I accept Birth Control, and that's not gonna change!

[RyanL]

Not to distract from your reasoning, but what do you make of the following from Pastor aeternus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church):

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both **singly **and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

…Further…

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

Pause to note that the canonical penalty of anathema was abolished with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law - more here

Moreover, in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book Four, Part 2, Chapter 2, Section 7, Ludwig Ott writes:

In consonance with this declaration, the Primatial power is:
a) A true power of jurisdiction that is, a true governing power, not merely a warrant of supervision or direction, such as, for example, belongs to the president of a political party, or a society, or of a conference. As a governmental power, it embraces the full power of legislation, administration of justice (disputed and voluntary jurisdiction) and of its execution. Corresponding to it on the part of the subjects is the duty of subordination and of obedience.

b) A universal power, that is, it extends personally to the pastors (bishops) and to the faithful, totally and individually, of the whole Church. Materially it refers, not merely to matters of faith and morals (teaching office), but also to Church discipline and government (pastoral office).

It would seem that if you are to remain a member of the faithful, your practice should reflect the Church’s disciplines, even if you don’t understand them; this should be the case until your head follows suit.

Would you agree?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Noma,

If I understand correctly (please correct me if I do not), what you are saying is the following:

1. The Church’s teachings on contraception constitute merely a discipline, and (despite the Church’s ardent and unanimous protest to the contrary) do not involve a matter of moral worth.
2. Because this is not a matter which involves morals, there is no statement which can be produced which might be infallible. Even if the Pope were to say, “By my authority as successor of Peter and head of the universal Church, I do solemly declare and define for all times that contraception is immoral,” this would hold no weight with you – it’s simply outside his scope. It’s just not a moral or faith related issue.
3. The Theology of the Body, an entire body of teaching on faith and morals, is simply mistaken when it thinks that contraception could possibly play a role here. Pope John Paul the Great simply couldn’t see that he was dead wrong. The Fathers were wrong, too.
4. John Finnis, the most treasured Natural Law philosopher of our time (google him if you doubt it), is mistaken when he thinks that Natural Law might cut against contraception.
5. Freud, like Finnis, was also wrong to state the following:
   “. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”* A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis*, (New York, NY: Liverwright, 1935), p. 277.
   Freud’s problem was that he didn’t know about proper stewardship and was confused by the Church’s teaching (despite being hostile to all religion).

Now on to some response:

First, I do not agree that “sex is joined as unitive and procreative” is synonomous with “condoms seperate the two becoming one as God intended.”

Neither do I - I meant it to be an alternate, not an equivalent, within the syllogism. I apologize for the confusion.

Second, even if this were the case, that would only imply the immorality of using condoms for all acts, and not just for some.

If I understand what you have written, it’s that using a condom some of the time isn’t bad, only *all *the time. Is that right? If so, you’re focusing on the totality of the circumstances (i.e., ends) and not on the individual act (i.e., means). We cannot accomplish licit ends by illicit mean (Veritatis Splendor).

…I do not accept it as obvious that old people have souls.

Then you are not using your reason. This, however, is neither what you claimed nor what I said was scientifically verifiable. You (and I) said that they are humans. That’s pretty obvious, scientifically speaking.

Furthermore, even if I did, I would not see that a single-celled embrio would obviously have a soul…These have been declared by the Church.

The Church has never formally taught that an embryo has a soul. The Church has never formally taught that a fully developed fetus (in utero) has a soul. That’s simply the facts. If you can prove me wrong on this, I would be highly interested.

The Church has, however, formally taught that contraception is a sin. It seems curious to me that you would accept as dogmatic something the Church has never taught, but would reject categorically something which the Church formally teaches.

I think faith is required. Our knowledge (via science) is uncertain. And by the nature of science, will be for the totality of our lives.

There is no way to empirically verify the existence of the soul, as it is immaterial; by definition, it cannot be verified. It is my belief that the soul can be logically verified, but this does not constitute scientific proof.

Regardless, our membership in the species homo sapiens is scientifically verifiable, and any embryology textbook will tell you that embryos are the most immature members of our species (as are old people). That’s simple science, and it’s certain.

