Mortal Sin in the Marriage Bed.

[eichenb2]

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.

I have a question for you, in all seriousness. Let me state clearly that I am NOT a Catholic, though. I had been considering the CC previously. This issue was one of the many that I cannot bring myself to accept. Many things about the Catholic faith appeal to me, but to simply fall in line with the Church’s teaching even when it seems against some very basic natural concepts is something I couldn’t do. My question is basically, how do you do it?

 

[Jennifer_J]

Okay, one more time…Procreative doesn’t mean FERTILE. It means the act is done the way it was created to be done…tab A, slot B with the man finishing within his wife. NFP doesn’t interfere with the procreative aspect of each ACT. All forms of contraception do. You are bound up in the fact that their are failure rates to contraception and therefore they are “open to life” however, that’s not the reason that contraception is illicit.

Some of you act like those of us who accept the Church’s teaching on this are mind numbed drones (and your lack of charity is amazing). That couldn’t be farther from the truth. My dh and I are converts. We studied extensivly before joining the Church. I grew up with very little religion and dh had a bit more…we didn’t attend church once after we were married, until we were on the road to the Catholic Church. Before we were Catholic, I was on the pill, not only did it make me sick, I didn’t like how the relationship “felt” due to the birth control. When we took the plunge and became Catholic, we took the NFP course and we were both sceptical. However, we’ve had nothing but success in both acheiving pregnancy and avoiding it when the need has arisen. There is a freeness when you get rid of contraception. The marital embrace is and means so much more without contraception. Our relationship has only grown stronger over these last 15 years. Has it been only roses and candy? Of course not, but we are committed deeply to each other and knowing that we are engaging in sacramental sex only enhances that commitment. It truly is hard to put into words, the difference we both have felt between contracepted sex and noncontracepted sex…AND I have to say we would never have had 6 children had we contracepted. That breaks my heart. We would have missed out on at least 4 of our children. NFP opened our hearts to a large family and they weren’t accidents, either.

The Mageisterium of the Catholic Church is free from Doctrinal error. She may err in other ways, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals. Doctrine and Dogma is just a spelling out of those things that are a part of the deposit of Faith that are being challenged by some group. I don’t expect Non-Catholics to “believe” this, but it doesn’t make it not true. I also strongly disagree that those “celibate men in Rome” can’t possibly understand human sexuality. Have you even READ Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body? It’s like saying I can’t teach about the civil rights movement because 1. I’m not black and 2. I didn’t live through it. One doesn’t have to experience something to understand and teach about it. Also, these “celibate men in Rome” give up much to be Priests and Bishops. They know a thing or 2 about sacrifice. They know about relationships (because you assume they’ve never had any?). Marriage itself is a reflection of not only the Trinity but the relationship between the Priest and the Church. You are gravely wrong about Priests not having any understanding about marriage…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I have a question for you, in all seriousness. Let me state clearly that I am NOT a Catholic, though. I had been considering the CC previously. This issue was one of the many that I cannot bring myself to accept. Many things about the Catholic faith appeal to me, but to simply fall in line with the Church’s teaching even when it seems against some very basic natural concepts is something I couldn’t do. My question is basically, how do you do it?

I have submitted to the church on and off for over 10 years (mostly on). For most of those years I totally submitted to this teaching. My husband was against it but had no choice but to go along with it. There weren’t many times that I questioned it b/c I was resolved to submit regardless of my understanding. There have been times, as I’ve said, where I’ve struggled with it and have given in (to contraception). There have been times when I’ve been resentful of this teaching. There have been times when I’ve been resentful of using contraception.

Now, I left the church for the most part about 3 years ago (over doctrinal issues. Became a “sola scripturist”), and it was then that I really opened up to realizing that the teaching never made complete sense to me and I was only submitting b/c I felt I had no choice. I still feel this way for the most part, and I’m voicing my frustration here.

I reconciled with the church only a month ago, and this has been a big issue between us, b/c I admit I don’t agree with the exclusive use of NFP in all circumstances. We have both been faithful to the church since I’ve reconciled, but I have to admit that it is just one of the major issues I am dealing with since my reconciliation.

