NFP? A question about marriage and contraception

[PLAL]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=441428

Natural Family Planning is the knowledge of a couple’s fertility. It is a knowledge base about a couple’s ability to conceive a child.

The application of this knowledge in a particular marriage is called responsible parenthood. The couple either decides to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid by timing their use of the privileges of marriage according to the knowledge of their mutual fertility. (The man, if healthy, is fertile all the time. The woman, if healthy, is fertile about three or four days a month.)

Responsible parenthood differs from contraception in two ways: 1. There is no alteration of the bodies of either the husband or wife and this is a huge difference. 2. When the couple uses the privileges of marriage, they are not holding back at all or refusing to give everything they are, physically and spiritually. If they are infertile at the time, this is the result of the way God created them. They are giving themselves totally to one another AS THEY ARE AT THAT MOMENT. No one could require more. Further, God never asked couples to use the privileges of marriage at any particular time. That decision is completely theirs. So, in the marital act during an infertile period, husband and wife who are applying the knowledge of their fertility (NFP) responsibly (responsible parenthood) are giving everything they are at that moment to one another.

The intention is also different. The NFP couple realizes that in every marital union there is a chance (perhaps remote) of conceiving a child and they accept this possibility. The contracepting couple (even if only with condoms) has a positive intention against contraception.

An example might help: I want some money from a bank. It makes a huge difference whether I go to the bank and draw the money out from a checking account or whether I approach a teller with a gun and “withdraw” $100. Either way, I get the $100, but one act is radically differnt from the other.

---

Another Similar Thread

How is NFP Morally Different than Condoms??

---

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59354&page=2

 

[frogman80]

stanley123:

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.

“apparently coequal”… Yes, that is what I figured, but I just wanted to make sure.

The point I would make, is that the teaching has not changed. Just because it is no longer listed as primary and secondary… does not mean that it does not still hold true. Code of Cannon Law does not have to list the ends in order for them to still hold true.

In order of importance:
Primary end of marriage is procreatio (procreation).
Secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium (mutual assistance).
Apart from these as tertiary aim is mentioned- remedium concupiscentiae (remedy for concupiscence).

A person needs to keep their understanding of these balanced. Love between the spouses cannot be separated from these purposes. If a couple looks at the primary purpose as some mechanical requirement that lacks love, it will not fulfil that primary end very well. The relationship between a husband and wife will be lacking. We see this misunderstanding often on the board when people write in saying “I would like to wait to have children so that husband and I can get a chance to grow in love / spirituality first.” This very idea (often written about) is flawed if it assumes that having children will somehow inhibit love between husband and wife. This misunderstanding also happens when people misinterpret “Mutual Assistance” to mean “Mutual Love”. Love presupposes the ends of marriage.

So here is another quote of JPII:

“…the Church, in arranging the objective purposes of love in particular order, seeks to emphasize that procreation is objectively, ontologically, a more important purpose that that man and woman should live together, complement each other and support each other (mutuum adiutorium), just as this second purposes in turn more important that the appeasement of natural desire. But there is no question of opposing love to procreation nor yet of suggesting that procreation takes precedence over love.”

 

[YinYangMom]

stanley123:

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? /QUOTE]

First of all, the society of the 30s is vastly different than the society of the 70s-90s.

It wouldn’t even occur to a couple to seek an annulment back then because society alone would have ostracized them for breaking a marriage vow. Remember, women weren’t allowed to own their own bank accounts then, they weren’t allowed to work. Living alone would have been scandalous…women lived at home until they were married. So what was a woman to do if a marriage was corrupt? Back then it wasn’t so much a matter of choice to enter into a marriage but a necessity.

After the war women were in the work force, they fought for the right to vote, the right to keep working when the war was over, the right to own their own bank accounts…and with that ‘choice’ becoming available to women in the U.S. they no longer ‘had to be married off’ in order to survive.

