NFP? A question about marriage and contraception

[LittleDeb]

stanley123:

Right. This was the teaching before Vatican II. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose was unitive.
The teaching after Vatican II was that a primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children, because now there are two primary purposes of marriage. Please see post number 23.
“The Church teaches that there are two primary ends of marriage; the procreation of children and the unitive aspect - the two shall become one flesh.”
To sum up:

1. Before Vatican II, the teaching was that there is one primary purpose of marriage.
2. After Vatican II, the teaching is that there are two primary purposes of marriage.

I beg anyone who reads this to please stop spreading this rumor.

The teaching has always been that procreation is the primary reason for the marriage act and that unity is the secondary reason. I will grant that it was better emphasized after Vatican II that unity was the secondary reason.

Case in point that was already stated: There cannot be two primary reasons simultanously. One must be primary and another secondary (or thirdly in other cases.) For there to be a primary reason then other reasons must exist, If not it would be referred as the “only” reason.

Also in these discussions it is really best to differenciate between being procreative and being reproductive. When these terms are used interchangeably it can have the unwanted side effect of hurting those who struggle with infertility. We are procreative in every marriage act, we just aren’t reproductive very often.

I concur with the other posters who say that primary is defined by The Church more carefully than those here who might say a teaching has changed.

 

[Catilieth]

I specifically used reproduction when talking about animals and procreation when speaking of people. I should have been more clear that I was still talking about animals when I said:

Catilieth:

.
So, anyone who is honest with themselves has to see that the primary purpose for sex is reproduction.
.

 

[LittleDeb]

Catilieth:

I specifically used reproduction when talking about animals and procreation when speaking of people. I should have been more clear that I was still talking about animals when I said:

Thanks for clarifying. Such a good point when stated that way! Very true. Neutered animals generally don’t try to have sex. They don’t seem to have sex for unity. I’m sure there are exceptions but it is an interesting observation!

 

[fcfahs]

Hi All,

Not to “muddy the waters,” but what was the primary reason for Mary’s marriage to Joseph, when her self-proclaimed mission in life was to remain a virgin? Bear in mind that she was engaged to Joseph, with plans to marry him, before she learned that she would ultimately be giving birth to Jesus.

In the same vein, what was the primary reason for Eve being created for Adam? Genesis 2:20-25 seem to imply the primary reason for Eve was that Adam needed a helper, more fit for him than any of the animals.

Just a thought.

Frank

 

[LittleDeb]

fcfahs:

Hi All,

Not to “muddy the waters,” but what was the primary reason for Mary’s marriage to Joseph, when her self-proclaimed mission in life was to remain a virgin? Bear in mind that she was engaged to Joseph, with plans to marry him, before she learned that she would ultimately be giving birth to Jesus.

Procreation. She did produce Jesus just not through sexual means. To abstain does not make one cease to be procreative. It just means that each and every marriage act must be procreative. I am abstaining as I type this. I am still procreative in my marriage.

In the same vein, what was the primary reason for Eve being created for Adam? Genesis 2:20-25 seem to imply the primary reason for Eve was that Adam needed a helper, more fit for him than any of the animals.

Just a thought.

Frank

“Helper” refers to their equality. It was not a job description.

 

[fcfahs]

Hi LittleDeb,

LittleDeb:

Procreation. She did produce Jesus just not through sexual means. To abstain does not make one cease to be procreative. It just means that each and every marriage act must be procreative. I am abstaining as I type this. I am still procreative in my marriage.

I think you missed my point. What I was alluding to is that Mary had plans to marry Joseph, fully expecting NOT to have children - she was a sworn virgin from her youth and had plans to remain a virgin the rest of her life, even before learning of God’s mission for her. Therefore her and Joseph’s primary purpose for getting married must have been a desire for non-sexual love and unity, to protect and help each other in this life and to grow closer to God through each other, NOT for the procreation of children.

“Helper” refers to their equality. It was not a job description.

What are your bible or catechism sources for saying that “Helper” (in Genesis 2:20) refers to Adam’s and Eve’s equality?

I can be taught, and am always willing to learn.
Thanks,

Frank

 

[Catilieth]

At the time of Christ’s birth, especially in the Middle Eastern cultures, an unmarried woman could not live alone (for many reasons…social, religious and economic) Being a consecrated virgin, she still need the protection of a man. Joseph was an older man, a widower, and took her to be her guardian. This is before God’s plans were revealed. After Mary conceived Jesus, it was even more imperative that Jesus be born into a family, otherwise Mary would have been at least ostracized if not stoned, and her child considered a bastard.
The word “husband” has several layers of meaning. One can husband without ever intending to be a lover. Think of the term “animal husbandry”, the science of caring for and managing livestock. Joseph was truly a husband in the sense of caring for, providing for and protecting Mary and her son.

