From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[Blacksword]

@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.

This is untrue. The church teaches it yes, but has absolutely not said this is infallible. Humanae Vitae is not declared infallible, that is a certain fact, agree with the document or not.

 

[Nate13]

@Blacksword

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.

They deny having sex because you are seeking the pleasure of sex. They don’t deny its pleasurable, they just say this isn’t the reason we have sex. You don’t eat because its pleasurable it just motivates you to do so. It isn’t the purpose. If it wasn’t pleasurable we wouldn’t be any well less off than we are now. We actually might be better off haha. Anyways this aspect of what they said is exactly right, and you show that you don’t understand current teaching of what is meant by “unitive sex” when you imply that unitive in any way means having sex for pleasure. Pleasure can never morally be the purpose or a purpose of sex, period. I’ve explained in past posts what unitive really means so I won’t bother to go there again. I take your post to mean that you see pleasure as one of the purposes of sex which explains a lot, correct me if I’m wrong though.

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.

Yes this would be morally wrong as well. This would also be using a women as an object, simply to use her procreative ability while denying the unitive aspect. I love how you can understand how this would be wrong, yet can’t see how denying the procreative part of sex would be wrong

 

[ahs]

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?

Where does the Church state the sex outside the fertile time is condemned?

I already answered why NFP feels better than contraception. It promotes closeness to my spouse in others ways aside from sexual, it helps us communicate better, and helps us to learn to love each other in a more varity of ways that don’t involve intercourse. It also teaches us patience, how to appreciate what opportunities we DO get to have sex, and helps keep us from a self-serving attitude.

As to the flip side, for the benefit of those who may want to follow the example of some in this thread and try out contraception for themselves, what Church teaching or Scripture verse states that contraception is permitted or is something for personal discernment?

 

[Debora123]

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.

Is it against the rules?

 

[Nate13]

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.

Yes I was misinformed to a point thus why I deleted the post haha you clarified it though

 

[Blacksword]

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.

Great…and that is from the Catechism written 600 years after Aquinas’ death, give or take a few years, and does not in any way define “marital debt”, or even use the term, let alone tell us what Aquinas meant by the term 600 years ago when he used it!

 

[ahs]

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. **I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. **May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[Nate13]

Great…and that is from the Catechism written 600 years after Aquinas’ death, give or take a few years, and does not in any way define “marital debt”, or even use the term, let alone tell us what Aquinas meant by the term 600 years ago when he used it!

In the same way that a wife tells a husband what he REALLY meant, the Church tells Aquinas what he really meant There is some Truth behind the idea that women are always right especially for priests haha.

 

[Bookcat]

This is untrue. The church teaches it yes, but has absolutely not said this is infallible.

Things do not have to be declared infallible to be infallible by the way.

Even if such were said to be not infallible…* it is still to be given assent!*

One can not reduce what one is to give assent to …to that which is defined as infallible or is infallible.

And this teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable.

 

[Bookcat]

Is it against the rules?

I do not know…but it is not a good way to go about things in a thread.

 

[Good_Daughter]

“for no other purpose than the generation of offspring”

This quote is the one that stood out to me in particular. But tell me how could you take that quote and twist it to mean that using NFP to purposely avoid procreating BUT still have sex is ok??

If Church Fathers taught sex was only for the ‘generation of offspring’ then they would’ve considered sex off limits for pregnant and menopausal women and their husbands, right?

Yes but what I am asking is based on those quotes we have do you really think the early church fathers would have approved of NFP? Of purposely avoiding sex during the fertile time but still having it during the infertile time? I seriously doubt it I think the only think they would have approved on is abstaining period.

St. Augustine did condemn an early form of periodic continence for avoiding pregnancy. This condemnation was directed toward the Manichaeans, a sect that considered matter, and by extention the creation of new people, inherently evil. So he did know about NFP (sort of) and he *only *condemned it in a way modern Catholicism would too.

 

[Corki]

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!

First of all, I think it is very bad form for you to pick out posts from over a week ago in a fast moving thread like this and quote them out of context.

