jesus and St. Paul restate this teaching, so I doubt the Early Fathers missed it. Maybe they thought it was a given.

I agree with you that the Fathers may have “allowed” sex during infertility, concerned for the lust husband and wife might experience and I think they were right to teach this way. Sex itself is good, but due to our fallen human nature, it’s hard to have 100% lust-free relations even with with your spouse. At least it is for us sinful people.

 

[Nate13]

@Warrior
I’d say in most cases you are right, candy bars aren’t really necessary outside of inducing pleasure. The thing is though that we aren’t talking about a candy bar, we are talking about sex which takes you from a trivial matter to a grave matter. I’d also like to make sure that you realize that while I’m saying pleasure should never be the reason you do something, that does not mean we are to whip ourselves every time we feel pleasure haha. Rather I can appreciate the appreciate the pleasure that motivates me to commit an action especially when the action is appropriately oriented towards a good end. Thus I’m not saying you shouldn’t get pleasure from sex, but rather it should not be seen as the ends to a sexual act. From your past statements it seems to me that you have a healthy respect for the pleasure of the sexual act and don’t way overemphasize its importance within sex. However, you do allow the importance you do give to pleasure in sex to have an impact in your decisions which is why you use contraception instead of NFP. NFP requires you to deny yourself part of what you see as the unitive bond, so its no wonder you don’t want to use it.

Here are a couple other passages from the Bible which take this issue into account:

Romans 8:1-17
New International Version (NIV)
Romans 8
Life Through the Spirit
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,** God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
5 Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6 The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life[d] because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of[e] his Spirit who lives in you.
12 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.**

Paul seems to make it clear its either all or nothing. Either you give yourself to the desires of the Spirit or you give yourself to the desires of the flesh. He says if we live according to the flesh we will die.

Ephesians 5:21-33
New International Version (NIV)
Instructions for Christian Households

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”** 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. **

“For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church.”

nour·ish/ˈnəriSH/Verb

1. Provide with substances necessary for growth, health, and good condition.
2. Enhance the fertility of (soil).

cher·ish/ˈCHeriSH/Verb

1. Protect and care for (someone) lovingly: “he cherished me in his heart”.
2. Hold (something) dear.

My last point is to look to the Saints. Find me a Saint, who did not strive to completely live at the desires of the Spirit and pay zero attention to the desires of the flesh in letting them have an impact on their decisions. Mother Teresa is a great example since most people know and have heard of her. We are all called to be Saints within our calling’s in life. That doesn’t mean you have to be a nun, priest, or monk. We can be Saints as married people as well by embracing our calling in life and the work that God has laid out before us. I know some married people have been put on the canonization process rather recently so that might be worth looking into as well if you wish to see what the Church considers saintly material

 

[Nate13]

Ephesians 5:25-27
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Just had to point this out as well. Husbands are called to give themselves up their wives to make them holy. A call to husbands to help their wives become saints by giving themselves up completely to them.

 

[Nate13]

I agree with you that the Fathers may have “allowed” sex during infertility, concerned for the lust husband and wife might experience and I think they were right to teach this way. Sex itself is good, but due to our fallen human nature, it’s hard to have 100% lust-free relations even with with your spouse. At least it is for us sinful people.

Exactly Good Daughter. Its hard enough already before you add contraception into the mix haha.

 

[Blacksword]

I can sympathize, but I think you’re wrong. It is not true that there is no reason ever to eat a candy bar. A candy bar has calories. Calories are one of the purposes of eating. So, even though you may say that a person doesn’t need those calories, and those calories are unhealthy, and I’d even give you that we’re all probably committing more acts of gluttony more than we realize–it’s still arguably different.

No it isn’t unless you literally are starving to death and the only food available is candy. It’s of zero nutritive value, indeed, white bread also is then evil, it’s nothing but sugar which is unhealthy and provides no nutritive value. If one is hungry, eat a piece of fruit. Eating candy, bread, crackers, French fries, basically everything most Americans enjoy, is pure pleasure-seeking as an end of itself, and is gravely sinful when one has access to actual healthy, nutritive food. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Papal encyclical forbidding McDonald’s as gravely disordered and gluttonous!

