NFP question

[Nate13]

The problem begins when the Catholic teachings shift from sex education to sex training. Based on the posts here and on the other forums, here is what I have gathered for the approved sex manual to make it easier for married couples to meet the Church rules.

Start by acknowledging you want a baby. Don’t completely undress, as this will cause lustful thoughts unrelated to baby making.You forgot to add you must keep your eyes closed the entire time Insert Tab A into Slot B.I think most women needs some warm up time… Repeat as necessary, but make sure you finish on the down stroke.False! Premature ejaculation is a sin, so don’t let that happen. Oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, and sex toys are major sins. The only allowed position is the woman on her back with legs spread, man on top.your so unimaginative If the woman is on top, this may lead her to sin by thinking she can have a dominant role in the relationship. It may even lead to her thinking that she can be a priest.you crossed some lines here. Nothing new though. Your sexism complaint will be piled with the other million. Use NFP only to make sure you are having sex during your fertile period. If you have grave reasons, you may have sex during her infertile period, but only if you don’t think you are having sex at a time that she can’t get pregnant.you have been on CAF too long, your typing opposite. The Church won’t define for you what grave reasons could be for you to do this, but rest assured that anything you come up with is sinful.see Humane Vitae/talk to priest You can enjoy the sex, but not too much, because that detracts from the procreative reason for sex and is sinful. Once the woman has conceived, stop having sex, because there is no longer any procreative reason to do so. Thus this is a sin.just more lies/misconceptions If a man has returned from war with his wedding tackle damaged, he cannot marry because he cannot carry out his husbandly duty to impregnate his wife. If he is already married, then he and his wife must abstain from any sex because there is no procreative reason to do so. Same for an elderly couple. Any couple who knowingly marry with the intent to not have children are sinning in the eyes of the Church. the hate is coming through at this part real strong
That about covers it. If I left anything out, please feel free to add to it. If there are any errors in this sex manual, please free to call them out with your own take on them. References would be appreciated
This sex manual has been called insulting, uncharitable, condescending and mean-spirited. I will add rude, crude, lewd and probably socially unacceptable. So far no one has called it a wrong interpertation of the Church rules on sex in marriage.

 

[searching04]

The problem begins when the Catholic teachings shift from sex education to sex training. Based on the posts here and on the other forums, here is what I have gathered for the approved sex manual to make it easier for married couples to meet the Church rules.

Start by acknowledging you want a baby. Don’t completely undress, as this will cause lustful thoughts unrelated to baby making. Insert Tab A into Slot B. Repeat as necessary, but make sure you finish on the down stroke. Premature ejaculation is a sin, so don’t let that happen. Oral sex, anal sex, mutual masturbation, and sex toys are major sins. The only allowed position is the woman on her back with legs spread, man on top. If the woman is on top, this may lead her to sin by thinking she can have a dominant role in the relationship. It may even lead to her thinking that she can be a priest. Use NFP only to make sure you are having sex during your fertile period. If you have grave reasons, you may have sex during her infertile period, but only if you don’t think you are having sex at a time that she can’t get pregnant. The Church won’t define for you what grave reasons could be for you to do this, but rest assured that anything you come up with is sinful. You can enjoy the sex, but not too much, because that detracts from the procreative reason for sex and is sinful. Once the woman has conceived, stop having sex, because there is no longer any procreative reason to do so. Thus this is a sin. If a man has returned from war with his wedding tackle damaged, he cannot marry because he cannot carry out his husbandly duty to impregnate his wife. If he is already married, then he and his wife must abstain from any sex because there is no procreative reason to do so. Same for an elderly couple. Any couple who knowingly marry with the intent to not have children are sinning in the eyes of the Church.
That about covers it. If I left anything out, please feel free to add to it. If there are any errors in this sex manual, please free to call them out with your own take on them. References would be appreciated
This sex manual has been called insulting, uncharitable, condescending and mean-spirited. I will add rude, crude, lewd and probably socially unacceptable. So far no one has called it a wrong interpertation of the Church rules on sex in marriage.