I think ultimately the CC has a good case for being what it claims, but sometimes I think it has gone too far with its definitions and boundaries. I don’t know if I will be able to continue trying to submit to things like this that I don’t agree with, or if I’ll end up a cafeteria-Catholic or if I’ll go to another church. Things like this certainly do challenge my faith. My faith is an absolute mess right now. It’s only by the grace of God that I can face each day - not just b/c of this issue, but b/c there are so many things I cannot reconcile about the church, Scripture, experience, prayer, you name it…

One day at a time, right?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Okay, one more time…Procreative doesn’t mean FERTILE. It means the act is done the way it was created to be done…tab A, slot B with the man finishing within his wife. NFP doesn’t interfere with the procreative aspect of each ACT. All forms of contraception do. You are bound up in the fact that their are failure rates to contraception and therefore they are “open to life” however, that’s not the reason that contraception is illicit.

Some of you act like those of us who accept the Church’s teaching on this are mind numbed drones (and your lack of charity is amazing). That couldn’t be farther from the truth. My dh and I are converts. We studied extensivly before joining the Church. I grew up with very little religion and dh had a bit more…we didn’t attend church once after we were married, until we were on the road to the Catholic Church. Before we were Catholic, I was on the pill, not only did it make me sick, I didn’t like how the relationship “felt” due to the birth control. When we took the plunge and became Catholic, we took the NFP course and we were both sceptical. However, we’ve had nothing but success in both acheiving pregnancy and avoiding it when the need has arisen. There is a freeness when you get rid of contraception. The marital embrace is and means so much more without contraception. Our relationship has only grown stronger over these last 15 years. Has it been only roses and candy? Of course not, but we are committed deeply to each other and knowing that we are engaging in sacramental sex only enhances that commitment. It truly is hard to put into words, the difference we both have felt between contracepted sex and noncontracepted sex…AND I have to say we would never have had 6 children had we contracepted. That breaks my heart. We would have missed out on at least 4 of our children. NFP opened our hearts to a large family and they weren’t accidents, either.

The Mageisterium of the Catholic Church is free from Doctrinal error. She may err in other ways, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals. Doctrine and Dogma is just a spelling out of those things that are a part of the deposit of Faith that are being challenged by some group. I don’t expect Non-Catholics to “believe” this, but it doesn’t make it not true. I also strongly disagree that those “celibate men in Rome” can’t possibly understand human sexuality. Have you even READ Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body? It’s like saying I can’t teach about the civil rights movement because 1. I’m not black and 2. I didn’t live through it. One doesn’t have to experience something to understand and teach about it. Also, these “celibate men in Rome” give up much to be Priests and Bishops. They know a thing or 2 about sacrifice. They know about relationships (because you assume they’ve never had any?). Marriage itself is a reflection of not only the Trinity but the relationship between the Priest and the Church. You are gravely wrong about Priests not having any understanding about marriage…

I’m glad it works for you. I don’t regret having had any of my children, but at times I do feel irresponsible. We rely a lot on the goodness of others to get by with 5 children and little more than 1 income. Layoffs are around the corner and the economy is bad. My health has been put on the line 3 times during delivery.

NFP, when used as contraception, without GRAVE reason (and no priest can define 'grave" for you) is birth control. No one here has addressed the unitive aspect of the act. Avoiding sex when the couple needs to renew that bond is just as sinful as avoiding sex when they have no grave reason to avoid the procreative aspect of it.

All the focus here is on the procreative. Both must be present you say. I say they are. We have 5 children. That is openness to life. What I am not open to is having our family of 7 living on the streets which is where we’ll be if we are much more open to it, or taking a gamble with the life of a mother of 5. Condoms are not 100% effective. Abstainance is. How is that open to life???

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Sometimes doing nothing is a sin - a sin of omission.

Saying ‘no’ to one another month after month is a sin.

 

[eichenb2]

Okay, one more time…Procreative doesn’t mean FERTILE. It means the act is done the way it was created to be done…tab A, slot B with the man finishing within his wife. NFP doesn’t interfere with the procreative aspect of each ACT. All forms of contraception do. You are bound up in the fact that their are failure rates to contraception and therefore they are “open to life” however, that’s not the reason that contraception is illicit.

