Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[Good_Daughter]

By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality.

You’ve expressed a faulty understanding of Catholic teaching. Any uncontracepted marital embrace satisfies the Catholic requirement that sex be kept procreative. A woman doesn’t have to be fertile for a couple to have procreative sex.

Catholicism teaches that sex should be “ordered toward procreation”. Sex is always meant to be the act that makes a baby, whether or not a baby results. Fertility is ultimately determined by nature (God) anyway.

Catholicism also teaches that unity flows from procreation, so they can’t really be separated, but that’s a thread of its own.

NFP is not much different than withdrawl. The difference is that with NFP, the egg is being kept away from the sperm.

All birth control seeks to keep egg away from sperm. I don’t see how this differentiates withdrawl from NFP.

It seems to me that a wife’s death that could result from a high risk pregnancy would not only damage the union, but end it.

But there’s more than one kind of union. Remember the communion of saints.

Have you heard of St.Gianna Molla? She gave her life so that her unborn child might live. Jesus tells us that a man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. Then he lived by example. True sacrifice is a tremendous way to express love.

Most of us however, are not called to that level of sacrifice. Catholic couples are called to responsible parenthood which includes avoiding pregnancy when necessary.

 

[eichenb2]

You’ve expressed a faulty understanding of Catholic teaching. Any uncontracepted marital embrace satisfies the Catholic requirement that sex be kept procreative. A woman doesn’t have to be fertile for a couple to have procreative sex.

Catholicism teaches that sex should be “ordered toward procreation”. Sex is always meant to be the act that makes a baby, whether or not a baby results. Fertility is ultimately determined by nature (God) anyway.

Catholicism also teaches that unity flows from procreation, so they can’t really be separated, but that’s a thread of its own.

All birth control seeks to keep egg away from sperm. I don’t see how this differentiates withdrawl from NFP.

But there’s more than one kind of union. Remember the communion of saints.

Have you heard of St.Gianna Molla? She gave her life so that her unborn child might live. Jesus tells us that a man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends. Then he lived by example. True sacrifice is a tremendous way to express love.

Most of us however, are not called to that level of sacrifice. Catholic couples are called to responsible parenthood which includes avoiding pregnancy when necessary.

OMG Are you calling on people in this situation become pregnant even after several miscarriages and possible death (given they nearly dead on previous pregnancies? I thought those people on “Jesus Camp” were out to lunch.

By the way, you just proved my point. What did you respond with??? Doctrine.

 

[eichenb2]

This is still true!

Originally Posted by TLM08 View Post
By watching the calendar and deliberately engaging in sexual intercourse during unfertile times one is also separating the unitive from the procreative. There is absolutely NO getting around this reality.

 

[Good_Daughter]

OMG Are you calling on people in this situation become pregnant even after several miscarriages and possible death (given they nearly dead on previous pregnancies? I thought those people on “Jesus Camp” were out to lunch.

Please read more carefully. I stated:

Catholic couples are called to responsible parenthood which includes avoiding pregnancy when necessary.

By the way, you just proved my point. What did you respond with??? Doctrine.

I was responding specifically to a post by TLM08 who, I thought, was misguided on some Catholic teaching. I wasn’t trying to prove, disprove, or even consider your point.

 

[Jennifer_J]

OMG Are you calling on people in this situation become pregnant even after several miscarriages and possible death (given they nearly dead on previous pregnancies? I thought those people on “Jesus Camp” were out to lunch.

By the way, you just proved my point. What did you respond with??? Doctrine.

And what’s wrong with Doctrine?

and btw, reread her post, she in no way said women in danger should go out and get pregnant!!

 

[Jennifer_J]

It is not silly or semantics. It is level-headed reasoning.

1. To kill a fetus after conception is murder. We agree there, right?
2. Marriage is natural in purpose, but Divine in origin. It is sacred, being intended primarily by the Author of life to perpetuate His creative act and to beget children of God; its secondary ends are mutual society and help, and a lawful remedy for concupiscence.
   Do we agree here?
3. Current Catholic teaching is that NO conjugal act can separate the two. Right?
4. If you say NFP is not separating the two purposes they you are not being rational and reasonable. With NFP, the couple is PURPOSELY abstaining or indulging based on your intention to create live or not. This reminds me of the story of some fisherman who wanted to observe the Sabbath and not fish on Saturday. They put the nets out on Friday and gathered the fish on Friday. But, they weren’t fishing. The use of Prophylaxis are used, also, with the intention of procreating or not.
   You can hit me all day with the view that the Catholic Church teaches X or Y doctrine. What you CANNOT say is that the prohibition of Prophylaxis and permission of NFP is logical consistent.

