Marriage and being "open to life"

[SMHW]

The Church teaches that God will provide for us, but one of the ways he does this is by putting at our disposal a number of licit ways in which couples can practice responsible parenthood. These include vaccinations, by which parents are able to protect their young children against disease, as well as NFP, by which parents are able to demonstrate love and generosity through self-sacrifice in order to handle any number of financial, emotional, spiritual, or physical difficulties.

This is part of what I was saying in my previous post.

Most of us, most of the time, are not expected to radically trust God to provide our needs. Sure, there are times that trusting God is all we can do. But most of the time we have to do things like go to school to learn a trade; earn/save money to obtain housing, clothing, medicine, and transportation; and use the wisdom passed on from our families to choose a mate. (The first century Christians who thought they could sell everything and trust in God to care for them while waiting for Christ’s second coming eventually found out that they actually had to trust God by doing things for themselves.)

It’s the same with marriage and family life. Trusting God doesn’t mean we stop using our brains because God will handle things. We trust God by believing he gave us brains and sources of knowledge and wisdom with which to use them.

The Church does provide us with guidelines and wisdom for NFP and with other matters concerning family life. But She doesn’t provide guidelines that micro-manage NFP because NFP needs to be versitile enought to handle both the long term and the short term. A couple can use it to space whatever the just number of children for that couple or a couple can choose to use NFP to “move up” or “push back” a child for a month or two for reasons that could be very serious or less so.

Something I never see discussed much is that the length of time a couple deliberately delays having a child is reasonably proportionate to the importance of the reason for delaying. If a couple abstains for two or three mohths so a wife won’t have morning sickness on a family vacation, then guess what? That is a seriously thought out reason. But if a couple delays for years in order to buy a luxury vacation home, then that is selfish.

In fact, one of the ways that we do have to radically trust God and His Church is in believing we will be given the wisdom and grace we need *at the time we need it, *since the best made plans will often need to change.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Let me take a step back and see if anyone can answer this question, which is really the crux of where my current opinion lies: How does one marry the idea of using NFP with trust in God and His lordship of our lives?

Using NFP properly implies that one is conversing not only w/ their spouse, but also with God as to what is best at that time. Now, I’m not saying that God speaks to John & Jane to tell them, “You’re right, having a baby now would be problematic for you, go ahead and abstain.” No, the couple prayerfully interprets their lives, their financial outlook (yes, its important to have enough money to adequately raise your children, plus the cost of the pregnancy, any complication, delivery, etc), their mental/physical capabilities, etc as well as their moral responsibilities.

Because what has been said to be Church teaching is that each couple can define what is serious for them, which is relativism, which is diametrically opposed to Christianity, that’s my problem with it and where I find it to be an example of playing God.

God gave us fertility cycles - NFP does nothing to change those. In a way, any time we have relations we’re playing God b/c we know we could create a new life. That’s pretty God-like to me. However, if I know that my body or mind won’t allow me to be pregnant in the current circumstances and I pray for guidance from God and speak to my husband about it, shouldn’t I be allowed to say I don’t want to play God & create a new life?

How can we allow everyone to define what is serious to themselves if we don’t have guidelines set down?

The guidelines are laid out in our hearts. The CCC is a guide, but its not the only means available for discerning what is right for an individual couple. The CCC calls us to form our conscience according to its precepts, but allows ‘wiggle’ room on some issues - NFP is one of these issues. The key is prayerful discernment, not blind use, of when to use NFP.

How do we validate the use of NFP to contracept, ie avoid conception, which is what it is being used for 99% of the time?

I don’t know that your 99% of the time is correct (I’m sure its probably an exaggeration on your part from your perception). I think people w/ a true contraceptive mentality weed themselves out of NFP fairly early, so I don’t worry about validating NFP for those people. What I mean is that if you truly have a contraceptive mentality you’re probably not going to want to take part in the self-sacrifice, communication, and discipline to avoid children in the long run. There are going to be times when God nudges you to be a little lax & you’ll abandon your avoidance. Or else, if you’re truly wanting to ‘control’ your fertility, you’ll switch to one of the ‘sure-fire’ methods of contraception (even though success rates aren’t nearly as good as publicized). That’s just my perception.