Some of you act like those of us who accept the Church’s teaching on this are mind numbed drones (and your lack of charity is amazing). That couldn’t be farther from the truth. My dh and I are converts. We studied extensivly before joining the Church. I grew up with very little religion and dh had a bit more…we didn’t attend church once after we were married, until we were on the road to the Catholic Church. Before we were Catholic, I was on the pill, not only did it make me sick, I didn’t like how the relationship “felt” due to the birth control. When we took the plunge and became Catholic, we took the NFP course and we were both sceptical. However, we’ve had nothing but success in both acheiving pregnancy and avoiding it when the need has arisen. There is a freeness when you get rid of contraception. The marital embrace is and means so much more without contraception. Our relationship has only grown stronger over these last 15 years. Has it been only roses and candy? Of course not, but we are committed deeply to each other and knowing that we are engaging in sacramental sex only enhances that commitment. It truly is hard to put into words, the difference we both have felt between contracepted sex and noncontracepted sex…AND I have to say we would never have had 6 children had we contracepted. That breaks my heart. We would have missed out on at least 4 of our children. NFP opened our hearts to a large family and they weren’t accidents, either.

The Mageisterium of the Catholic Church is free from Doctrinal error. She may err in other ways, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals. Doctrine and Dogma is just a spelling out of those things that are a part of the deposit of Faith that are being challenged by some group. I don’t expect Non-Catholics to “believe” this, but it doesn’t make it not true. I also strongly disagree that those “celibate men in Rome” can’t possibly understand human sexuality. Have you even READ Pope John Paul’s Theology of the Body? It’s like saying I can’t teach about the civil rights movement because 1. I’m not black and 2. I didn’t live through it. One doesn’t have to experience something to understand and teach about it. Also, these “celibate men in Rome” give up much to be Priests and Bishops. They know a thing or 2 about sacrifice. They know about relationships (because you assume they’ve never had any?). Marriage itself is a reflection of not only the Trinity but the relationship between the Priest and the Church. You are gravely wrong about Priests not having any understanding about marriage…

I am glad it worked out for you. Several others and I do have serious rational issues with the CCs stance on this. I, personally, feel that they have erred on this one. You said, “The Mageisterium of the Catholic Church is free from Doctrinal error. She may err in other ways, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals.”. Based on what do you make this statement? Simply because the CC teachs this and you believe it does not make it so. I think myself and others have made legit rational arguments for doubting the veracity of the CC teaching in this area and you just dismiss because of your personal experience and feeling???
I think you, sorry to say, are lacking charity.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I am glad it worked out for you. Several others and I do have serious rational issues with the CCs stance on this. I, personally, feel that they have erred on this one. You said, “The Mageisterium of the Catholic Church is free from Doctrinal error. She may err in other ways, but not in the teaching of Faith and Morals.”. Based on what do you make this statement? Simply because the CC teachs this and you believe it does not make it so. I think myself and others have made legit rational arguments for doubting the veracity of the CC teaching in this area and you just dismiss because of your personal experience and feeling???
I think you, sorry to say, are lacking charity.

Where charity is lacking is your insistance that I am stating rhetoric or that I am unable to think on my own. I submit to the will of the Church because Christ said the Gate of Hell would not prevail against the Church. You are very condescending to those of us who believe in what the Church says and have come to that understanding through much study and prayer. You dismiss us as following out of sheer obedience. Well, I am obedient, but because of what I have found through study and prayer, not because I can’t think for myself…

I understand the difficulty with following this teaching. Society doesn’t support this type of living. It’s hard. However, your arguements against this teaching lack a total and complete understanding of the teaching. You refuse to accept that authentic teaching and that’s certainly your right–as you have free will and aren’t even Catholic. But don’t tell those of us who choose to follow the Church that we are weak willed and basically stupid, because we do. That is a false statement.

 

[eichenb2]

Where charity is lacking is your insistance that I am stating rhetoric or that I am unable to think on my own. I submit to the will of the Church because Christ said the Gate of Hell would not prevail against the Church. You are very condescending to those of us who believe in what the Church says and have come to that understanding through much study and prayer. You dismiss us as following out of sheer obedience. Well, I am obedient, but because of what I have found through study and prayer, not because I can’t think for myself…

I understand the difficulty with following this teaching. Society doesn’t support this type of living. It’s hard. However, your arguements against this teaching lack a total and complete understanding of the teaching. You refuse to accept that authentic teaching and that’s certainly your right–as you have free will and aren’t even Catholic. But don’t tell those of us who choose to follow the Church that we are weak willed and basically stupid, because we do. That is a false statement.

I am unsure why you keep insisting that I am being uncharitable and mocking your commitment to Church teaching. I am not! Please understand that. I don’t know how to make it clearer.

