NFP and contraception

[copperblade]

The question is completely reframed today–the Church does not allow a couple’s marriage to be “open to life” over a long period of time, but requires it to be “open to life” for each act.

Oops, I mean to say does not simply allow an overall marriage to be “open to life” as I think was in Paul VI’s encyclical–you can’t use other forms of contraception as long as you’re willing to have kids at some point in time.

 

[Image_of_God]

You are right, to degree. But not to the end.

First, people abstaining for fertility control do it for practical reasons. Not for chasity. To say otherwise would be as saying that starving person is training self-mastery of fasting. It is not the virtue which is leading them to abstinence. It is neccessity required for stable economical situation. We can praise them, but only to an extent. Abstaining for prayer is much more worthy then for fertility control.

I think you misunderstood sacredcello. The poster is not saying that people use NFP for reasons of chastity. The reasons are obvious, as you have already mentioned. But NFP requires virtue (namely self-control and discipline) in order to work. It simply cannot work without it. Of course, no one can deny that abstaining for reasons of prayer is more virtuous than abstaining to avoid pregnancy.

Second, it is wrong to say artificial contraception does not allow self-mastery and chaste life.For example, pair using condoms can agree to abstinate for two months in order to dedicate themselves to prayer (as Paul suggested). Pair using NFP will have two infertility windows to practice their acts in that time.

The poster did not say that artificial contraception does not allow for it, but he/she said it does not *require *it and there is nothing but truth in that. Artificial contraception was made specifically so that two people could have intercourse whenever they want without worrying about getting pregnant.

Finally, the Commission of Humanae Vitae took Catholic testimonies very seriously when couples claimed sex according to fertility cycle is damaging their relationship. People of good faith would probably go even further.

Any method could be bad for a relationship due to a variety of reasons, whether natural, artificial or neither. It is not sufficient enough to judge it to be bad in itself.

 

[Chrono13]

I would like to leave the bolded question for you to answer. I will only answer that you only have to look around to see that sex is not as idealistic as you are presenting it. The way that some people present sex in popular music is not exactly as a “wonderful gift”.

Answer on bolded question: sex is gift from God. Especially it’s pleasure. In biological terms, the sensation is completely useless, apart from bringing enjoyment to married couple.

In broaded terms, it is small gift compared to salvation and faith. But the fact that something so banal provides so much joy is another testament of good Lord’s mastery and care for us. Of course, we should use this gift accordingly.

However, can you please answer my question: do you think bishops of the Church had to develop the idea of unitive sex for several centuries? I mean, they were surrounded with layman who knew this, and preceded by Jews who did not hold such teaching?

To be honest, I need to read more. But with the difference of whether a procreative intention is required for every sexual act, I don’t think there is much of a difference. Blessed Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is quite Augustinian, especially on its discussions on concupiscence.

I am constantly doing my homework too And I am not sure how far can we go in saying Blessed Pope is Augustinian in origin. For Augustine, concupiscence is any sexual arousal, including the one done for procreation. Theology of the body would probably object such idea.

 

[Chrono13]

You’re telling me his opinions and thoughts. I’m asking which Papal Encyclical or which decision from the Magesterium of the Church took those thoughts and made them into Church teaching. The reason you can’t point to the exact one is because it doesn’t exist.

Regula Pastoralis claimed sex is only for procreation, and this was approved by series of councils.

There DOES exist, however, 2 Papal Encyclicals (Casti Conubii and Humanae Vitae) and 2 official Magesterium decisions (1853 and 1880) that approve the use of NFP.

Decisions in the 19th century were answered by Sacred Penitentiary. An important part of curia, but not Magisterium itself.
Casti Connubii does not mention NFP. Certain popes tried to attach it, but it is generally percieved as mentioning only sterility (of old age).
Humanae Vitae allowed NFP using extremely problematic interpretation of Catholic history and tradition.

It doesn’t matter when the CCC was written. The CCC contains the teachings of the Church for all time and the Church cannot approve an act that is contrary or disordered to natural law. The very fact that NFP is praised and approved in CCC is a testament to the fact that it is neither contrary or disordered to natural law.

