F
floresco
Guest
People who recognize that a baby is a gift from God and that God overrides our plans for a purpose.
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
The answers to your question is in the CCC 2370. The problem is that the CCC was written for the bishops, not for the laity. It assumes that the reader is familiar with philosophy, Augustine’s moral theology, Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae; therefore, it does not go into details. It gives you a summary statement that comes from these sources.
Let’s break it down.
If you look at 2370, it uses the term “in contrast”. It’s juxtaposing ABC and NFP. It’s restating what Pope Paul VI had said about ABC. The phrasing “actions that render procreation impossible” is a direct quote from Humane Vitae.
In NFP, there is no action. Just the opposite, there is inaction. In philosophy,action is something that you do, not something that you refrain from doing. In ABC, you are engaging in the marital act, but obstructing its natural outcome. In NFP, you are not engage in the marital act. Therefore, you are not obstructing its natural outcome.
NFP is used for the purpose of abstaining. ABC is used for the purpose of not having to abstain. This is what makes it a great evil. It is a selfish act, because you want the cake without the calories, so you cheat. In NFP, you don’t want the calories, so you abstain from the cake. That’s not cheating nature.
As to how long you can use NFP, there is no universal law for a very practical reason. NFP is used when there is a serious reason to do so. The length of time is not the factor, but the necessity is. Again, we’re back in the realm of philosophy. What determines that it is morally justifiable to use NFP is the reason, not the amount of time. As long as the serious reason exists, the use of NFP is justifiable.
Here is where we go back to the issue of an older mother and the possibility of a child with birth defects. Philosophy does not consider possibilities to be moral determinants. In other words, you don’t avoid conception because there is a possibility that you will conceive a child with developmental disabilities.
Philosophy only accepts probabilities as moral determinants. The probability of having a child with developmental disabilities is not guaranteed. All we know is that more children with developmental disabilities are born to older mothers. However, they still remain the minority, not the norm. In addition, developmental disabilities may also occur in younger pregnancies when there is a genetic predisposition. There are families that have a history of developmental disabilities.
If we were to use NFP to avoid conceiving a child with developmental disabilities, then we would have to say that a couple who has a history of developmental disabilities on either side of the family, can justify using NFP from day one of their married life.
From a purely philosophical point of view, to say that one can justify avoiding the conception of a child with a developmental disability, because it’s possible, but not guaranteed, is a slippery slope. That which is possible, is only probably in the minority of cases.
In addition, a child with developmental disabilities is not a problem. The problem may be economics and resources. It is immoral to view human beings as a problem.
The lack of economic or other resources is a serious enough reason to put conception on hold using natural means. Those are truly problems.
We must always refrain from thinking that any human being is a problem. Again we go back to philosophy. When the mind perceives something to be a problem, its logical response is to eliminate it. The human mind is acting rationally. If there is a problem, you eliminate it. But reason must be informed by faith. Faith tells us that no human being is a problem. Therefore you can neither eliminate him, not block the possibility of his existence.
If I cannot afford a baby right now, with or without disabilities, the problem to be eliminated is the lack of economic resources, not the child. This is moral, because I’m applying the word “problem” to the situation, not to a human being.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
R
rmills1
Guest
Natural Family Planning utilizes a scientific process that maps the menstrual cycle of a woman to better understand her fertility. It allows the married couple to practice responsible family planning with regards to personal economics, health issues et cetera while working within the bounds of the Natural Law. The process always maintains an openness to life as it recognizes the fundamental role of sexual intercourse: procreation but it allows the married couple to maintain a sense of comfort by making the conjugal act available for the relationship.
T
TrueLight
Guest
Br. Jr, you know I hate when you say stuff like that.
If iT was written for the bishops, then what was witten for the laity? Surely the Catholiic faith doesn’t require years of philosophy to understand right and wrong.
The action is the charting, temperature taking, body fluid observing etc. Otherwise it would be pure abstaining “for a season”.
And when you know the time is not right, you abstain. So let’s say you’e using NFP for a year. You are abstaining whenever you think there is a possibility you can get pregnant. You are having sex, when you hope you can’t. Pure unitive sex.
And I know there are some priests who agree with me because I’ve heard sermons. And those priests have taken philosophy, theology etc.
I agree with you here. It is selfish because you want the sex without the babes. Although they are not on the same level, with NFP you also want to have sex without the babies. Otherwise one would abstain for the whole year.
J
JReducation
Guest
The US Bishops did put out a very good catechism for the laity, based on the CCC. Go to www.usccb.org and check out their store. It’s pretty good. The catechism is great, because it does not assume that you read philosophy or documents written prior to the CCC. It just gives you the answer to your question.Br. Jr, you know I hate when you say stuff like that.