However, from my own experience, my husband (a non-Christian/Catholic who’d much rather use contraception) and I have theoretically used NFP to ‘avoid’ pregnancy in the 2.5 years of our marriage. However, we’ve been pregnant 6 times b/c our reasons weren’t really serious enough for us to be strict about our timing.

I started charting prior to our marriage & knew (know) when I was going to be fertile (our honeymoon). We discussed it and decided to throw caution into the wind - I prayed about it as well. We didn’t really plan on getting pregnant, but we knew it was a possibility. When we got pregnant, we were accepting. I miscarried & was afraid to get pregnant again. We discussed it (I prayed), decided to avoid, got lazy/carried away and got pregnant again. We accepted it. I miscarried again & was even more afraid to get pregnant. I prayed, spoke to husband; we decided to avoid. I got pregnant again this time it worked. After our son was born we again decided that we should wait a year or 2 before getting pregnant again. Well, same story as before, we got lazy, got pregnant, accepted, miscarried… repeat twice. Now I’m pregnant again & its working out. So how do you qualify our use of NFP? Are we avoiding? Kind of, but not w/ any real rigidity or skill! Are we intending to conceive, not really, but we’re open to it. I think a lot of NFP couples are this way, but just not as fertile as I am!

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Too many posts for me to link and reply to, but I thought I would point out two things we need to remember when discussing NFP and being open to life:

1. NFP is a method of reading one’s fertility signs, nothing more and nothing less. It just gives you information. You can use this information to decide to abstain from sex. Abstaining from sex is not, in and of itself, a bad thing.
2. Biology is not a mystery anymore! If you want to run totally by the idea that ‘God will take care of everything, so I don’t need to worry about it, He’ll just give me what I can handle and no more’, we have to be careful. I think everyone would agree that crossing the road without looking is a bad idea. But would it be legitimate to say that ‘I don’t have to look, if I’m meant to die, then I’ll get hit, if I’m not, then I won’t, it’s up to God!’? I don’t think so. Obviously, God gave us eyes to look with and see if there are cars coming, and we should use them! So why should we ignore the information that our own bodies are giving us? Do we ignore nausea, and say “Well, God will cure it if He wants, I’ll eat this chocolate cake anyway!”? of course not! So I don’t see how fertility signals are suddenly to be ignored, when other body signals aren’t.

TLDR version:
1)Abstaining from sex is not bad, so saying that using NFP to avoid(aka abstaining for a period of time) is wrong is saying that any reason to abstain is wrong. (mindsets behind the abstaining can be argued, but there is nothing wrong with it in and of itself)(kay, that wasn’t shorter… but whatever >.>)
2)Fertility signals are the same as other body signals, why ignore them and not others?

 

[iluvmybabies]

Let me tell you that I am one of those living with such upbringings… My mother after each child I had was born would tell me “get your tubes tied! Why do you want more kids, what is your problem are you crazy you can’t even afford to feed yourself let alone any more mouths! We are not helping you with your children! You better send your husband to get 2 jobs to help you!” ETC ETC Etc…If I wasn’t on the bc pill, I was with the IUD, and now Ia m paying for my ignorance and for listening to my mother. “Always wear protection so you dont get pg!” May GOD have mercy on me. NOW I can’t get pg…Well only if GOD allows me to some time in the future after getting married, who knows maybe then GOD might let us have a bigger family?!

BUT let me tell you I regret not having more children, I do…I love my kids, yes life is stressful and even more with kids but I don’t regret every waking moment hearing their voices and seeing their silly ways! It’s great! I enjoy spending time with them and having them in my life. I couldn’t live without them…

If I would have been taught differently and more close to GOD than what I was maybe I would have known that all these contraceptions are wrong and not acceptable and never would have agreed to any of this and have gotten to know NFP better.

A lot of those young marriages just don’t know that contraception is wrong…I am not sure if there is a wrong reason to abstain with NFP, for having children when newly weds or young couples whom don’t want any children, but I know that life would have been a lot better knowing all of this…

 

[FrenchGwen]

1. Biology is not a mystery anymore! If you want to run totally by the idea that ‘God will take care of everything, so I don’t need to worry about it, He’ll just give me what I can handle and no more’, we have to be careful. I think everyone would agree that crossing the road without looking is a bad idea. But would it be legitimate to say that ‘I don’t have to look, if I’m meant to die, then I’ll get hit, if I’m not, then I won’t, it’s up to God!’?