Personally, I am having a good time laughing and reading it! And I don’t agree with church teachings on sex! But, yep, that about covers it all. OK, well, not totally and not really, but there’s truth in it…

 

[searching04]

… cute… but far off base in so many ways…
If you’re being serious about wanting me to fix the errors then here you go…
(otherwise I’m sorry if you were being sarcastic… but I’ll answer anyway )…

There are times you may not “want” a baby (for just reasons!)… that’s okay… deal with it in a moral way.
*Accidental *premature ejaculation is not a sin… *accidents *happen.
Oral sex, sex toys, and other forms of foreplay are not sinful, in and of themselves… some couples find them helpful, others may have issues with them. If the sex is ultimately procreative and unitive, you’re good.
Positions… well, some of us are more creative than others.

Wrong all around and clear misunderstanding of the meaning of the word “procreative”.
You can most certainly have procreative sex while pregnant, and even if you’re infertile. “Procreative sex” does not require fertility.

OK, techincally, maybe, but this is one of those areas where the church and everyone else just needs to flat out saay wha the heck it means - the man has to orgasm via intercourse, period. That is all that means. In the very realistic sense, no, couples cannot have procreative sex when she is already pregnant - you can’t get “pregnant twice”.

There are plenty of good reasons for avoid conception at a given time… for those who have difficulty discerning those reasons - they can speak with a priest.

See above… procreative doesn’t have to mean fertile.
Premarital permanent impotence would make the marriage invalid - yes - because it cannot be consummated. This says nothing about fertility.

Actually… pretty wrong in a variety of ways…

 

[ahs]

There’s the kicker - my conscience never did and still does not tell me that it is wrong. My heart completely, totally tells me it is perfectly loving and giving and selfless. The only time my conscience kicked in about normal sexual activity was after we heard about the CCC, which tells us things are wrong. Why? Neither my wife nor I believe at all still that things we did were wrong; my conscience never did either. It is out of fear because of wording in the CCC that we follow church teachings, that’s all. My wife and I disagree on it; we follow it.

And again, you really are a presumptive little poster to make a statement like you did about a conscience. Things are not all black and white, like the CCC

That’s what I’m trying to say…it doesn’t matter if our conscience or heart tells us something is right if our conscience is not well formed. We form our conscience to Christ’s teachings, which are revealed by the Church to whom He gave that Authority. Now that you know what the CCC says, you can begin to form your conscience according to Christ’s teachings as they are revealed to us via His Church.

How is my comment on conscience presumptive?

 

[Em_in_FL]

OK, techincally, maybe, but this is one of those areas where the church and everyone else just needs to flat out saay wha the heck it means - the man has to orgasm via intercourse, period. That is all that means. In the very realistic sense, no, couples cannot have procreative sex when she is already pregnant - you can’t get “pregnant twice”.

I’m gonna get all grammatical here… sorry…

“Procreative” is an adjective that is describing the word “sex”.
It is describing/defining/clarifying HOW the “sex” is done (yes, the man has to orgasm via intercourse).

“Procreation” is a noun meaning “reproduction” is taking place.

Sex, while pregnant (or infertile!), can still be “procreative”…
It will not result in “procreation”… but the act itself is still “procreative”.

Hence why sex during the infertile phases (like when you are using NFP) can be “procreative”… even though “procreation” does not occur.

 

[searching04]

Nothing we do on earth can gain us entry into Heaven. Heaven is through God’s Mercy, through Jesus Christ who died for us. We are also told in Scripture to work out salvation with fear and trembling…so it would be unwise to amble through life and just wait until death to figure out if you did enough to get into Heaven (though, again, nothing WE can do will earn us Heaven).

We are to use a WELL FORMED conscience. If your conscience is telling you to do something contrary to God’s Moral Law, it is not well formed.

