NFP argument

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johanna_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Johanna_C

Guest
I am having an argument with someone close to me about NFP, and I could use some help.

This person’s issue is with the Catholic Church’s prohibition on non-intercourse sexual acts within marriage vs. the Church’s acceptance of NFP. He says that if it is okay to deliberately only have sex when conception is not possible, then spouses should be able to pleasure each other outside of intercourse because the outcome is the same, or else NFP is immoral.

I know he is wrong, but he rejects my argument that NFP is licit because it is sex as it’s intended to be whereas unnatural sex acts are just that. He says I’m being hypocritical. I think his position is illogical and self serving. Is there a better, more persuasive argument I could make? Or a book or encyclical I could give him?

I have a lot vested in this. I have a close relationship with this person, he is generally an orthodox catholic, and this is the only instance I know of that his opinions diverge from church teaching.
 
Pleasure is not the focus of sex. Unity and procreation is. Pleasure is derived from coperating with God’s will of life and using the gifts He gives us they way they are intended.

The only intended end result of non-intercourse sex is pleasure. It is not unitive, nor procreative.

Abstaining during fertile times must be for good reason. It can not be for selfish reasons. When a couple chooses to postpone conception, they may engage in the marital embrace to continue to show their openness to life (it isn’t 100% effective), but moreso showing dignity of the act and renewing their marriage vows.
 
I would add that such discussions are futile and those who throw the hypocrite word around already have ther mind made up. Since he is not in communion with Rome, it will only stand to reason he is looking for an argument for the sake of making himself feeling better.
 
Sorry, by orthodox I didn’t mean not in communion with Rome, I meant that he is a practicing catholic who generally accepts what the church teaches. Poor choice of words.

He also claims that unnatural sex acts can be unitive, and that sex during infertile periods isn’t procreative anyway. But I’m beginning to agree with you that there will be no winning this argument.

I was really hoping there would be a way to bring him around though. He is generally reasonable.
 
Have you read Humanae Vitae, which discusses why NFP (recourse to infertile periods) is acceptable and different from contraception?

Here is a link: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

It’s goof to read the whole document, but Section 16 is the most relevant section to this debate.

In short, NFP is a cooperation with nature. Contraception (including non-procreative completed sex acts) is a deliberate attempt to thwart nature and God’s design for sex.
 
underacloud said:
Have you read Humanae Vitae, which discusses why NFP (recourse to infertile periods) is acceptable and different from contraception?

Here is a link: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

It’s goof to read the whole document, but Section 16 is the most relevant section to this debate.

In short, NFP is a cooperation with nature. Contraception (including non-procreative completed sex acts) is a deliberate attempt to thwart nature and God’s design for sex.
Click to expand...
That is the sort of thing I was looking for.
 
Johanna_C said:
Is there a better, more persuasive argument I could make?
Click to expand...
This may be a concise way to present it to him:

The deliberate experience of sexual pleasure is morally licit only within the context of a marital act that is unitive and procreative. Then explain to him, that “unitive and procreative” consists of natural intercourse that is free from any *intended and imposed *obstruction of its life-generating potential.

NFP is in-harmony with the way in which God designed sex and the human female body.
Unnatural sexual acts divorce sexual pleasure from the design to which it belongs to.
 
Then tell him that sex within marriage is supposed to be an act of giving, not receiving. You are to give of your whole self to your spouse. If you withhold the procreative possibility by not having licit sex, then you cannot give of yourself fully because you are withholding a part of yourself. It is not in fact uniting, but separating the couple. You may feel closer emotionally, but spiritually you would be separating. During infertile periods, you are still able to fully give of yourself and have less of a chance of conceiving. But again, purposefully using NFP to avoid pregnancy must be for a grave reason and not for selfish reasons.
 
Have you tried using analogies?

Consider the case where two men want to support their families. One man gets a job, works hard, earns money, buys food. The other takes a hunting rifle and holds up a bank, steals the money, and buys food. In both cases, the outcome is the same, right? They both acquired enough money to feed their families. And yet we would rightly judge the second situation to be gravely immoral. That’s because it’s not only outcome or intention that matters, but the means of achieving something as well.

You might also consider reading up on natural law. I really, really like this speech by Janet Smith. She argues (persuasively, I feel) that sex has an intended purpose and it’s irrational to try to separate it from that purpose. Perhaps your friend will find it convincing.
 
bzkoss236 said:
Then tell him that sex within marriage is supposed to be an act of giving, not receiving.???