There is a joke that is great in reminding us what “trusting” God and using our brains means
I can’t help telling it
A very pious man gets lost in the desert and trapped in quicksands. While striving to get out, he cries to God “God, please, My Lord, help me”
and there comes a firetruck, the firemen get ready to help him out of the quicksands, yet the very pious man tells them:" no, no, please don’t bother, God is going to help me, I know that". So the firemen go away, and the very pious man stays there and keeps praying.
Another firetruck happens to come by (yeah, very busy desert ), again they propose to help, again our very pious man declines and answers he’s waiting for God’s help.
He still praying and sinking when a third trick arrives, same story.
He then remains alone, and dies. Once arrived in Paradise, he gets angry at God and asks : “I trusted you to help me, why would’nt you do that”. God answers : “I sent you three firetrucks, wasn’t that enough ?”

 

[BiologyBrain]

There is a joke that is great in reminding us what “trusting” God and using our brains means
I can’t help telling it
A very pious man gets lost in the desert and trapped in quicksands. While striving to get out, he cries to God “God, please, My Lord, help me”
and there comes a firetruck, the firemen get ready to help him out of the quicksands, yet the very pious man tells them:" no, no, please don’t bother, God is going to help me, I know that". So the firemen go away, and the very pious man stays there and keeps praying.
Another firetruck happens to come by (yeah, very busy desert ), again they propose to help, again our very pious man declines and answers he’s waiting for God’s help.
He still praying and sinking when a third trick arrives, same story.
He then remains alone, and dies. Once arrived in Paradise, he gets angry at God and asks : “I trusted you to help me, why would’nt you do that”. God answers : “I sent you three firetrucks, wasn’t that enough ?”

I’ve heard something similar only it was a flood w/ a neighbor in a boat 1st, then a rescue worker in a boat, and finally a helicopter w/ a rescuer. Outcome was the same!

 

[Leonius]

I understand, but my problem is with Leonius telling people that it is a mortal sin and he (assuming Leonius is a male) appointing himself as the judge of what is and isn’t a serious reason.

So you just don’t like me then lol that’s ok, I forgive you.

 

[Leonius]

Given that NFP is only something like 1 percent less effective than some kinds of AC at preventing pregnancy can anyone tell me how its use morally differs from a couple who uses AC with the mindset that if the AC fails they will accept the baby?

The physical method used may be different but the moral and spiritual motivations behind the attempt to avoid the duties that are naturally attached to the marriage act are exactly the same. The contraceptive mentality is still present, you are still trying to enjoy the pleasures of the conjugal act while avoiding the consequences and duties that come with it.

“And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.” Tobias 6:22

Can you claim your use of the marriage act is done for the love of children when you are performing it when you are actually trying to avoid a child been created?

We must trust in Divine Providence: “And He said to them: ‘where is your faith’” (Luke 8:25). He will not give anyone more than he can handle. To husbands worried about finances, He says, “For your Father knoweth what you stand in need of, before you ask Him” (Matt.:8). To wives who would place a career ahead of unwavering openness to new life, He says: “The woman…shall be saved by bearing children” (1Tim.2:15).

 

[sarahraegraham]

There are a lot of posts with material to respond to, but I can only work on a little right now, and I don’t know about later.

Fertility signals are the same as other body signals, why ignore them and not others?

The difference is that you are attempting to thwart perfectly healthy and normal biological consequences of sexual activity, which has a moral component. The signals and knowing them is not the problem, it’s the decisions you make that are. NFP is touted as natural because you’re not giving yourself hormones, but the intent is the same. So if ABC is illicit because it physically alters the body’s fertility, if we try to otherwise manipulate our fertility, don’t we come out on the same side?

Another problem with NFP that I have in concept is that it says we can control what we really *can’t *control. (Yes, there are those who use it to try to procreate, but that’s not what our debate is about.) The whole premise is to contracept (prevent conception). So when it doesn’t work we weren’t really controlling anything, now were we? And if there really was a serious reason, how do you think the husband and wife will feel about having this child? Why should we attempt to control something that, in the end, we all agree (and it cannot be argued any other way) that in the end, the ultimate end, we have zero control over, because it’s God who creates each child? “Darn it! God, I didn’t want this! I was working against this! But apparently you weren’t, so now I just have to get over it. But you wait until next time! I’m going to be even more diligent!” ??? To me, this seems ridiculous. I understand about the couple praying for God’s guidance and will, but if God’s will will be done no matter what, ?? I’m not arguing free will here, but do you know what I mean?

