From your experence why does NFP feel better than contraception?

[ahs]

Male circumcision. The normal and healthy condition (prepuce organ) is treated as diseased and chopped off. Assumedly this is done to prevent diseases later on (whether this is true or not), but the baby boy’s foreskin is a normal, natural condition that we treat as diseased. This is not condemned by the Church. I think this is a good analogy, especially as it concerns the sex organs.

This is actually a good topic for a new thread…there are many facts and myths about circumcision that would make for wonderful discussion. I even have a bit to say on that matter. So, wanna start a new thread on it?

 

[Nate13]

Male circumcision. The normal and healthy condition (prepuce organ) is treated as diseased and chopped off. Assumedly this is done to prevent diseases later on (whether this is true or not), but the baby boy’s foreskin is a normal, natural condition that we treat as diseased. This is not condemned by the Church. I think this is a good analogy, especially as it concerns the sex organs.

We can argue about the health benefits although they are well documented, but I believe however great or few this is why most people do it. I think in many ways its a good reminder of where we come from and acknowledges the Old Testament isn’t obsolete but rather fulfilled. I think it would be rather disordered if it was done because the parents simply thought it looked better, although I would not call this a “grave matter”. However I do believe there are good reasons for doing it and once again the purpose of the piece of flesh is not on the same playing field as the purpose of sex.

 

[Blacksword]

haha apparently you don’t understand the difference between indulging and over indulging. I love how things are either grave matters or nothing by your standards haha. Luckily the Church does not look on this in a black and white matter as you sarcastically try to accuse of. Think of it like this. The purpose of having sex could be 10% personal pleasure and 90% with your spouse in mind. Are you not only being 90% selfless? I don’t think the description of what love means in Corinthians stated the love is only mostly selfless

You are also missing the difference between a grave matter and a mortal sin. A grave matter is only one of the three conditions by which something is a mortal sin.

Also note I’m only going into this because you are using pleasure as the reason by which contraception is ok. I’m not saying this is at all easy to actually put into practice because as was stated earlier we all struggle with lust while having sex regardless of the birth control practices used.

No, you’re not automatically selfish because pleasure is part of the reasons for engaging in something. I’m pointing out the rational results of your reasoning, applied to eating, sorry if it’s unpleasant, but it does follow. Concluding selfishness automatically when pleasure is part of something, however, does not follow.

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

Beautiful replies, Mary Gail 36 and sw85.

Brav3N3wWorld,

I can tell you that NFP has truly been a blessing in our married lives and that ABC was a scourge on my previous marriage. There is no question that, in my earlier marriage where we used ABC, that the condoms and the oral sex were depraved. We were married in the Church, yet we violated the covenant we made to “lovingly accept children from God and to raise them according to the law of Christ and His Church.” We put our selfish goals first. There is nothing wrong with professional goals, but when they are placed as the supreme god of the marriage, to the point that we intended to remain childless until these goals were reached, well, there is a problem. We were also terribly afraid of fertility, since we were ignorant of it, since we had not studied NFP. So, the few times that we did engage in sex with ABC, we were terrified by the thought of pregnancy. There was no trust in God, rather we placed our faith in ABC and other immoral acts. I had no concept of “mortal sin” since I was not raised Catholic and this concept was not raised in RCIA. However, my ex-husband knew that what were doing (albeit very infrequently) was wrong. Not surprising, the marriage lasted only 2 years. It was annulled within 6 months.

You may think that I am very different than you because I am older and have sinned in ways which, Praise God, you and your husband have not. However, I thought about Church teaching the very same way as you when I was younger. I thought it was a bunch of old white men in Rome who were telling us what to do. I remember thinking that they were jerks. You are different than me in that you took the time to study and read BEFORE you married, but still don’t feel that NFP is good. I respect you for having the good faith to continue to seek answers to your questions. I think Mary Gail 36 gave an excellent reply about how incredible the sexual powers are which God placed in our bodies. I feel that NFP is part of my spiritual life in that I can know and experience the fertile signs in my body which was designed by God. It is truly amazing. Now that we are trying to conceive, I realize how fragile conception is. Even sex during the fertile time does not guarantee a pregnancy. It is truly in God’s hands. We just walk with Him from day to day and make decisions according to how He has made us and whether it is better and more loving to abstain for a just cause in order to postpone pregnancy or to enjoy the marital embrace and be open to life. NFP truly is a study of the mystery of the human person.