And again, thank you for yoru politeness…

I do hope that you understand that I mean well, even if my words might sometimes appear curt. Online, it’s difficult to figure out when someone is being nasty or asking an honest question – tone and inflection are important. Please know that I will not intentionally try to shame you or be belligerent – I have profound respect for your intellect and reasonability; if only more people would approach the topic rationally, it would be much easier.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[noma]

I will be away from a computer for six days, and so will not be able to be reached.

After six day’s time, I will either send personal messages to those who asked me questions or, if the post is still available and can clearly be viewed, I will take all the good questions (in my judgement, of course) and try to produce answers to them.

I am highly impressed with the questions thus far.

With love in Christ,

Noma the still-confused, but less so.

 

[Julianna]

If I were that person, I would also want to do some research on exactly what is happening with this regulation of periods, since I was under the impression that the birth control pill actually suppresses ovulation, meaning that, strictly speaking, there shouldn’t even be any monthly bleeding.

There is monthly bleeding on bc pills…best of my recollection there are 5-7 different color pills in the pack that are taken during menstruation. If the bc pill is taken correctly you can look at the pack and know when it is coming. Actually the egg that is released “assumes” there is a pregnancy already and keeps going out of the body and/or dissolves. The purpose of the pill is to make the body “think” there is a pregnacy. Women on the pill tend to gain weight, especially in the hip area. It also plays with your mind, if you are susceptable. Since your body thinks it’s pregnant, you sometimes get the hormonal rush, that goes with it, and your emotions may go up and down. For me, this is why I couldn’t take it when I was in my 20’s. I turned into Ms. Hyde…and so I knew it was not for me. I also found out later that my mom’s sister had the same thing happen to her…so it confirmed it for me. Other female family members had no problems with it.

There is a bc pill out nowadays where you don’t get a period at all. But then again, there are risks for women over 30 who smoke to get breast cancer…doesn’t seem like a better deal.
There is also the shot, since I am no longer having children, I don’t know much about it.

But yes, you do have a period on bc pills. Slight for some, but it’s there.

 

[rayne89]

There is another way to look at ABC. Welcome to the life of the American Catholic women. It’s the economy…that drives the conscience. If a woman is working all day and has to come home to 10 kids…geez louise…how is that good for the kids? Unless her husband is Bill Gates or a recent lottery winner…not to mention excellent insurance coverage…again…raising 10 kids is way more difficult nowadays. Not impossible, but difficult. Mini vans are getting “smaller”…you can’t put 6 car seats in a mini van…and gas is going up again. Is Catholic school tuition going down?..not hardly…religious are hard to find to teach anymore, and lay teachers want more money, not to mention retirement and benefits. Again, it’s the economy.

An…ooops by the way is the “unexpected” pregnancy. Both of my children were “planned” right to the day…when we could afford it, and when my DH health coverage kicked in and I finally had a full time job. I didn’t think the American tax payers should foot the hospital bill because my DH and wanted children. Maybe it’s my logical approach…

The economy drives the conscience? Money is what drives the conscience of American Catholic women?

31. So do not worry and say, What are we to eat?' or What are we to drink?’ or `What are we to wear?’
32. All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.
33. But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.
34. Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.

Maybe the American cafeteria Catholic woman. Artificial birth control is declared an evil by the Church, all the rationalizations in the world are not going to change that fact.

15. And he said to them, "You justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts; for what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.

10. For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains.

I was an “oops”. Both my husband and my bestfriend were oops’ and they are 2 of the most important people in my life. A dear of mine has 8 beautiful children -not planned. She doesn’t even use NFP. They struggle financially and it is stressful at times but which one of these beautiful human beings should she have planned not to have? Her children are the most selfless, compassionate children I know. They are not spoiled with materialism. I love visiting their home. There is such a warmth and family centered atmosphere.

Because of my health issues I could not have a large family, my heart can not sustain another pregnancy. I was very blessed to have our daughter. I could have taken the easy way and done something permanent to keep me from getting pregnant. But I don’t lay my trust in the things of this world I lay my trust in God. NFP has been a blessing in our marriage even though it’s not always easy. We do have sacrifice our needs at times. But isn’t that long of a time and it only draws us closer and helps us appreciate each other more.

Taking the easy way is logical? -Maybe in secular society but not in the sight of God.

18. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
*19. For it is written: *
*“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, *
*and the learning of the learned I will set aside.” *
20. Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?

 

[Saint_Michael]

To all:

After serious consideration into the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I find that the only consistent position to accept is that the Church would support artificial contraception for the purposes of regulating pregnancies, even though certain papal documents, etc., declare other matters of discipline.

But to the final point: I do not, nor can I reasonably accept that artificial contraception for the sake of regulating marriages is intrinsically sinful.

I consider myself a Roman Catholic. Should I?

Am I really Catholic anymore?

Soma the confused

I think only about 2% of married couples actually use NFP, and of those who knows which ones use it with a contraceptive mindset. So in essence you’re not alone, and if you’re not Catholic because of it, the Catholic world is A LOT smaller than most think.

 

[HailMary]

To all:

After serious consideration into the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I find that the only consistent position to accept is that the Church would support artificial contraception for the purposes of regulating pregnancies, even though certain papal documents, etc., declare other matters of discipline.

But to the final point: I do not, nor can I reasonably accept that artificial contraception for the sake of regulating marriages is intrinsically sinful.

I consider myself a Roman Catholic. Should I?

Am I really Catholic anymore?

Soma the confused

as we say in the Nicene Creed:

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life

Guess what happens if you are not open to life?

The Giver of Life departs and the life of grace leaves; only darkness remains.

 

[fullofzeal]

Texas, I’m not sure about the question you ask. So without running back to my Maritain notes, it seems to me to reduce to this…That God only has one arena, so to speak, to perform his greatest act, an act more glorious, as I think Augustine? said, than the creation of the universe itself. God has one time related to the act, in the moment, to create a new soul that will last eternally. Whether or no ensoulment happens in moments or days does not diminish the viability of the potential. We seem to want to separate the physical act from the pro-creative act…one is selfish, the other selfless. GK Chesterton said something like “you can question everything that comes down the pike, but in the end the one thing that will still be standing is the Catholic Church”… I stopped questioning these things (“this is a hard saying, who can believe it?”) long ago and found complete freedom inside of obedience. The church is our moral guide and it’s full of heretics (always welcome back, of course), those who remain obstinate because it makes them uncomfortable. I think Noma has looked at the thing 997 times, maybe only 3 more to go before the full light shines on and in. God bless her and you Texas and everyone.
Recommended reading; Love and Responsibility by JPII- Theology of the Body by Same, and or Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West. And of course the CCC!!

peace

 

[tequilamac]

I believe I stated that the OP had courage to “face the slamming” he/she was in for…by the statement he/she made. Well look at 50 - 60 yrs ago. My dad was one of 7, my f-i-l was one of 10, my m=i=l was one of 6…my husband was 1 of 9…not too many of those around now days are there? Plain observation. No, those folks are not going to shout it to roof tops…they would be crazy if they did. But dollars to donuts, I doubt seriously if they ar taking their temperature and waiting for the right moment. Women do go to tupperware parties, candle parties, and they “do” talk.

There is another way to look at ABC. Welcome to the life of the American Catholic women. It’s the economy…that drives the conscience. If a woman is working all day and has to come home to 10 kids…geez louise…how is that good for the kids? Unless her husband is Bill Gates or a recent lottery winner…not to mention excellent insurance coverage…again…raising 10 kids is way more difficult nowadays. Not impossible, but difficult. Mini vans are getting “smaller”…you can’t put 6 car seats in a mini van…and gas is going up again. Is Catholic school tuition going down?..not hardly…religious are hard to find to teach anymore, and lay teachers want more money, not to mention retirement and benefits. Again, it’s the economy.

An…ooops by the way is the “unexpected” pregnancy. Both of my children were “planned” right to the day…when we could afford it, and when my DH health coverage kicked in and I finally had a full time job. I didn’t think the American tax payers should foot the hospital bill because my DH and wanted children. Maybe it’s my logical approach…

If I were the OP, I’d get out of RCIA…simply because I would find it difficult to teach something that I didn’t have total accord with. I used to teach…long time ago, but because it was CCD and children…we never discussed ABC.

Interesting.

I did not give money much of a thought at all until after the kids were born.