And you don’t seem to understand that the INTENT of not wanting more children at a certain time is not sinful–the MEANS to that END can be sinful–contraception and abortion, for instance. However, NFP is not inherently sinful because the meaning of the act is kept intact–ordered to procreation and unitive and these 2 aspects are so intertwined that to try to separate them damages the sacramental nature of the act. Condoms are a physical barrier–they certainly alter the act. NFP is information about fertility, it does not alter any specific act. Each act is ordered to procreation and unitive, whether the woman is fertile or not.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. If you say NFP is not separating the two purposes they you are not being rational and reasonable. With NFP, the couple is PURPOSELY abstaining or indulging based on your intention to create live or not. This reminds me of the story of some fisherman who wanted to observe the Sabbath and not fish on Saturday. They put the nets out on Friday and gathered the fish on Friday. But, they weren’t fishing. The use of Prophylaxis are used, also, with the intention of procreating or not.
   You can hit me all day with the view that the Catholic Church teaches X or Y doctrine. What you CANNOT say is that the prohibition of Prophylaxis and permission of NFP is logical consistent.

Morally speaking, then, what is it that makes NFP acceptable while artificial birth control is wrong?

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it. Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act – they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

1. NFP is not just a “method” based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, “I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge.” Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple’s sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

from a pamphlet by Fr. Frank Pavone
victorclaveau.com/Pamphlets/043%20Birth%20Control%20and%20NFP.pdf

 

[eichenb2]

And you don’t seem to understand that the INTENT of not wanting more children at a certain time is not sinful–the MEANS to that END can be sinful–contraception and abortion, for instance. However, NFP is not inherently sinful because the meaning of the act is kept intact–ordered to procreation and unitive and these 2 aspects are so intertwined that to try to separate them damages the sacramental nature of the act. Condoms are a physical barrier–they certainly alter the act. NFP is information about fertility, it does not alter any specific act. Each act is ordered to procreation and unitive, whether the woman is fertile or not.

Spin it anyway you like. And you will, because you have to believe it. I don’t, thank God. I use my God-given reason to understand that NFP is a positive act of the will to abstain or indulge in intercourse for the purpose of avoiding procreation (contraception = against conception). That fact cannot be avoided. Prophilaxis is also a postive act of the will to avoid conception. Fancy rhetoric does not change facts and clear reasoning. If you want to say that this is Church’s teaching and it is obligatory, fine. However, you can’t use reason to get out of it.

 

[rotlex]

Spin it anyway you like. And you will, because you have to believe it. I don’t, thank God. I use my God-given reason to understand that NFP is a positive act of the will to abstain or indulge in intercourse for the purpose of avoiding procreation (contraception = against conception). That fact cannot be avoided. Prophilaxis is also a postive act of the will to avoid conception. Fancy rhetoric does not change facts and clear reasoning. If you want to say that this is Church’s teaching and it is obligatory, fine. However, you can’t use reason to get out of it.

I agree with your views on this 100%. I cannot believe a number of the arguments put forth in this thread. I respect everyone’s opinion on this subject, and the Lord knows I struggle with this issue often, but I’m sorry, I just can’t drink the kool aid that some folks do in regards to church teaching on this subject.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone, but I wonder how many posters here would change their views on a lot of subjects tomorrow, if suddenly the Church changed theirs? Seriously. God gave us the Church, and I love her, but he also gave us minds of our own, to think on our own. Yes, we are going to make mistakes, but none of us are perfect, including those that lay down the “doctrine” of the Church.

It’s nice to know there are at least some folks out there who see both sides of the issue.

 

[TLM08]

Morally speaking, then, what is it that makes NFP acceptable while artificial birth control is wrong?

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it. Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act – they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

1. NFP is not just a “method” based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, “I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge.” Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple’s sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

from a pamphlet by Fr. Frank Pavone
victorclaveau.com/Pamphlets/043%20Birth%20Control%20and%20NFP.pdf

Just like NFP, wearing a condom does not close the door to the possibility of life either due to a 5 to 10% failure rate.

