NFP? A question about marriage and contraception

[Shiann]

KingdomHallsEnd:

That’s what I thought too. Apparently there is a discrepency here.
Someone please clear this.

Used this answer in another thread where you asked this question…

The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls the marital embrace both procreative and unitive.

CCC 2351, “*Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

Seek further answers in Theology of the Body.

I’ve also sought answers for you here:

newadvent.org/library/docs_ec21gs.htm

Gaudium et Spes:Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:6), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.[2]

Christ the Lord abundantly blessed this many-faceted love, welling up as it does from the fountain of divine love and structured as it is on the model of His union with His Church. For as God of old made Himself present[3] to His people through a covenant of love and fidelity, so now the Saviour of men and the Spouse[4] of the Church comes into the lives of married Christians through the sacrament of matrimony. He abides with them thereafter so that just as He loved the Church and handed Himself over on her behalf,[5] the spouses may love each other with perpetual fidelity through mutual self-bestowal. Authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is governed and enriched by Christ’s redeeming power and the saving activity of the Church, **so that this love may lead the spouses to God with powerful effect and may aid and strengthen them in sublime office of being a father or a mother.**6]​

In other words, enjoying the unitive aspects of the marital embrace

• encourages the spouses to assist one another to holiness
• reflects the strength and power and selfless giving of the love between Christ and his Church
• aids in strengthening the bond of “family” between the couple as parents or possible parents.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

frogman80:

Does this mean that postponing children by abstaining (even for selfish / unjust / frivolous reasons) is never sinful? Or … Does this mean that NFP as a method if used properly (with serious reasons) is never sinful?

NFP in and of itself (the method) can not be sinful. Is abstaining from relations sinful? How about taking our temperatures? What about writing down information on a chart? Our reasons and intentions can be.
**

Think of it like TV. Just having a TV and watching a TV cannot be sinful. It is an object and watching it is a morally neutral behavior. But there are many ways TV can lead to sin.

One way is if we place it above other priorities and obligations in our lives. Even if you are watching EWTN, it can be sinful if you are ignoring other duties.

Antoher way is* what* you are watching.

The way in which NFP is used can be sinful.

I hope this helps.

Malia

 

[otm]

stanley123:

I thought that the Church teaches that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children and that sex in marriage is primarily for the begetting of children.

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.

 

[otm]

frogman80:

Does this mean that postponing children by abstaining (even for selfish / unjust / frivolous reasons) is never sinful? Or … Does this mean that NFP as a method if used properly (with serious reasons) is never sinful?

The latter.One can sin whiole practicing NFP, but the sin is not the practicing of NFP but the intent to avoid having any children.

In other words, the sin is in the intent.

 

[stanley123]

otm:

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.

But this is not what His Holiness Pope Pius XI said:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

 

[Fortiterinre]

stanley123:

But this is not what His Holiness Pope Pius XI said:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Stanley, I am confident you are quoting Casti Connubii perfectly, but are you not familiar with Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 12? Pope Paul VI was familiar with Casti Connubii, see “often expounded by the magisterium” et al below:
Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

 

[frogman80]

Fortiterinre:

Stanley, I am confident you are quoting Casti Connubii perfectly, but are you not familiar with Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 12? Pope Paul VI was familiar with Casti Connubii, see “often expounded by the magisterium” et al below:
Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Again, I quote PJII who was also aware of Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.

“The Church…teaches, and has always taught, that the primary end of marriage is procreatio (procreation)…”

There is no doubt that both “qualities” are inherent to a marriage… (hence one reason why in vitro fertilization is wrong)… but “qualities” and “purposes” (ends) are not the same. Marriage (including the marriage act) itself IS the unification of husband and wife. The marriage act unites husband and wife… that is what it DOES… but the purpose… The primary purpose (end) of that unification is procreation.

 

[stanley123]

Fortiterinre:

Stanley, I am confident you are quoting Casti Connubii perfectly, but are you not familiar with Humanae Vitae, Paragraph 12? Pope Paul VI was familiar with Casti Connubii, see “often expounded by the magisterium” et al below:
Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Yes. It looks like the RCC has changed its teaching on the primary purpose of marriage. Before Vatican II, the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. (And there were about 9 marriage annulments in the USA in 1930).
After Vatican II, the RCC changed its teaching so that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363). Also, see canon 1055 (the very opening canon in the section of the 1983 Code
on marriage), and to the changed presentation it makes of the ends of marriage: “The matrimonial
covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of
offspring.” Matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon
1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two apparently co-equal ends: “good of the spouses” and
“procreation.”
(After this change in Catholic teaching went into effect, the annulment rate has exploded to about 61,416 per year in 1989 in the USA).

