NFP and Contraception once again

[Thinking10]

I would like to bring up the issues of NFP, abstinence, and contraception once more.

In a previous thread, I used a hypothetical overpopulation scenario. I am not actually concerned about overpopulation that scenario was entirely hypothetical.

The reason I am posting on this topic is that I do not understand why every single sex act must be procreative. I think that the choice between abstaining for extended periods of time or beginning a pregnancy the couple is not prepared for can cause unnecessary stress on a marriage. So, I will ask a few questions that I would like posters to directly address.

1. Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?

By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.

1. What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul speaks explicitly of the purpose of sex for married couples. He does not say its purpose is procreation. He recommends that couples have sex for purposes of controlling sexual temptation, and warns against extended periods of abstinence. He also says that it is better to have sex within a marriage than to “burn with passion.” This sounds contrary to church teaching, which promotes extended periods of abstinence, and says that “burning with passion” as St. Paul calls it, is better than relieving sexual tension in a way that precludes pregnancy.

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[JohnR77]

By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.

1. What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?

In 1 Corinthians,
Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
.

To aim to satisfy our every desire is a sure fire way to fail in ALL of our relationships.

Some self-control is not only good, but necessary.

The basis of your question can be restated:
Is it sometimes a good thing to use Artificial Birth Control ?

Answer : No !

** The Evil Consequences of Artificial Contraception**

	** 		Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI was very Prophetic explains Professor  		Janet E. Smith**

Contraception and the
predictions of “Blessed” Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae have come true and they have wrecked many marriages and many lives.

The full edition of this article was on the Bishop’s web site.
I don’t know why they took it down.

Here are some key excerpts

defendingthebride.com/pr/consequences.html

.

 

[Abu]

Thinking10 #1
I do not understand why every single sex act must be procreative.

The key is to listen to and understand the teaching of Christ through His Church.

The marital act cannot be morally performed while deliberately thwarting the act by putting a barrier to stop conception.
The marital act is virtuous, when for grave, serious, reasons it is limited to times when the fertility cycle does not normally allow conception – the infertile period.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

OP, I am afraid that you are misinformed. The Church does not teach that the only purpose of the marital act is procreation. However, married persons must be open to life.

 

[fencersmother]

EVERY sex act must be open to the possibility of life. Hence, the man must “finish” inside his wife. If intercourse occurs at a time when she is not fertile, well, she probably won’t become pregnant.

We are not animals, copulating ONLY for procreation.

 

[Thinking10]

What does it mean to be open to life?

 

[Thinking10]

Does open to life mean that a couple does not neglect their duty to conceive and raise children?

 

[NeedsMercy]

I actually think these are two very good questions, whose answers I too would like to learn. To say that contraception is not allowed is not really answering the questions posed. And, for the record, I don’t think that the original poster is only trying to personally justify his/her use of contraception…

 

[Thinking10]

If we do not copulate only for procreation, why must we only copulate procreatively?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Does open to life mean that a couple does not neglect their duty to conceive and raise children?

Married people do not have a specific duty to have and raise children. Those who are infertile need not feel that they are somehow failures. Being open to life is an attitude, it means thinking of children and being willing to accept children as a gift from God.

 

[JohnR77]

And, for the record, I don’t think that the original poster is only trying to personally justify his/her use of contraception…

I was operating under the hypothesis that he might be a teacher and that he was looking for an effective answer to give to his students, not that he was actually using it.

If I had thought that maybe he was using it, I would have said to repent. Go to Confession, so that the sin may no longer sever you from the grace God wants to give you so that you may see the truth. The evil of sin does blind us.

John

By the way, I use standard English which is much more inclusive than the so called “inclusive language.” That is, “he” automatically includes the possibility of either a “he” or “she.”
.

 

[Abu]

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

 

[Thinking10]

Married people do not have a specific duty to have and raise children. Those who are infertile need not feel that they are somehow failures. Being open to life is an attitude, it means thinking of children and being willing to accept children as a gift from God.

I suppose a better way to phrase it is that a couple does not intentionally prevent life from being created. I understand how this applies to the union as a whole, that life must not be intentionally precluded from the marriage, but I do not understand why every sex act must be procreative.

The debate about life seems to always focus on conception and birth. What about life that has already been born? The duty to be open to life doesn’t involve just creating new life, but caring for children after they are born. How could a couple be considered not open to life if they are raising as many children as they can adequately provide for?

 

[Abu]

Thinking10 #13
The debate about life seems to always focus on conception and birth. What about life that has already been born? The duty to be open to life doesn’t involve just creating new life, but caring for children after they are born. How could a couple be considered not open to life if they are raising as many children as they can adequately provide for?

Why the continual refusal to acknowledge that the Church teaches what to do when a couple “are raising as many children as they can adequately provide for?”

Why the continual refusal to acknowledge that Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) also referred to as Natural Family Planning (NFP) for serious, grave, just reasons is taught by the Church and employed by real faithful Catholics?

 

[Cricket2]

I really think people complicate this whole thing. I truly believe that the Church is simply stating that the couple must be open to having children, and that every time they have relations they should be open to that possibility. It does not mean they can only have sex when they are sure that will happen.

