Sex for the unitive purpose alone is moral within Catholicism

[ElizabethAnne]

svoboda,

I have had a lot of teachers who have said that one of the first rules of debate is to understand the side you are debating against. A person should be able to describe the other side’s point of view in such a way that those on the other side would agree with the assessment, and the debate can continue from there.

Your post was not an accurate representation of what many posters here have been trying to help you understand about Church teaching.

svoboda:

And NFP couples are in no way open to creating a new life, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of creating a new life. And this is the very reason why NFP was invented.

NFP was not invented by man. We did not make it up ourselves. NFP is merely the observation of different female bodily functions in order to better understand her cycle, fertility and overall health as well. It really is just collecting some data, paying attention to things that have always been present.

A married woman can do various things with the information she has about her God-given, natural cycle.

1. She and her husband can decide to postpone pregnancy.
2. She and her husband can decide to seek achieving a pregnancy! The information she has gained will actually make it MORE likely that she can become pregnant when they decide they want to have a baby. In fact, NFP can actually help couples who have fertility problems.
3. She and her husband can decide something in between. They may not actively seek pregnancy, and they may not actively postpone pregnancy. Maybe they sometimes have sex on days they know could be fertile and sometimes they don’t. There’s a lot of gray area between postponing and achieving pregnancy.

Even couples who fall under #1 at some point during their married lives have not “completely eliminated the possibility of creating a new life.” They understand that any sex act could potentially produce a new human life! They don’t deny that fact and they don’t frustrate that process.

Furthermore, they forego the pleasure of marital intimacy (that unitive aspect) during times that are highly likely to be fertile. They sacrifice and give something up because they believe that God is not calling them to have children at that current time. They show self-restraint. Sacrifice and self-restraint are important parts of marriage.

During this period of abstinence, they also have time to reflect on their reasons for delaying pregnancy. Is it truly God’s will? Do they really have serious reasons? This time can be difficult for them, and if it is very difficult, they may be receiving promptings from the Holy Spirit to conceive a child.

This is not something a contracepting couple can do because they do not have this time for reflection and they never give anything up. In fact, in the case of birth control, it may take several months for a woman’s cycle to return to normal before she can conceive. For a couple using NFP, it can take one night to change their situation.

God bless you.

 

[migurl]

ElizabethAnne:

svoboda,

I have had a lot of teachers who have said that one of the first rules of debate is to understand the side you are debating against. A person should be able to describe the other side’s point of view in such a way that those on the other side would agree with the assessment, and the debate can continue from there.

Your post was not an accurate representation of what many posters here have been trying to help you understand about Church teaching.

NFP was not invented by man. We did not make it up ourselves. NFP is merely the observation of different female bodily functions in order to better understand her cycle, fertility and overall health as well. It really is just collecting some data, paying attention to things that have always been present.

A married woman can do various things with the information she has about her God-given, natural cycle.

1. She and her husband can decide to postpone pregnancy.
2. She and her husband can decide to seek achieving a pregnancy! The information she has gained will actually make it MORE likely that she can become pregnant when they decide they want to have a baby. In fact, NFP can actually help couples who have fertility problems.
3. She and her husband can decide something in between. They may not actively seek pregnancy, and they may not actively postpone pregnancy. Maybe they sometimes have sex on days they know could be fertile and sometimes they don’t. There’s a lot of gray area between postponing and achieving pregnancy.

Even couples who fall under #1 at some point during their married lives have not “completely eliminated the possibility of creating a new life.” They understand that any sex act could potentially produce a new human life! They don’t deny that fact and they don’t frustrate that process.

Furthermore, they forego the pleasure of marital intimacy (that unitive aspect) during times that are highly likely to be fertile. They sacrifice and give something up because they believe that God is not calling them to have children at that current time. They show self-restraint. Sacrifice and self-restraint are important parts of marriage.

During this period of abstinence, they also have time to reflect on their reasons for delaying pregnancy. Is it truly God’s will? Do they really have serious reasons? This time can be difficult for them, and if it is very difficult, they may be receiving promptings from the Holy Spirit to conceive a child.