Thank you for sharing your story and being honest with me, Sacredcello. I must admit that I do have a hard time relating though. But this is not because of any past sins on your part. I could really care less about past sins of others, especially those that have been repented. I just have a more difficult time because my experience of seeing others use ABC has been different. My parents practiced ABC, and I grew up in a very loving home, seeing no problems with lust between my parents. They’ve been married for 32 years, and stuck by each other through good and bad times.

Also in many ways, I wish we had taken care of our professional goals early in our marriage, or at least been in a stable position before having kids. If we were more secure financially, I don’t think NFP would be as scary and as much of a hardship in our marriage.

But I am really glad the Church’s teachings on NFP have been a blessing for you. I hope one day, I’ll be able to stand up and say the same for my own marriage

 

[Brav3N3wWorld]

This is actually a good topic for a new thread…there are many facts and myths about circumcision that would make for wonderful discussion. I even have a bit to say on that matter. So, wanna start a new thread on it?

I’d love to join a new thread on this. PM me with a link when you start it. For now I have to stop pretending that I’m breastfeeding the baby, and go help with the other kiddo.

 

[Nate13]

No, you’re not automatically selfish because pleasure is part of the reasons for engaging in something. I’m pointing out the rational results of your reasoning, applied to eating, sorry if it’s unpleasant, but it does follow. Concluding selfishness automatically when pleasure is part of something, however, does not follow.

hmm good point I’d did rise to an assumption there. I assumed you were putting your own pleasure above that of others or at the expense of others. But this is the reasoning behind why men are allowed to perform oral sex on women concerning to the purpose of the unitive bond and procreation because if they did not it could be considered selfish in some cases.

 

[Blacksword]

I’d also add that she is right. Eating McDonald’s is morally neutral and I’m not disagreeing with that. Rather the intent of the act is what makes it wrong. If the intent is I want McDonald’s because it pleasurable thats wrong. If it because its cheap and we need food i don’t see how you can consider that gluttony especially considering where the Bible says we are to nourish and cherish our bodies. We can argue about how well McDonald’s nourish’s and cherish’s our body another time haha.

McDonald’s neither nourishes nor cherishes our bodies, in fact it poisons them! And you eat it because it’s pleasurable, which you just said is wrong. Point match set.

 

[Nate13]

McDonald’s neither nourishes nor cherishes our bodies, in fact it poisons them! And you eat it because it’s pleasurable, which you just said is wrong. Point match set.

Your opinion haha. The amount of people still running around that eat McDonald’s everyday proves my point. In fact it does nourish them because you get calories. Calories are necessary if want to have energy. Now we can argue about what is too many calories but your making assumptions that nourish mean nutritious.

 

[Blacksword]

Male circumcision. The normal and healthy condition (prepuce organ) is treated as diseased and chopped off. Assumedly this is done to prevent diseases later on (whether this is true or not), but the baby boy’s foreskin is a normal, natural condition that we treat as diseased. This is not condemned by the Church. I think this is a good analogy, especially as it concerns the sex organs.

I point out here it actually is condemned and has been for two thousand years by the Church, but American Catholics are frequently studiously ignoring this. But let’s not go there, thread will be closed for sure! PM is the better way to talk about that!

 

[Blacksword]

We can argue about the health benefits although they are well documented, but I believe however great or few this is why most people do it. I think in many ways its a good reminder of where we come from and acknowledges the Old Testament isn’t obsolete but rather fulfilled. I think it would be rather disordered if it was done because the parents simply thought it looked better, although I would not call this a “grave matter”. However I do believe there are good reasons for doing it and once again the purpose of the piece of flesh is not on the same playing field as the purpose of sex.

They are not “well documented”, they are shown in various highly criticized studies shown to be flawed by other studies, and contradicted in medical literature on other studies. And the purposes of the foreskin include immunological, errogenous sensation, facilitation of the sexual act, and protective. Seems pretty valuable to me. Banned topic though I think, best PM on it. I wish things didn’t turn in this direction!

 

[ahs]

I point out here it actually is condemned and has been for two thousand years by the Church, but American Catholics are frequently studiously ignoring this. But let’s not go there, thread will be closed for sure! PM is the better way to talk about that!

