J
jmcrae
Guest
Right, because it removes the unifying effect of the sex act. (You are actually having sex with the condom; not the woman - and she is having sex with the other side of it; not with you.)
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
You aren’t “making” it unfruitful, though - it just so happens that it is, by nature, at those times of the month.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually it is not.
What is one doing to render the martial act unfruitful???
Nothing.
One is not even engaging in the martial act!!!
So how can one be doing something to* render* it intentionally unfruitful??
When one is not even engaging in the marital act?
One is doing nothing to render the act intentionally unfruitful one is simply not engaging in the said act.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI summarizes things:
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.
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.
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.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
- What is the meaning of the conjugal act?
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.
- When is it moral to regulate births?
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.
- What are immoral means of birth control?
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.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
The Holy Spirit is The Lord and Giver of Life. Artificial contraception is an affront against the Giver of Life Himself, whose first commandment to man is to be fruitful and multiply and bring eternal beings into existence—human souls—made in the Image and Likeness of God.
To convince your wife listen to this life-changing talk given by Dr. Janet. E. Smith:
PART 1
PART 2
Those who trust in God and entrust their family and children to God receive the graces necessary to fulfill His will and the blessing of divine providence one day at a time.
NFP means abstaining from sexual intercourse during ovulation for serious reasons, which is a great sacrifice for husband and wife. On the other hand, artificial contraception attempts to combat or destroy conception while engaging in sexual intercourse.
To convince your wife listen to this life-changing talk given by Dr. Janet. E. Smith:
PART 1
PART 2
Those who trust in God and entrust their family and children to God receive the graces necessary to fulfill His will and the blessing of divine providence one day at a time.
NFP means abstaining from sexual intercourse during ovulation for serious reasons, which is a great sacrifice for husband and wife. On the other hand, artificial contraception attempts to combat or destroy conception while engaging in sexual intercourse.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Because “unfruitful” in this context means the potential for producing life…and having sex KNOWING that you are doing it at a time when life will not be produced is sex without attempting procreation…thus, unfruitful.
J
jinc1019
Guest
Look at this line…“Every action…is intrinsically immoral whch…proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.” Using scientific data to determine when you can have sex to AVOID a child is an action…which proposes an end a way to HINDER PROCREATION…just as the statement says. This effectively makes NFP “intrinsicly evil” according to that passage.
J
jinc1019
Guest
My wife has read works by Janet Smith…and while she makes excellent reasons for not having cotraception outside of marriage, her reasons within a marriage seem to contradict NFP, just as all the arguments being made here about NFP do, obviously in my opinion.
J
jinc1019
Guest
But I do appreciate the links…I will try to listen to them when I can!
J
jinc1019
Guest
I suppose what is most frustrating and saddening really is that I feel like I won’t have the opportunity to engage Christ with the Holy Eucharist so long as I continue to choose to have sex within my marriage without producing a child…UNLESS I only have sex based on when my wife is not fertile under NFP, a system I believe to contradict what the Church is teaching about contraception…It’s very frustrating. I do appreciate everyone’s advice and guidance though. As always, I will pray on the matter and the issues presented here.
C
Castello
Guest
This blogger gives reference to the Papal document that gives the official answer of the Church.
cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/02/you-can-only-use-nfp-for-grave.html
J
jinc1019
Guest
I am very grateful for the link…it is a good outline of the specifics of the Church.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Actually no it is not. I see though where you are confused.
NFP does NOTHING to hinder procreation in the marital act. One is not engaging in the marital act…so nothing is being done to hinder procreation in that marital act.
I think that book will be of help to you.
B
Bookcat
Guest
With NFP…what is one doing to* render* (make) the martial act unfruitful???
Nothing.
One is not even engaging in the martial act!!!
So how can one be doing something to render it intentionally unfruitful??
When one is not even engaging in the marital act?
One is doing nothing to render the act intentionally unfruitful one is simply not engaging in the said act.
Nothing.
One is not even engaging in the martial act!!!
So how can one be doing something to render it intentionally unfruitful??
When one is not even engaging in the marital act?
One is doing nothing to render the act intentionally unfruitful one is simply not engaging in the said act.
G
Gabriel_Serafin
Guest
Remember, one of the reason we receive Christ Holy Communion is to receive sanctifying grace which enables us to live the way God wants us to live. Making Jesus Christ the Lord of our lifemeans to trust and depend on Him completely in every aspect of our life. Trapping life-giving semen and flushing it down the toilet is not God’s will, nor is the use of chemicals which can act as an abortifacient (The Pill) to kill the conception.
I don’t see a contradiction whatsoever. People use artificial contraception to make war on the life-giving aspects of the conjugal act while indulging in the gift of sexuality and saying NO to God. It is also a lack of trust in God’s Divine Providence. But with NFP a couple sacrifices by not having relations—(and this only in extraordinary circumstances when there is a legitimate and serious reason to abstain.) This should make it clear what a great offense it is to God–but the devastating effects artificial contraception has had on society and culture as a whole since the 1960s is undeniable. Listen to the talks by Janet Smith that are linked in the prior post.
Artificial contraception deceives couples in* making war* against the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of LIFE itself. Making the sacred vow of Holy Matrimony—a sacrament— means being open to life, not a mere license to have sexual relations. The purpose of our existence is to serve God as pilgrims on a journey to His eternal kingdom…
O
onmyknees
Guest
Very Good post!!! I give out cds of Dr. Janet Smith’s “Contraception Why Not?”
