NFP?

[Dan_Grelinger]

Ok let’s try this: The purpose of the conjugal act must have two components:

1. Procreation, as I understand it openness to life
2. The secondary and lesser goal is the Union of the husband and wife.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘the purpose of the act must have two components’.

What the Church says is that God’s purpose for the existence of the conjugal act is for procreation and for the benefit of the spouses in their duties to raise their children and get each other to heaven.

The Church also says that spouses must accept God’s purposes for each and every conjugal act. The Church does not say that both of God’s purposes must be exactly the same as ours for each and every conjugal act. There are three (maybe four!) persons involved in the act. Husband, Wife, God, (and maybe a baby). The Husband, Wife, and God, may all have different licit purposes for the act, but each will respect the licit purposes of the other. If, on a particular evening, your wife wants to conceive, and you want to physically show her that your body is all hers, your purposes are different, but you still can accept each others purpose, and participate beautifully in the marital act. In the same way, God can choose any particular act to create a new life, and you must accept this as his possible purpose. (You must also accept the possibility that this is **not **his purpose for that specific act.) But, you can have a different purpose, as long as your purpose is licit, and you continue to fully accept that God has purposes that you cannot interfere with.

The purpose of NFP for having children maintains both of these purposes. You are using a tool that reinforces both of these goals.

Close, but I think I can state it better for you. NFP allows a couple to act in such a way that allows them to fully accept God’s purposes for each and every marital act.

NFP used for spacing is the improper use of this tool. It using knowledge and saying we are not open to life. Both goals are not maintained. This is the inconsistency I see. How can it be defended?

Not correct. There is a difference between being open to life, and intending life. Neither God, nor the Church, says that we must intend life to be created as a result of every marital act. Even God does not intend this, why should we? What NFP allows us to do is act while remaining fully open to what God wants to do with that particular marital act.

My problem with HV 16 and 14 contradicts eachother.

I’ll look at 16 and 14 in context and see if I can help in another post.

I understand the ends do not justify the means, I also understand, which is apparently lost on the church is the means do not justify the ends.

I think you are mostly right, although I don’t think the Church has made this error. Many in the Church have, but not the Church itself.

If the ends only serve one of the two purposes the church maintains must be present then that end is wrong. What are the ends of NFP used for spacing. You say union…good, what about procreation? NFP for spacing is 99% against it.

I hope this makes a little more sense.

If after reading the other stuff, this is still a question, I will attempt to answer it. Thanks for the dialog, you are obviously seeking the truth.

Dan

 

[Em_in_FL]

viditalk.com/hli/2/

viditalk.com/hli/3/

Those are great videos… thanks for sharing those!

 

[HailMary]

Those are great videos… thanks for sharing those!

anytime