From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Nate13]

@Searching
Please explain what you believe the Church should do since you seem to have it all together. From what you said you seem to believe the Church’s teaching on contraception is not infallible, but as we have posted many times the Church believes its teaching is infallible. So if they did come out and say contraception is ok, they would have to put their foot in their mouth and say their earlier statement was not infallible even though they said it was or they say nothing and we are left to conclude the Church is not infallible? The point is your wrong, the Church’s teaching on this issue is infallible and if you choose to disagree that is your choice, but please stop spewing the filth that this teaching is not binding on Catholics. That is when you get people riled up and is on the verge of heresy since it implies the Church is not infallible.

 

[searching04]

Contraceptive intercourse is meaningless, selfish, gravely sinful, can even be physically harmful, a manner of lust, contrary of course to openness to life, contrary to marital love, contrary to the commitment of marriage and the meaning of marriage, and in fact non-marital.

You’re just going to beat people to death with this stuff aren’t you?

No ‘apparent’ temporal “benefit” is worth the the choice of contraception. It would be the exchange of the martial act for a non-marital act. The choice of an apparent good over a real good.

Nope, nope, nope.

A great article: cormacburke.or.ke/node/282

 

[Bookcat]

…

You need to STOP going through the entire thread and reposting old posts out of the context they are in.

 

[davidv]

Argumentative and uncharitable.

 

[searching04]

Nope. NFP is a way of trying to avoid the conception of another child by NOT engaging in sex. Totally different.

No, NFP is engaging in sex to avoid having another child! There is absolutley no difference, none, zero, zip. You can say it is all in how you approach it, but it is exactly the same. Same as using it to conceive, just “reverse” when you do it!

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[Debora123]

For the record - you’re not selfish, nor were we, when we got to engage in other things besides finishing in intercourse.

Thank you Searching.

 

[Debora123]

Speaking of myself , I was selfish when i would deny my husband because he forgot to go the drug store, or when we would do “other things” because we couldn’t do “that”, because he forgot to go to the drugstore.

How is this different from “denying your husband” when you are fertile? Or “your husband denying you” when you are fertile?

If it’s a mutual decision, there is no “denying” of anything. NFP can be a mutual decision, as can ABC.

 

[Debora123]

Argumentative and uncharitable.

Yup, they usually turn out this way…

 

[Bookcat]

How is this different from “denying your husband” .

Such can be a sin.

Abstaining via NFP must be a mutual judgment before God.

It is not denying ones husband…

Ordinarily the husband may not deny the wife …nor the wife the husband.

 

[Debora123]

You need to STOP going through the entire thread and reposting old posts out of the context they are in.

Honestly, I don’t think he is taking them out of context. From what it looks like, he is starting at page 1 and reading all the posts in order one by one. So I don’t see how he could be taking them out of context. Besides, his responses don’t make him sound like he’s out of context at all.

 

[Debora123]

Such can be a sin.

Abstaining via NFP must be a mutual judgment before God.

It is not denying ones husband…

Ordinarily the husband may not deny the wife …nor the wife the husband.

Good grief, can we please stop strawmanning and getting picky? You know exactly what my point actually is

But whatever, I’ll reword and it’ll still be the same point I was making in the first post:

Denying your husband (for grave reasons) because you are fertile

and

Denying your husband (for grave reasons) because you’re out of condoms

Ugh…

 

[Blacksword]

You must have missed these:

St. Thomas Aquinas

“There are some who say that intercourse between married persons is not devoid of sin. But this is heretical, for the Apostle says: “Let marriage be honorable in all and the bed undefiled.”[15] Not only is it devoid of sin, but for those in the state of grace it is meritorious for eternal life. Sometimes, however, it may be a venial sin, sometimes a mortal sin. When it is had with the intention of bringing forth offspring, it is an act of virtue. When it is had with the intent of rendering mutual comfort, it is an act of justice…” (Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, pg. 80)

“… the marriage act is always either sinful or meritorious in one who is in a state of grace. For if the motive for the marriage act be a virtue, **whether of justice that they may render the debt, or of religion, that they may beget children **for the worship of God, it is meritorious …” (Summa Theologica Supplement Question 41)

I’ll give that the first quote provides a very tepid support of sex being permissible for something other than child-bearing, though “comfort” is hard tonunderstand in what he means by this, and is very different from saying sexual pleasure can be a good thing.

The second quote says nothing in support of this contention at all. What does he mean by “marital debt” after all? Surely it’s not the mutual giving and receiving of sexual pleasure he’s getting at is it? Sounds more like notions of the wife fulfilling her duty, not of enjoyment in the act.