 

[frogman80]

Feanaro's Wife:

NFP in and of itself (the method) can not be sinful. Is abstaining from relations sinful? How about taking our temperatures? What about writing down information on a chart? Our reasons and intentions can be.
**

Think of it like TV. Just having a TV and watching a TV cannot be sinful. It is an object and watching it is a morally neutral behavior. But there are many ways TV can lead to sin.

One way is if we place it above other priorities and obligations in our lives. Even if you are watching EWTN, it can be sinful if you are ignoring other duties.

Antoher way is* what* you are watching.

The way in which NFP is used can be sinful.

I hope this helps.

Malia

While I am very sure that I understand you, and agree with you, you wording could be misunderstood by someone who does not understand the subject as well as you do.

"Is abstaining from relations sinful? "

Yes, It can be… like you said… with improper reason. You first post said:

“But NFP is not, and cannot be, immoral.”

Someone who thinks NFP just means “postponing by abstaining” (or someone who just doesn’t fully understand) could easily be mislead by this statement. I just wanted to help clarify!

 

[frogman80]

stanley123:

Yes. It looks like the RCC has changed its teaching on the primary purpose of marriage. Before Vatican II, the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. (And there were about 9 marriage annulments in the USA in 1930).
After Vatican II, the RCC changed its teaching so that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363). Also, see canon 1055 (the very opening canon in the section of the 1983 Code
on marriage), and to the changed presentation it makes of the ends of marriage: “The matrimonial
covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of
offspring.” Matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon
1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two apparently co-equal ends: “good of the spouses” and
“procreation.”
(After this change in Catholic teaching went into effect, the annulment rate has exploded to about 61,416 per year in 1989 in the USA).

“co-equal”

Is this your word, or is this part of the quote? Order of written language does not equate to importance / level of purpose.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

frogman80:

While I am very sure that I understand you, and agree with you, you wording could be misunderstood by someone who does not understand the subject as well as you do.

"Is abstaining from relations sinful? "

Yes, It can be… like you said… with improper reason. You first post said:

“But NFP is not, and cannot be, immoral.”

Someone who thinks NFP just means “postponing by abstaining” could easily be mislead by this statement. I just wanted to help clarify!

Thanks for pointing that out.

What I meant by the question “is abstaining from relations sinful?” was simply “is not having sex sinful?”

To clarify further, right now you are not having sex (most likely, lol). Are you sinning?

Is a priest sinning because he is celibate?

Is a single person sinning while practicing chastity?

Am I sinning right now by not having sex with my husband (who is out of town)?

Not having sex is not sinful. Again, it come down to intent.

I hope I didn’t make things worse, lol.

Malia

 

[Fortiterinre]

stanley123:

Yes. It looks like the RCC has changed its teaching on the primary purpose of marriage. Before Vatican II, the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. (And there were about 9 marriage annulments in the USA in 1930).
After Vatican II, the RCC changed its teaching so that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363). Also, see canon 1055 (the very opening canon in the section of the 1983 Code
on marriage), and to the changed presentation it makes of the ends of marriage: “The matrimonial
covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of
offspring.” Matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon
1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two apparently co-equal ends: “good of the spouses” and
“procreation.”

Stanley 123, your public profile lists you as Catholic, so I am guessing you know plenty about the development of doctrine; I don’t mean to come off with a lecturing tone. Remember John Henry Cardinal Newman, who actually as an Anglican wrote “An Essay on the Development of Doctrine” and wound up being converted to Catholicism by it. To say that the Church “has changed [her] teaching on the primary purpose of marriage” is to suggest that the teachings of the Church are completely static. “Purposes” and “ends” of marriage are helpful philosophical terms, not dogmas. I suspect that the unitive aspect of marriage will undergo further development in future centuries if God graces us with that amount of time.

(After this change in Catholic teaching went into effect, the annulment rate has exploded to about 61,416 per year in 1989 in the USA).

Now here I have to be harder on you, because this is a classic logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, “after this, because of this.” I could just easily say, “After Casti Connubii, the number of women entering the workforce exploded and the number of at-home moms greatly decreased.”

 

[stanley123]

“co-equal”

Is this your word, or is this part of the quote? Order of written language does not equate to importance / level of purpose.

I think it is my word. But I did not say “coequal” alone , I said “apparently coequal”
For the text, I am referring to a couple of things:

1. Post # 23 on this thread: “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.” Two primary ends of marriage - it does not say one primary and one secondary end.
2. the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not call one end of
   marriage primary and the other secondary (par. 2363).
   2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
3. Also, see canon 1055 (the very opening canon in the section of the 1983 Code
   on marriage), and to the changed presentation it makes of the ends of marriage: “The matrimonial
   covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of
   life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of
   offspring.” Matrimony is no longer stated to have a “primary end” — procreation — (as in canon
   1013 of the 1917 Code), but to have two ends: “good of the spouses” and
   “procreation.” It doesn’t say which is primary and which is secondary.