We had six total including one still born and a step child to raise. He was four when he came to live with us and I had not yet had a child.

And I have never been to a tupperware party. I buy rubbermaid at Walmart. Takes less time.

I have never been to a candle party. I am allergic.

And I would not have a job when my children were small. I stayed home.

And my husband? Was not Bill Gates nor did he win the lottery. He worked in a lumber mill and made extra money driving a taxi.

We had no medical insurance at all. We paid cash.

When two of my children were diagnosed with birth defects, they were enrolled in programs for that in public school.

Yes tax payers helped foot the bill for the two in special ed but were we not also tax payers?

My other two went all the way through to high school in a carmelite Catholic school. They are now in public high school not because of money, but because the nearest Catholic high school is 80 miles away.

My step son has now successfully completed college and makes oodles of money.

We did not need a mini van. When we went to mass we took two cars or else we went to different masses.

I am a Catholic woman.

I’m afraid I disagree with your assessment of the economy driving the conscience Catholic woman. Really.

 

[fullofzeal]

Also, the stats are in on the social scientific studies of birth control from the 60’s to present, you can easily find these online. Many of the studies were done by non-catholics and they ALL agree that Humanae Vitae was right . Contraception was thought to be the cure-all for unwanted pregnancies, longer lasting marriages, and today evil groups like PP still say that ABC cuts down on abortions… Wrong, all of them. Period. What God has ordered naturally for the good of mankind cannot be abbrogated without actually turning things upside down. The sky is falling!!

peace

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I believe I stated that the OP had courage to “face the slamming” he/she was in for…by the statement he/she made. Well look at 50 - 60 yrs ago. My dad was one of 7, my f-i-l was one of 10, my m=i=l was one of 6…my husband was 1 of 9…not too many of those around now days are there? Plain observation. No, those folks are not going to shout it to roof tops…they would be crazy if they did. But dollars to donuts, I doubt seriously if they ar taking their temperature and waiting for the right moment. Women do go to tupperware parties, candle parties, and they “do” talk.

There is another way to look at ABC. Welcome to the life of the American Catholic women. It’s the economy…that drives the conscience. If a woman is working all day and has to come home to 10 kids…geez louise…how is that good for the kids? Unless her husband is Bill Gates or a recent lottery winner…not to mention excellent insurance coverage…again…raising 10 kids is way more difficult nowadays. Not impossible, but difficult. Mini vans are getting “smaller”…you can’t put 6 car seats in a mini van…and gas is going up again. Is Catholic school tuition going down?..not hardly…religious are hard to find to teach anymore, and lay teachers want more money, not to mention retirement and benefits. Again, it’s the economy.

An…ooops by the way is the “unexpected” pregnancy. Both of my children were “planned” right to the day…when we could afford it, and when my DH health coverage kicked in and I finally had a full time job. I didn’t think the American tax payers should foot the hospital bill because my DH and wanted children. Maybe it’s my logical approach…

If I were the OP, I’d get out of RCIA…simply because I would find it difficult to teach something that I didn’t have total accord with. I used to teach…long time ago, but because it was CCD and children…we never discussed ABC.

Part #1

“In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.”
Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 10

My problem is the “made for grave motives”

Part #2
If men teach about woman and visa versa same for medical care why would the OP not be able to teach as the church states? After all men do not practice woman’s health care, or social issues.

 

[jmcrae]

Part #1

"In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth."
Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 10

My problem is the “made for grave motives”

This is with respect to the use of NFP/abstinence. In no way is he condoning the use of artificial birth control, here.

Part #2
If men teach about woman and visa versa same for medical care why would the OP not be able to teach as the church states? After all men do not practice woman’s health care, or social issues.

Could you rephrase this, please? I’m not sure I understand what this means.

 

[LSK]

Hi, Noma, and welcome to the forums

When I first returned to the Church I had many problems with things like the idea of artificial birth control being intrinsinctly (sp?) evil and making abortion illegal because as a Catholic I believe it is murder. After all, I am a good American right? I don’t want to push my religious beliefs on people, heavens no! So I started asking questions, looking for guidance and deepening my prayer life.

Part of the journey for me involved the idea of virtues. What is virtue and how does it apply to me? I looked particularly at the virtue of obedience. How does this fit into my spiritual life - and exactly how does it affect my ‘political positions’ in terms of my thoughts on legalized abortion, artificial birth control, etc.

