R
Rau
Guest
Ok. And to avoid ambiguity, I should have said āprocreativeā, for that is the required attribute of the act that we control.Okay that makes sense
- Status
S
spunjalebi
Guest
What I have never understood is why this phrase āopen to lifeā keeps getting used when the Church herself, does not use it.
IMO, it opens up a case for people to pit the use of NFP against Church teaching, and then argue that NFP is not open to life at all.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Familiaris consortio
Dignitas personae
Italian:
With all due respect, have you ever read Church documents? These two, as well as a USCCB doc which is currently inaccessible, came up on a simple Google search. Come on now.
U
underacloud
Guest
The prhase is used in Church teachings, as Elizium23 has pointed out, and there are several more examples one could quote.
What is important is what is meant when the term āopen to lifeā is used, and what is not meant. From Humanae Vitae, it is very clear what is not meant and that NFP is perfectly acceptable when serious reasons to avoid pregnancy exist.
V
Vico
Guest
When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as āarbitersā of the divine plan and they āmanipulateā and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of ātotalā self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html
The Break-Up and Breakdown of Families
65. In various ways, the responses refer to many instances of the break-up and breakdown of families, the first and foremost being a coupleās divorce and separation which is sometimes caused by poverty. Other critical situations include many relationships which do not coincide with the idea of a traditional nuclear family, i.e., mother, father and children: single parenthood (a mother only or a teen mother), de facto unions and homosexual unions and parenting (specifically mentioned in Europe and North America). In some cultures, polygamy is insistently seen as one of the factors causing the breakdown of families, along with a mentality of parents which is not open to life.
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20140626_instrumentum-laboris-familia_en.html
Thanks to this powerful ecclesial experience, wonderful Christian families have come into being which are open to life, true ādomestic churchesā, and many vocations to the ministerial priesthood and the religious life have blossomed, as well as new forms of lay life inspired by the evangelical counsels.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/laity/documents/rc_pc_laity_doc_27051998_movements-speech-hf_en.html
R
Rau
Guest
You canāt look up in a dictionary an expression such as āopen to lifeā. When encountered in context, it is perfectly clear what is meant.
Not unlike the word āprocreativeā. Now this word might be found in a dictionary, yet even it needs to be read in context to get the right meaning. I have had posters, unaware of how the word is used in the relevant context, swear blind that sex during an infertile time cannot be procreative.
S
SusanneT
Guest
I am really no expert on the theology, but I think āOpen to Lifeā is a really good phrase in that the coupleās, mind-set and the physical act of intercourse is open to Godās gift of life. In my view that is the essence of the procreative side of the act.
NFP supporters argue that whether the wish of a couple is to avoid conception or not (for whatever reason - I donāt want to get into that argument) the act itself is āopen to lifeā. My personal problem with NFP was that for me, in practising it, I knew that my own mind-set was not welcoming of that gift. For that reason I would not wish to practise it again.
But that is my personal view, based on my conscience and between my husband and I. It is not something I would wish to impose on others, nor my understanding of Church teaching, which is (as far as I understand it) that it is permissible to use NFP (though never contraception) with the intent to avoid conception if the circumstances are such that the couple in their conscience consider that is neccesary.
A couple who are past their fertile time, or who are intimate at the infertile point of the wifeās cycle can still be completely āopen to lifeā and (in my view) therefore fulfilling the procreative purpose however unlikely it is that they will actually conceive.
NFP supporters argue that whether the wish of a couple is to avoid conception or not (for whatever reason - I donāt want to get into that argument) the act itself is āopen to lifeā. My personal problem with NFP was that for me, in practising it, I knew that my own mind-set was not welcoming of that gift. For that reason I would not wish to practise it again.
But that is my personal view, based on my conscience and between my husband and I. It is not something I would wish to impose on others, nor my understanding of Church teaching, which is (as far as I understand it) that it is permissible to use NFP (though never contraception) with the intent to avoid conception if the circumstances are such that the couple in their conscience consider that is neccesary.
A couple who are past their fertile time, or who are intimate at the infertile point of the wifeās cycle can still be completely āopen to lifeā and (in my view) therefore fulfilling the procreative purpose however unlikely it is that they will actually conceive.
R
Rau
Guest
In my view, this is objectively the fact. A positive disposition toward NFP is not a pre-requisite to hold this view.
We are not expected or required to be always hoping for another child. We may be neutral, or we may have good reasons to seek to defer pregnancy. While I can well imagine NFP may become a habit, practiced without proper reason, the state of ānot being open to lifeā is not meant to be synonymous with seeking to defer a pregnancy for a good reason.
Noting your comment about ānot wishing to practice it againāā¦does this mean you are open to an arbitrarily large family? If not, Iām not sure how to understand your statement.
S
SusanneT
Guest
I know that when we practised NFP I didnāt want to conceive, thatās why we did it, I was not neutral and I doubt may people are.
I completely respect anyone for their personal choice to practise NFP if as a couple they believe it is justified for them (although I donāt think newly weds should be encouraged to see it as routine) but I / we will not practise it again.
R
Rau
Guest
Of course, but to reiterate, that is not wrong.
indeed, it is not intended to be a routine, for that leads to avoidance for no reason, let alone the good reason we should have.
S
SusanneT
Guest
I often read of engaged couples being encouraged to practise NFP to āenjoy time togetherā etc.
R
Rau
Guest
I assume you mean post-marriage. I have also heard the view expressed that people should not marry till they are ready for children. I donāt think itās a black and white issue.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
This is my situation as well. We went from ABC to NFP and then to nothing. And NFP was most definitely the hardest on our marriage. And it was hard because it was employing subjective morality on people who did not have the exact same brain or agreement. I believed we did not have just reason to practice it. This caused guilt to pile up every time we employed it. Thankfully, should medical needs arise we know NFP well and even taught it for a time. But, barring any major issues I cannot see employing it again without just reason. We sinned when we used it much like we sinned with ABC.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, though to me deferring for a while is not in conflict with that obligation.
B
Burdock
Guest
I recently read about a woman who was told that it would be dangerous for her to have anymore children and that further pregnancies MUST be avoided. The only way to do that would be to use some form of artificial birth cintrol or abstain, surely for the church to say that the woman should abstain is very harsh. I think there is a place for artificial birth control. I had to have a mirena coil fitted as I was bleeding very heavily and was anaemic.
B
Burdock
Guest
I recently read about a woman who was told that it would be dangerous for her to have anymore children and that further pregnancies MUST be avoided. The only way to do that would be to use some form of artificial birth cintrol or abstain, surely for the church to say that the woman should abstain is very harsh. I think there is a place for artificial birth control. I had to have a mirena coil fitted as I was bleeding very heavily and was anaemic.
R
Rau
Guest
As a minimum, abstaining for a significant portion of the month may be necessary. Yes, this may be a very difficult issue for the couple. But Catholic teaching holds that contraception is always wrong, regardless of the reason.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Jesus was harsh sometimes too sister.
- Status