 

[stanley123]

Fortiterinre:

I suspect that the unitive aspect of marriage will undergo further development in future centuries if God graces us with that amount of time. "

Well, I thought that a developoment of teaching would mean a continuous and harmonious flow from what was taught in the past to what is taught now, with a more complete understanding, but still based on what was taught in the past.
What we have here seems to be a radical break with past teaching.
Before Vatican II, the Church taught that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. After Vatican II, it was not taught this way at all. It was taught as post #23 indicates that there are two primary ends of marriage. This is a readical break - you go from one primary endo fo marriage to a comp;letely new teaching that there are two primary ends of marriage. A totally different idea being taught after Vatican II.

 

[stanley123]

Fortiterinre:

Now here I have to be harder on you, because this is a classic logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, “after this, because of this.” I could just easily say, “After Casti Connubii, the number of women entering the workforce exploded and the number of at-home moms greatly decreased.”

It is not the fallacy that you say it is, becasue I am not claiming “ergo” or causality - I am claiming the possibility of correlation. I read that the federal government claims that cigaret smoking causes lung cancer. Of course, using your argument, *post hoc, ergo propter hoc, *you really can’t say that it does - all you can show really is a correlation. My argument rests on the correlation between the replacement of the Traditional doctrine that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children by the new teaching that there are two primary ends of marriage as said by poster #23 and as apparently (but it is not totally clear) is found in the CCC #2363. We have to admit that there may be underlying third variables which may be related to the ones under consdieration, such as for example, the replacement of the TLM by a liturgy which in some cases lessens the sense of the Sacred, and by the fact that the US tribunals are interpreting the new canon laws on annulments much more liberally than was the case in the past. But the fact remains that the number of annulments in the USA has gone from 9 in the year 1930 to 61,416 in 1989 and that this coincides with several changes put into place by Vatican II. A coincidence?

 

[Fortiterinre]

stanley123:

Well, I thought that a developoment of teaching would mean a continuous and harmonious flow from what was taught in the past to what is taught now, with a more complete understanding, but still based on what was taught in the past.
What we have here seems to be a radical break with past teaching.
Before Vatican II, the Church taught that the primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children. After Vatican II, it was not taught this way at all. It was taught as post #23 indicates that there are two primary ends of marriage. This is a readical break - you go from one primary endo fo marriage to a comp;letely new teaching that there are two primary ends of marriage. A totally different idea being taught after Vatican II.

How is this “totally different”? A new dimension (the unitive aspect) is being discussed in addition to the established topic (the procreative aspect).

 

[Fortiterinre]

stanley123:

It is not the fallacy that you say it is, becasue I am not claiming “ergo” or causality - I am claiming the possibility of correlation. I read that the federal government claims that cigaret smoking causes lung cancer.

There is no “possibility” of correlation here; there clearly IS a correlation. But smoking is more than a correlation; drawing hot smoke of tobacco or anything else into your lungs has been empirically established as a carciongen. The specific effects of tobacco itself might be in the realm of correlation, but “smoking” is carcinogenic by its effects. Fire burns; fire in lungs burns lungs.

stanley123:

Of course, using your argument, *post hoc, ergo propter hoc, *you really can’t say that it does - all you can show really is a correlation.

You flatter me but I really have to give good old Aristotle the credit for post hoc, ergo propter hoc! But remember that Aristotle is specifically arguing IN FAVOR of empirical science. Of course with many errors of content in the pre-microscope days, but Aristotle recognized that scientific proof was possible for scientific things, and that correlation was not strong enough to demonstrate causality. The correlation in itself does not demonstrate anything causal, especially when limited to chronology.

stanley123:

My argument rests on the correlation between the replacement of the Traditional doctrine that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children by the new teaching that there are two primary ends of marriage as said by poster #23 and as apparently (but it is not totally clear) is found in the CCC #2363. We have to admit that there may be underlying third variables which may be related to the ones under consdieration, such as for example, the replacement of the TLM by a liturgy which in some cases lessens the sense of the Sacred, and by the fact that the US tribunals are interpreting the new canon laws on annulments much more liberally than was the case in the past. But the fact remains that the number of annulments in the USA has gone from 9 in the year 1930 to 61,416 in 1989 and that this coincides with several changes put into place by Vatican II. A coincidence?

Now I can only encourage you to read Cardinal Newman, because the categories of “ends” of marriage are merely a philosophical convenience, not the faith-shaking “replacement” or “change” that you state. Tomorrow Benedict XVI could issue a teaching on marriage that references neither “unitive” nor “procreative” ends, but uses a different framework of knowledge. Much of JPII’s “Theology of the Body” was a personalist/existentialist philosophical re-working of marriage outside of the rigid Aristotelian/Thomistic language of “ends,” I love the Thomism, but the HF can teach in any language that he thinks will reach the faithful.