New thread! It’s a good topic and most people never get to hear the Church’s stance on it…I never knew the facts about it until we had our first child.

 

[ahs]

Banned topic though I think, best PM on it.

Oh, I didn’t realize that.

 

[Nate13]

hmm so looking back I had a slight mishap in speaking about pleasure. A good husband should be worried about the pleasure of his wife, and a good wife should be worried about the pleasure of her husband. It only becomes selfish when one of them puts their own pleasure above the others. As you guys stated this pleasure does have positive benefits for the body, which I believe could be seen as nourishment because it definitely helps promote growth, health and good condition. I believe I overlooked this idea in the statement of what unitive is. As someone who is completely giving themselves to their spouse would obviously be worried about their physical as well as spiritual well being. I guess we are left with the fact that while you can see how only accepting the procreative purpose of sex would be disordered and that is clear to you, you don’t see how only accepting the unitive purpose of sex and ignoring the procreative purpose of sex is disordered.

Another problem is that semen have a great many “nourishing” effects when a woman is able to accept them. It appears you are only willing to accept some of the “nourishment” involved in sex while discrediting others that don’t apply to your purposes.

 

[Blacksword]

hmm so looking back I had a slight mishap in speaking about pleasure. A good husband should be worried about the pleasure of his wife, and a good wife should be worried about the pleasure of her husband. It only becomes selfish when one of them puts their own pleasure above the others. As you guys stated this pleasure does have positive benefits for the body, which I believe could be seen as nourishment because it definitely helps promote growth, health and good condition. I believe I overlooked this idea in the statement of what unitive is. As someone who is completely giving themselves to their spouse would obviously be worried about their physical as well as spiritual well being. I guess we are left with the fact that while you can see how only accepting the procreative purpose of sex would be disordered and that is clear to you, you don’t see how only accepting the unitive purpose of sex and ignoring the procreative purpose of sex is disordered.

Another problem is that semen have a great many “nourishing” effects when a woman is able to accept them. It appears you are only willing to accept some of the “nourishment” involved in sex while discrediting others that don’t apply to your purposes.

I’m gladdened and encouraged by some agreement at last! The issue is not as clear cut as it seems on it’s face by half! I guess I am just not certain either, myself, about the inherent evil of loveless baby-making sex…just pointing out this is probably at least as frequently occurring as contraceptive sex in marriages. And it’s definitely not a healthy approach to sexuality, I’ll admit that. I should know, since I’m sadly suffering this variety myself now! The curse of the biological clock ticking down its inexorable count…

But I will continue to pray and think on this issue. And I dont accept only unitive sex always divorced from procreative. I fully agree a marriage should include ordering towards having children, and ending the act in a procreatively open manner. Just not necessarily ALWAYS and ONLY in this fashion. That’s my sticking point; where is there value in the unitive end and enjoyment of married sex itself, if a value of itself I question why it must ALWAYS in the end, in every act, serve the procreative end. I guess more to the point, you could say I harbor similar questions about the ban on IVF or other such procedures. Talk about a terrible pain for couples who desperately want children and cannot conceive naturally! I’m questioning the extremes on these teachings, not their intent, spirit, or general direction.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The candy bar and McDonald’s analogy are both flawed because a person still recieves some of the good from consuming food, feeling food, a little nutrition, etc. This is why I think a better analogy is wine tasting, in which the wine is spit out. Here nothing is being consumed, merely enjoyed. The spitting out can be compared to spilling seed. But wine tasting is not considered sinful by the Church. Or is it?

No.

The reason they spit the wine out is the that alcohol effects the judgment of the taster. We can go to a wine tasting and consume the wine, no rule that it has to be spit out.

But what is confusing to me in this debate is that sexuality can be compared to eating. I’m not focused on you, just the turn of the debate.

Sexuality isn’t just a fun activity to show love and attachment to our spouses.

When we have sex with our spouses, we cooperate with the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of life. It is the most HOLY act that we can do with our spouse. Contraception profanes this HOLY act.

And furthermore, I posted what the Church considers the Capital sins

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 at McDonalds is not a grave sin, mortal sin. It does not destroy Grace in our hearts and does not cause us to separate from God. Eating at McDonalds does not require a trip to confession, neither would gasp, enjoying the food.