If iT was written for the bishops, then what was witten for the laity? Surely the Catholiic faith doesn’t require years of philosophy to understand right and wrong.
In philosophy, that’s not considered a direct action. The direct action would be interfering with conception. The method used in NFP does not interfere with the natural process. It works with it. That’s why it’s moral, because it cooperates with natural law.
This is perfectly moral if there is a valid reason for doing so as is described in the CCC, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and by the USCCB.
The issue is not that they agree with you. It’s whether they agree with the Church. There are some out there who put NFP just one step below ABC, when the Church is saying something different. They are not using theology and philosophy the way that the Church is using it. We always get back to the same thing that Pope Benedict is always harping on. To think with the Church is to think with the Holy Father and the bishops. It’s not about setting up one’s own criteria.
It’s not selfish because you want sex without the babies. That’s not what Christian Ethics says. Christian Ethics says that it’s selfish because you want sex while circumventing natural law. NFP does not circumvent natural law. It works with natural law.
The selfish part is not in the desire to have sex. That part is normal for animals. The selfishness enters in when you desire something, but you change the rules in order to get it. ABC changes the rules, while NFP works with the rules.
Therein lays the difference. That’s why the Church juxtaposes the two.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
moon1234
Guest
To answer the original question of why traditionalists reject NFP, you first need to define traditionalists. Most “traditional” people I know, myself included, reject most of what is in Humane Vitae and the modern encyclicls (we not bound to them as law) and most of what has come out of Rome since VII so we follow the traditional teachings of the Church.
If this is the traditional rejection of NFP you are finding then you will most likely NOT get them to change their mind. I personally see no difference between NFP and ABC for avoiding children. One requires more work the other does not. One requires mental gymnastics the other does not. Both have similar failure rates. Even planned parenthood promotes NFP for avoiding children.
If we used the present Church’s teaching for NFP, Sarah would not have conceived, Our blessed Mother would qualify (too young, no home, no money, Jesus born in barn, etc.).
The truth of the matter, at least for most traditionalists of the 1962 type, is that NFP is just VII’s legalized form of birth control, sex for pleasure with very little procreative “risk”.
If the original poster is trying to gain acceptance from these “traditional” groups they will not find many who will support them (I would not and would look disapprovingly on them if they practiced NFP this way). While the Church today may approve of NFP for “spacing” children for “grave” reasons, most traditionalists will simply choose NOT to make use of these “options” and will choose not to associate with those who do.
Many decisions in the Church are human in origin. Humane Vitae was an encyclical from one Pope, it is a teaching that Catholics around the world can read and apply to their lives. It is NOT guaranteed without error and must be read in light of previous teachings. Many traditionalists will have problems with VII and later documents as they contain many seemingly contradictary teachings with tradition.
I know that this may be inflamatory for many of the post VII crowd, but it is an answer to the cold shoulder that the OP may be getting regarding NFP and “traditional” groups.
If this is the traditional rejection of NFP you are finding then you will most likely NOT get them to change their mind. I personally see no difference between NFP and ABC for avoiding children. One requires more work the other does not. One requires mental gymnastics the other does not. Both have similar failure rates. Even planned parenthood promotes NFP for avoiding children.
If we used the present Church’s teaching for NFP, Sarah would not have conceived, Our blessed Mother would qualify (too young, no home, no money, Jesus born in barn, etc.).
The truth of the matter, at least for most traditionalists of the 1962 type, is that NFP is just VII’s legalized form of birth control, sex for pleasure with very little procreative “risk”.
If the original poster is trying to gain acceptance from these “traditional” groups they will not find many who will support them (I would not and would look disapprovingly on them if they practiced NFP this way). While the Church today may approve of NFP for “spacing” children for “grave” reasons, most traditionalists will simply choose NOT to make use of these “options” and will choose not to associate with those who do.
Many decisions in the Church are human in origin. Humane Vitae was an encyclical from one Pope, it is a teaching that Catholics around the world can read and apply to their lives. It is NOT guaranteed without error and must be read in light of previous teachings. Many traditionalists will have problems with VII and later documents as they contain many seemingly contradictary teachings with tradition.
I know that this may be inflamatory for many of the post VII crowd, but it is an answer to the cold shoulder that the OP may be getting regarding NFP and “traditional” groups.
F
fpt
Guest
Many decisions in the Church are human in origin. Humane Vitae was an encyclical from one Pope, it is a teaching that Catholics around the world can read and apply to their lives. It is NOT guaranteed without error and must be read in light of previous teachings.