So then we have marriages entered into, not out of necessity or convenience, but because of passion. Some people kept the old ways and sought their mates logistically. Others sought their mates emotionally.

There has always been abuse in marriage - men dominating the women either verbally or physically, there has always been infidelity in marriages - but before there was no reason to get out of a marriage because the woman would have no way to support herself.

So the same abuses of the covenants take place, but this time, women can walk away. Both men and women want to remarry so they start applying for annulments, thus the “dramatic” increase in numbers of cases filed.

As for the number of cases actually annulled…well, apparently, there were good reasons to issue the annulment, but if you look at the number of divorces in relation to the number of annulments it still shows that the Church is not as lenient in handing those out as society is. Note that your numbers are askewed in that you cite divorces for two periods separate from the number of annulments granted, but even with that flaw, 61,000 + annulments granted in relation to 1,100,000 + divorces does not indicate abuse. Besides you do not show how many marriages took place in those same periods. 61,000 annulments out of XX,XXX,XXX or so marriages is not a high number.

I’m not so certain the increase in those issued is because of the Church’s leniency as it is that the Church was asked to review that many more cases.

 

[PLAL]

Here’s a great website about NFP…

The Couple to Couple League

ccli.org/nfp/index.php

Christopher West’s Free Downloadable Files

christopherwest.com/hearnow.asp

Christopher West - An Introduction to the Theology of the Body

See Christopher West speak in person on Saturday, November 5th from 8AM to 4:30PM at…

Sacred Heart Parish
114 South Elizabeth Street
Lombard, IL 60148

See newevangelization.net/ for Registration information.

Janet Smith - Contraception Why Not?

---

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Janet Smith on EWTN’s “Life on the Rock”: Listen Here

---

Aired 3-3-05, Click on “Life on the Rock #401”.

ewtn.com/rock/files/past1.asp?pgnu=3

ewtn.com/rock/files/images/LR_03032005.jpgLife on the Rock #401.
**Fr. Francis Mary w/ Dr. Janet Smith. **
Originally aired: 3/3/2005
Theme: “The Moral Life Matters: The Contraception Trap”.

 

[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.”."

But doesn’t the Pope say that the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons could bring out ambiguities which conflict with the principle of indissolubility of marriage?
(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 jurispudential 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…”

 

[stanley123]

YinYangMom:

stanley123:

I’m not so certain the increase in those issued is because of the Church’s leniency as it is that the Church was asked to review that many more cases.

How then do you explain the following statement by Pope John Paul II:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA

Saturday, 29 January 2005

“…In the name of what they claim to be pastoral requirements, some voices have been raised proposing to declare marriages that have totally failed null and void. These persons propose that in order to obtain this result, recourse should be made to the expedient of retaining the substantial features of the proceedings, simulating the existence of an authentic judicial verdict. Such persons have been tempted to provide reasons for nullity and to prove them in comparison with the most elementary principles of the body of norms and of the Church’s Magisterium.

The objective juridical and moral gravity of such conduct, which in no way constitutes a pastorally valid solution to the problems posed by matrimonial crises, is obvious. ….”

 

[Fortiterinre]

stanley123:

But doesn’t the Pope say that the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons could bring out ambiguities which conflict with the principle of indissolubility of marriage?
(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 jurispudential 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…”

I don’t think the Pope is making any logical fallacy here, merely noting that the concept of mutual self-gift can be incorrectly stretched to the point that the gift of marital commitment is seen as invalid if not demonstrably perfect. The givers do not have to give PERFECTLY for the gift of marital commitment to be permanent.

 

[migurl]

First, your friend does not understand that the Church does not teach it is wrong to space, plan, or postpone children. It has never taught this. So, the church does not teach that birth control is wrong. It teaches that there are right and wrong ways to achieve the morally good end of spacing, planning, and postponing children when there are sufficient reasons to do so.