 

[Nate13]

This actually brings up one of the things about NFP and HV that simply does not make sense to me. If someone can explain this to me, please do. I really want to figure this out. Simply quoting Church documents at me doesn’t really EXPLAIN the logic to me. This is why I have a hard time with this teaching (keeping in mind I still practice it). If you can’t explain it to me other than “the Church says so,” well, that’s fine too. But I’m really hoping for more.

Alright, here it goes:

First, let’s rule out consequentialism. I understand that there can be just and unjust means to achieve an end. In the case of NFP when trying to avoid pregnancy…the end is to avoid pregnancy.

Eliminating any forms of hormonal birth control, which can cause abortions (I “get” that), that leaves condoms. A couple can also use condoms to avoid pregnancy. In the case of NFP and condoms, the intent (avoiding pregnancy) is the same.

Someone mentioned earlier that one is abstaining to avoid and the other is using something else to avoid. But this doesn’t seem to logically make sense because the NFP couple is also using tools (charts, thermometers, modern scientific technology) to achieve the same ends.

The argument against contraception is that it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, but NFP is also trying to have one, without the other. It seems that the only real difference between NFP and condoms is that one is “natural” and the other is artificial. But we don’t condemn other things for being “unnatural”–medicines to help one sleep, for example. We don’t tell an insomniac to use a prescribed method of relaxation to help him sleep, especially if we know that medicines are better capable of achieving this.

The idea of seperating two purposes is also odd to me (and this is how Blacksword’s post prompted me to write this). The two purposes of eating are for nourishment and enjoyment. But we don’t call eating junk food a sin. The Church also doesn’t condemn certain forms of wine tasting that involve spitting out the wine. Here, a person would only be enjoying the taste of food, and not even receiving it into his body. This is analogous to condom use, in which the act of sex is enjoyed, but the semen is rejected.

It would thus seem that the only thing that makes artificial forms of birth control sinful is the fact that it is “unnatural.” At the same time, being “natural” is what makes NFP good. But it seems odd that this distinction isn’t held in other areas of life.

As for “natural” meaning “natural law,” this concept confuses me too, as it argues for a sense of morality that is universally perceived across cultures. The concept made sense to Aquinas, when the world was very Euro-centric, but if anthropology has shown us anything, it’s that there are very few moral rules that are universal cross-culturally. I’m not arguing for moral relativism here, but simply trying to say, that the Church needs to either seriously engage the study of anthropology or use something other than natural law to make its case. I’m fine with simply leaving that as a matter of faith. But the natural law argument is perhaps one reason why 90% of US Catholics are not convinced. It simply doesn’t make much sense.



P.S. Please don’t attack me as looking for an excuse to use ABC. I’m honestly trying to understand this teaching. I want to know that practicing extended abstinence with my husband is not in vain. And perhaps make my cross a little lighter by making sense of the teaching.

You are using a condom or pill to fix something correct? What is wrong that your trying to fix? Your fertility? Using these things assumes that normal fertility is a problem we have to fix since it doesn’t conform to what we want to do. Now try to think of any thing in else in life that is considered a normal, healthy condition that we treat like this but don’t consider disordered.

Secondly, you have to understand what unitive and procreative mean.
unitive - two people giving themselves completely and selflessly to each other.
procreative - ordered towards life.

If you believe pleasure within sex to be the purpose or one of many purposes you will not get this teaching. Pleasure is never the ends of an act. This is why our culture is so sick because they make pleasure an ends and when it doesn’t work out they run the other way. I think very few people actually make life all about pleasure which we can all see leads to destruction, but rather some just hang on to a degree of pleasure. This attitude can never be deemed completely selfless, which implies that it can never be completely loving. We must put aside the desires of the flesh when we make decisions, but still be able to amply appreciate the great good God has given us in our bodies when we use them properly. When you understand what unitive really means when fully embraced you can see that condoms, pill, etc… have no place in the sexual act.