 

[Rico_S]

Okay, one more time…Procreative doesn’t mean FERTILE. It means the act is done the way it was created to be done…tab A, slot B with the man finishing within his wife. NFP doesn’t interfere with the procreative aspect of each ACT. All forms of contraception do. You are bound up in the fact that their are failure rates to contraception and therefore they are “open to life” however, that’s not the reason that contraception is illicit.

A huge part of the problem is that those who defend the Catholic teaching on contraception/NFP use “open to life” phrase quite liberally, when they really don’t mean “open to life” as most people understand it. It is the wrong tact to take when explaining the Church’s position b/c those that aren’t really familiar with the church’s teachings don’t understand “open to life” as those like you.

But, even further, the defenders make the mistake of actually using the “open to life” argument in the sense that most of us understand it. Take the words from the pamphlet Randy posted earlier:

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).

This argument holds no water and it is no wonder that those who struggle with this teaching continue to do so when the church teaching is couched in such a way.

You are correct thought, that the church’s teaching that each act must be procreative (and unitive) doesn’t meant that each act must be when the woman is feritle, or with the intention to create (or willingness to accept) a new life. The Church means that the sexual act must be ordered toward life…it must retain its procreative tendency…it must look the same as baby making sex does.

Before we were Catholic, I was on the pill, not only did it make me sick, I didn’t like how the relationship “felt” due to the birth control. When we took the plunge and became Catholic, we took the NFP course and we were both sceptical. However, we’ve had nothing but success in both acheiving pregnancy and avoiding it when the need has arisen. There is a freeness when you get rid of contraception. The marital embrace is and means so much more without contraception. Our relationship has only grown stronger over these last 15 years. Has it been only roses and candy? Of course not, but we are committed deeply to each other and knowing that we are engaging in sacramental sex only enhances that commitment

This is fantastic, and I think it is wonderful that this teaching has benefited your marriage so much. However, I am quite certain that there are plenty of couples who practice contracepted sex who treasure the marital embrace as much as you, and find it a great source of strength and unity within their marriage. This doesn’t make contracepting morally licit, but neither does your example illustrate that contraception is morally illicit.

If Rico’s Church on the Move taught that eating carbohydrates were morally illicit and somehow contributed to the sin of gluttony, I am sure that the more devout followers of Rico’s church would report a great sense of feedom after shaking carbs from their diet and attest to the great benefits of this teaching. They will say that among the benefits…more energy, weight loss, a deep sense of respect for the temple that is our body. These are indeed great benefits, and there is no doubt that my followers are genuine in their expressions of said benefits…but that does not proof eating carbs is morally illicit.

Please don’t get me wrong…I do not doubt your experience in the slightest. I think you have enjoyed many blessings from accepting the Church’s teaching here…as has others on this forum. But at the same time, I am 100% certain that following this teaching has had not so wonderful effects on at least one marriage.

…AND I have to say we would never have had 6 children had we contracepted. That breaks my heart. We would have missed out on at least 4 of our children. NFP opened our hearts to a large family and they weren’t accidents, either

Are you saying that by accepting NFP as the only available method for spacing births, you became more willing to accept new life…where as you probably would not have if you continued to use contraception? I can buy that. However, I think couple who chose to contracept in order to space kids can have that same willingness and openness to life (meaning they are willing to accept many children as gifts from God).

In fact, I have said this before, that the real problem that the church does not address is that people are unwilling to accept more children. While the proliferation of contraception has made this an easier choice, it is not the root of the problem. It is selfishness and the unwillingness to accept the gifts of children so that we can all have 3 cars, big houses, a big vacation each year…etc. We hear little on this from the Church…but we do get countless programs about how to avoid pregnancy the Catholic way through NFP. Perhap there should be a progam to encourage couple to have larger families.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Sometimes doing nothing is a sin - a sin of omission.

Saying ‘no’ to one another month after month is a sin.