Problem lies in fact that Church was basing it’s ban on contraception using stoic “natural law”, which is different then that used by Humanae Vitae, or is used by Cathecism.

Contraception and NFP are not the same thing. Contraception is a thwarting of the marital act. NFP is not. For a better explanation, read “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresey?” by Rev. Brian Harrison.

The fact is that NFP was considered contraception until 19th century, as was proven by writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Gregory the great and many other.

 

[ahs]

Regula Pastoralis claimed sex is only for procreation, and this was approved by series of councils.

Then let’s see it. I tried to search *Regula Pastoralis * myself and only found references to the proper life of clergy. I’m not doubting that you’ve read it; I believe you are misunderstadning it. So, please provide the necessary quotes that you are referencing (from the encyclical and the councils)…and I’ll do likewise should you need them from Casti Conubii, et al.

Casti Connubii does not mention NFP. Certain popes tried to attach it, but it is generally percieved as mentioning only sterility (of old age).
Humanae Vitae allowed NFP using extremely problematic interpretation of Catholic history and tradition.

Actually it does. It refers to “virtuous continence” as the preference to contraception. I’ll provide you the quote tonight or the next.

Problem lies in fact that Church was basing it’s ban on contraception using stoic “natural law”, which is different then that used by Humanae Vitae, or is used by Cathecism.

And what, then, is the basis of your assumption that Humanae Vitae and the Catechism are incorrect due to your belief that they do not adhere to this “stoic law”. Which council was it that you were summoned to so that the Church could rely on your definition of “stoic law” or “natural law”? In which decision of the Magesterium did you determine that Humanae Vitae and the CCC cannot be utilized as dependable Church teachings because they did not conform to your definitions?

The fact is that NFP was considered contraception until 19th century, as was proven by writings of St. Augustine of Hippo, St. Gregory the great and many other.

So far, the only things I’ve been able to find from St. Augustine and Gregory the Great did not mention NFP or periodic continence in any way. I have yet to find where they condemned abstinence or continece in marriage. Please show me where I have missed something.

 

[ahs]

As promised, the pertinent references from Casti Conubii (bolds are by me):

*“53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people **not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. *Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.”

The Church, using these words, establishes a clear distinction between contraception and continence…which it calls “virtuous”. NFP is the exercise of continence on a periodic basis; that continence “which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent” and is distinctly differentiated from “frustrating the marriage act”.

Further, CC states:

*“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, **those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin *against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

Having already made a clear distinction between continence, which is permitted, and actions that frustrate the act, the Church then condemns the frustration of the act. You therefore cannot lump continence into the same actions that “frustrate” the act, because the Church has just distinguished between and separated the two.

And still further from CC:

*“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]”
*

The Church equates “prevented” to the act of Onan…called onanism…the deliberate frustration of the act by preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg. In NFP, which is continence, sperm is not introduced to an egg…not because of a deliberate attempt to spill or waste the seed…but because an act is not taking place. You cannot frustrate an act that is not taking place.

Further, Casti Conubii provides evidence that it is not sinful to engage in the act outside of the most fertile period:

“59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved. (CC 59)”

And finally, a reference that suggests that continence should be practiced by newly weds as a means to better adjust to necessary continence that may arise later in their marriage.

*“110. … In fine, in spite of what others may wish to assert and spread abroad by word of mouth or in writing, let husband and wife resolve: to stand fast to the commandments of God in all things that matrimony demands; always to render to each other the assistance of mutual love; to preserve the honor of chastity; not to lay profane hands on the stable nature of the bond; to use the rights given them by marriage in a way that will be always Christian and sacred, more especially in the first years of wedlock, so that should there be need of continency afterwards, custom will have made it easier for each to preserve it". * (CC 110).

For a better explanation, please read “Is Natural Family Planning a Heresey?” by Rev. Brian Harrison. You can find the link to the article and to the author’s bio in an above post.

 

[Chrono13]

Then let’s see it. I tried to search *Regula Pastoralis * myself and only found references to the proper life of clergy. I’m not doubting that you’ve read it; I believe you are misunderstadning it. So, please provide the necessary quotes that you are referencing (from the encyclical and the councils)…and I’ll do likewise should you need them from Casti Conubii, et al.