 

[Debora123]

Actually you did.

Actually, I did NOT, and I would appreciate it if you stopped accusing me of it.

 

[Nate13]

Nomit isn’t unless ulyou literally are starving to death and the only food available is candy. It’s of zero nutritive value, indeed, white bread also is then evil, it’s nothing but sugar which is unhealthy and provides no nutritive value. If one is hungry, eat a piece of fruit. Eating candy, bread, crackers, French fries, basically everything most Americans enjoy, is pure pleasure-seeking as an end of itself, and is gravely sinful when one has access to actual healthy, nutritive food. I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Papal encyclical forbidding McDonald’s as gravely disordered and gluttonous!

haha make fun of it all you want. All of those things you described are trivial compared to the importance of sex. I’d also add that chocolate has proven nutritional benefits for mental health. I don’t eat white bread (wheat bread for the win!) and McDonald’s does the favor for me by making me feel awful after I eat it haha. None of these things are “gravely” disordered though and would all be considered venial sins because of their trivial nature. I doubt you would really miss any of them if you gave them up. We should strive to perfect ourselves in the little things though so that we are ready to meet the challenge when something of importance arises.

 

[Debora123]

Debora I’m denying this statement which is something you said “Yes” too. All I’m trying to get across is that pleasure has nothing to do with the Church’s definition of unitive. It is the motivation to have sex and is sometimes an outward sign of what is really occurring but we are called to a greater purpose. We are called to crucify the desires and passions of the flesh in order that we might fully encompass the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is what bonds a man and a woman together in marriage.

Emotional unity IS part of the unitive aspect of sex (note, I said “part of,” not all of it). And yes, the release of oxitocin is one factor that brings about this strong emotional connection (note I said “one factor,” not everything.)

 

[Blacksword]

As an observation, is there any other area in Catholic teaching where the physical is absolutized? I can’t think of any. I think this is why most people have so many questions about sexual morality–Catholic spirituality seems inherently less concerned with physicality in every other area.

Indeed, none that I’m aware of, one of the many problems with the extremes of the Rule of Humanae Vitae. Nor any other area where circumstances and context have NO effect on the morality of the action being contemplated. Stealing, lying, even killing another person can be morally licit depending on the circumstances, but never can the Rule be violated, no matter what!!

 

[Nate13]

Emotional unity IS part of the unitive aspect of sex (note, I said “part of,” not all of it). And yes, the release of oxitocin is one factor that brings about this strong emotional connection (note I said “one factor,” not everything.)

Ok I understand your position. I’m simply saying it doesn’t conform to the Church’s position on what unity means. That release in oxytocin is in no way one of the purposes for which we are to have sex, no matter how trivial of a purpose you make it. The pleasure we experience is in no way supposed to have be seen as one of the ends of the act. Like I said before, it it did matter you would basically be saying that some couples are not capable of achieving the same fullness of the unitive bond that you are.

Please note the Church doesn’t say we can’t enjoy sex, but rather quite the opposite. The point is that the pleasure we do feel should never be seen as one of the ends of sex. Its a motivation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

haha make fun of it all you want. All of those things you described are trivial compared to the importance of sex. I’d also add that chocolate has proven nutritional benefits for mental health. I don’t eat white bread (wheat bread for the win!) and McDonald’s does the favor for me by making me feel awful after I eat it haha. None of these things are “gravely” disordered though and would all be considered venial sins because of their trivial nature. I doubt you would really miss any of them if you gave them up. We should strive to perfect ourselves in the little things though so that we are ready to meet the challenge when something of importance arises.

I know this is totally off topic, but eating Mc Donalds is a morally neutral action. Not even venially sinful. As is eating a snickers bar, or drinking a glass of white wine.