This is the part I find very assumptive/presumptive. I’ll ask again, as no answer was given before: I’m a soldier; I went to Desert Storm, hopefully will be able to get back in and go deploy again. The church say very few wars are considered just; Desert Storm was not one. My conscience is perfectly clear in going to fight if need be, yet the church has not declared it just. Am I no longer Catholic, as you or another poster stated, because they didn’t undertand how someone could claim to be Catholic and follow and/or agree with everything?

The church is against the death penalty, but my conscience is clear on that in some cases (lacking the system to lock people up as austerely as possible. Am I no longer Catholic?

The church says we are supposed to take care of and treat all the illegals like anyone else, to the detriment of our own citizens and country. My conscience is clear in saying send them home (provide baisc emergency medical care, but that is all), because our citizens and country are suffering because of illegal immigration. Am I no longer Catholic?

If the church in its moral authority these things are wrong, and my conscience does not tell me otherwise (and at my age, my conscience is quite formed), am I no longer Catholic? Is it a mortal sin to disagree with the church on these things? These subjects are no different than the church teachings on sex.

Love this!

Not that a couple can never have sex again, but the couple must have sex that is ordered towards procreation when they do have sex. NFP can help a couple identify the times when they can do this and still be outside the fertile window.

We must also be careful not to set ourselves up in a position that we are judging God’s intentions. We belong to God and serve Him…not the other way around.

 

[searching04]

I’m gonna get all grammatical here… sorry…

“Procreative” is an adjective that is describing the word “sex”.
It is describing/defining/clarifying HOW the “sex” is done (yes, the man has to orgasm via intercourse).

“Procreation” is a noun meaning “reproduction” is taking place.

Sex, while pregnant (or infertile!), can still be “procreative”…
It will not result in “procreation”… but the act itself is still “procreative”.

Hence why sex during the infertile phases (like when you are using NFP) can be “procreative”… even though “procreation” does not occur.

But you see, THIS is one of those things that drives me nuts, as well as many other Catholics, and exactly why things get so confusing. Semantics. The church needs to say what the heck it means, period. Maybe it is the wording you use (procreative vs procreation) and not the church’s; frankly, I don’t know if it is CCC or its your personal wording, sorry. The church uses all the pretty words to try to explain its reasoning and guidance, and then drops “mortal sin, intrinsically evil, and disordered” in there as well, just to cap it off, just to (personal opinion) scare Catholics who might think otherwise into compliance.

 

[Em_in_FL]

But you see, THIS is one of those things that drives me nuts, as well as many other Catholics, and exactly why things get so confusing. Semantics. The church needs to say what the heck it means, period. Maybe it is the wording you use (procreative vs procreation) and not the church’s; frankly, I don’t know if it is CCC or its your personal wording, sorry. The church uses all the pretty words to try to explain its reasoning and guidance, and then drops “mortal sin, intrinsically evil, and disordered” in there as well, just to cap it off, just to (personal opinion) scare Catholics who might think otherwise into compliance.

There’s no semantics involved…
These are English words with grammatical definitions…
Yeah, the Catechism uses “big” words - sure, they could dumb it down and say “the husband had to orgasm inside the wife via intercourse”, but that’s unnecessary and crass considering there are “real” (grammatically correct) words that say the same thing.
Everyone KNOWS what the Church teaches (NO contraception whatsoever, NFP is allowed for just/serious reasons, etc, etc)… but people WANT to try to find “excuses” in the text.

 

[Nate13]

This is the part I find very assumptive/presumptive. I’ll ask again, as no answer was given before: I’m a soldier; I went to Desert Storm, hopefully will be able to get back in and go deploy again. The church say very few wars are considered just; Desert Storm was not one. My conscience is perfectly clear in going to fight if need be, yet the church has not declared it just. Am I no longer Catholic, as you or another poster stated, because they didn’t undertand how someone could claim to be Catholic and follow and/or agree with everything?

The church is against the death penalty, but my conscience is clear on that in some cases (lacking the system to lock people up as austerely as possible. Am I no longer Catholic?