Are you saying that the catholic church since John XVIII has not a good teaching on sexual ethic within the natural and sacremental marriage? According to your knowledge of the past teaching of the church with the agreements of some priests, some bishops, some nuns, some monks, some lay persons, some wifes, some husbands, the Roman church since 1962 is, per se about the fundamental topics(human nature, nature of marriage, human sexuality, contraception, abortion) on the very bad way. May be She is heretic??? I am not totally okay with this analysis. I know, there are problematics on how to interpretate Vatican the second, there were some abuses from differents catholic people (priests, monks, nuns, lay persons;
but it is not a reason to say that the catholic church is per se wrong on those topics.
Questions: are you okay or are you not okay?
Marriage is a natural institution, a sacremental institution, and then a natural contract and a sacremantal contract? yes or no ;
responsible procreation is one the principles of marriage? yes or no;
From the natural institition and from sacremental institution, what are the moral obligations?
From the natural contract and from sacremental contract, what are the moral duties?
Are you agree with this distinction? yes or no no?
Generally speaking when you are marital sex, you are not in the moral obligation to want, to will and to desire a baby??? yes or no???
Are you okay with those statements that are coming from catholic lay persons?
"The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.
“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”
“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”
Are you saying that the catholic church since John XVIII has not a good teaching on sexual ethic within the natural and sacremental marriage? According to your knowledge of the past teaching of the church with the agreements of some priests, some bishops, some nuns, some monks, some lay persons, some wifes, some husbands, the Roman church since 1962 is, per se about the fundamental topics(human nature, nature of marriage, human sexuality, contraception, abortion) on the very bad way. May be She is heretic??? I am not totally okay with this analysis. I know, there are problematics on how to interpretate Vatican the second, there were some abuses from differents catholic people (priests, monks, nuns, lay persons;
but it is not a reason to say that the catholic church is per se wrong on those topics.Questions: are you okay or are you not okay?
Marriage is a natural institution, a sacremental institution, and then a natural contract and a sacremantal contract? yes or no ;
responsible procreation is one the principles of marriage? yes or no;
From the natural institition and from sacremental institution, what are the moral obligations?
From the natural contract and from sacremental contract, what are the moral duties?
Are you agree with this distinction? yes or no no?
Generally speaking when you are marital sex, you are not in the moral obligation to want, to will and to desire a baby??? yes or no???
Are you okay with those statements that are coming from catholic lay persons?
"The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.
“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”
“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”
F
fpt
Guest
Many decisions in the Church are human in origin. Humane Vitae was an encyclical from one Pope, it is a teaching that Catholics around the world can read and apply to their lives. It is NOT guaranteed without error and must be read in light of previous teachings.
Are you saying that the catholic church since John XXIII has not a good teaching on sexual ethic within the natural and sacremental marriage? According to your knowledge of the past teaching of the church with the agreements of some priests, some bishops, some nuns, some monks, some lay persons, some wifes, some husbands, the Roman church since 1962 is, per se about the fundamental topics(human nature, nature of marriage, human sexuality, contraception, abortion) on the very bad way. May be She is heretic??? I am not totally okay with this analysis. I know, there are problematics on how to interpretate Vatican the second, there were some abuses from differents catholic people (priests, monks, nuns, lay persons;
Questions: are you okay or are you not okay?
Marriage is a natural institution, a sacremental institution, and then a natural contract and a sacremantal contract? yes or no ;
responsible procreation is one the principles of marriage? yes or no;
From the natural institition and from sacremental institution, what are the moral obligations?
From the natural contract and from sacremental contract, what are the moral duties?
Are you agree with this distinction? yes or no no?
Generally speaking when you are marital sex, you are not in the moral obligation to want, to will and to desire a baby??? yes or no???
Are you okay with those statements that are coming from catholic lay persons?
"The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.
“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”
“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”
F
floresco
Guest
For the record, I consider myself traditional and I accept Church teaching of and since the V2 Council. I believe that it all must be understood in the light of Tradition.
F
fpt
Guest
I am totally okay with you.
According to my understanding of true catholic teaching concerning sexual ethics within marriage, we should avoid and battle versus these types of doctrines (doxa) or practices (praxis) that are bellow :
Pharisianism, Legalism and Juridicism, Externalism, Prejudicism;
Moralism, Scrupulism, Dolorism;
Pessimism, Encratism, Manicheism, Catharism, Jansenism, Rigorism, Puritanism, Neo-puritanism, Prudism, Prudishness, Victorianism, Neo-victorianism;
Obscuranticism, Absolute Mythologism, Tabouism ;
Sexism, Masculinism, Misogynism, Machism, Radical Feminism, Misandrism, Absolute Physiologism, Gender Theory;
Absolute Procreationsim, Theoretical Providentialism and Quiverfull movement and Educational and Instructional deleguationisme systematic;
Primary Anti-personalism, Primary anti-phenomenologism
In my opinion those ideologies, those teachings and those thoughts and / or these manners are too far away from real and true catholicism : it is my point of view.