A quote from “This is the Faith”
Proponents of NFP…are confusing a legitimate means during an emergency situation or for a “serious reason” with an illegitimate end in the case of no family emergency or "no seriouos reason: and presume then to conclude that NFP is morally acceptable as a way of life. The end or purpose of NFP-that is “planning” one’s family-is not acceptable in prinicple, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the CHurch. A couple does not have the right to “plan their family”, even though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control." and that Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office said that "I am not pleased with the statement…that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church."
It goes on to say that "only under certain very specific conditions " can NFP be used to avoid pregnancy.
"1. That there be a serious reason to practice periodic continence.
2. That it be with the mutual consent of the marriage partners.
3. That the continence not be the near occasion of mortal sin for either party.
4. That the periodoc continence lasts only so long as the serios reason lasts.
5. It is recommended that the situation be reviewed by one’s confessor to insure that all the requisite conditions are present.

 

[otm]

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.

You cannot distinguish between a radical break and a continuation and expansion of a concept.

Given that the Church taught and still teaches that procreation of children is a primary end of marriage, you are trying to insist that it is a radical break if anything else is recognized as a primary end of marriage. You need to make your case, not state your conclusion.

There is consistency in the Church’s position in maintaining that procreation is primary as an end to marriage. The fact that the Church, through contemplation of the sacramental nature and sacramental aspects of marriage, may find another primary end of marriage in addition to the one already acknowledged is an extension of the Church’s understanding of the Sacrament.

To hold that it is a radical change, one would have to hold that the Church somehow was imbued with all knowledge of the Sacrament from the time of the apostles, and that nothing knew could be learned or understood; in other words, it would be a denial of the whole of theology, which is the contemplation and study of what God has revealed to us. It would be a statement that theology could never discover any truth, because all truth was discovered with the last of the apostles.

A radical departure from what the Church has taught about the primary end, or ends of marriage, would be a denial that procreation was a primary end. But the Church has not done that.

It is up to you to show that when the Church says primary end, that only one thing can be primary, or else that if the Church says that something elses, too, can be primary, that this is somehow a radical departure. Simply stating the conclusion that it is radical doesn’t make it so.

since the Church continues to teach that procreation is a primary end, it is up to you to show that this is totally new; in fact, it is not totally new, but only partially new.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

YinYangMom:

How then do you explain the following statement by Pope John Paul II:
ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II
TO MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL OF THE ROMAN ROTA

Saturday, 29 January 2005

“…In the name of what they claim to be pastoral requirements, some voices have been raised proposing to declare marriages that have totally failed null and void. These persons propose that in order to obtain this result, recourse should be made to the expedient of retaining the substantial features of the proceedings, simulating the existence of an authentic judicial verdict. Such persons have been tempted to provide reasons for nullity and to prove them in comparison with the most elementary principles of the body of norms and of the Church’s Magisterium.

The objective juridical and moral gravity of such conduct, which in no way constitutes a pastorally valid solution to the problems posed by matrimonial crises, is obvious. ….”

None of that statement has to do with the theological ends of marriage.

That should be a pretty simple and clear statement.

The Pope was speaking to juridical issues concerning anullments, not to theological issues concerning the ends of marriage.

 

[otm]

migurl:

A quote from “This is the Faith”
Proponents of NFP…are confusing a legitimate means during an emergency situation or for a “serious reason” with an illegitimate end in the case of no family emergency or “no seriouos reason: and presume then to conclude that NFP is morally acceptable as a way of life. The end or purpose of NFP-that is “planning” one’s family-is not acceptable in prinicple, being against Natural Law and the teachings of the CHurch. A couple does not have the right to “plan their family”, even though the means used are those of NFP and do not violate the Church’s proscriptions against artificial birth control.” and that Cardinal Ottaviani, former head of the Holy Office said that "I am not pleased with the statement…that married couples may determine the number of children they are to have. Never has this been heard of in the Church."
It goes on to say that "only under certain very specific conditions " can NFP be used to avoid pregnancy.
"1. That there be a serious reason to practice periodic continence.
2. That it be with the mutual consent of the marriage partners.
3. That the continence not be the near occasion of mortal sin for either party.
4. That the periodoc continence lasts only so long as the serios reason lasts.
5. It is recommended that the situation be reviewed by one’s confessor to insure that all the requisite conditions are present.