The church says we are supposed to take care of and treat all the illegals like anyone else, to the detriment of our own citizens and country. My conscience is clear in saying send them home (provide baisc emergency medical care, but that is all), because our citizens and country are suffering because of illegal immigration. Am I no longer Catholic?

If the church in its moral authority these things are wrong, and my conscience does not tell me otherwise (and at my age, my conscience is quite formed), am I no longer Catholic? Is it a mortal sin to disagree with the church on these things? These subjects are no different than the church teachings on sex.

Your not helping your case here with these statements because your continuing to show you don’t really know what the Church teaches. It looks like you heard a couple statements or maybe read a couple things and then decided you had heard everything you needed to know about the Church’s position. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

1. Someone else can probably provide the documents which would explain it more fully but in all essence you should have a clear conscience in going and fighting for your country. The problem most of the time is that most people aren’t even aware of all the reasons we are going to war and thus you cannot be held responsible for facts you did not know. You swore to protect America and your statements fit that commitment.

2)Your position on the death penalty exactly mirrors the Church’s position. Do you really feel confident that you know what the Church teaches when you didn’t even know what the Church truly taught about the death penalty?

3)Illegal immigration is tricky. I see it like this though. If you leave cookies lying on the table and your kid comes up and eats one even though he knows its wrong how much of that is your fault and how much of that is his fault? If you put the cookies in the jar pushed back on the counter and put a lock on it, and your kid pulls a chair over to the counter, picks the lock, and takes a cookie who’s fault is it then? I’m all for cracking down on illegal immigration when the U.S does its part. No one should ever be denied the basic amenities for life though. One unjust action does not premise another unjust action.

 

[ahs]

This is the part I find very assumptive/presumptive. I’ll ask again… My conscience is perfectly clear in going to fight if need be, yet the church has not declared it just. Am I no longer Catholic, as you or another poster stated, because they didn’t undertand how someone could claim to be Catholic and follow and/or agree with everything?

…If the church in its moral authority these things are wrong, and my conscience does not tell me otherwise (and at my age, my conscience is quite formed), am I no longer Catholic? Is it a mortal sin to disagree with the church on these things? These subjects are no different than the church teachings on sex.

I still dont’ see how I assumed anything or was presumptuous. I said " We are to use a WELL FORMED conscience. If your conscience is telling you to do something contrary to God’s Moral Law, it is not well formed."

That sentence can apply to anyone, at anytime, in any circumstance. I emphasized “well formed” because you were saying that we are supposed to use our heads, our conscience. I was highlighting the fact that, yes, we are indeed supposed to do that, but our consciense has to be well formed…formed according to the teachings of the Church.

Further, I qualified my statement with “IF”. I did not assume that your conscience was telling you something contrary to Church teaching. I said that “IF” it does, then your conscience is not well formed.

I said nothing about not being a Cathiolic if you disagree with the Church, nor do I recall anyone saying that. If you disagree with the Church, you disagree. If you commit a sin, you commit a sin. If you are a Catholic, you are a Catholic. Sin does not remove one’s Catholics identity…though it can harm one’s relationship with God.

 

[Wardog]

There’s no semantics involved…
These are English words with grammatical definitions…
Yeah, the Catechism uses “big” words - sure, they could dumb it down and say “the husband had to orgasm inside the wife via intercourse”, but that’s unnecessary and crass considering there are “real” (grammatically correct) words that say the same thing.
Everyone KNOWS what the Church teaches (NO contraception whatsoever, NFP is allowed for just/serious reasons, etc, etc)… but people WANT to try to find “excuses” in the text.

From the free online dictionary:
pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.

1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.