M
manualman
Guest
“Traditional” defined by you here as anything promulgated by a pope or council prior to Vatican II, right? Like, Casti Connubi? Oops, I suspect you haven’t read it. Here’s a portion that might surprise you:
"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. "
Notice how very careful he was to distinguish between those who use contraception to “frustrate” the procreative element of marital sex and those who utilize “virtuous continence” to avoid conception when both spouses consent?
In my experience, the NFP=ABC crowd seems to assume that Paul VI invented a previously unknown permission for spouses to avoid pregnancy. But this is nonsense, as evidenced in Casti Connubi above. It is only fairly recently (with urbanization) that humans have become so ignorant of mammal husbandry as to not be able to discern fertility symptoms and use that knowledge. Contrary to certain NFP method instructors, you need neither thermometer nor paper to fairly reliably discern fertility (especially in pre-pharmceutical cultures!)
The reason that NFP is fundamentally morally different than ABC is that sex, for the NFP using couple, never stops being about babies. It’s always about the procreative. As Br. JR mentioned, the caveat is that you take things month to month and listen for what God is saying. You never say “I’m done.” Even when there are serious reasons that seem permanent the most that is healthy is “not now.” God is a smart guy. He knew how good fallen humans are at rationalizing what they want, so he harnessed our sexual passion to His ends. The NFP couple that uses the difficult abstinance tiems each month to “phony check” their serious reason gains the spiritual benefit of fasting to quiet the noise of the world and help us listen to God’s quiet voice. In short, the abstinance becomes a BS detector. It’s built in and it works. That’s why you almost never meet 1 or 2 child NFP family. It’s not that they have lots of “oops” kids, but that they tend to have a lot of “what the heck” kids.
I suggest you think about it and refrain from in-house sniping when we have rather a lot of incoming fire from the outside right now. Shoot back in that direction and let the pope be the pope, eh?
W
whm
Guest
This is a nice find thanks! Although I would not necessarily equate “virtuous continence” with periodic continence under NFP. Sustained abstinence is an entirely different ball game than the 2 weeks or so under NFP methods. Nonetheless, the fact that abstinence can be morally agreed to opens the door to allowing NFP methods, the morality of which boils down to the reasons for using it, which can be complex.
F
floresco
Guest
The Pius XII “Address to Midwives” clearly talks about periodic abstinence:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm
F
fpt
Guest
Generaly, lay catholic persons who are against the intellectual approach of Humanae Vitae, are okay with conclusions concerning contraception, the abortion. But there are many big issues on several topics:
2.The question of the finalities of the marriage? The same level or a hiearchy??? Which one would be the first, the primary, the most important if there is a conflict?
Woman: Sweetheart (love), Mistress (lover), Muse, Wife, Girlfriend, Best Friend and Mother ???
Pharisianism, Legalism and Juridicism, Externalism, Prejudicism; Jansenism, Rigorism, Puritanism, Prudism, Prudishness, Absolute Mythologism, Tabooism, Absolute Procreationsim, Theoretical Providentialism, Primary Anti-personalism, Primary anti-phenomenologism.
- Responsible procreation with one of the elements " Narural family planning " . Does the catholic church has the right to promote the researches of medical sciences on physiological system of woman in order to know when she is fertile or not fertile? For some catholics, it is Porneia (prostitution, pornography, objectification of women body, to objectivate the sexuality and genital organs…etc) it would be a bad thing. With these differents method, wife with her husband are in obligation to be in contact with intimate orgarns, for some it could be too much sexual and qualified of masturbation.
2.The question of the finalities of the marriage? The same level or a hiearchy??? Which one would be the first, the primary, the most important if there is a conflict?
- The question of the finalities of marital act? The same level or a hiearchy??? Which one would be the first, the primary, the most important if there is a conflict?
- In the catholic couple, what are the different dimensions each spouse in the marriage??
Woman: Sweetheart (love), Mistress (lover), Muse, Wife, Girlfriend, Best Friend and Mother ???
- Proceation or reproduction???
Pharisianism, Legalism and Juridicism, Externalism, Prejudicism; Jansenism, Rigorism, Puritanism, Prudism, Prudishness, Absolute Mythologism, Tabooism, Absolute Procreationsim, Theoretical Providentialism, Primary Anti-personalism, Primary anti-phenomenologism.