Could explain to me , please?

The marriage is a mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies. The fact of making one flesh is a mutual and reciprocal union of bodies.

During this marital act:

1.The wife is giving her own body to her husband, the wife is offering her own body to her husband and the husband is receiving the own body of his wife;
  1. The husband is giving his own body to his wife , the husband is offering his own body to his wife, and the wife is receiving the own body of her husband.
The moral obligations coming from the natural contract and the natural institution are:

For husband to give and to offer his own body to his wife and to receive the body of his wife.

For wife to give and to offer her own body to her husband and to receive the body of her husband.

Thus, the marital act has to be unitive and procreative: unity and potential procreativity:

Unity means the carnal union of bodies in the human fashion with sexual cooperation

Procreativity means the climax of husband has to take place in the right place: the human nature of male body and the human nature of female body.

The theology of the body is dual: A theology of the body of the female and the theology of the body of male with the metaphysics of the wife’s body and the metaphysics of husband’s body: alterity and complementarity of the humanity.
Click to expand...
 
Johanna_C said:
Sorry, by orthodox I didn’t mean not in communion with Rome, I meant that he is a practicing catholic who generally accepts what the church teaches. Poor choice of words.

He also claims that unnatural sex acts can be unitive, and that sex during infertile periods isn’t procreative anyway. But I’m beginning to agree with you that there will be no winning this argument.

I was really hoping there would be a way to bring him around though. He is generally reasonable.
Click to expand...
This is a clear misunderstanding of the word “procreative”.
Procreative does NOT mean “fertile”. Fertility must be removed from the argument altogether.
Procreative is an adjective that describes how the sex is done… ie, in a way that *could *(if fertility happens to be present) bring about procreation. The act is done in a procreative manner. It doesn’t mean procreation has to occur (ie, fertility is present).

Therefore… even infertile couples (permanently, or temporarily) can have procreative sex.

I think further definition of “unnatural sex acts” is necessary (without getting too descriptive)… some things are considered okay if used in a manner of foreplay, but in order for the act to be procreative, the husband must finish inside the wife, in a procreative manner.
 
Ana_v said:
This may be a concise way to present it to him:

The deliberate experience of sexual pleasure is morally licit only within the context of a marital act that is unitive and procreative. Then explain to him, that “unitive and procreative” consists of natural intercourse that is free from any intended and imposed obstruction of its life-generating potential.

NFP is in-harmony with the way in which God designed sex and the human female body.
Unnatural sexual acts divorce sexual pleasure from the design to which it belongs to.
Click to expand...
I think this and reading the link posted by Little Flower above pretty much answers your question !
 
Thanks for your replies everyone. I think I have some good material to show him. Hopefully that will be helpful, I am not that good at pulling an argument out of my head on the spur of the moment even if I understand the subject well.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
I am not sure what he means when he says unnatural sex acts are unative. Below is a link on what the Church taught in 1906. I found it very helpfull. John Paul II has greatly added or revealed more to what the Church teaches with the writings of *Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility *

be aware that the writing is very descriptive, maybe not for kids
religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/traditional-catholic-theologian-on.html
Click to expand...
Some comments:

" 1. The primary purpose of marital sex is procreation.
2. The secondary purpose of marital sex is to control the spouses’ sexual desires.
3. Other acceptable and “honourable” reasons exist for having sex.
4. Sex constitutes an obligation which spouses owe to each other. "

This type of presentation about the ends of marital sex is very old fashion. not very **in favor of sexual pleasure in the couple.
**

" The debt is to be demanded rarely, solely out of necessity and with a humble and pure intention — One must speak about this matter only very rarely " ;

Very prudent, very prudish, very weird.

c) A wife who prevents herself from ejaculating while having marital intercourse does not objectively sin, since the woman’s semen (as it is called) is not necessary for procreation…

It is not in favor of active performance of wife during the marital act, implicitly it is a sign of masculism, sexism, against the sexual joy of woman.
 
DaddyGirl said:
Pleasure is unitive.
Click to expand...
Not in the context of Theology of the Body. I used to rationalize my immoral behavior by thinking the same thing. It took a lot of prayer and study before I realized that all I was doing was making my own definitions to suit my selfish desires.

Pleasure should always be derived from participating in God’s will. HIS will must be pursued FIRST. His will, as taught my the church, is that marriage and the marital embrace be UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE. Pope John Paul II said that these two aspects cannot be separated. The pleasure is the reward for doing things the right way.