I also had to ask myself why - why would the Church teach these things? Why did the Church have the guts and courage, in the face of incredible societal pressures and outright attacks to hold to these teachings?

The final question for me came down to this - where else am I going to find The Eucharist? No where. Where else am I going to be able to partake of the Body of Christ - no where. Am I willing to seperate myself from being able to receive Our Lord, Body Blood Soul and Divinity, over a political position?

The reality is I decided to practice the virtue of obedience and my soul became quieted. I asked why and I was given guidance to the writings of the Holy Father that predicted, almost verbatim, what would happen to society if it indulged itself in sex only for pleasure - how society would degrade women, abotion would be used as a form of birth control, that there would be a devaluation of human life at ALL stages of development and how we would become so incredibly selfish and self-centered that eventually we would gradually accept as a political movements any behavior people wanted to participate in. Want a shocking example? Did you ever think, 40 years ago, that the idea that having sex with children would be marketed by pedophiles as merely a lifestyle choice?

Finally, I would ask you - do you want to continue to receive Holy Communion? Do you want to be able to partake in that incredible gift of Love given to us by God? Why would any of us EVER want to do ANYTHING that would keep us from HIM?

With all this in mind, take some time to sit before the Blessed Sacrament and ask Him for guidance. Ask specifically for Him to take your own wants, needs and ego out of the equation. I did and it was painful - but it is worth it. What I know today is that if every man and woman on this earth were to follow the teachings of the Church to the letter regarding the Family and how to properly bring one into existence there would be no hunger, war or hatred…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hi Guys

I have some questions concerning the base of the issue in the Humanae Vitae the Pope addresses these issues and I and others probably have read the document, however we clearly do not understand the concept of this document not being in and of itself contradictory. Amazingly enough the Pope prior to release of this document actually of his own felt a need to address this concept- *" To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine founder, a “sign of contradiction,”" *- Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 18
Trying to be very specific if we look at a single portion first :

1. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the council recalled, “noble and worthy,” and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by its constant doctrine teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life. - Pope Paul VI “Humanae Vitae” Section 11

We see the "for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund" which seems to say the marriage embrace which does not generate life is acceptable provided the people did not "will" the lack of such creation. This statement seems to me a contradiction to NFP even though NFP methods are upheld in other sections of the same document. Let me repeat from other threads a moral standard is a moral standard all the time and in both directions. When this is applied to the teachings on this subject(not just excerpt), it appears to indicate sex which is: 1) any sex absent of love, 2)any sex absent of unity 3) any sex willed to prevent procreation 4) any sex outside of marriage - is always sin*. And the flip is any condition which imposes a single of these issues, as is the majority of NFP objectives. *Sin which appears both defined via the teaching in this matter is also (?) untought (?) in the same teaching by specifically allowing the biological rhythm to be used as a means of achieving the presences or absence of an available egg. Can any help with this ?

It is important to operate on the premise I nor others are disagreeing with the church, we are saying the directive as written does not make sense. We clearly understand the rules from the Pope/Magistrium. Similarly we are appreciative of the writing of explanation, even though we do not understand these writings.

 

[mikew262]

To all:

After serious consideration into the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, I find that the only consistent position to accept is that the Church would support artificial contraception for the purposes of regulating pregnancies, even though certain papal documents, etc., declare other matters of discipline.

But to the final point: I do not, nor can I reasonably accept that artificial contraception for the sake of regulating marriages is intrinsically sinful.

I consider myself a Roman Catholic. Should I?

Am I really Catholic anymore?

Soma the confused

While probably not a welcome opinion on this forum, you are not alone overall. I saw a poll several days ago that indicated the vast majority of US Catholics have or do presently use some form of birth control.

IMO, you are a Catholic that disagrees with the Church’s views on Birth Control, nothing more, nothing less.

Don’t let anybody tell you are not a Catholic anymore. Those folks are simply making a judgement which they are not qualified to make.

 

[jmcrae]

Texas;

The Catholic Church doesn’t “recommend” that people use NFP.

NFP is tolerated because it contains no element of sin, but it’s not supposed to be normal behaviour.