This is from Regula Pastoralis. It clearly is addressed to layman, not clergy. It express the common belief of Gregory that sexual pleasure is evil by itself.
*
The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure.*
Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii

Actually it does. It refers to “virtuous continence” as the preference to contraception. I’ll provide you the quote tonight or the next.

Virtuous continence is also term applied to constant continence, for example, if pair for some reason can’t use NFP or have other reason to have no intercourses at all.

And what, then, is the basis of your assumption that Humanae Vitae and the Catechism are incorrect due to your belief that they do not adhere to this “stoic law”.?

The writings of the saints express different natural law. They claimed only natural use of sex is procreation (they don’t tender sex for unity) and concluded only moral sexual activity is with intent of begetting a child. This automatically makes NFP contraception.

Which council was it that you were summoned to so that the Church could rely on your definition of “stoic law” or “natural law”?

I was not summoned on any council. I can only base beliefs on their conclusions.

In which decision of the Magesterium did you determine that Humanae Vitae and the CCC cannot be utilized as dependable Church teachings because they did not conform to your definitions?

Because they are boycotting or bypassing the key elements of past teachings.

These definitions are not mine, they exist in Church history as fact, and are not depending on anyone’s interpretation.

So far, the only things I’ve been able to find from St. Augustine and Gregory the Great did not mention NFP or periodic continence in any way. I have yet to find where they condemned abstinence or continece in marriage. Please show me where I have missed something.

The mentioned quote from above, also the one of St. Augustine forbidding tracking of menstruation in order to detect fertile period:
After you have said this with great noise and heat, I will quietly ask, Is it not you who hold that begetting children, by which souls are confined in flesh, is a greater sin than cohabitation? Is it not you who used to counsel us to observe as much as possible the time when a woman, after her purification, is most likely to conceive, and to abstain from cohabitation at that time, lest the soul should be entangled in flesh? This proves that you approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children…

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104.iv.v.xx.html

 

[Image_of_God]

Answer on bolded question: sex is gift from God. Especially it’s pleasure. In biological terms, the sensation is completely useless, apart from bringing enjoyment to married couple.

You are right, but only in part. I think, even more so, that the pleasure in sex is a means to encourage couples to have children. I would think that few people would engage in intercourse if it were not pleasurable and consequently, few people would have children.

That said, sex and its pleasure are indeed gifts from God and St. Augustine certainly agrees with us:
“Truly we must consider, that God gives us some goods, which are to be sought for their own sake, such as wisdom, health, friendship: but others, which are necessary for the sake of somewhat, such as learning, meat, drink, sleep, marriage, sexual intercourse.” (e, Section 9Of the Good of Marriag)

Where our agreement breaks off is if you deny that there is anything wrong with the pleasure. There certainly is and it has a lot to due to concupiscence.

In broaded terms, it is small gift compared to salvation and faith. But the fact that something so banal provides so much joy is another testament of good Lord’s mastery and care for us. Of course, we should use this gift accordingly.

As shown above, what you say is good and I and Augustine agree with it (at least in part). But it is important to note that we don’t have full control over our pleasurable sensations. We have a craving for pleasure and as such, there is a “hole” for lust to creep into whereby a married couple can use each other merely for the satisfaction of that urge. And that is undeniably a sin.

However, can you please answer my question: do you think bishops of the Church had to develop the idea of unitive sex for several centuries? I mean, they were surrounded with layman who knew this, and preceded by Jews who did not hold such teaching?

Jewish teaching was imperfect on many levels. Christ came to perfect it. As such, just because the Jews taught such and such on a particular subject does not give it a blank check of acceptance (divorce laws and polygamy are cases in point), especially when it does not deal with the subject of God directly.

And if you are including among the laymen who knew of the unitive nature of sex those who fed their children to lions and abandoned their children to die and used potions to induce sterility, then I would say that things do not look very good. Remember that there were no modern artificial contraceptives then. The emphasis on procreation in the sexual act seems, at least logically, to be a way to counter this attitude and bring about nurturing a society where children are loved and appreciated as gifts from God.

I am constantly doing my homework too And I am not sure how far can we go in saying Blessed Pope is Augustinian in origin. For Augustine, concupiscence is any sexual arousal, including the one done for procreation. Theology of the body would probably object such idea.