The Catchism touches on Gluttony only here

Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great. They are called “capital” because they engender other sins, other vices.138 They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth or acedia.

Eating a snickers is not gluttonous per se. Having a pleasurable time eating or enjoying food is not sinful. Pleasure is not sinful per se.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on the Virtues of NFP

 

[Nate13]

Indeed, none that I’m aware of, one of the many problems with the extremes of the Rule of Humanae Vitae. Nor any other area where circumstances and context have NO effect on the morality of the action being contemplated. Stealing, lying, even killing another person can be morally licit depending on the circumstances, but never can the Rule be violated, no matter what!!

Few physical realities have the gravity that sex has or the widespread inability to follow Church teaching. Its one thing to like chocolate cake a little too much and quite another to mess with the act which shows us to be created in the image and likeness of God, the ultimate act of love.

 

[Nate13]

I know this is totally off topic, but eating Mc Donalds is a morally neutral action. Not even venially sinful. As is eating a snickers bar, or drinking a glass of white wine.

The Catchism touches on Gluttony only here

Eating a snickers is not gluttonous per se. Having a pleasurable time eating or enjoying food is not sinful. Pleasure is not sinful per se.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate on the Virtues of NFP

Yes per se haha because it assumes we see pleasure as a motivation and not the purpose of eating the snickers bar. I can appreciate the pleasure eating a candy bar gives me but if that is the reason I’m eating it to begin with that should be a heads up. I’m not saying this is easy to follow because it isn’t. This is why Sainthood is a life long process haha. Like I said before I like soda way too much. I definitely continue to strive to wean myself off it, but its not a grave sin and isn’t going to send me to hell if I can’t figure it out.

 

[Blacksword]

@Brav3N3wWorld

Let me try to explain it this way.

How does a human pregnancy occur? It occurs because a couple has sexual relations, an egg is present, it is fertilized by a sperm cell, and a new life is formed.

That new life is a new human with an eternal soul. There really are no words to explain how incredible it is, an action between two people can culminate in a person, in the image and likeness of God.

So it must follow that the action, sexual intercourse, must be good because it can lead to a person.

So any action to deliberately frustrating that outcome, must not be good. So oral sex, masturbation etc, frustrate that outcome, those actions cannot lead to pregnancy, yet use sexual organs to end in sexual climax.

Using a condom, is similar. Condom use says to God…“I don’t like your design of woman being fertile and infertile depending on the time of the cycle, I prefer that she is always infertile, so we can have intercourse whenever we like and not have to worry about creating a baby.”\QUOTE]

Sigh, assuming the consequent again at work here. You assume at the outset the thing you’re trying to prove: that sexual pleasure is always essentially disordered and sinful, having no value ever as any consideration. To wit, the use of the sexual organs to end in climax, and pleasure this gives, is not inherently evil, and you must assume at the outset the evil of this occurring except in the procreative capacity in order to establish the evil of this occurring in any other way except the procreative capacity. The bonding, the physical, biological, emotional, and spiritual closeness brought about by sexual pleasure is a unitive good of value too.

 

[Debora123]

Ok I understand your position. I’m simply saying it doesn’t conform to the Church’s position on what unity means.

I disagree with that. I think, as Blacksword said, the Church’s definition of unitive sex includes the emotional, physical, and spiritual. Not each in isolation, but all wrapped together to create the strong bond between married couples.

That release in oxytocin is in no way one of the purposes for which we are to have sex, no matter how trivial of a purpose you make it.

You are making this sound extremely technical. I never said “oxytocin is one of the reasons we should have sex.” I’m looking at the big picture here. The emotional BOND, is ONE of the reasons we should have sex, because it is one factor that pertains to the unitive aspect.

It isn’t a reason to have sex, in isolation. It is part of a factor that contributes to the unitive aspect of sex, which is PARTLY the reason we should have sex (unitive + procreative).

As I said before, you are taking our words into extremes - you are looking at this in an extremely black and white manner.
.