 

[LittleDeb]

We see the "for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund" which seems to say the marriage embrace which does not generate life is acceptable provided the people did not "will" the lack of such creation. This statement seems to me a contradiction to NFP even though NFP methods are upheld in other sections of the same document. Let me repeat from other threads a moral standard is a moral standard all the time and in both directions. When this is applied to the teachings on this subject(not just excerpt), it appears to indicate sex which is: 1) any sex absent of love, 2)any sex absent of unity 3) any sex willed to prevent procreation 4) any sex outside of marriage - is always sin*. And the flip is any condition which imposes a single of these issues, as is the majority of NFP objectives. *Sin which appears both defined via the teaching in this matter is also (?) untought (?) in the same teaching by specifically allowing the biological rhythm to be used as a means of achieving the presences or absence of an available egg. Can any help with this ?

It is important to operate on the premise I nor others are disagreeing with the church, we are saying the directive as written does not make sense. We clearly understand the rules from the Pope/Magistrium. Similarly we are appreciative of the writing of explanation, even though we do not understand these writings.

As this topic can become complex quite quickly, I am going to try to limit my response just to the term bolded, ‘will.’

The practice of NFP is partially about the will, (AKA intent, but I don’t want to get into THAT debate here.) and also the means. A couple practicing NFP in accordance with Catholic teaching is always about procreative and unitive acts each and every time. There is a huge difference between an act that says, ‘I don’t think this act will result in a life created’ and an act that says, ‘a life better NOT be created in this act.’ The document is really emphasizing that children are a blessing each and every time they are conceived. Even a couple who does not chart is aware that each act may not result in conception.

The real difference is the act MIGHT result in conception AND that the conception is a GOOD thing no matter what the circumstances. Conception is ALWAYS good, so willing a conception not to happen is where many fall into error. Understanding that in all probability a conception won’t happen is very different than praying and hoping a conception doesn’t happen. It is the willing that conception doesn’t happen that is known as a “contraceptive mindset.”

I hope that helps.

 

[fix]

We see the "for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund" which seems to say the marriage embrace which does not generate life is acceptable provided the people did not "will" the lack of such creation. This statement seems to me a contradiction to NFP even though NFP methods are upheld in other sections of the same document.

Again, how is NFP willing sterility? Every second a couple is not engaging in sex is willing sterility? NFP is not engaging in the act at certain times. That is not willing the act infertile as no act is taking place.

 

[DaughterSorrow]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I want to thank all of your for your devotion to the truth of the Church’s teaching. I like another poster would suffer catastrophic consequences (most likely death) if I get pregnant. And for that reason up to now, my husband and I have been contracepting. Due to reading these forums and The Theology of the Body, I am now a member of the Couple to Couple league and am charting my cycles using NFP (Sympto-thermal method). I am very happy about this!!

HOWEVER…

My husband still worries about my condition and is fearful for me. Therefore, our relations still have a contraceptive component that HE insists on. (I don’t use anything - he does) What to do? My choice is to either refuse to have sex with my husband or do so anyway and pray for his heart to accept the full teachings of the Church and trust with his whole heart in the Lord. Am I still in a state of sin? I feel like I am doing everything in my power to follow the Church.

Pray for us,
DS

 

[mercygate]

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I want to thank all of your for your devotion to the truth of the Church’s teaching. I like another poster would suffer catastrophic consequences (most likely death) if I get pregnant. And for that reason up to now, my husband and I have been contracepting. Due to reading these forums and The Theology of the Body, I am now a member of the Couple to Couple league and am charting my cycles using NFP (Sympto-thermal method). I am very happy about this!!

HOWEVER…

My husband still worries about my condition and is fearful for me. Therefore, our relations still have a contraceptive component that HE insists on. (I don’t use anything - he does) What to do? My choice is to either refuse to have sex with my husband or do so anyway and pray for his heart to accept the full teachings of the Church and trust with his whole heart in the Lord. Am I still in a state of sin? I feel like I am doing everything in my power to follow the Church.

Pray for us,
DS

His problem is his problem; not yours. God love you! I hope this works out well for you both. Remember, in the “good old days” the Catholic answer would have been total abstinence. NFP is a mitigation.