NFP can be just as selfish as ABC. It does require sacrifice to abstain. So what? Wouldn’t letting God choose without your interference be even more sacrificial? So if we’re arguing on love and sacrifice, who wins?

If you apply your reasoning generally you can arrive at things that Catholics do not believe in. Like take disease, you might say that if bacteria happens to infect you it was God’s will. There are believers who say that for this reason you should not use medicine. Would you agree with them?

Apples and oranges. Fertility is not a disease to be prevented. If the main purpose of marriage is procreation (among other things), avoiding it is counter to the vows we make at the altar. Disease is no such “good” thing. God did not create or bless disease; it exists because of sin.

A couple can use it to space whatever the just number of children for that couple or a couple can choose to use NFP to “move up” or “push back” a child for a month or two for reasons that could be very serious or less so.

I would seriously doubt that a couple would use NFP for only a month or two. Every time I’ve seen it touted it’s been for years at a time. Just my personal experience.

Also, it isn’t true that a couple has to be intimate every 48 hours to be constantly pregnant. A couple can do it once every six months and be constantly pregnant. A woman whose fertility comes back soon after birth can become pregnant the first time they are intimate.

The point I’m making is that without charting you don’t know when your fertile time is, and that if the average couple were to not pay attention and were only intimate once a week, what the odds that they would be intimate within the 3 day window and specifically the 24 ovum lifespan in order to conceive? When the rate is low, so is the risk. My point is that without NFP it’s perfectly conceivable to go years without conceiving. And even if a couple were to be intimate at precisely the right time every single time for years, they still might not conceive if God says no child will come of their union.

Abstaining from the marital act to avoid conceiving is a sacrifice. Sacrifice builds virtue. I can’t see anyone making that sacrifice month after month, year after year for frivolous reason. A selfish person would tire of the sacrifice pretty quickly.

While it’s true that abstaining is a sacrifice, for both the man and woman, it is absolutely not true that the people with “bad” intentions in using it will be weeded out. Why? “Well, I don’t want my wife to get pregnant, so we just don’t do it when she says she’s fertile. I’ll do anything to avoid it. But I won’t do anything else because we’re not supposed to, this is the only *right *way.” See? I’m sure it could be phrased better, but you get my point. That’s why I have difficulty with the “leaving it up to the individual couple” part.

Part Two below…

 

[sarahraegraham]

cont’d…

I think it’s important to reiterate that the Church makes a sharp distinction between NFP and contraception. Contraception does not just mean “trying to prevent pregnancy.” It’s a way of preventing pregnancy: a deliberate attempt to separate the procreative and unitive aspect of an act of intercourse through use of devices, chemicals, or methods. So NFP cannot be used to contracept, because it does not delibertaly frustrate the sexual act."

This is incorrect. The definition of contraception is to avoid pregnancy, and methods is under that definition. NFP is clearly a *method *to avoid pregnancy, therefore it *is *contraception. Not artificial, but contraception nonetheless. That is the only reason why it can be called “natural”. A rose is a rose, whether red or white.

The Lord is perfect, and he will make up for our errors in judgment. If it is His will for a couple to have a child, then they will have it - so long as they are open to it. That is the evil of artificial contraception - it prevents new life from happening. It defies the will of the Lord, for a new soul to come into this world, and prevent it from becoming one of His disciples.

Those who are open to new life will receive it, when the Lord desires, and when the Lord deems the couple to be ready (even if they think they are not). Those who defy God, and are not open to Life, commit a grave sin, and prevent God’s most holy creation - a new human being - from coming to be. Does that answer your question, Sarah?

This only furthers my own argument, because if preventing new life is the evil, then abstaining with the intent of doing that would be just as evil as ABC. And yet, it’s not claimed. Why is that?

And I will reiterate the obvious: NFP is still open to life. If you practice NFP, and still conceive, you must bear the child, and raise it, with love and caring. If the NFP regimen fails, for whatever reason, it is not an excuse to head down to the abortion clinic.