 

[Blacksword]

@Warrior
I’d say in most cases you are right, candy bars aren’t really necessary outside of inducing pleasure. The thing is though that we aren’t talking about a candy bar, we are talking about sex which takes you from a trivial matter to a grave matter. I’d also like to make sure that you realize that while I’m saying pleasure should never be the reason you do something, that does not mean we are to whip ourselves every time we feel pleasure haha. Rather I can appreciate the appreciate the pleasure that motivates me to commit an action especially when the action is appropriately oriented towards a good end. Thus I’m not saying you shouldn’t get pleasure from sex, but rather it should not be seen as the ends to a sexual act. From your past statements it seems to me that you have a healthy respect for the pleasure of the sexual act and don’t way overemphasize its importance within sex. However, you do allow the importance you do give to pleasure in sex to have an impact in your decisions which is why you use contraception instead of NFP. NFP requires you to deny yourself part of what you see as the unitive bond, so its no wonder you don’t want to use it.

Here are a couple other passages from the Bible which take this issue into account:

Paul seems to make it clear its either all or nothing. Either you give yourself to the desires of the Spirit or you give yourself to the desires of the flesh. He says if we live according to the flesh we will die.

“For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church.”

nour·ish/ˈnəriSH/Verb

1. Provide with substances necessary for growth, health, and good condition.
2. Enhance the fertility of (soil).

cher·ish/ˈCHeriSH/Verb

1. Protect and care for (someone) lovingly: “he cherished me in his heart”.
2. Hold (something) dear.

My last point is to look to the Saints. Find me a Saint, who did not strive to completely live at the desires of the Spirit and pay zero attention to the desires of the flesh in letting them have an impact on their decisions. Mother Teresa is a great example since most people know and have heard of her. We are all called to be Saints within our calling’s in life. That doesn’t mean you have to be a nun, priest, or monk. We can be Saints as married people as well by embracing our calling in life and the work that God has laid out before us. I know some married people have been put on the canonization process rather recently so that might be worth looking into as well if you wish to see what the Church considers saintly material

Gluttony is not a trivial matter, it’s a grave sin as deadly as lust! You think eating a candy bar is trivial, I think a husband and wife using a condom or “pulling out” may be trivial. The difference is one ( eating the candy) is clearly ONLY being done generally for pleasure and no other reason. The clear testimony of many couples is that sex not always following the Rule gives pleasure, brings them closer, helps their marriage, etc. So which is worse? Why does the Church not declare Krispy Kreme or Cold Stone Creamery gravely sinful? They are analogous to brothels obviously, serving only gluttonous and pleasure-seeking ends!

 

[Nate13]

Haha wow now your the one going overboard especially after I have clarified multiple times.

Sigh, assuming the consequent again at work here. You assume at the outset the thing you’re trying to prove: that sexual pleasure is always essentially disordered and sinful, having no value ever as any consideration. To wit, the use of the sexual organs to end in climax, and pleasure this gives, is not inherently evil, and you must assume at the outset the evil of this occurring except in the procreative capacity in order to establish the evil of this occurring in any other way except the procreative capacity. The bonding, the physical, biological, emotional, and spiritual closeness brought about by sexual pleasure is a unitive good of value too.

Pleasure is not evil. Pleasure is inherently good. We skew its true meaning in life ourselves by making it the ends of an action instead of recognizing that God has put that pleasure there to encourage us to do something i.e motivation. We can appreciate this pleasure and revel in how amazing the bodies that God has given us are, but when we make this pleasure a goal of our actions we disorder it. The Saints realized this and practiced it to as near to perfection as you can get on this Earth. Every desire they had for some pleasure on this Earth kept them farther away from God. Does anyone here have a contemplative prayer life? I would guess not and the reason is because we are still too attached to the desires of this world whether it be sex, food, clothing, you name it. If anyone has read St. John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila’s books they definitely talk about this.