Hi WatchfulPilgrim, I think we’ve “talked” before Glad to see you are still seeking

No, saying no is not a sin, if you have serious reasons to avoid. Abstinence isn’t a sin unless done for selfish reasons or denying out of spite or malice. If a couple determines that they must abstain for a legitimate reason, there is no sin. There is no doctrine or dogmatic teaching that a couple must have sex each month on a specific day and so on. It is true there is scripture saying not to deny each other for long, however, life and death/poverty/mental health intereferes with such a verse. I think it has limited use within the life of a married couple–sometimes abstinence must happen for various reasons and for various lengths of time. The Church has never taught that a couple must have as many children as possible. Nor has she taught that a couple must engage in sex at all (well, just to consumate a marriage, but even then a Josephite marriage is valid). Even the Vows of marriage say “Are you willing to accept with love the children God may send you, and bring them up in the love of Christ and his Church?”. They aren’t “go out and have as many children as possible starting now” . Infertile couples are not kept from marriage, even if they are known to be infertile. Why is that? Because the marital embrace isn’t interfered with. Of course the natural end of most marriages should be the welcoming of children as they come, but that is very difficult in this day and age. NFP is a licit way to regulate births. I could give the catechism quotes, but I’ll bet you’ve read them, a few times I know nothing I say can really convince you one way or the other. But do know, there are those of us out here in Catholic-land that are able to faithfully follow this teaching. I’m not saying it’s always easy, either, just possible.

 

[eichenb2]

A huge part of the problem is that those who defend the Catholic teaching on contraception/NFP use “open to life” phrase quite liberally, when they really don’t mean “open to life” as most people understand it. It is the wrong tact to take when explaining the Church’s position b/c those that aren’t really familiar with the church’s teachings don’t understand “open to life” as those like you.

But, even further, the defenders make the mistake of actually using the “open to life” argument in the sense that most of us understand it. Take the words from the pamphlet Randy posted earlier:

This argument holds no water and it is no wonder that those who struggle with this teaching continue to do so when the church teaching is couched in such a way.

You are correct thought, that the church’s teaching that each act must be procreative (and unitive) doesn’t meant that each act must be when the woman is feritle, or with the intention to create (or willingness to accept) a new life. The Church means that the sexual act must be ordered toward life…it must retain its procreative tendency…it must look the same as baby making sex does.

This is fantastic, and I think it is wonderful that this teaching has benefited your marriage so much. However, I am quite certain that there are plenty of couples who practice contracepted sex who treasure the marital embrace as much as you, and find it a great source of strength and unity within their marriage. This doesn’t make contracepting morally licit, but neither does your example illustrate that contraception is morally illicit.

If Rico’s Church on the Move taught that eating carbohydrates were morally illicit and somehow contributed to the sin of gluttony, I am sure that the more devout followers of Rico’s church would report a great sense of feedom after shaking carbs from their diet and attest to the great benefits of this teaching. They will say that among the benefits…more energy, weight loss, a deep sense of respect for the temple that is our body. These are indeed great benefits, and there is no doubt that my followers are genuine in their expressions of said benefits…but that does not proof eating carbs is morally illicit.

Please don’t get me wrong…I do not doubt your experience in the slightest. I think you have enjoyed many blessings from accepting the Church’s teaching here…as has others on this forum. But at the same time, I am 100% certain that following this teaching has had not so wonderful effects on at least one marriage.

Are you saying that by accepting NFP as the only available method for spacing births, you became more willing to accept new life…where as you probably would not have if you continued to use contraception? I can buy that. However, I think couple who chose to contracept in order to space kids can have that same willingness and openness to life (meaning they are willing to accept many children as gifts from God).

In fact, I have said this before, that the real problem that the church does not address is that people are unwilling to accept more children. While the proliferation of contraception has made this an easier choice, it is not the root of the problem. It is selfishness and the unwillingness to accept the gifts of children so that we can all have 3 cars, big houses, a big vacation each year…etc. We hear little on this from the Church…but we do get countless programs about how to avoid pregnancy the Catholic way through NFP. Perhap there should be a progam to encourage couple to have larger families.

My largest problem is that I see intercourse useful for Procreation and/or Nurturing the marital bond. I do not think it has to be BOTH. NFP is STILL a positive act of the will to abstain or indulge in baby making. This is just like putting out the nets on friday and gathering them on sunday and claiming that you did not fish on the Sabbath.

 

[Jennifer_J]

A huge part of the problem is that those who defend the Catholic teaching on contraception/NFP use “open to life” phrase quite liberally, when they really don’t mean “open to life” as most people understand it. It is the wrong tact to take when explaining the Church’s position b/c those that aren’t really familiar with the church’s teachings don’t understand “open to life” as those like you.