I would add that using NFP is neutral because they use the Natural infertile period in the woman’s cycle that is God given.
A
Abu
Guest
False, as the Church specifically points to the value of NBR for serious, just, reasons.
Pope Pius XI’s Encyclical Casti Connubii, 1930, teaches infallibly (#56) that “any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Further, Casti Connubii, #59: “Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.”
In *Casti Connubii *(II, 59), Pope Pius XI teaches on timing, or infertile impediments within marriage, and shows the value of the secondary ends of marriage:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae, 1968 (14) proclaimed, “Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act or in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences, would have as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”
In treating the question of contraception within marriage, the Catechism quotes John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation *Familiaris Consortio *(On the Family):
“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…. The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle…involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (Cat 2370; FC 32)”
**Clear cut:
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church, and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network]
The Holy father has given you the answer:
“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that **it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.” **[Pope Paul VI, *Humanae Vitae, 16, 1968].
J
John21652
Guest
, 16, 1968].
Abu, as usual, you get to the core of the issue with your research.
Notice how the quoted Priest mentioned the purely uilitarian argument. The argument for artificial contraception is a purely utilitarian one. Because of that it is anathema to the Catholic doctrine, which is a Natural Law arguement. Some people become confused because the utilitarian argument, which is concerned with consequences only, can sometimes apear to be like the Natural Law arguemnt, because to a certain extent, Natural Law moral ethics also takes notice of xonsequences. However, Natural Law moral reasoning takes into account much more han utilitarianism and it does so by examining the actions and the motives behind them. The Church, rightly, uses the Natural Law arguemnt to show why the artificial contraceptive act is wrong. The wrongness lies within the act itself. The wrongness is intrinsic to the act. The Natural Law argument also demonstrates the consequences of the intrinsically wrong act.
Artificial contraception removes the openess to life that the Church, using its Natural Law moral argument, demonstrates as being essential to a theological and anthropologically successful marriage. Artificial contraception essentially commodifies sex and removes from it the procreational aspect which is an intrinsic aspect of its nature. To do that requires a change in the mindset of the people involved. The mindset naturally includes the very strong posibility of a resultant pregnancy. with that strong possibility removed, the miondset is one of embracing sex for its utility, devoid of responsibility. The responsibility for possible pregnancy in marriage is a shared one. When the possibility of pregnancy is removed, the shared responsibility is also removed and each individual is therefore not accepting of anything other than a selfish pleaure, often then seen as an entitlement. Thus sex becomes a hedonistic pleasure to be sought after and its utility is the resultant pleasure. In a marriage that is open to life, the utility is measured in the openness to life allowing for a sense of shared responsibility. That is what families are founded on. If its utility is measured by the giving of pleasure, with no responsibility, then one cannot condemn prositution, casual sex, or even homosex sex.
The Op and his wife are not open to life. They are not embracing a willingness to share responsibility. That comes through in his subsequent posts. Both he and his wife are placing careers and ‘serving others’ ahead of any willingness to accept responsibility for new life. All it means is that a child between them is down their list of priorities, below academic achievement and ‘helping others’. In the process, they have not been forward looking enough to say, well, if a child eventuates from our union, we can adjust and accomodate it. Instead, they are saying that if a child eventuates from their union, their studies and ‘helping others’ will be compromised. to avoid that compromisation, they have closed themselves to the posibility of life.
It would be consistent with their priorities and with their unwillingness to have those priorities compromised to have an abortion should a child accidentally eventuate. Of course, that will strike horror into the mind of the OP, but that is the slippery slope he and his wife are on. They put themselves there by telling themselves that a child is not a priority over academic and other social pursuits and they are closing off the possibility of new life in order that those priorities should be so.
If NFP is used continuously to avoid the possibilty of new life, then it too is a misuse of the natural functions of the human body and becomes just another convenient form of contraception. NFP is compromised as a tool for regulating the arrival of new life according to the prudent judgement of circumstances. NFP does not contain the intrinsic wrongness of artificial contraception, but its prolonged use results in a compromised attitude to being open to life and of a willingness to accept a shared responsibility. It relegates the role of sex in marriage to being one of pleasure only, with pleasure its measure of utility. That is a sin against the very nature of the sacrament of marriage.
J
jinc1019
Guest
This quote above proves my point. Under this theory, NFP is false…Why? Becuase it is an action which is completed knowing that procreation is not possible, just as the statement above says. It’s a contradiction. The fact that no one here can admit that it is is really disturbing to me because regardless of whether you believe he is right about contraception or not, NFP clearly violates a significant portion of the authoritative quotes everyone keeps citing regarding why contraception is intrinsicly evil, just as the quote above shows. How can you reconcile NFP with the quote above that you cited? Without trying to use fifty other quotes about NFP from the Church or Janet Smith or anyone else, just explain how that quote above can co-exist with NFP. Because NFP clealy advocates a sexual act where the participants believe will render procreation NOT possible. That’s the whole point of NFP.
What I think many of you are confusing, and where I think the Church is wrong, is regarding this idea that the Church should ban contraception with married couples because having sex without a procreative purpose is wrong…and can be a mortal sin…yet using NFP, which is having sex without trying to procreate, is ok? It’s a completely obvious contradiction. What the Church is really trying to do is convince people that you should have kids UNLESS there is some pressing reason not to. So the focus should be on whether the PRESSING REASON is valid or not…not whether condoms are evil and NFP is isn’t…All the Church is doing by trying to make that argument is contradicting itself.
- Status