Perhaps you could be a bit more clear about what you are quoting.

Who is the author? Is this a book, a magazine, or a document of some sort? Where can this be obtained?

 

[otm]

YinYangMom:

stanley123:

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? /QUOTE]

First of all, the society of the 30s is vastly different than the society of the 70s-90s.

It wouldn’t even occur to a couple to seek an annulment back then because society alone would have ostracized them for breaking a marriage vow. Remember, women weren’t allowed to own their own bank accounts then, they weren’t allowed to work. Living alone would have been scandalous…women lived at home until they were married. So what was a woman to do if a marriage was corrupt? Back then it wasn’t so much a matter of choice to enter into a marriage but a necessity.

After the war women were in the work force, they fought for the right to vote, the right to keep working when the war was over, the right to own their own bank accounts…and with that ‘choice’ becoming available to women in the U.S. they no longer ‘had to be married off’ in order to survive.

So then we have marriages entered into, not out of necessity or convenience, but because of passion. Some people kept the old ways and sought their mates logistically. Others sought their mates emotionally.

There has always been abuse in marriage - men dominating the women either verbally or physically, there has always been infidelity in marriages - but before there was no reason to get out of a marriage because the woman would have no way to support herself.

So the same abuses of the covenants take place, but this time, women can walk away. Both men and women want to remarry so they start applying for annulments, thus the “dramatic” increase in numbers of cases filed.

As for the number of cases actually annulled…well, apparently, there were good reasons to issue the annulment, but if you look at the number of divorces in relation to the number of annulments it still shows that the Church is not as lenient in handing those out as society is. Note that your numbers are askewed in that you cite divorces for two periods separate from the number of annulments granted, but even with that flaw, 61,000 + annulments granted in relation to 1,100,000 + divorces does not indicate abuse. Besides you do not show how many marriages took place in those same periods. 61,000 annulments out of XX,XXX,XXX or so marriages is not a high number.

I’m not so certain the increase in those issued is because of the Church’s leniency as it is that the Church was asked to review that many more cases.Further, it does not show how many anullments were for form ( a large increase, as Catholics started marrying outside the Church), nor does it take into account the number of cases that are brought by non-Catholics seeking to marry a Catholic, or seeking to become Catholic after having divorced and remarried (seeking to regularize a marriage when they join the Church).

 

[migurl]

otm:

Perhaps you could be a bit more clear about what you are quoting.

Who is the author? Is this a book, a magazine, or a document of some sort? Where can this be obtained?

It is a book called “this is the Faith” By Canon Francis Ripley 3rd edition

 

[Celeste88]

I have a question. Lets take this scenario, a man and woman marry. Some time after marriage he finds out he has a sexually transmittable disease, lets say HIV or hepatitis he got from a transfusion. Would they be sinning if he used a condom? If so, why punish this couple who cannot enjoy the unitive aspect of their marriage by something that wasn’t their fault.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Celeste88:

I have a question. Lets take this scenario, a man and woman marry. Some time after marriage he finds out he has a sexually transmittable disease, lets say HIV or hepatitis he got from a transfusion. Would they be sinning if he used a condom? If so, why punish this couple who cannot enjoy the unitive aspect of their marriage by something that wasn’t their fault.

A better question is why would a man/woman who loves their spouse expose them to a deadly disease (or any STD) by using a condom which is not 100% effective in preventing transmission of STDs?

There are many circumstances which call for abstinence in a marriage…permanent or temporary. There are many ways to show your love to you spouse and be united with one another.