I agree, I think the “open to life” is confusing and not a well thought out term to use. I refuse to use it anymore. I try to be very clear about procreation and fertility and such.

snip for length

This is fantastic, and I think it is wonderful that this teaching has benefited your marriage so much. However, I am quite certain that there are plenty of couples who practice contracepted sex who treasure the marital embrace as much as you, and find it a great source of strength and unity within their marriage. This doesn’t make contracepting morally licit, but neither does your example illustrate that contraception is morally illicit.

It was just an example. I know there are many couples who contracept happily. Neither do I think NFP is some magical device that will make all marriages great. I think marriage is hard work. We make it harder by the actions we do and the lack of communication that is easy to fall into.

If Rico’s Church on the Move taught that eating carbohydrates were morally illicit and somehow contributed to the sin of gluttony, I am sure that the more devout followers of Rico’s church would report a great sense of feedom after shaking carbs from their diet and attest to the great benefits of this teaching. They will say that among the benefits…more energy, weight loss, a deep sense of respect for the temple that is our body. These are indeed great benefits, and there is no doubt that my followers are genuine in their expressions of said benefits…but that does not proof eating carbs is morally illicit.

Please don’t get me wrong…I do not doubt your experience in the slightest. I think you have enjoyed many blessings from accepting the Church’s teaching here…as has others on this forum. But at the same time, I am 100% certain that following this teaching has had not so wonderful effects on at least one marriage.

Again, NFP is not a magic bullet. It can point out problems in a marriage VERY quickly. To blame NFP for marriage problems is not honest. The marriage already had problems that came to the surface because of NFP. I wish there were more programs for hurting marriage, to make them whole and funtioning

Are you saying that by accepting NFP as the only available method for spacing births, you became more willing to accept new life…where as you probably would not have if you continued to use contraception? I can buy that. However, I think couple who chose to contracept in order to space kids can have that same willingness and openness to life (meaning they are willing to accept many children as gifts from God).

I’m saying I was steeped in secular society and their view of sex and contraception–you got married and took the pill (or were on the pill before marriage so that you could engage in premarital sex). It took quite a while for some of that to dissipate and for me to fully grasp this teaching. When we were first married, we said 2 children at some point and then we’d be done and maybe adopt or foster. After we converted and we began looking even more indepth at Church teaching in regards to sexuality, we decided we had waited long enough and tried to get pregnant and succeeded soon after. We weren’t in the most perfect spot: dh was in grad school and I was teaching in a Catholic school. We made it work and soon desired another child. This cycle has repeated itself. We have trouble finding a good enough reason to not add to our family, yet, though we have used NFP to space as needed at any particular time. And I fear that we are reaching the end of adding more children for a few reasons…but we’re on a month by month basis right now.

In fact, I have said this before, that the real problem that the church does not address is that people are unwilling to accept more children. While the proliferation of contraception has made this an easier choice, it is not the root of the problem. It is selfishness and the unwillingness to accept the gifts of children so that we can all have 3 cars, big houses, a big vacation each year…etc. We hear little on this from the Church…but we do get countless programs about how to avoid pregnancy the Catholic way through NFP. Perhap there should be a progam to encourage couple to have larger families.

I coudn’t agree more! I will add, that without NFP, we would have still (probably) been contracepting and not as open to the message of generosity (that message gets drowned out in the world around us). The Church is fighting against this secular mentality and I think sees NFP as a bridge to get people to open their hearts to more children. That’s certainly true in our case.

I’m not going to deny that this is a difficult issue for many people. At one point, it was for me, as well. Secular society bombards us with warped messages of sex and sexuality. It’s hard to fight.

 

[fix]

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.

Do you think every second a person is not having sex they are contracepting? Abstaining from sex is not separating anything. Engaging in that act and frustrating it does change it. It changes the very nature of the action.

 

[fix]

I think myself and others have made legit rational arguments for doubting the veracity of the CC teaching in this area and you just dismiss because of your personal experience and feeling???
I think you, sorry to say, are lacking charity.

I have yet to see a legitimate argument. What I see are people substituting their private teaching for Church teaching and then disassembling the argument. The problem is they forgot to state what the Church actually teaches first.

 

[eichenb2]

I have yet to see a legitimate argument. What I see are people substituting their private teaching for Church teaching and then disassembling the argument. The problem is they forgot to state what the Church actually teaches first.