Second, not only do you not understand NFP, you don’t understand sex. The only way your rationale works is if somehow, sometime, the Church prohibited sex unless a woman was fertile. But she doesn’t. Having sex on any day of the cycle is pemitted and encouraged. In any given cycle a couple may not have sex at all or they may have sex every day of the cycle. Or, more likely, they have sex on some of the days and not others. All NFP does is to guide the couple as to which of those days are most likely to result in pregancy. If the couple is TTC, they try to have sex on the more likely to be fertile days. If they are TTA, they try to have sex on the days less likely to result in pregnancy and avoid the more fertile ones. NFP is just a systematic way to do what a couple is going to do anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by “There is absolutley no difference, none, zero, zip.” No difference from what? Contraception? Incredibly different.

For future reference, stay up with the conversation and don’t quote out of context. It will make life easier for all of us.

 

[Blacksword]

@Blacksword

They deny having sex because you are seeking the pleasure of sex. They don’t deny its pleasurable, they just say this isn’t the reason we have sex. You don’t eat because its pleasurable it just motivates you to do so. It isn’t the purpose. If it wasn’t pleasurable we wouldn’t be any well less off than we are now. We actually might be better off haha. Anyways this aspect of what they said is exactly right, and you show that you don’t understand current teaching of what is meant by “unitive sex” when you imply that unitive in any way means having sex for pleasure. Pleasure can never morally be the purpose or a purpose of sex, period. I’ve explained in past posts what unitive really means so I won’t bother to go there again. I take your post to mean that you see pleasure as one of the purposes of sex which explains a lot, correct me if I’m wrong though.

Yes this would be morally wrong as well. This would also be using a women as an object, simply to use her procreative ability while denying the unitive aspect. I love how you can understand how this would be wrong, yet can’t see how denying the procreative part of sex would be wrong

I didn’t say pleasure was the reason for having sex, so yes, you misunderstand. I sai the pleasure you derive from it is part and parcel, that is, a critical factor in, the unity that sex creates. The pleasure drives the biological, hormonal, and resulting neurological bonding mechanisms and effects of sex. You know, facts about human sexuality and biology that we know now that the early fathers in no way had any access to.

And secondly, it’s interesting you readily agree with me that loveless baby-making sex is then morally the same level of grave sin that you say ABC is, since this is EXACTLY the kind of sex that many MANY people are experiencing in the drive to conceive a child, plenty of then Catholic and, I’m sure, unaware of this grave evil they are committing. I wonder why no papal pronouncements, homilies, or sweeping drives against loveless baby-making sex???

And it’s also interesting that in this example you assume it’s the MAN using the woman, objectifying her, and treating sex in this poor fashion. Often in this situation it’s the other way around you know…plenty of men have been made to feel like they’re nothing but sperm donors, and essentially unwanted once the bun is in the oven! That assumption speaks volumes.

 

[Blacksword]

In the same way that a wife tells a husband what he REALLY meant, the Church tells Aquinas what he really meant There is some Truth behind the idea that women are always right especially for priests haha.

That’s total nonsense, but your joking manner seems to indicate you know it, so we can leave off on that tangent.

 

[Debora123]

First of all, I think it is very bad form for you to pick out posts from over a week ago in a fast moving thread like this and quote them out of context.

Second, not only do you not understand NFP, you don’t understand sex. The only way your rationale works is if somehow, sometime, the Church prohibited sex unless a woman was fertile. But she doesn’t. Having sex on any day of the cycle is pemitted and encouraged. In any given cycle a couple may not have sex at all or they may have sex every day of the cycle. Or, more likely, they have sex on some of the days and not others. All NFP does is to guide the couple as to which of those days are most likely to result in pregancy. If the couple is TTC, they try to have sex on the more likely to be fertile days. If they are TTA, they try to have sex on the days less likely to result in pregnancy and avoid the more fertile ones. NFP is just a systematic way to do what a couple is going to do anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by “There is absolutley no difference, none, zero, zip.” No difference from what? Contraception? Incredibly different.