If a married couple (or anyone else) participates in uncompleted sexual acts where there is no intention of finishing the proper way, it is NOT the complete giving of oneself to the other. This is what the church means when it talks about what is unitive.
 
Question 3. On the lawfulness of the marital act in relation to its purpose
  1. It is certain that the marital act can lawfully be engaged in for reason of the purposes proper to marriage: that is, for the procreation of children — to provide a remedy for lust — to satisfy one’s spouse when he lawfully requests it. The reason is obvious: it is obviously lawful to carry out an act conforming to nature for reason of the ends which the author of nature intended when he instituted it.
  2. It is also certain that the marital act can lawfully be engaged in for reason of some other honourable end, e.g. to nurture marital love, for reasons of physical health, etc…
  3. Conversely, it appears to be certain that it is unlawful to look for pleasure alone in the marital act, to the extent that all honourable purposes are positively excluded. This is because it is a perversion of the order of nature to make use of something as an end in itself if the author of nature willed that it should be only a means to an end. An abuse of this nature, however, is no more than a minor sin, for taking pleasure in carrying out a good act is not wrong in itself, but only by virtue of the deficiency in relation to its legitimate purpose…
This form of speech is very old fashion, too. Marital act for procreation, for bonding of love, for avoiding the lust, for the marital request of the other, for the conjugal sexual love or for the conjugal sex fun is totally okay, of course. Conjugal sex for conjugal sexual pleasure is okay.
 
Johanna_C said:
Sorry, by orthodox I didn’t mean not in communion with Rome, I meant that he is a practicing catholic who generally accepts what the church teaches. Poor choice of words.

He also claims that unnatural sex acts can be unitive, and that sex during infertile periods isn’t procreative anyway. But I’m beginning to agree with you that there will be no winning this argument.

I was really hoping there would be a way to bring him around though. He is generally reasonable.
Click to expand...
Okay - good clarification on the orthodox thing. Since he does belong to Catholic Church, he must then abide by her teachings regardless of his understanding. This is very hard. I struggled with this for a long time (still do). Faith first; understanding second!

For years, I claimed that unitive acts could include non-procreative sexual activity. I was wrong and so is your friend. When you examine it, all we’re trying to do is rationalize our behavior by skewing the definitions of things and ignoring the teaching authority of the church. Remember, the Holy Spirit guides the church teaching. Even if the pope is not speaking “from the chair” (infallibly), his words must be obeyed. “He who hears you, hears Me.” Luke 10:16

When we try to understand everything before taking faith, it frustrates the mind and soul. When we stop nitpicking the definitions to find loopholes to support our sinful desires, we can only then understand the reasons why through the graces we receive by putting such virtues as chastity into action.

Even when a couple chooses to engage in the martial act only during times of infertility, they are still proclaiming their openness to life! If it is God’s will for the couple to have children, they will. And as good as NFP is, it is not perfect. So it is still possible to conceive during an infertile period.
 
religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.fr/2011/04/traditional-catholic-theologian-on.html

Question 4. On the lawfulness of the marital act in relation to its circumstances

On the position — The natural position for intercourse is for the man to lie on top and the woman to lie underneath him. This is generally the method which tends to be more suited for the insemination of the woman. However, no position, even if it departs from the natural one, impedes procreation in itself. ** Using a different position is therefore no more than a venial sin, provided that the danger is excluded of all the semen being ejaculated outside the orifice. ** Indeed, it does not even amount to a minor sin if there is a legitimate reason for it…

Very poor theology, very simple, very puritan, puritanist , prudish. It is so sad.

On the location — a) Modesty and charity, by which we are obliged to avoid giving scandal, demand that marital intercourse is only to be carried on in a private place. Spouses should therefore take care that other people do not sleep in the same bedroom, or at any rate that by exercising their rights they do not bring about the others’ ruin….

No so rigid, open-mind, possibly!!!
 
FPT, maybe I should open a new post about this 1906 writing? Remember it was writen in 1906 so it will sound old fashioned. I thought he could have used a better word than “prevents herself from ejaculating.” There has been alot that has been said after 1906 about these things but that does not make all of what he says untrue. I think in an age where “Shades of Grey,” is selling like hot cakes, it would be good to examine what acts are natural and licit, ect. etc. There is a link prior to this one that I havent read yet but gives more on the authors work.

Here it is:
religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/traditional-catholic-theologian-on-sex.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top