You are exactly right.
You are correct. The Church knows that and encourages people not to use it that way. The method becomes an occasion of sin when used with a sinful intent. Still, those “serious reasons” for allowing the regulation of births as outlined in HV prevent our getting into the marriage bed of another couple and judging their intent. “Psychological” reasons can be pretty powerful and yet outsiders may see nothing but apparent selfishness . . . .
cheddarsox said:
That dual possibility in the use of NFP is actually the point. Use of a condom is always wrong because of the nature of how the condom interferes with each particular marital act, while misuse of NFP is more a matter of attitude in avoiding the marital act for improper reasons rather than interfering with the natural outcome of a completed marital act.
Catholics do not seperate their biology from their spirituality. They are two sides of the same coin. When you withhold that which might otherwise create life, you are withholding part of yourself.
This is not symbolic. This is Church doctrine.
Sex is not weak. It one of the most spritual and physical ways to show our love to our spouse. It is so powerful it can create life. Sex in a marriage has dual purposes, encourage the marital bond, and produce children.
I’m not sure I completely understand this point. “If sex isn’t bad or weak then why use abstinence as an argument?” An argument for what?
others here say that ABC allows a couple to have sex at any time, while NFP requires sacrifice, strength, implying that abstinence is good for it’s own sake and that ‘just having sex whenever you want to’ is a bad thing, selfish. Forget contraception for a minute, why is this bad, and if not, what value does abstinence have? If abstinence is just the means to a good end, not a desirable thing in itself, then why use it as a moral argument against contraception? ie. NFP requires absitnence, ABC doesn’t and that is evidence for ABC being immoral and NFP ascceptable etc. If sex isn’t weak then I can’t see how that’s relevant.
) Otherwise I agree with everything else he said and all I can say is wow, you rock Mike! I also suffer long bouts of infertility so I can answer that concern also.
what you’re saying takes away any justification for using NFP. If procreation is primary, and pleasure secondary, then you can only have pleasure in the process of attempting to conceive. ABC puts pleasure first, but so does NFP. Just in a different way and to a different degree.
Sorry, I meant to say “Conception must occur before birth and LIFE must occur before death.”
Procreation is primary and unity is secondary. Pleasure is incentive. I would agree with you ONLY IF it were not possible to be unitive while permanently infertile. Unity is not only about pleasure. Unity is unity. It is not procreation. My whole point is procreation is first. If procreation is not possible then it’s secondary function can be fulfilled. It is when unity is put above procreation that a disorder occurs.
Perhaps intimacy is a better word than pleasure, because pleasure is so easilly misinterpreted as ‘bad’, even in this context.
That is a good point. I have been working to try to change the wording and understanding of that point myself.
It does all come down to the understanding of the meaning and purpose of human sexuality and conjugal marital love. As you state, abstinence is a means to a good end. Better and more accurately stated, abstinence is a morally legitimate means to the good end of preserving the integrity of marital sexual expression (not frustrating either the imitative or procreative potential aspects of the marital embrace). NFP does not require abstinence, but utilizes abstinence in a couple’s mature and responsible parenthood in the exercise of the power of their marital sexual love.
Well to keep procreation as the primary goal, then in times where ‘grave reasons’ exist to not have, or delay having children, then the only choice is to not have sex. Otherwise what are couples doing by having sex knowing that the chance of conceiving at a particular time is virtually zero? So why are they then? For unity, making intimacy the primary reason for having sex. Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it at all.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. If the primary function is procreation and reproduction does not take place then does it seem like I’m saying unity can’t happen because reproduction didn’t happen? I think you are saying if those grave reasons exist then those couples should not have sex at all by that definition? As I said being procreative is not just being reproductive. It is being open to life even when chances of conceiving are virtually zero.
Let’s see if I understand the question. Are you asking why having “sex whenever you want to” would be considered a bad thing, selfish? Then the answer would be that selfishness is the “bad thing” and having sex whenever you wnat to" would manifest that selfishness.
Keep in mind the phrase: “dignity of the human person.” Then add “responsible parenthood.” Then consider the “serious reasons” Humanae Vitae notes for limiting the size of a family: economic, social, psychological. Wanton breeding by yielding indiscriminately to our animal drives would be just as much a defect of human dignity and responsibility as ABC. If NFP put pleasure first, then abstinence wouldn’t even be mentioned.
And the problem with that would be . . . ?