As for Adam…he was lonely and desired someone to share himself with. Horses, mules, oxen, dogs all help mankind. He had all the help he needed. The joy he expressed when he saw Eve was not that of a man who just hired a helper. It was the joy of finding a soul-mate. And since God made them male and female, he obviously intended for them to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[LittleDeb]

fcfahs:

Hi LittleDeb,

I think you missed my point. What I was alluding to is that Mary had plans to marry Joseph, fully expecting NOT to have children - she was a sworn virgin from her youth and had plans to remain a virgin the rest of her life, even before learning of God’s mission for her. Therefore her and Joseph’s primary purpose for getting married must have been a desire for non-sexual love and unity, to protect and help each other in this life and to grow closer to God through each other, NOT for the procreation of children.

What are your bible or catechism sources for saying that “Helper” (in Genesis 2:20) refers to Adam’s and Eve’s equality?

I can be taught, and am always willing to learn.
Thanks,

Frank

I will grant that I gave some fairly simplistic answers here. Since it was confusing I will go into more depth on both points since I do feel they are valid points and worth discussing.

While I like many points of Catilieth’s post I would like to further address a few parts. Yes, we know from history that Mary was a consecrated virgin. But the important part was that Joseph chose to honor that consecration. He didn’t have to. You’ll notice that when Mary turned up pregnant that the “consecrated virgin police” didn’t come after Joseph and stone him for violating a virgin. We know Joseph honored her perpetual virginity, but the people of the time did not. And currently the Protestants believe he didn’t after the birth of Jesus.

At the time Mary would have had to accept whatever her husband had asked of her (or forced on her.) While she vowed to remain a virgin, she would have still had to enter into the betrothal with procreation as her primary purpose. That Joseph honored the Miraculous Conception is one of the reasons he is a saint.

Further, that Jesus was conceived during the betrothal and not after was an interesting case. Sexual relations were allowed during the “espoused period” but would cause a divorce if the man wanted to return “damaged goods.” In that era a man could even lie about the woman’s virginity and it fell on her parents to defend her. From Church tradition (note the little t) many believe Mary had to get married because her parents were gone. She would have no one to defend her if Joseph had returned her. Pretty precarious place for a very young woman to be.

Finally, we know from hindsight that Joseph honored her vow. If he hadn’t she still would have been procreative in each and every marriage act. We know that because they are the model of Christian marriage.

More on the “helper” part soon. My posts get too long too easily.

 

[LittleDeb]

So on the “helper” section of Frank’s question here goes:

I am not sure what you wanted by asking for Bible or catechism sources. When I answereed in the previous post I wasn’t familiar with you so I wasn’t sure if you were searching for a debate. That is why I kept it simple. But since it appears you are interested and not “fishing for a fight” I will go into detail.

Wow already too long! Quick history and short sentences may keep it brief, or maybe not, we’ll see. In my teens and 20’s I popped off a lot about how I felt and thought that The Church subjugated women. My mom enrolled me in MANY classes on history to “help” me out. I took them just to prove how much I didn’t need them. Wow was I wrong! I found I was reading Scripture with a Protestant mentality that I had sufficient knowlede to interpret it. I didn’t.

The major classes I took were on the types of storytelling, history, and mostly how women really were always equal but because of the feminist agenda I was being taught in college, I believed they weren’t. What I took under Mom’s influence weren’t Bible study classes they were “history of times surrounding the Bible” classes.

All of Genesis is really about marriage and family and the foundation of society as God ordained it. I learned it was actually done in a language (read that as a rythmn or style) like a children’s story. (At the time I was, “What?? Genesis is the longest dryest read of all time…children’s story??”) It is a children’s story for very simple times and very simple concepts.

The entire two tellings of Adam and Eve emphasize their perfection and their equality to each other. Eve was from Adam’s rib, meaning his middle or his side, not his head or feet. Equality. His helper, not his servant, his equal. There are tons of other references to equality, you just have to know what you are looking at.

“They” hid when they discovered they were naked. They sinned not he or she. Lots of language about Adam being spokesman, but it was still about both sinning. Foundation of marriage–you are one then you marry and you are a “they.” One does not sin without the other being affected. As two are now one, the hand cannot sin without the body knowing it.