As I’ve mentioned before, St. Augustine uses the word “concupiscence” more freely than the official Church. In his use, it is not always bad. If I have St. Augustine understood correctly, the concupiscence of the evil sort is not sexual arousal itself. It is the sexual arousal is not subject to reason.

“It [sexual desire] shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Chapter 27).

I see nothing in here that Theology of the Body would disagree with. In fact, I know that I can find a quote from Pope John Paul II’s talks that are similar to what St. Augustine says above.

 

[Chrono13]

As promised, the pertinent references from Casti Conubii (bolds are by me):

**not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. **Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. **

The Church, using these words, establishes a clear distinction between contraception and continence…which it calls “virtuous”. NFP is the exercise of continence on a periodic basis; that continence “which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent” and is distinctly differentiated from “frustrating the marriage act”.**

As explained before, “virtuous continence” can be applied to abstain totally from sex or in order to dedicate pair to prayer.

Having already made a clear distinction between continence, which is permitted, and actions that frustrate the act, the Church then condemns the frustration of the act. You therefore cannot lump continence into the same actions that “frustrate” the act, because the Church has just distinguished between and separated the two.

 

[ahs]

“The married must be admonished to bear in mind that they are united in wedlock for the purpose of procreation, and when they abandon themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure. Let them realize that though they do not then pass beyond the bonds of wedlock, yet in wedlock they exceed its rights. Wherefore, it is necessary that they should efface by frequent prayer what they befoul in the fair form of intercourse by the admixture of pleasure.”
Regula Pastoralis, Part III, Caput xxvii

There is nothing here against periodic continence or the planned timing of intercourse. It admonishes “immodest intercourse”. Where do you see periodic continence as immodest? That is not stated or implied here. You might infer it if you adhere to the writings of St. Augustine, but St. Augustine’s writings are not Church Doctrine and we are not bound to them.

As to “Virtuous continence” also being a term applied to constant continence, where do you derive that it cannot be applied to periodic continence? The Church did not make that distinction, so how can you? It does not matter if YOU OR I take to the old or new meaning of “virtuous continence”. That is a matter for the Church, and the Church, infallible in Doctrine via the Popes, has clarified for the Church what Her Teaching is regarding periodic continence (in 1853, 1880, in Humanae Vitae and CCC and Casti Conubii). You have no authority to question that. If you do indeed find the Church to be in error, you need to be having this discussion with the Magestrium of the Church.

NFP is not contraception. NFP is continence, abstinence observed on a periodic basis and is approved by the Church when a couple has “just” or “grave” reasons. To claim that NFP is contraception is saying that continence is contraception. Not only does that not make sense, it is contrary to the encyclical I referenced and to Church teaching. Further, NFP does not work on the premise of a women’s body rejecting semen. It works on the premise of abstaining from intercourse. No semen in rejected because an act is not taking place to introduce semen.

“…[Humanae Vitae and CCC] are boycotting or bypassing the key elements of past teachings.” Really? Or are they actually clarifying and reaffirming the teachings’ true intent? You don’t have the authority to assume the former based on the writings of St. Augustine. And as a Catholic, you are bound to accept the infallibility of the Popes who have done the later.

As to St. Augustine’s quote, I will remind you that his writings are not Church Doctrine and we are not bound by them. The Church made many decisions based on his wisdom, but St. Augustine was not always correct…the Immaculate Conception, for example. Just because St. Augustine said something, doesn’t make it the official doctrine of the Church. The Official Doctrine of the Church is decided by the Church and can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As to your belief on “’Time’, meaning age, and ‘defect’ meaning sickness…”…is that according to you, or is that meaning hidden somewhere where only you can see it? Again, the Church has clarified this for us, through the Popes, infallible on matters of Church Doctrine, and that clarification is clear and concise in CCC and Humanae Vitae. You have no authority to question it. If you disagree, that’s fine. If you are rejecting a teaching of the Church and trying to convince others as well, you would be better to present this to the Magesterium first.