For future reference, stay up with the conversation and don’t quote out of context. It will make life easier for all of us.

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.

I’ve reviewed the rules and there’s nothing on there about bringing up older posts in a fast moving thread. With that being said, I don’t think it’s fair or charitable to tell someone to stop doing it. If you don’t like it, think it’s unnecessary, annoying, etc etc… I’d recommend just ignoring it.

 

[Debora123]

I left this thread because people were complaining that it was off topic. I came back because those same people are further leading the thread away from the original topic.

This thread was meant to be for married people to post their good experiences with NFP, yet has turned into another contraception debate, half way do to the very people who were complaining about it being off topic.

Just figured I’d throw that out there.

 

[Debora123]

Debora123, you are right that some of my posts lack humility. I am working on that. My concern is genuine and I will strive to be more charitable, without out compromising Truth.

Thank you for the acknowledgement, It is appreciated. And no worries. It is a struggle for all of us.

God Bless.

 

[Bookcat]

This thread was meant to be for married people to post their good experiences with NFP
.

Correct…that is the topic that should be being discussed.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Nope, not even close. Not meaningless or selfish or non-marital.

Who is to say so? Yes, the church pre-emptively assumes it. But I can tell you from personal experience that making love to my wife - and not ending in intercourse - was far from meaningless or selfish. I love making her feel as good as possible exactly because I love her. In doing so, I am totally giving of all of myself to do so; that is not selfish. Maybe you don’t see it that way or have not experienced that, but it is intensely intimate.

The church telling couples what they are to feel and at the detriment of their blessed relationship, all because semen is supposed to land in the right spot, is not right. I don’t even find that morally right because of the negative effects on couples. And it is not a matter of wanting sex; that is another assumption by the church. Sex is indeed a gift, a wonderful, fun one at that. But couples need to be able to express their love usingit at times intercourse is not an option.

The church telling couples that all sex has to end in intercourse, no matter how long it has been, and that all else to climax is wrong, simple means that the church considers sex is for having kids, and it doesn’t want couples focusing only on the pleasure aspect, assuming couples will abuse sex and each other, and never have intercourse to have kids.

Maybe not so oddly, we never liked condoms and were on the pill for a very short time when we first got married. We didn’t like the side effects, wasn’t fair to my wife, stppoed using it.

I never had any qualms about ‘non-intercourse sex’ either until one day something hit me: I wouldn’t even need to be a woman to perform this act for my husband. Likewise, he wouldn’t even need to be a man to perform this act for me. These acts remove the need for male/female compliment from sex. Isn’t that exactly what homosexual acts do? When taken to climax, how are non-intercourse sexual acts between heterosexuals any different from homosexual acts?

I’m not naive enough to think my comments will change your mind on this matter, and I have no idea if you even object to homosexual acts. I just wanted to give you a little food for thought.

 

[Debora123]

I can empathize with that situation, but using condoms is specifically pointed out by the Church as gravely sinful. Surely there is some other alternative that you and your husband can use that isn’t contrary to the Catholic teaching? Or even periodic abstinence only during your fertile time…perhaps even all of Phase I and through Peak+4-6? If your charting was difficult to read with the NFP you were using, perhaps the Creighton Model will help…it is much more precise once you learn it properly. onemoresoul.com/ has some great resources that can be helpful.

Yes, NFP is alot of work and is a stress for marriages, and it won’t work perfectly for everyone. To start with, a couple really does need that “just cause”…otherwise resisting each other in the fertile period is nearly impossible and would be extremely stressful.

Also, there are more than just 1 NFP method, and not every method works for every couple. Most couples that I’ve read/heard about who had thrown in the proverbial towel on NFP wound up finding Creighton to be their saving grace. My wife and I use Couple-to-Couple League ourselves.

Thank you. We learned the sympto thermal method - we were told it was the most reliable in preventing pregnancies. I am definitely open to trying NFP again in the future if I feel God is calling me to it. And if that time comes I plan on looking into creighton, as you and others suggested. For now though, I am still trying to get rid of the nasty taste the whole experience left in my mouth.