My Protestant friends think that Jesus, “Didn’t speak that much about the nature of marriage.” Wow, does that make explaining NFP to them difficult! It takes forever for them to see how much he said about it. One of my teachers who had been to Rome and was attending John Paul The Great’s Theology of the Body talks had a wonderful idea for that. He said that when they start talking about how Jesus speaks for a short time in Matthew about divorce and when it is ok to be divorced to show them the cross reference that Jesus himself makes. He says, “In the Begining…” The priest said that that was Jesus saying, “Insert the book of Genesis here.” Now he says a WHOLE lot on marriage and sexuality!

(Come to think of it the priest probably got the idea from The Holy Father himself!)

I used to hate Genesis but when I really started to understand it as a foundation for our sexuality, marriage and equality it is such a great read. “Two by two;” and “so and so was the father of …who was the father of…who was the father of…;” and “helper” are all great examples of God explaining very carefully and very cleary how and why He made us.

Wow that was really long! Thanks for reading.

 

[Mathew_George]

stanley123:

It may illustrate another contradiction in the Church’s teaching, but my point still stands that the Church has taught in the past that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children.

If the Church had ever taught infallibly that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, or that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, it would not be able to ‘develop the doctrine’ later and imply that procreation is only **one of the two ** primary purposes of marriage. The question is, were these teachings of the Church really defined infallibly?

Infallibility itself has a very narrow and restrictive definition as spelt out by Vatican I & II. In my humble opinion, if the charism of protection by the Holly Spirit were available to a wide array of papal teachings, Vatican I & II wouldn’t be so circumspect in defining it. Yes, there are other levels of papal teachings also that are authoritative and that must be obeyed by the faithful. But, they are not cast in concrete for all posterity. If the Church in its wisdom gathered through changing times, should decide to modify or change such teachings, it cannot be held as an argument against infallibility.

Again, infallibility extends only to those few words that precisely define a dogma. It does not extend to other parts of the same papal document. For example, if contraception is sought to be defined infallibly, the charism of protection need not automatically extend to the supporting arguments such as the procreative and unitive purposes of marriage. The bottom-line is, so long as the Church does not define infallibly the primary or secondary nature of procreation or any other aspect of spousal union, I wouldn’t be too concerned if the Church changes its emphasis on these later-on.

I have a question. In Genesis, God saw that Adam was alone and gave him Eve as a companion. He said, you shall cleave to one another and become one flesh. In my opinion, what God himself saw and mitigated as the first step was the loneliness of Adam. The command to procreate came later. Even in St Paul, one finds nothing to emphasize that procreation was the primary command. Yes, the fall of Adam has somehow messed up the whole sexual act as we know it (what is called concupiscence, post-fall), and it is very hard for us to know what part of desire is God given and what part is Satan’s temptation. Yet, I get very uncomfortable with the logic that the unitive purpose of marriage is only secondary, or in some way below its procreative purpose.

 

[LittleDeb]

Mathew George:

I have a question. In Genesis, God saw that Adam was alone and gave him Eve as a companion. He said, you shall cleave to one another and become one flesh. In my opinion, what God himself saw and mitigated as the first step was the loneliness of Adam. The command to procreate came later. Even in St Paul, one finds nothing to emphasize that procreation was the primary command. Yes, the fall of Adam has somehow messed up the whole sexual act as we know it (what is called concupiscence, post-fall), and it is very hard for us to know what part of desire is God given and what part is Satan’s temptation. Yet, I get very uncomfortable with the logic that the unitive purpose of marriage is only secondary, or in some way below its procreative purpose.

You make such a good point here. I compliment you because it is exactly where I was many years ago. I can see from the rest of your post (unquoted part) that are on a path to a deeper understanding and will soon be “home.”

I say I was in the same spot because I so wanted unity to be equal or even above procreation because that somehow justified that contraception might be an option.

I too was very “uncomfortable” with the logic of procreation first and foremost. I soon discovered that I wanted to “feel” good about it. How I came to an understanding was to abondon my feelings on the matter and search for Truth instead. Now, I am a very emotional person so it was one of the most difficult things I have done.

It is hard work to go through Genesis with the idea that God spelled it out very clearly about His design for us. Luckily we have the teaching authority of The Church to help us. If I had to do it by just reading the Bible I would now be a contraception advocate and not an NFP promoter.

I would advise starting with the idea of “What if The Church is right and I am wrong?” That is where I began. First thing I discovered was I didn’t like being wrong and it hurt to think I might be. Then, put aside feelings and look at the logic.

Church-2000 years old, me at the time-in my 20s. Church-foundation of Truth, me-foundation was my feet, and so on.