Regarding this whole “sex object” theme:
While God certainly intended love to be a big part of the sexual experience, most people, especially men are not continually thinking about how much they love their spouse during sex.

When a man looks at his beautiful wife who perhaps just put on some lingerie and sits there brushing her long dark hair in the mirror while she gets ready for bed at night, he might be thinking about how much he loves her but it’s not his love for her that gets his motor running no matter how dedicated he is to her. The very nature of sex itself is centered on physical pleasure of the 5 senses, with an emphasis generally for men being sight and touch with the remaining 3 senses following close behind. “After the loving” (as the old song goes) is when thoughts of love should begin to flood the mind of both man and woman. This is NOT objectification. This is the nature of sex. Objectification occurs when love is totally absent.

The most moral and honorable man in the world will become extremely aroused by a complete stranger given the right circumstances. This is also the nature of sex. This is territory where sin becomes obvious.

Suppose he spent the entire weekend with this beautiful stranger and developed deep affection and even feelings of love for her before they have sex after the only the third night. Is she a sex object then? Certainly not!

They are guilty of sin… but not guilty of objectification.

Condoms to not turn wives into sex objects. It is the absense of love that turns wives into sex objects. If condoms turn wives into sex objects then so does waiting until she probably can’t conceive. Call it what you want, but it’s still birth control.

 

[eichenb2]

I agree with your views on this 100%. I cannot believe a number of the arguments put forth in this thread. I respect everyone’s opinion on this subject, and the Lord knows I struggle with this issue often, but I’m sorry, I just can’t drink the kool aid that some folks do in regards to church teaching on this subject.

Meaning no disrespect to anyone, but I wonder how many posters here would change their views on a lot of subjects tomorrow, if suddenly the Church changed theirs? Seriously. God gave us the Church, and I love her, but he also gave us minds of our own, to think on our own. Yes, we are going to make mistakes, but none of us are perfect, including those that lay down the “doctrine” of the Church.

It’s nice to know there are at least some folks out there who see both sides of the issue.

I also am glad to hear that there are others who also see that this issue is not so clear. I struggle with CC’s teaching on sexuality, generally; not just this issue.

 

[eichenb2]

Just like NFP, wearing a condom does not close the door to the possibility of life either due to a 5 to 10% failure rate.

Regarding this whole “sex object” theme:
While God certainly intended love to be a big part of the sexual experience, most people, especially men are not continually thinking about how much they love their spouse during sex.

When a man looks at his beautiful wife who perhaps just put on some lingerie and sits there brushing her long dark hair in the mirror while she gets ready for bed at night, he might be thinking about how much he loves her but it’s not his love for her that gets his motor running no matter how dedicated he is to her. The very nature of sex itself is centered on physical pleasure of the 5 senses, with an emphasis generally for men being sight and touch with the remaining 3 senses following close behind. “After the loving” (as the old song goes) is when thoughts of love should begin to flood the mind of both man and woman. This is NOT objectification. This is the nature of sex. Objectification occurs when love is totally absent.

The most moral and honorable man in the world will become extremely aroused by a complete stranger given the right circumstances. This is also the nature of sex. This is territory where sin becomes obvious.

Suppose he spent the entire weekend with this beautiful stranger and developed deep affection and even feelings of love for her before they have sex after the only the third night. Is she a sex object then? Certainly not!

They are guilty of sin… but not guilty of objectification.

Condoms to not turn wives into sex objects. It is the absense of love that turns wives into sex objects. If condoms turn wives into sex objects then so does waiting until she probably can’t conceive. Call it what you want, but it’s still birth control.

good post

 

[eichenb2]

Just like NFP, wearing a condom does not close the door to the possibility of life either due to a 5 to 10% failure rate.

Regarding this whole “sex object” theme:
While God certainly intended love to be a big part of the sexual experience, most people, especially men are not continually thinking about how much they love their spouse during sex.

When a man looks at his beautiful wife who perhaps just put on some lingerie and sits there brushing her long dark hair in the mirror while she gets ready for bed at night, he might be thinking about how much he loves her but it’s not his love for her that gets his motor running no matter how dedicated he is to her. The very nature of sex itself is centered on physical pleasure of the 5 senses, with an emphasis generally for men being sight and touch with the remaining 3 senses following close behind. “After the loving” (as the old song goes) is when thoughts of love should begin to flood the mind of both man and woman. This is NOT objectification. This is the nature of sex. Objectification occurs when love is totally absent.