Malia

p.s A sin is not “punishment”. A sin is something that seperates you from God.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

To further explore this thought…let’s say after marriage either the man or woman becomes paralyzed and unable to have sex at all. Why should the other spouse be “punished” and denied marital relations?

Malia

 

[migurl]

Feanaro's Wife:

A better question is why would a man/woman who loves their spouse expose them to a deadly disease (or any STD) by using a condom which is not 100% effective in preventing transmission of STDs?

There are many circumstances which call for abstinence in a marriage…permanent or temporary. There are many ways to show your love to you spouse and be united with one another.

Malia

p.s A sin is not “punishment”. A sin is something that seperates you from God.

I agree, although I understand the other person’s thought process, but God’s way is not always easy. And you also have to ask the question, how did the spouse get HIV? And beyond that, why does HIV exist and why can we get it? Because a person sinned and people keep sinning. I’m not saying HIV is a punishment sent from God, but that HIV speads thru sex and blood transfusions, people get HIV by having sex and they spread it that way. If people would follow God’s laws the chances of getting infected are pretty small.
But Feanaro’s Wife is right, condoms don’t always work, how could a person risk the life of ther spouse for pleasure? Even if it’s a .0000001% chance, it would still be selfish and unloving to risk the life of your spouse.

 

[Prometheum_x]

stanley123:

But doesn’t the Pope say that the concept of marriage as a reciprocal gift of persons could bring out ambiguities which conflict with the principle of indissolubility of marriage?
(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 jurispudential 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…” [emphasis mine]

Read what you actually quoted. The ambiguities are the ambiguities of “a vague doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency” and its “certain applications of that tendency” (not the concept) are that which are conflicting with the principle of indissolubility.

 

[Prometheum_x]

A quotation from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s “Marriage: The Mystery of Fruitful Love”:

As accessed at ewtn.com/library/Marriage/SIPMARRG.HTM

Love is the meaning of sexual union

As marriage is, in its nature, principally a communion of love, so the meaning of physical consummation is not restricted to its function as a means of procreation.

Certainly, there is no greater mystery in the natural order of things than the fact that this closest of all unions procreates a human being with an immortal soul (although the soul, in each case, is a direct creation of God), and that this act brings a new being into existence destined to love God and to adore Him, a new being made after His image.

**But this primary *end ***is not the only *meaning *of the physical act. Subjectively speaking, it is not even its primary meaning.

Its meaning is primarily the realization of the sublime communion of love in which, according to the words of our Savior, "They shall be two in one flesh."12 Woman, who according to Genesis was made from the flesh of man (a sign which even then indicated the closeness of their relation and designated her as the inseparable mate of man), is really united to man in this way in marriage.

In contrast to the Protestant and Puritan conception, which even subjectively considers procreation as the sole meaning of the physical union, an old Catholic marriage prayer speaks of marriage as “the mystery of love.” The Methodist Whitefield proudly asserts that love had nothing to do with his courtship, saying, “God be praised, if I know my own heart at all, I am free of this stupid passion the world calls love.” But an old Catholic prayer runs as follows, “O God, at the creation of mankind, making woman from man, Thou hast already ordained that there should be a union of the flesh and of sweet love… Lord our God, Thou hast created man pure and immaculate and still Thou wishest that in procreation of the generations one be made from the other by the mystery of love.” [emphasis in bold mine]

 

[frogman80]

Prometheum_x:

A quotation from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s “Marriage: The Mystery of Fruitful Love”:

As accessed at ewtn.com/library/Marriage/SIPMARRG.HTM

To add to what you said, here is a quote from JPII the ends of marriage:

“…the Church, in **arranging the objective purposes of love ** in particular order, seeks to emphasize that procreation is objectively, ontologically, a more important purpose that that man and woman should live together, complement each other and support each other (mutuum adiutorium), just as this second purposes in turn more important that the appeasement of natural desire. But there is no question of opposing love to procreation nor yet of suggesting that procreation takes precedence over love.”