Sodomistic sex and masturbation to climax are prohibited by the Church not because they cause pleasure,** it’s because they are absolutely closed to life**.

The marital embrace must be unitive and procreative. Procreative does not mean, conception will happen. That is something God decides. Procreative means we do nothing to impeded procreation. If I am infertile, I did nothing to cause the infertility.

These discussions are getting dangerous, and confusing. Remember there are lurkers here, anybody who is not sure about church teaching and gets confused reading what’s been posted can come to believe Church teachings are incorrect.

I would almost like to see CAF ban NFP discussions.

I would suggest also reading Church approved writings on this subject, as opposed to CAF dissenters on this subject.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Nate13]

@Mary Gail
you are somewhat right in that eating is almost exclusively tied to our own pleasure. This differs from sex in that there are two people present which does make a difference in the implications.

@Blacksword
I think we agree in concept, but we both struggle to work out how best to describe it haha. For even while I was saying pleasure didn’t matter I was assuming that seeking pleasure is selfish in and of itself while it is only selfish if you are doing it without thinking of others or at the expense of another. I believe the marriage debt stems very simply from the fact that we are supposed to be selfless, however without clarifying the purpose of sex by also saying it must be unitive some would take it to implications that resulted in marital rape as we discussed before. Anyways looking at the implications involved in removing the unitive part of sex should tell us something about what would happen if it were the other way around. We also need to think deeply about whether one the two purposes supersedes the other or whether they are equal. The fact is with contraception you are still denying the other person apart of who you are while engaging in the act whether it is a mutual agreement or not. The difference between NFP and contraception is that this denying occurs during the act itself with contraception. The question becomes is this difference significant and why. I would answer yes it does matter because while an NFP couple can say every act of sex between the two is a complete gift of self, a contracepting couple cannot even if the part they are denying is by mutual consent. By this reasoning it would be ok for a couple by mutual consent to have one of them where a bag over their head during sex. I think in the past we have always talked about this example and assumed it was the decision of one party, but lets assume its a mutual decision. Would this be ok? I think most of us would definitely be wondering why they both couldn’t look past whatever they believed they needed to cover up and that this would be pretty weird.

 

[Bookcat]

I point out here it actually is condemned and has been for two thousand years by the Church, but American Catholics are frequently studiously ignoring this.

For readers sake…no it is not condemned. The Church does not condemn circumcision. It is a prudential judgment for the parents.

We are not talking about circumcision as part of the Jewish law…yes of course Christians are not under the law …so do not need to be circumcised.

But it is up to the judgment of the parents.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=50061

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=498400&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=21&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=498648&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2010&Author=&Keyword=circumcision&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=23&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

This is not to start another derailment …the topic is still listed at top. No discussion here…just giving the info for readers.

 

[Nate13]

Yeah I think I’ve got it. Basically the Church is saying that the marital act has been inherently designed as the ultimate act of love in which both man and wife give themselves completely to one another and when a couple uses contraception they contradict what the act is inherently meant to be saying. Which in other words translates to the couple would be mutually selfish per se with respect to God since all the gifts we have been inherently belong to him and we are going against what he meant the act of sex to mean. Thus why the Church gets involved on the issue because it’s responsibility is to help us understand what God wants for us. This also explains why NFP is not prohibited since they are not prohibiting a couple from mutually agreeing to not give everything they have to each other all the time since they are allowed to mutually agree to not try to have a child if they have good reasons. Rather the argument is that this mutual agreement to hold something of ourselves back from each other is only not permissible while engaging in the act that is inherently all about giving ourselves completely to each other. Am I making sense here? Of course the premise of this is that sex is inherently about two people giving themselves entirely to each other, but that is definition the Church gives for unitive and it makes a lot of sense.

 

[sacredcello]

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.

I’ve eaten them more than once when I was a student and didn’t have time or money to sit down for a meal. But, I needed the calories. Of course, you could say that I should have gone to the market and bought an apple, but on a college campus in between classes, that was not realistic.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes we need to avoid making pleasure say our goal in life…it is not per se an end…it comes with good things. Pleasure is given by God with so many goods. Yes there can be a disordered seeking or use etc. But say if I have some cookies for recreation …that is a good reason.

Pleasure is also part of marital relations…but it should not be disordered…such as making persons into mere means to pleasure…

Catechism:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145