The most moral and honorable man in the world will become extremely aroused by a complete stranger given the right circumstances. This is also the nature of sex. This is territory where sin becomes obvious.

Suppose he spent the entire weekend with this beautiful stranger and developed deep affection and even feelings of love for her before they have sex after the only the third night. Is she a sex object then? Certainly not!

They are guilty of sin… but not guilty of objectification.

Condoms to not turn wives into sex objects. It is the absense of love that turns wives into sex objects. If condoms turn wives into sex objects then so does waiting until she probably can’t conceive. Call it what you want, but it’s still birth control.

I also don’t see why there this feeling that procreation must be linked with intercourse. Sometimes, you want to be intimate with your spouse but are not ready to have an 18th child. I do not see a problem with using contraception that is prior to conception. The problem lies in the implicit feeling that the marriage is a necessary evil. I think being celibate and single is a necessary evil; given our God-given natures. Consider that CC doctrine is articulated by celibate men.

 

[Sair]

Just like NFP, wearing a condom does not close the door to the possibility of life either due to a 5 to 10% failure rate.

Condoms to not turn wives into sex objects. It is the absense of love that turns wives into sex objects. If condoms turn wives into sex objects then so does waiting until she probably can’t conceive. Call it what you want, but it’s still birth control.

Wow. I really don’t know how to begin to respond to this thread in general.

Firstly, I would agree that there is a large grey area between NFP and artificial contraception. If anything, I would suggest that NFP fosters even more of an obsession with sex than other forms of birth control, which don’t require a couple to be constantly thinking about whether sex is appropriate or not - nor refraining from any possible non-intercourse sexual activity (also apparently forbidden by the Church) during the time when the woman is most desirous of sexual contact.

Having now been married since last November, to a man I have loved since I first laid eyes on him about six years ago, I can say confidently that my experience has been that romantic love, for want of a better term, is something that has to be experienced to be fully understood. Sex is a surprisingly small part of the equation, and only really makes sense within the context of appreciating the whole person with whom you are making love. As I’ve said before, at the end of the day, sex is just sex, and can be functionally carried out with anyone you don’t find physically repellent, given the right circumstances. If you want to consider it in purely reproductive terms - which is little different to the idea that sex must always be open to procreation - that’s fine, as long as you want to take a fairly skewed and stilted attitude to the whole process. It’s one thing to understand sex in purely philosophical or black-and-white moral terms, and it’s quite another thing to realise the nuances of sexual interaction. I rather suspect that the men who govern Catholic teaching are suffering from a lack of experience in this important aspect of life.

I’m still unsure how to understand the notion that sex must be open to procreation in order to be considered ‘loving’. Surely, appreciating your lover and caring about their pleasure as much, if not more so, than your own, constitutes a loving, bonding act. This is quite distinct from committing yourself to raising a child for what will likely be the rest of your life. To me, this still smacks of the medieval notion that childbirth and the subsequent obligations of raising children are the woman’s attonement for any possible enjoyment she might derive from the sexual act.

Even in the animal kingdom, governed by ‘natural law’, sex is not purely procreative. Bonobo apes, for example - which, incidentally, are 99% genetically similar to humans - practise sexual acts, both heterosexual and homosexual, for the purpose of social bonding. When looked at in contrast to chimpanzees, also 99% genetically similar to humans, bonobos have a much more peaceful society. This makes me wonder whether humans might not have been more peaceful over the centuries had we not attempted to impose artificial limits upon sexual desire.

Well, that was considerably more than two cents’ worth, but I hope it’s made my perspective clear enough…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

First off, I will say that we have used NFP for over 10 years with great success. We have not used it exclusively, however.

I have been told by priests that the wife has to pay her “marriage debt” to her husband to avoid leading him into sin This is really quite silly. The woman has to give herself to the man when the man desires it regardless of her drive (or lack of it). If they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the woman has to avoid sex when she desires it most (since a woman’s desire peaks during her fertile point of the cycle). So abstainance in this case is a temptation for the woman to sin. Not to mention that the man’s desire is also heightened during the woman’s fertile period. So abstainance during the fertile period is unnatural and can lead both to temptation to sin. If God wanted us to use the woman’s natural cycle, it is MOST NATURAL for the couple to be UTILIZING THE FERTILE PERIOD.