 

[Columba]

stanley123:

It is not the fallacy that you say it is, becasue I am not claiming “ergo” or causality - I am claiming the possibility of correlation. I read that the federal government claims that cigaret smoking causes lung cancer. Of course, using your argument, *post hoc, ergo propter hoc, *you really can’t say that it does - all you can show really is a correlation. My argument rests on the correlation between the replacement of the Traditional doctrine that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children by the new teaching that there are two primary ends of marriage as said by poster #23 and as apparently (but it is not totally clear) is found in the CCC #2363. We have to admit that there may be underlying third variables which may be related to the ones under consdieration, such as for example, the replacement of the TLM by a liturgy which in some cases lessens the sense of the Sacred, and by the fact that the US tribunals are interpreting the new canon laws on annulments much more liberally than was the case in the past. But the fact remains that the number of annulments in the USA has gone from 9 in the year 1930 to 61,416 in 1989 and that this coincides with several changes put into place by Vatican II. A coincidence?

First of all, Stanley, what is your point? We can all see you dancing around this point that you’d like to pronounce, but we haven’t really heard it yet (Maybe it’s all the Latin flying around…us posties (Post Vatican II) can’t follow that as easily as others. Your point, I think, has little to do with the topic this thread was meant for (the doctrine itself) and you cloak your contempt for Vatican II very thinly.

Another few big glaring “coincidence’s” that you have not mentioned between 1930 and present day:

• Sexual Revolution
• Huge increase in Feminism and it’s affect on public life
• Contaception being accepted by the Anglicans in 1930 and then as time went on, virtually EVERY protestant denomination either allows it, or says nothing about it, which of course will have a radical affect on the national conscience in the US, being founded by Protestants…
• The abandonment of the developed nations from the Christian/Catholic faith they were based on (Buffet-style Catholicism (Which leads me to believe that the various Popes expounding on the teaching and choosing to emphasize a little more the unitive aspect of the marital act has little to do with the anullment rate in the U.S., because NO ONE IS LISTENING TO THE POPE anymore…)

---

Picture it with me…1970…

Bob: Martha, I’ve been reading what the Pope has been writing A LOT, and meditating and praying about it during the liturgy of the hours that I faithfully do before going to that Novus Ordo Mass everyday…and I think we need to take advantage of this “Unity” thing a little more…I mean, we have 8 kids, and we’ve only had marital relations 8 times…

Martha: Typical Man…I think you’re taking advantage of ME…I’m going to talk to my Canon Lawyer…

Bob: :ehh:

---

There are many more variables at work here than the papacy’s desire to expound on a traditional teaching.

Actually, my take on it is that the Magesterium is keeping the faith alive and well (and while my sarcastic tone may not indicate it, I am most pleased that Benedict XVI has serious misgivings about the Novus Ordo, and I hope he takes steps to correct it…but all in God’s time…God’s will be done)

Yes, it is alive and well, but being ignored or trampled on by a society that has sucked the life out of the Catholic flock because they (Clergy included) don’t listen to the shepherd anymore.
…(And petty arguments about the EMPHASIS given within a teaching doesn’t help outsiders become warmer to the family, does it?)

 

[stanley123]

(Which leads me to believe that the various Popes expounding on the teaching and choosing to emphasize a little more the unitive aspect of the marital act has little to do with the anullment rate in the U.S., because NO ONE IS LISTENING TO THE POPE anymore…)
)

I was listening to the Pope when he said:
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930:

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Notice that this teaching has changed according to poster #23.
What we have now appears to be a radical break with past teaching. The current teaching is that there are two primary and apparently coequal ends of marriage. A completely new teaching is what we have after Vatican II.

 

[stanley123]

Columba:

First of all, Stanley, what is your point?

I am looking at the figures for the rate of increase in annulments given out by the RCC and the rate of increase in divorces in the USA over the same period.

What I see is:

Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.

Why should this be so? What I see is that the tribunals have been more lenient with the rules for granting the annulment and have introduced soft psychological factors as grounds for annulment, whereas they were not used before Vatican II. But then why have the tribunals been more lenient after Vatican II, and more strict before Vatican II? Could it be because the Church has changed its teaching on what constitutes the primary end of marriage and has raised the secondary end of the good of the spouses to an apparently coequal status, and thereby given more emphasis to the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons?

I believe that Pope John Paul II recognized that this may be the case when he said:

(Reported in L’Osservatore Romano, 5 Feb. 1997):

“on the one hand the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons would seem to justify a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency to broaden the requirements for capacity of psychological maturity and for the freedom and awareness necessary to contract marriage validly; on the other hand certain applications of the tendency, by bringing out its inherent ambiguities, are rightly perceived as conflicting with the principle of indissolubility…”