I know of a man who was successfully sterilized, and his wife conceived his child. They tested him later and found that he was still sterile.

I know of many women who have gotten pregnant while on the pill, using it perfectly.

We can become pregnant no matter our method of birth control, which NFP is a method. The difference is that it doesn’t directly affect the union of the couple in God’s eyes. The question is more of the morality of birth control than NFP itself, but after weeding out the easily defined as immoral ones, NFP is all that’s left.

Just because we conceive, even after trying to prevent it, does not mean that we are open. We are open at all times. Granted, the incarnation is the only instance I know of historically where there were no relations, so abstinence is the only sure way to not conceive. But abstaining is being closed, at least for part of the time.

Given that NFP is only something like 1 percent less effective than some kinds of AC at preventing pregnancy can anyone tell me how its use morally differs from a couple who uses AC with the mindset that if the AC fails they will accept the baby?

The physical method used may be different but the moral and spiritual motivations behind the attempt to avoid the duties that are naturally attached to the marriage act are exactly the same. The contraceptive mentality is still present, you are still trying to enjoy the pleasures of the conjugal act while avoiding the consequences and duties that come with it.

“And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.” Tobias 6:22

Can you claim your use of the marriage act is done for the love of children when you are performing it when you are actually trying to avoid a child been created?

We must trust in Divine Providence: “And He said to them: ‘where is your faith’” (Luke 8:25). He will not give anyone more than he can handle. To husbands worried about finances, He says, “For your Father knoweth what you stand in need of, before you ask Him” (Matt.:8). To wives who would place a career ahead of unwavering openness to new life, He says: “The woman…shall be saved by bearing children” (1Tim.2:15).

That’s where I’m at right now, and it goes back to that I’m not questioning that the method of NFP is moral while others are not because they frustrate the physical act. But the physical act is not what I question; it’s the motives and purpose of using it.

Good discussion. I hope it continues. I like to hear what others have to say, even if I remain confused.

 

[sarahraegraham]

Quote:
“Here’s when I can get pregnant, so we won’t do it then, but if we do get pregnant anyway, well, we were still open to life.”

Yes, that is EXACTLY how you’re supposed to use NFP. This is the attitude you have. You are deciding to abstain for a period of time, and the Church teaches that this is totally acceptable.

Ah, yes, their bodies are open, but their hearts are not. See a problem?

 

[Matt33]

This is incorrect. The definition of contraception is to avoid pregnancy, and methods is under that definition. NFP is clearly a method to avoid pregnancy, therefore it is contraception. Not artificial, but contraception nonetheless. That is the only reason why it can be called “natural”. A rose is a rose, whether red or white.

No, That is not the definition of contraception. It may be it’s goal. but it is not the definition. Added to that goal in some types of contraception is preventing or even terminating pregnancy.
If I may a little footbal analogy here. If quarterback throws a pass and a defender steals it it is an INTERception. But if there was never a pass thrown then there cannot be an interception. that is NFP. No pass.

This only furthers my own argument, because if preventing new life is the evil, then abstaining with the intent of doing that would be just as evil as ABC. And yet, it’s not claimed. Why is that?

Again, you cannot prevent what isn’t there. Engaging in the act and then denying it’s natural end is bad but just abstaining from the act is not contrary to life.

Just because we conceive, even after trying to prevent it, does not mean that we are open. We are open at all times. Granted, the incarnation is the only instance I know of historically where there were no relations, so abstinence is the only sure way to not conceive. But abstaining is being closed, at least for part of the time.

Nitpicking here but there have been other ways to concieve. In Vitro…“accidents” where there was no intercourse… So, not just the incarnation.

 

[SMHW]

I would seriously doubt that a couple would use NFP for only a month or two. Every time I’ve seen it touted it’s been for years at a time. Just my personal experience.

Well, perhaps we all have a misunderstanding about what it means to “use NFP”.

Part of the idea of using natural methods of family planning is that a couple is constantly re-evaluating the usage. And of course couples use NFP to avoid for short term periods. Each time a woman has a new cycle the couple decides for that short time period. Yes, some people do use NFP to avoid for years at a time but if they are using NFP properly they are continually re-evaluating. Sometimes the just reasons to avoid don’t change.