The church’s teaching of abstainance during the fertile period puts more emphasis on the procreative aspects than the unitive.

Condoms are not 100% effective. Abstainance is 100% effective. We feel like we are being more open to life using a condom than totally abstaining. And we fail to see the consistency in church teaching that the unitive and procreative aspects cannot be seperated but then allowing sex after menopause or during pregnancy. The church’s teaching on this is illogical. My parents have been taught something completely different by the church in their day. So the church has not been consistent either.

I also can’t reconcile the teaching on NFP with our LACK of knowledge in the past. We live in priveleged times for certain, but I don’t think God wanted us to take more risks the past 2000 years b/c of our lack of knowledge about NFP. More inconsistency.

1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin.

Having sex only during infertile periods is not accepting both sides of the coin. And the woman only having sex when she doesn’t desire it is likely to make the act more one of lust than sex, as she will try harder to get “in the mood”.

While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life.

Using condoms is open to the possibility of life.

The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it.

Abstaining is doing something to avoid it. I see no difference.

Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility.

But they do. There is nothing natural about abstaining when nature would have you together. To me, that is acting against the unitive nature.

They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life).

As I’ve attempted to show, they certainly do.

They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility – patterns placed there by God Himself.

Again, abstaining during fertile time is NOT following the natural patterns.

NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, “I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge.”

To abstain month after month during fertile periods is quite unnatural and an occasion to sin in other ways. The very real side of this story is that the use of NFP can and has (in our case) led to the sins of masturbation and even pornography. We have chosen to supplement NFP with condoms at times to avoid these temptations. God gave us a sex drive. He made us so that it is heightened during fertile periods. God made sex pleasurable. What is most unnatural is abstaining when God made us most attracted to one another. It is clear to me that either God wants us to have babies every 9 months (if we conceive - and we are VERY fertile, so it would be every 9 months) or to unnaturally avoid sex during the times he made us desire it most. We do have self-control. We can and do avoid intercourse during fertile periods when we are both on the same page about it. But there are times when we both feel like we are blocking out the unitive aspect of the act by abstaining so much. This is also wrong.

 

[eichenb2]

First off, I will say that we have used NFP for over 10 years with great success. We have not used it exclusively, however.

I have been told by priests that the wife has to pay her “marriage debt” to her husband to avoid leading him into sin This is really quite silly. The woman has to give herself to the man when the man desires it regardless of her drive (or lack of it). If they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the woman has to avoid sex when she desires it most (since a woman’s desire peaks during her fertile point of the cycle). So abstainance in this case is a temptation for the woman to sin. Not to mention that the man’s desire is also heightened during the woman’s fertile period. So abstainance during the fertile period is unnatural and can lead both to temptation to sin. If God wanted us to use the woman’s natural cycle, it is MOST NATURAL for the couple to be UTILIZING THE FERTILE PERIOD.

The church’s teaching of abstainance during the fertile period puts more emphasis on the procreative aspects than the unitive.

Condoms are not 100% effective. Abstainance is 100% effective. We feel like we are being more open to life using a condom than totally abstaining. And we fail to see the consistency in church teaching that the unitive and procreative aspects cannot be seperated but then allowing sex after menopause or during pregnancy. The church’s teaching on this is illogical. My parents have been taught something completely different by the church in their day. So the church has not been consistent either.

I also can’t reconcile the teaching on NFP with our LACK of knowledge in the past. We live in priveleged times for certain, but I don’t think God wanted us to take more risks the past 2000 years b/c of our lack of knowledge about NFP. More inconsistency.

Having sex only during infertile periods is not accepting both sides of the coin. And the woman only having sex when she doesn’t desire it is likely to make the act more one of lust than sex, as she will try harder to get “in the mood”. Using condoms is open to the possibility of life. Abstaining is doing something to avoid it. I see no difference. But they do. There is nothing natural about abstaining when nature would have you together. To me, that is acting against the unitive nature. As I’ve attempted to show, they certainly do. Again, abstaining during fertile time is NOT following the natural patterns. To abstain month after month during fertile periods is quite unnatural and an occasion to sin in other ways. The very real side of this story is that the use of NFP can and has (in our case) led to the sins of masturbation and even pornography. We have chosen to supplement NFP with condoms at times to avoid these temptations. God gave us a sex drive. He made us so that it is heightened during fertile periods. God made sex pleasurable. What is most unnatural is abstaining when God made us most attracted to one another. It is clear to me that either God wants us to have babies every 9 months (if we conceive - and we are VERY fertile, so it would be every 9 months) or to unnaturally avoid sex during the times he made us desire it most. We do have self-control. We can and do avoid intercourse during fertile periods when we are both on the same page about it. But there are times when we both feel like we are blocking out the unitive aspect of the act by abstaining so much. This is also wrong.