You do not have to practice NFP, nor do you have to approve of it. But it IS approved by the CHURCH and affirmed and praised by Popes, who are infallible in these matters as they are Church Doctrine. You do not have to agree with the thoughts and opinions of those who compiled the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but if you are a Catholic, you are required to accept the fact that the teachings within it ARE the teachings of the Catholic Church, because they are the teachings as approved by the Magesterium and the Popes…the approved use of NFP being one of those teachings.

 

[Warrior1979]

NFP is not contraception. NFP is continence, abstinence observed on a periodic basis and is approved by the Church when a couple has “just” or “grave” reasons. To claim that NFP is contraception is saying that continence is contraception. Not only does that not make sense, it is contrary to the encyclical I referenced and to Church teaching. Further, NFP does not work on the premise of a women’s body rejecting semen. It works on the premise of abstaining from intercourse. No semen in rejected because an act is not taking place to introduce semen.

This pretty much sums of the reason why a great many people don’t buy the NFP argument. Abstinence has nothing particular to marriage. Anyone at any time can practice it. In fact, a married couple can abstain forever; if they don’t want to have marital relations they don’t have to.

What is particular to NFP is that it involves married couples having sex during the infertile period to avoid having children. The issue is with the action, because it applies solely to those that are married; not the nonaction which can apply to every living human being.

 

[ahs]

What is particular to NFP is that it involves married couples having sex during the infertile period to avoid having children.

There are 2 actions taking place in your sentence:

1 - having sex during infertile period: This is not only approved by the Church, but praised and recommended. See the Catechism for reference (see Marriage: fecundity and fidelity).

2 - avoid having children: This is also approved by the Church when there is “just reason” or “grave reason”. See the Catechism for reference.

I believe I have quoted the corresponding catechism paragraphs at one point in this thread. If you can’t find them I will be happy to repost.

Regardless of whether you agree with it or approve of it, the Church is very clear regarding its teaching on NFP. If you don’t like it, don’t use NFP. If you want the Church to change its mind, send a letter to the Vatican.

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
The issue is with the action, because it applies solely to those that are married; not the nonaction which can apply to every living human being.

False. Marriage with an intention to not have any children would be invalid, anyway. The fact is that the correct use of NBR, when valid, is NOT contraception.

That is clear cut:
**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.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Warrior1979]

There are 2 actions taking place in your sentence:

1 - having sex during infertile period: This is not only approved by the Church, but praised and recommended. See the Catechism for reference (see Marriage: fecundity and fidelity).

2 - avoid having children: This is also approved by the Church when there is “just reason” or “grave reason”. See the Catechism for reference.

These two actions can’t be examined separately because the meaning is lost. For example, having sex solely during the infertile period is most certainly not recommended when it it used to avoid having children.

Regardless of whether you agree with it or approve of it, the Church is very clear regarding its teaching on NFP.

It is clear only to the Church and those who start with the assumption the argument is correct. When one assumes the argument is correct, logic is irrelevant.

If you don’t like it, don’t use NFP.

I don’t. In fact, I don’t use anything.

If you want the Church to change its mind, send a letter to the Vatican.

The Church is not going to change her mind. OTOH, the Church is not going to change anyone’s mind on the matter of NFP either. That would include a great many Catholics who would like to believe but can’t because it doesn’t make sense.

 

[Warrior1979]

That is clear cut:
**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.”
[The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

That’s a nice citation, but since I am not discussion contraception, it’s irrelevant.

 

[ksteiger]

The use of Contraceptives according to the Catholic Church is condemned, this is not because we believe people need 20 children to get into heaven; it is because we believe that there are two sides to sexual behavior. God did not create sex for pure enjoyment, did he? No, God created sex for the enjoyment of two consenting, married individuals with the chance of procreation. If you do not want to have children, then you should not be having sex. God created man and God created woman, no where in the bible does it say their are levels in heaven or that you need a certain amount of children to get there. Nor has the Roman Catholic Church ever stated that a woman’s duty is to pro-create nonstop or that she must have a certain amount of children. Other denominations have gotten up on their high-horse because the Catholic Church is condemning activity that they enjoy. Others seeing an opportunity to criticize a denomination that they so direly dislike. Our position is that if you would like to have sex, you must be open to a plan that God has.

 

[ahs]

That’s a nice citation, but since I am not discussion contraception, it’s irrelevant.