 

[sarahraegraham]

No, That is not the definition of contraception. It may be it’s goal. but it is not the definition. Added to that goal in some types of contraception is preventing or even terminating pregnancy…

… just abstaining from the act is not contrary to life.

Merriam-Webster’s
Contraceptionnoun
"deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation "

NFP prevents conception by keeping sperm out of the uterus. It’s a method of contraception. A natural kind, versus artificial, man-made kinds.

Abstaining prevents life because no sperm is present to make it. That would be “closed” to life, no?

Incidentally, anyone ever find an “official” church teaching on NFP that’s not in encyclical form? I still haven’t, but would love to see it. It would help our debate tremendously, I’m sure, as well.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I understand the mindset that people have when they’re speaking against NFP, but it lacks a true understanding for what the Church teaches.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with abstinence. Morality is questioned when the sacramental nature of sex within marriage is abused. It’s about a tender understanding between the spouses - a true deep love for each other - physically, spiritually… entirely.
Sometimes things come up in life that can cause great anxiety - illness, stress, strain - none of these are desired… they are great burdens that many families have to endure. Natural Family Planning allows couples to prayerfully discern, on a moment by moment basis, whether or not they can embrace entirely.

Please refer to the Catechism to have a full understanding of the Church’s teachings. Suggesting that personal interpretations are teachings of the faith is misleading. Just because one couple is blessed by being spared the burdens that would lead another couple to use NFP, doesn’t mean that the use is immoral.

Here are the sections in the Catechism that may be useful… (LINK)

2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

    When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

    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.160

 

[Em_in_FL]

Merriam-Webster’s
Contraceptionnoun
"deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation "

NFP prevents conception by keeping sperm out of the uterus. It’s a method of contraception. A natural kind, versus artificial, man-made kinds.

Abstaining prevents life because no sperm is present to make it. That would be “closed” to life, no?

Incidentally, anyone ever find an “official” church teaching on NFP that’s not in encyclical form? I still haven’t, but would love to see it. It would help our debate tremendously, I’m sure, as well.

Please see my link to the Catechism on my post above… as well as the quotes of the teachings in the Catechism.

Peace.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ah, yes, their bodies are open, but their hearts are not. See a problem?

No…how are the hearts closed? Does a couple have to actually want to conceive each time they are intimate in order to be “open to life”?

 

[Em_in_FL]

No…how are the hearts closed? Does a couple have to actually want to conceive each time they are intimate in order to be “open to life”?

Exactly… each marital act must be two-fold in nature… both for the good of the spouses and for procreation… only, what is the definition of PROCREATION?

Procreation does not mean conceiving. If it did, we would have to limit each sexual act ONLY to the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle. Hmmm… not very “good for the spouses”, right?.. No. GOD, Himself, created the woman’s fertility cycle. He didn’t create her to be fertile 100% of the time, did He? No.

Procreation means that each and every sexual act must be done in a way that COULD produce life… (in layman’s terms… the husband must finish inside the wife).

HTH.

 

[Matt33]

Merriam-Webster’s
Contraceptionnoun
"deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation "

NFP prevents conception by keeping sperm out of the uterus. It’s a method of contraception. A natural kind, versus artificial, man-made kinds.

Abstaining prevents life because no sperm is present to make it. That would be “closed” to life, no?

Incidentally, anyone ever find an “official” church teaching on NFP that’s not in encyclical form? I still haven’t, but would love to see it. It would help our debate tremendously, I’m sure, as well.

No no no no. Again, there is a big difference between Doing the act and abstaining. the sperm is not in the uterus because it didn’t “go” anywhere. There really is a HUGE difference that you are not seeing here. If I engage in a sex act and deliberately alter it it is wrong. But if there is no sex act then what exactly is being done wrong? See, nothing is being done at all and seeing that most people don’t have sex every waking minute. We can infer that not having sex is not a grave act.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Merriam-Webster’s
ContraceptionAbstaining prevents life because no sperm is present to make it. That would be “closed” to life, no?

Incidentally, anyone ever find an “official” church teaching on NFP that’s not in encyclical form? I still haven’t, but would love to see it. It would help our debate tremendously, I’m sure, as well.

So a Catholic woman who waits until marriage for intimacy is contracepting from puberty on?

What do you mean not in encyclical form? Do you not like encyclicals? Encyclicals are pretty important teachings.