F
fpt
Guest
Some quotations from traditional catholics lay persons:
"Having fun (pleasure) in the marital union is sinful. "
" The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children. "
“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
"The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
“I know that conjugal love is not a sin, but for stupid reasons I hate going to church after sex.”
“If the woman does not reach orgasm before the husband, too bad. This is her cross to bear.”
Why that??? Because behind there are many intellectual approaches that are very weird.
"Having fun (pleasure) in the marital union is sinful. "
" The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children. "
“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”
“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”
“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”
“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”
"The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”
“I know that conjugal love is not a sin, but for stupid reasons I hate going to church after sex.”
“If the woman does not reach orgasm before the husband, too bad. This is her cross to bear.”
Why that??? Because behind there are many intellectual approaches that are very weird.
M
manualman
Guest
Fpt, why do you keep tossing in random opinions as if they helped clarify things?
I’ve met catholics who believe the sun orbits the earth before, but that has ZERO bearing on the teaching of the church. The church proclaims a counter-cultural message on the subject of human sexuality. Counter cultures always attract a few nutballs, even when the counter-culture in question holds a prophetically authentic message (google John Brown of the US slavery era for an example). Pointing them out does not in any way undermine the critique of the larger culture.
I’ve met catholics who believe the sun orbits the earth before, but that has ZERO bearing on the teaching of the church. The church proclaims a counter-cultural message on the subject of human sexuality. Counter cultures always attract a few nutballs, even when the counter-culture in question holds a prophetically authentic message (google John Brown of the US slavery era for an example). Pointing them out does not in any way undermine the critique of the larger culture.
B
Brendan
Guest
Really? We had 6 kids using NFP to denote when the optimum time to conceive was. How is that a contraceptive mentality?
W
whm
Guest
Yes, I was aware of address to midwives. In fact the last sentence of my post is basically a paraphrase of the last paragraph of the Address to Midwives. I even stated that NFP is allowed if the reasons are moral reasons.
I don’t see what it has to do with virtuous continence not necessarily being the same as short periods of abstinence under NFP, which is the part of my post you quoted. The point being that long term abstinence is a much greater sacrifice (I would classify NFP as more as work than sacrifice). Also abstinence does not seek “to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality”, which the Pope warns of in the “Address to Midwives”. Abstinence can not be the result of a contraceptive mentality since it does not in anyway involve sex. Abstinence(long term) <> NFP. I am not criticizing moral use of NFP, it simply is not the same as Abstinence. Abstinence has a different set of moral considerations, namely resistance to temptation and marital debt obligations. Abstinence is not going to help ones situation if it results in committing mortal sins (which also wouldn’t be “virtuous continence”).
F
fpt
Guest
If my understanding of the teaching of catholic church is correct, we should avoid the strange philosophies and theologies that are refused or banned by the Roman Magisterium.
In the real word of catholicism, inside traditional or traditionalist movement with the different clans, societies, organizations… (Sedevacantist Communities, SSPX, FSSP, and the others… Ecclesia Dei), the critics on NFP and Humanae Vitae are very strong. This minority of christians is very active and publishes in books, in articles, in forums… some quotations very special that are so far away from true catholicism.
I want to debate, to understand why? For that I need to know, if my researches on internet, in books are in adequation with the real world of those traditional catholic movements. For that, I need to share with lay people and to wait the answers.
May be, my quotations are hoax??? Are these random opinions teached, promoted by traditionalists? I think that yes, for me it is sad. I am against all of them.
F
fpt
Guest
I would like to understand:
In the natural and sacramental marriage, what are the meanings of the marital act? What are its functions, its purposes, its finalities??? Per se, the conjugal act is it good and wanted by God???
Is it a bad thing to want to have a sexual harmony within couple and to look for conjugal sexual pleasures???
Wife and husband are not genitors, but they are procreators, that is totally different. Are you okay???
In my point of view:
By definition, Marriage does not mean sexual abstinence. Never Wife and husband must live like brother and sister. Those terms are not quite fair, We have to use other words if the situation obliges, couple can use a non sexual intimity than brother and sister can not.
The catholic teaching must be understand in link the notion of organically developpement.
On earth we are body and soul as female or male. Conjugal act has to moderate, but moderation is casuistic.
When we practice the conjugal act, wife has the moral obligation and the moral duty to give pleasures to her husband in order to reach orgasm. It is the same for husband. Conjugal act , I mean sexual love and conjugal orgasm are element of marriage for bonding of conjugal love.
Marital act is a language, a prayer… a liturgy??? Is there a sexual philosopy of conjugal act in catholicism?
- Status