I would not focus on St. Paul when trying to understand the nature of marriage. If you want a deeper understanding of the amazing gift of priestly celibacy, then St. Paul is your man!

What I found is that in discovering the Truth about marriage I actually “felt” better. Marriage is so amazing when the spouses embrace God’s design. The marriage act becomes a holy celebration.

As for your question about lonliness first and procreation later…Maybe if you develop a better understanding of what God meant when Adam was “lonely.” Under your current definition of "lonely, " it could have been resolved by giving him a male friend. Since He gave him a complentary partner, He meant lonely in a very specific way.

 

[Catilieth]

If you will forgive me for a little divergence…but this has been in my head for a while and I haven’t had anyone to ask about it.

The Protestant belief that Joseph did not not honor Mary’s perpetual viginity has always bothered me. If the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit, that **is, **in a very real sense, the “marital act”…the Holy Spirit impregnated her. So far, this is great…a virgin bride, chosen from all eternity to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, to be the Mother of God. What could be more beautiful?
Since God is eternal and immortal, and the Holy Spirit was not the person who died on the cross (and besides, the Protestant belief is that Jesus had sibling before he started his ministry)…if Mary had “relations” with Joseph, would that not make her a bigamist? Or was she fornicating when she conceived Jesus? I do not mean this in any disrespectful sense, but that is where the logic takes me. It’s just that she can’t have 2 spouses (in the sense of “knowing”), and she can’t take a second if the first is still living. Has anyone else brought this up, or am I just really odd?

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Catilieth:

If you will forgive me for a little divergence…but this has been in my head for a while and I haven’t had anyone to ask about it.

The Protestant belief that Joseph did not not honor Mary’s perpetual viginity has always bothered me. If the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit, that **is, **in a very real sense, the “marital act”…the Holy Spirit impregnated her. So far, this is great…a virgin bride, chosen from all eternity to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, to be the Mother of God. What could be more beautiful?
Since God is eternal and immortal, and the Holy Spirit was not the person who died on the cross (and besides, the Protestant belief is that Jesus had sibling before he started his ministry)…if Mary had “relations” with Joseph, would that not make her a bigamist? Or was she fornicating when she conceived Jesus? I do not mean this in any disrespectful sense, but that is where the logic takes me. It’s just that she can’t have 2 spouses (in the sense of “knowing”), and she can’t take a second if the first is still living. Has anyone else brought this up, or am I just really odd?

I think this will help you out:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Let us know what you think

malia

 

[Catilieth]

Sort of…it reiterates the perpetual teaching of the Church…that is not exactly my issue. The 2 spouses thing is what bothers me, that the Protestant view does not take into account that if Mary had other children by Joseph, that she then would have had 2 spouses. How do they get around it?

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Catilieth:

Sort of…it reiterates the perpetual teaching of the Church…that is not exactly my issue. The 2 spouses thing is what bothers me, that the Protestant view does not take into account that if Mary had other children by Joseph, that she then would have had 2 spouses. How do they get around it?

If you read the article, you would see that Joseph was not a spouse in the way we now see spouses. He was her guardian; protector of her virginity.

And then there is this:

“Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.”

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question, but I hope this has helped.

Malia

 

[Catilieth]

I’m afraid I’m not being very clear…
I understand and fully agree with the Churches perpetual teaching on Mary’s Virginity.
Luther also believed in the Real Presence… but modern Protestants don’t.
My question is with modern day Protestants that say that Mary had other children by Joseph. How do they rationalize 2 spouses…
Do they deny that Mary was ever the Spouse of the Holy Spirit? She would have had children by 2 different persons, the Holy Spirit and then Joseph. How do they get around the fact that that would require either “fornication” (albeit in a spiritual sense with the Holy Spirit in that they did not “have sex”…that’s the Ever Virgin part, but she was impregnated) or bigamy (2 spouses).

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Catilieth:

I’m afraid I’m not being very clear…
I understand and fully agree with the Churches perpetual teaching on Mary’s Virginity.
Luther also believed in the Real Presence… but modern Protestants don’t.
My question is with modern day Protestants that say that Mary had other children by Joseph. How do they rationalize 2 spouses…
Do they deny that Mary was ever the Spouse of the Holy Spirit? She would have had children by 2 different persons, the Holy Spirit and then Joseph. How do they get around the fact that that would require either “fornication” (albeit in a spiritual sense with the Holy Spirit in that they did not “have sex”…that’s the Ever Virgin part, but she was impregnated) or bigamy (2 spouses).