Yes, these words have a definition, just not the one that you think it does. To be capable of reproducing is not just “orgasm(ing) inside the wife via intercourse”, if one is doing so in an infertile womb or one already pregnant. Nor is capable of reproducing compatible if the man is infertile. To require the insertion of the man into the woman to ejaculate the sperm under these conditions is to just mimic the capability of reproducing, but not actually be capable. Logically, requiring each sex act to be procreative, (using the above definition of capable of reproducing) should also prohibit NFP, because the woman is knowingly infertile. Yet that is not the Church’s teaching. This is what causes frustration. Our belief in God and the Church requires faith, logic and reason. If the teachings fail in logic then they should be open to question.

 

[davidv]

From the free online dictionary:
pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.

1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.

Yes, these words have a definition, just not the one that you think it does. To be capable of reproducing is not just “orgasm(ing) inside the wife via intercourse”, if one is doing so in an infertile womb or one already pregnant. Nor is capable of reproducing compatible if the man is infertile. To require the insertion of the man into the woman to ejaculate the sperm under these conditions is to just mimic the capability of reproducing, but not actually be capable. Logically, requiring each sex act to be procreative, (using the above definition of capable of reproducing) should also prohibit NFP, because the woman is knowingly infertile. Yet that is not the Church’s teaching. This is what causes frustration. Our belief in God and the Church requires faith, logic and reason. If the teachings fail in logic then they should be open to question.

And when those who oppose Church teachng fail in logic they should be open to question as well.

Above you have used, by way of implication, an invalid strawman of Church teaching. The Church teaches the the sexual act be “ordered toward procreation”. The sex act of a barren couple is ordered toward procreation if completed in the natural way (no chemicals, no barriers, no withdrawal).

 

[Wardog]

And when those who oppose Church teachng fail in logic they should be open to question as well.

Above you have used, by way of implication, an invalid strawman of Church teaching. The Church teaches the the sexual act be “ordered toward procreation”. The sex act of a barren couple is ordered toward procreation if completed in the natural way (no chemicals, no barriers, no withdrawal).

It still sounds like ordered toward procreation means that the couple have to mimic what it takes to procreate, even if they know that they are not.

But what I have read on this and other sites is that each sex act should be procreative and unitive. Nothing about ordered toward procreation or ordered to unity.

 

[Em_in_FL]

From the free online dictionary:
pro·cre·a·tive (prkr-tv)
adj.

1. Capable of reproducing; generative.
2. Of or relating to procreation: the procreative instinct.

Yes, these words have a definition, just not the one that you think it does. To be capable of reproducing is not just “orgasm(ing) inside the wife via intercourse”, if one is doing so in an infertile womb or one already pregnant. Nor is capable of reproducing compatible if the man is infertile. To require the insertion of the man into the woman to ejaculate the sperm under these conditions is to just mimic the capability of reproducing, but not actually be capable. Logically, requiring each sex act to be procreative, (using the above definition of capable of reproducing) should also prohibit NFP, because the woman is knowingly infertile. Yet that is not the Church’s teaching. This is what causes frustration. Our belief in God and the Church requires faith, logic and reason. If the teachings fail in logic then they should be open to question.

The adjective “procreative” is describing the noun “sex”… it’s not describing the man or woman.
In other words… it’s telling us that the SEX must be “capable of reproducing”.

Sex is only “capable of reproducing” when it is done in a certain WAY.

It has nothing to do with whether the husband or wife is fertile.
If the SEX itself is done in a certain WAY… THE SEX is PROCREATIVE…

We don’t believe that the man or the woman need to be “procreative”… it’s the SEX.

I really don’t understand the confusion on the terminology.

 

[Em_in_FL]

To quote the Catechism…

The terms “procreative” and “unitive” are describing “the act”… not “the people”.

2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

 

[Em_in_FL]

More from the Catechism:

2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

 

[ahs]

It still sounds like ordered toward procreation means that the couple have to mimic what it takes to procreate, even if they know that they are not.

But what I have read on this and other sites is that each sex act should be procreative and unitive. Nothing about ordered toward procreation or ordered to unity.

More from the Catechism:
2366
Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

 

[Wardog]

ahs:
I stand corrected; the CCC does say ordered to procreation.