I think that I have stated clearly that I know what the CC teaches. I, and others, disagree with this teaching. We have been articulating exactly what our issues are. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[eichenb2]

This dead horse has been beat enough! I do not agree with the CC teachings on this and, apparently, so do others.

 

[Jennifer_J]

This dead horse has been beat enough! I do not agree with the CC teachings on this and, apparently, so do others.

Well, there you go…all the cool kids are doing it…

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

This dead horse has been beat enough! I do not agree with the CC teachings on this and, apparently, so do others.

Yes, there are only so many ways to put it. No one has addressed my point about the unitive aspect of the act and how abstaining is denying that aspect.

It sounds like all everyone is saying at this point is that the act has to be natural. The question is, why? There are many things in life that are unnatural that the church allows? Medicine for instance. Artificial body parts. How about weight-loss pills? They satisfy the appetite without actually feeding the body. There are so many analogies I could give. But we all know that it isn’t merely a matter of the act being natural. It’s about being open to life as well and not withholding one’s fertility from the other person. Contraception says, I will not give myself to you 100%. How many times have I heard that? I’ve even heard it on EWTN. I know what I am talking about. I studied NFP quite extensively over the years and talked to numerous priests about it. There is more to it than it needing to be done naturally. The other elements involved are not logical to me (and others apparently), nor is the teaching that is should be natural in every way. The fact that one abstains when nature makes us desire it most is clearly UNnatural, as is constant monthly monitoring and having sex on a schedule.

Sorry to be so blunt, and I don’t mean to be offensive. 90% of the time I am fine about it. My other half is probably more upset about it than I am, but I do understand his frustration and I agree with him that the whole thing is inconsistent and illogical.

Peace,

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Well, there you go…all the cool kids are doing it…

That didn’t seem fair at all. That is clearly not what this person was saying.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Yes, there are only so many ways to put it. No one has addressed my point about the unitive aspect of the act and how abstaining is denying that aspect.

It sounds like all everyone is saying at this point is that the act has to be natural. The question is, why? There are many things in life that are unnatural that the church allows? Medicine for instance. Artificial body parts. How about weight-loss pills? They satisfy the appetite without actually feeding the body. There are so many analogies I could give. But we all know that it isn’t merely a matter of the act being natural. It’s about being open to life as well and not withholding one’s fertility from the other person. Contraception says, I will not give myself to you 100%. How many times have I heard that? I’ve even heard it on EWTN. I know what I am talking about. I studied NFP quite extensively over the years and talked to numerous priests about it. There is more to it than it needing to be done naturally. The other elements involved are not logical to me (and others apparently), nor is the teaching that is should be natural in every way. The fact that one abstains when nature makes us desire it most is clearly UNnatural, as is constant monthly monitoring and having sex on a schedule.

Sorry to be so blunt, and I don’t mean to be offensive. 90% of the time I am fine about it. My other half is probably more upset about it than I am, but I do understand his frustration and I agree with him that the whole thing is inconsistent and illogical.

Peace,

Again, natural has nothing to do with it. The act does have a certain inherant order to it. NFP is not licit because it is ‘natural’. Part of the reason it is licit is part of Natural Law, but that has nothing to do with tree hugging, nature It has to do with the proper order of the act. It really isn’t even about “open to life” as Rico S said earlier. I think that term is confusing and doesn’t clarify anything. Sex should be “ordered to procreation” as well as unitive. Those 2 are so wrapped up together that it damages the sacramental nature of the act to separate them. Would it still feel good? Sure. Would there be a bond there? Sure, because part of the bonding is a chemical reaction to sex itself.

The Church doesn’t force anyone to use NFP, it should only be used for grave/serious/just reasons. Is it difficult to deny yourself when you are most receptive? Yes! But just like the dieter who must deny their longing for chocolate for their health, sometimes abstinence must be used for our health (physical, emotional,) and wellbeing (taking care of family, $, etc). It shouldn’t feel “natural” to do this because it is a sacrifice. It certainly doesn’t feel “natural” to fast from food or meat, but we do it to hopefully grow in faith. The default in marriage should be accepting children as they come–not NFP or contraception. However, in this fallen world, that isn’t always possible–and the Church recognizes this. The use of NFP can be a way to grow in faith, but it’s not a guarantee. Motive and attitude and spousal cooperation can make it either easier or more difficult.