I see…

Since I am not a Protestant, nor have I ever been one, I have no idea how they rationalize their belief in siblings of Jesus.

But from what I can tell, Protestants have many glaring contradictions in their beliefs. I don’t think they rationalize them when confronted…they seem to go on the attack and change the subject to some myth about the Catholic Church.

Of course there are some great Prostestants who are willing to have wonderful open dialogues and who care more about the search for Truth than being right. If you can find one then you will have the answer to your question.

I bet if you start your own thread on this topic you will have lots of answers to choose from.

malia

Malia

 

[Mathew_George]

Catilieth:

Secondly, to understand why procreation** is ** the primary reason, lets walk away from the whole morality issue and look at the world God created. In all the natural world, what is the only reason for male and female? The reason is to reproduce. Some living things are both male and female (most flowers have both male and female parts.[yes,flowers have ovaries]…some plants have flowers that are only male and only female). ) Having separate male and female individuals gives a genetic advantage. Nature doesn’t have male and female just because she wants everyone to have a good time…gee, fish don’t even touch when they “do it”. Most animals won’t even consider breeding except right at ovulation, nature is that reproduction driven…not one ounce of wasted energy unless there is a good chance of producing offspring
So, anyone who is honest with themselves has to see that the primary purpose for sex is reproduction.
Because we are also made in the image of God, there is also the unitive aspect. That, to me, does not seem to be a contradiction of anything.

Comparing human sexuality with that of animalia, has only limited use in this debate. If anything, the only serious similarity is that sex is capable of producing offsprings in both. Human sex-drive is 24-7, and mind-involvement in relationships is unique to humans. If some animals do form ‘family bonds’ of some sort primarily for breeding and parental care, it is too limited in scope to be compared to the unitive purpose in human sex.

If procreation indeed is the primary purpose of marriage (I don’t know), at least it will have more to it

Mere continuation of the species

 

[cmgeo]

Coming to the main topic of discussion,
I still dont get Church’s attitude to sexuality
In a similar thread elsewhere I did say that
NFP is as hypocritical as use of contraceptives

First argument is whether or not having a planned family
is allowed by catholic teaching?
If that is Allowed why make such fuss about
non-abortive contraceptives?
How is that different from NFP?

If abstinence is the virtue why marry at all?

Is not sexual act the ultimate expression of Love?
I believe abstinence in marriage as a part of NFP
is against nature and against essence of marriage

There are different situations of couple living
apart for weeks or months due to work etc
and it becomes practically difficult to abstain when they
come together irrespective of whether it is time of fertility
or not. Again even for people living together
relationships keep varying
Sometimes people feel more intimate than at other times

Fertile time is when women are in better spirits and likely to
be more loving to their husbands

I dont know if church considers such aspects as well

The practice of NFP is also linked with the theory
of wasting ‘seed’

I think that was an old understanding that the sperm gets
absorbed into the body etc

We now know better

Any comments?

 

[Mathew_George]

Catilieth:

Secondly, to understand why procreation** is ** the primary reason, lets walk away from the whole morality issue and look at the world God created. In all the natural world, what is the only reason for male and female? The reason is to reproduce. Some living things are both male and female (most flowers have both male and female parts.[yes,flowers have ovaries]…some plants have flowers that are only male and only female). ) Having separate male and female individuals gives a genetic advantage. Nature doesn’t have male and female just because she wants everyone to have a good time…gee, fish don’t even touch when they “do it”. Most animals won’t even consider breeding except right at ovulation, nature is that reproduction driven…not one ounce of wasted energy unless there is a good chance of producing offspring
So, anyone who is honest with themselves has to see that the primary purpose for sex is reproduction.
Because we are also made in the image of God, there is also the unitive aspect. That, to me, does not seem to be a contradiction of anything.

Comparing human sexuality with that of animalia, has only limited use in this debate. If anything, the only serious similarity is that sex is capable of producing offsprings in both. Human sex-drive is 24-7, and mind-involvement in relationships is unique to humans. If some animals do form ‘family bonds’ of some sort primarily for breeding and parental care, it is too limited in scope to be compared to the unitive purpose in human sex.

If procreation indeed is the primary purpose of marriage (I don’t know), at least it will have more to it than mere propagation of the species as in animalia. It will have a great deal to do with God’s grand plans for creation of an abundance of souls to fill His kingdom.

My journey is in search to know the truth. It would have been too easy if our sex instincts were also similar to animalia… simple… and matter-of-fact. But unfortunately, the 24-7 thing and the unitive urge are so strong in humans and difficult to explain away as mere periferals, in favor of procreation as the primary calling.