NFP is to help couples regulate how many children they have, or spacing of children, but it still allows that a pregnancy could occur. Birth control use means that pregnancy is being prevented and that is when the sexual act is a sin.

Couples are certainly (when married) free to express their love through that physical union. It is a unique and intimate way of showing each others love and it includes being open to conceiving a child. I don’t believe for a moment there is anything wrong with a couple continuing their relations after one or the other is no longer fertile.

 

[jilly4ski]

I suppose a better way to phrase it is that a couple does not intentionally prevent life from being created. I understand how this applies to the union as a whole, that life must not be intentionally precluded from the marriage, but I do not understand why every sex act must be procreative.

The debate about life seems to always focus on conception and birth. What about life that has already been born? The duty to be open to life doesn’t involve just creating new life, but caring for children after they are born. How could a couple be considered not open to life if they are raising as many children as they can adequately provide for?

So you want to debate biology? In a purely biological/evolutionary sense, the purpose of sex is procreation. Thus sex=babies. If you are using something to prevent babies from happening from the sex, then you are “thwarting” your own biology. (This is especially clear for woman who use the pill or an IUD or other “medical devices” to prevent pregnancy).

In a more religious sense, we can see that God obviously linked sex and babies, and Marriage (From sex comes babies and babies do best with a mother and a father in a stable relationship). And for God (and thus for us), sex is something sacred, as it seals the marriage bond and from sex comes new life (a new person whom God is very interested in). Thus if we change the nature of the act, making it unrecognizable from its original purpose (procreation), we have corrupted something God has made sacred.

“Open to life” is sort of a misnomer (and you can’t be “open to life” that is already here). Couples promise to accept children lovingly from God at their wedding. Sex must be both procreative and unitive to fulfill God’s purpose for married life and sex.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I was operating under the hypothesis that he might be a teacher and that he was looking for an effective answer to give to his students, not that he was actually using it.

If I had thought that maybe he was using it, I would have said to repent. Go to Confession, so that the sin may no longer sever you from the grace God wants to give you so that you may see the truth. The evil of sin does blind us.

John

By the way, I use standard English which is much more inclusive than the so called “inclusive language.” That is, “he” automatically includes the possibility of either a “he” or “she.”
.

Would you like to hear how sub-standard my English can get?

 

[underacloud]

Thinking10,

You raise this issue yet again. But have you actually read Humanae Vitae yet? And in full? These questions are answered there, as well as in the Catechism.

Get a copy (easily found online), pray to God for understanding, and then read it through from start to finish, and again if needed.

And if you still have questions, come back here…both only after you read it through one more time.

 

[Thinking10]

Thinking10,

You raise this issue yet again. But have you actually read Humanae Vitae yet? And in full? These questions are answered there, as well as in the Catechism.

Get a copy (easily found online), pray to God for understanding, and then read it through from start to finish, and again if needed.

And if you still have questions, come back here…both only after you read it through one more time.

I have read Humanae Vitae 3 times in the last couple months. I agree that marriage must not be separated from procreation, but I still do not see why individual sex acts cannot be only unitive especially after a couple has had and is raising children. Humanae Vitae does not address a transition in the role of the married couple from being creators of life to being nurturers of the life they create. Procreating as much as possible doesn’t sound like it is necessarily in the best interests of the welfare of the children a couple conceives. Children need attention and care from their parents, something they get less of as the number of children increases.

Sirach 16:1-4

16 Do not desire a multitude of worthless[a] children,
and do not rejoice in ungodly offspring.
2 If they multiply, do not rejoice in them,
unless the fear of the Lord is in them.
3 Do not trust in their survival,
or rely on their numbers;**
for one can be better than a thousand,
and to die childless is better than to have ungodly children.
4 For through one intelligent person a city can be filled with people,
but through a clan of outlaws it becomes desolate.**

To reiterate my questions:

1. Why must procreation be linked to every individual sex act, and not just the relationship as a whole?

By this, I mean to ask why a couple who has already reproduced cannot sometimes have sex for bonding, or reasons other than procreation in between pregnancies.

1. What is the biblical basis for the teaching that sex must always be procreative? Does church teaching about abstinence contradict scripture?

In 1 Corinthians, St. Paul speaks explicitly of the purpose of sex for married couples. He does not say its purpose is procreation. He recommends that couples have sex for purposes of controlling sexual temptation, and warns against extended periods of abstinence. He also says that it is better to have sex within a marriage than to “burn with passion.” This sounds contrary to church teaching, which promotes extended periods of abstinence, and says that “burning with passion” as St. Paul calls it, is better than relieving sexual tension in a way that precludes pregnancy.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 8-9

Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Abu]

Thinking10 #18
Humanae Vitae does not address a transition in the role of the married couple from being creators of life to being nurturers of the life they create. Procreating as much as possible doesn’t sound like it is necessarily in the best interests of the welfare of the children a couple conceives. Children need attention and care from their parents, something they get less of as the number of children increases.

Humanae Vitae does just that – how strange to continue to ignore reality. It is time to start absorbing truth.

Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, 16:
“The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

“If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

“But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

But this is not new.

The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a *dubium *(a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur”).
rtforum.org/lt/lt103.html