It is releveant. And the Church has distinguished clearly between contraception and continence. Contraception frustrates the marital act. NFP (periodic continence) does absolutely nothing to frustrate an act.

If a couple (with Just reason) cannot conceive a child in their current state, the couple avoids sex. There is nothing wrong with avoiding sex. There are many ways for a couple to enjoy their marriage wihtout sex.

During periods of infertility, a couple is allowed to have sex. (Do you need me to explain this part? I hesitate to since it’s been covered so in depth in many threads.)

You, as I perceive it, are seeing a problem with the “planning” of having sex only when a woman in not fertile. You have it backwards. The “plan” is to enjoy the marital act as often as possible. In that “plan” of the couple, they avoid sex during ovulation because they are not able have more children at that time. This still is not contraception, because contraception requires an action. Planning to not have sex results in no action at all. No action means there is no act, meaning an act cannot be frustrated or contracepted because nothing is happening.

ksteiger makes some very good points above.

Furhter, a couple who is avoiding sex on the most fertile days is practicing something else in the marriage that helps to build their marriage. Things such as self-control, self-sacrifice, denial of one’s desires, loving your spouse in other ways, growing in faith in ways that do not involve the flesh…these are all things that are healthy in a marriage. If you don’t think that avoiding sex on “peak day” is a sacrifice of yourself and a lesson in self control, I challenge you to avoid sex during the next ovulation phase.

I can’t tell if you are Catholic or not so I won’t go into the Church teaching part…it would not matter to you (unless you’re Catholic…in which case you can refere back to my post to Chrono13).

 

[Warrior1979]

It is releveant.

Okay then, since you brought it up.

And the Church has distinguished clearly between contraception and continence. Contraception frustrates the marital act. NFP (periodic continence) does absolutely nothing to frustrate an act.

It is the ultimate frustration when it comes to avoiding children, though. Even one contracepting can have children; a person never having sex can’t have biological children.

If a couple (with Just reason) cannot conceive a child in their current state, the couple avoids sex. There is nothing wrong with avoiding sex. There are many ways for a couple to enjoy their marriage wihtout sex.

Of course there is nothing wrong with avoiding sex…but they are not avoiding sex. They are having sex during the infertile period, and doing so with the intent to avoid children. That’s the issue, and until people focus on that issue, they’ll continue to remain in the dark about why most people don’t get it.

Remember that couples that contracept also practice abstinence most of the time. Yet people don’t focus on that; they only focus on the act. So to summarize:

• If NFP is under discuss, focus only on the nonaction (abstinence) and ignore the action (having sex during the infertile period to avoid having children).
• When discussing contraception, ignore the nonaction (the fact they most of the time they aren’t having sex, just like everyone else) and focus on on the action (using contraception).

The arguments are inconsistent, and clearly done for the purpose of supporting one’s particular viewpoint.

During periods of infertility, a couple is allowed to have sex. (Do you need me to explain this part? I hesitate to since it’s been covered so in depth in many threads.)

Both the abstinence and having sex during the infertile period are done specifically for the purpose of avoiding children. Do I need to explain this?

You, as I perceive it, are seeing a problem with the “planning” of having sex only when a woman in not fertile. You have it backwards. The “plan” is to enjoy the marital act as often as possible.

I don’t have it backwards. My argument is specific and applies to married couples intending to avoid children. The abstinence argument is general and applies to every human being alive.

I can’t tell if you are Catholic or not so I won’t go into the Church teaching part…it would not matter to you (unless you’re Catholic…in which case you can refere back to my post to Chrono13).

I don’t practice NFP, contraception, nor anything else, so it’s not relevant to my personal life. But I can spot a bad argument a mile away.

 

[copperblade]

Both the abstinence and having sex during the infertile period are done specifically for the purpose of avoiding children. Do I need to explain this?

Or more to the point… you could say that it’s the act of planning out/discovering what days are the days you shouldn’t have sex on to avoid pregnancy that’s the problem. Of course if it just happened randomly there wouldn’t be any sin, because the intent isn’t there. There’s a difference between a couple who just accidentally only had sex on infertile days, and those who do it on purpose.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism --issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html