 

[Warrior1979]

Those quotes do not condemn periodic continence. The Church to whom those Chruch Fathers belong and profess their Faith is clear and concise, as early as many of those writings that sex has unitive value. St. Augustine, St. Franice DeSales, St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Gregory I, etc…have all written as such.

Please…stop this misinterpretation. There is nothing wrong with periodic continence. In fact, there is nothing wrong with eternal continence, as there is no requirement that a couple MUST have sex.

Wrapped up with continence in NFP is having sex during the infertile time, as CLEARLY indicated by the Church. This obviously must be, since without it, there is no NFP, simply continence.

Now, from your experience why does NFP feel better than contraception?

 

[Bookcat]

Going through a thread posting in a sort of shot gun fashion OLD posts…is not the way a thread is to progress. It does take it out of context they are in --in the thread…there is a whole context to a particular post…further explainations etc…

Conversations in threads develop as they progress…conversation changes etc…pulling up old parts and posting them again one after another…is not really the way to go.

If someone wants to bring up an old post in order to discuss it…that is one thing…but just going through the thread responding (negatively especially) as one goes through the very old posts at the beginning…is another.

 

[Nate13]

Please…stop this misinterpretation. There is nothing wrong with periodic continence. In fact, there is nothing wrong with eternal continence, as there is no requirement that a couple MUST have sex.

Wrapped up with continence in NFP is having sex during the infertile time, as CLEARLY indicated by the Church. This obviously must be, since without it, there is no NFP, simply continence.

Now, from your experience why does NFP feel better than contraception?

Actually you don’t have a valid marriage unless you have sex once to seal the covenant with God. That is what seals the deal Abraham had to kill a sheep. We get to have sex. Pretty good deal all around

 

[Bookcat]

Good grief, can we please stop strawmanning and getting picky? You know exactly what my point actually is

But whatever, I’ll reword and it’ll still be the same point I was making in the first post:

Denying your husband (for grave reasons) because you are fertile

and

Denying your husband (for grave reasons) because you’re out of condoms

Ugh…

Again…such can even be sinful when one has grave reasons. It all depends on what they are.

A spouse is not to deny the other ordinarily.

(contraception is already denying ones spouse…)

 

[ahs]

What does he mean by “marital debt” after all? Surely it’s not the mutual giving and receiving of sexual pleasure he’s getting at is it? Sounds more like notions of the wife fulfilling her duty, not of enjoyment in the act.

I will agree that it is difficult to know what he meant. That’s why I don’t try to give my own interpretation, instead I rely on what the Church says about it. The Church says this:

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[Blacksword]

Haha well if you can read Latin or can get Chapter 23 of Divine Institutions translated into English, we will get that quote in context and it may shed some light on it. However I would point out that your view clearly relies upon telling these Church fathers they were wrong about sex, while the Church’s current viewpoint simply builds on what was stated and potentially has to tell Lanctius he was wrong if your view of what he meant is right haha. The Church’s view today could be called a fulfillment of the Truth about sex, while your view would be a refutation of their views of sex, no? Doesn’t your view of sex rely upon the fact that there are times where we can have sex solely for unitive purposes? This would be a complete 180 on the view of the Early Church Father’s while the Church’s current view would basically be, yes the Early Church Father’s were right that sex is about procreation, however over time we have found the unitive aspect to be of much greater importance than their writings would suggest they believed it to be. However, the Church does uphold the idea that all sexual acts must be ordered towards procreation which is a fundamental of every single writing that has been posted.

The initial quotes provided from the early fathers in no way agree with current teaching, and their denial of any pleasure as a good or unitive aspects of sex is obvious on the face of the quotes. Sorry, but I’m not going to be convinced by torturing those quotes beyond all bounds of reason, or by finding a couple of halting, ambiguous quotes from other folks like Aquinas that might possibly indicate there is maybe some value in sex beyond children that suddenly the obvious intent of these early statements is not, in fact, what it appears to be. That’s the “Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes” argument!

And I actually have a question: if sex must at ALL times be both unitive and procreative to be morally licit, what about sex that is NOT unitive, but only about trying to conceive? What if it’s sex of the “hurry up get it over with and do your job” variety where no one’s enjoying it, it’s definitely NOT unitive or loving, but only occurring because it’s ovulation time and we need a baby? You know, the kind that often drives couples apart and harms the relationship. Morally acceptable? If so, then you’re saying in the end the child-rearing part is really the only good thing about it, or at least certainly by far the most important thing about it.

 

[Warrior1979]

Actually you don’t have a valid marriage unless you have sex once to seal the covenant with God. That is what seals the deal

Incorrect. Consummation is not necessary to validate the marriage, though the ability to consummate must exist. There are differences, though, between consummated and unconsummated marriage. For example, a valid consummated marriage cannot be dissolved, whereas a valid unconsummated marriage can be.