I agree 110%. What a refreshing, articulate, and utterly honest reply. I am happy to see that I am not the only one struggling with this issue. The Church should really look deeper into this issue.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I’d also like to add that one of us not religious, or at least, was less-devout when the other had a conversion. A great sacrifice was made to embrace NFP at all since not only did this person not agree with it but had no choice in the matter. Perhaps people of different faiths should not seek marriage, but we were both on the same page when we married. God changed one of us but not the other. One of us trying to be faithful to NFP when the other doesn’t understand or embrace the teaching only creates a bigger problem for the one who is trying to be faithful.

NFP, when accepted by both sides, may be good and better under certain circumstances. But we are all under different circumstances - some of which make the teaching illogical and the practice of NFP even sinful. A good Franciscan priest taught me that also.

 

[Sair]

I agree 110%. What a refreshing, articulate, and utterly honest reply. I am happy to see that I am not the only one struggling with this issue. The Church should really look deeper into this issue.

Once more with the agree. Above all, I think the Church would do well to look into its tradition of suppressing sexual desire, and relegating it to one of the things that constitutes human ‘weakness’. At its best, sexual desire and the sexual nature of humans represent a force for unity and love, rather than divisiveness and violence.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I think the church has put too much focus on the procreative aspects of it. And even that seems inconsistent to me when intercourse is permissible when there is 0% chance of procreating. But regardless, celibate clergy simply don’t understand the unitive aspects since they don’t experience them. The two are one flesh in marriage. When abstaining, both sides are saying ‘no’ to one another, sometimes at a times when they feel the need to be united again. There is a bond between married people that goes beyond spiritual or intellectual - a very real physical (not lustful) and even chemical bond. There have been times when we have gone through emotional, difficult times and wished we could renew that bond of unity with the marrital embrace but had to say no b/c we have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. In all honesty, we have even said ‘yes’ to life when we probably should not have. We have had 2 pregnancies (maybe 3 actually) where at least one of us questioned how responsible being open to life was at that time. We now have 5 children. We’d have had many more if we had said ‘yes’ the number of times we felt we should have. And there has been much resentment and even sin as a result of all the times we said ‘no’ when we shouldn’t have.

It isn’t right. Experience has taught us that. And now we have to experiece the guilt of going against church teaching on top of it, as well as the threat that we live in mortal sin.

 

[Sair]

I think the church has put too much focus on the procreative aspects of it. And even that seems inconsistent to me when intercourse is permissible when there is 0% chance of procreating. But regardless, celibate clergy simply don’t understand the unitive aspects since they don’t experience them. The two are one flesh in marriage. When abstaining, both sides are saying ‘no’ to one another, sometimes at a times when they feel the need to be united again. There is a bond between married people that goes beyond spiritual or intellectual - a very real physical (not lustful) and even chemical bond. There have been times when we have gone through emotional, difficult times and wished we could renew that bond of unity with the marrital embrace but had to say no b/c we have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy. In all honesty, we have even said ‘yes’ to life when we probably should not have. We have had 2 pregnancies (maybe 3 actually) where at least one of us questioned how responsible being open to life was at that time. We now have 5 children. We’d have had many more if we had said ‘yes’ the number of times we felt we should have. And there has been much resentment and even sin as a result of all the times we said ‘no’ when we shouldn’t have.

It isn’t right. Experience has taught us that. And now we have to experiece the guilt of going against church teaching on top of it, as well as the threat that we live in mortal sin.

Wow. Thanks so much for your posts, WatchfulPilgrim. You’ve really highlighted the complexity of many issues that the Church seeks to reduce to simplistic, black-and-white interpretations. Living a good life is not just a matter of ticking the right boxes - it’s about living each day knowing that the choices we make have very real consequences, not just for ourselves but for everyone else in our lives. To deal with our fellow creatures with compassion and understanding is not as simple as just doing what we’re told. We have to think and feel and evaluate our choices, and sometimes revise our positions in order to be fully alive in this world.