This is not something a contracepting couple can do because they do not have this time for reflection and they never give anything up. In fact, in the case of birth control, it may take several months for a woman’s cycle to return to normal before she can conceive. For a couple using NFP, it can take one night to change their situation.

God bless you.

:bowdown: :clapping:

 

[svoboda]

migurl:

I apologize if this seems harsh, but you are dead wrong. NFP was not created to NOT get pregnant, it was created so that couples could know when they could get pregnant. NFP can be used for the opposite, but it is only accepted for approved grave reasons.

Catechism says just reasons. I’ve spoken with very conservative priests who say just reasons. For example, wanting to have the time and energy to do what you love is a good enough reason to use NFP.

Even then, the possibilty for life is not 100% gone.

Method imperfections. With a perfect method it would be gone. Morality doesn’t depend on the method.

Couples may think to themselves "We don’t have enough $ to have kids…) But her fertile time will come, they look into eachothers eyes and realize that God will provide if they get pregnant. In the end, NFP used to get pregnant or avoid it still is saying to God “I put it in your hands, whatever you Will, be done.” NFP is misused often and there are many catholics who use it like condoms, they are commiting the same sin as those using contraceptives. It is all about the intent. I plan on attempting to use NFP for the first 6 months to a yr b/c I am still in college and I would like to finish asap so I can have kids without worrying about school too. My plan is to graduate asap and then get pregnant. But, if God wills me to get pregnant before then, I will be blessed with showing of my pregnant state at one of the most liberal, feministic college campus in this country. I will walk with pride .

You are mistaken about the seriousness of reasons required to use NFP. I’ve spoken with a priest who did his PhD work under Ratzinger, and he says that using NFP in order for example to be able to do what you love is moral. You don’t need to be starving or on the brink of death to use NFP. I’ve corresponded with a priest who is very active in fighting birth control, abortion etc. and is a professor of moral theology and has taught in seminaries and he told me the same thing. He said that some women are called to intense professional life, some women are called to be involved in the arts, and it is okay for them to use NFP for that reason.

The pope who first said “grave resons” later wrote an addition to the letter and said the “limits of legitimacy are very wide.” Everyone I’ve spoken with, very educated and qualified priests, say that professional involvement etc. are legitimate reasons to limit the size of your family.

I am not telling you this to argue, I am telling you this so that you know the truth and don’t end up having one kid after another out of obligation.

 

[svoboda]

setter:

Care to try again?

Sure:

And NFP couples are in no way open to becoming pregnant, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of becoming pregnant. And this is the very reason why they use NFP.

It’s all about the fun, the pleasure, the happiness without the consequences of pregnancy. But of course they do not MANIPULATE their bodies with birth control, they just carefully measure to be safe from pregnancy.

 

[svoboda]

ElizabethAnne:

svoboda,

I have had a lot of teachers who have said that one of the first rules of debate is to understand the side you are debating against.

Good idea, the thing is that I think I do understand. I used to be a very conservative Catholic. I used to agree with everyone on this board.

NFP was not invented by man. We did not make it up ourselves. NFP is merely the observation of different female bodily functions in order to better understand her cycle, fertility and overall health as well. It really is just collecting some data, paying attention to things that have always been present.

We did not invent the cycles but we invented the science and the methods that allow us to find out when the woman can get pregnant. When I say NFP I mean something like the sympto-thermal method, or the Billings method i.e. the technology that was invented, not the cycles that exist.

I agree that NFP can be used for all sorts of reasons, including facilitating pregnancy, but in the context of this discussion I am talking primarily about it’s pregnancy postponement reasons.
.

Even couples who fall under #1 at some point during their married lives have not “completely eliminated the possibility of creating a new life.” They understand that any sex act could potentially produce a new human life! They don’t deny that fact and they don’t frustrate that process.

This is only because present methods are not perfect. With better methods couples could very well perfectly predict fertility and eliminate the chance of pregnancy completely.

Furthermore, they forego the pleasure of marital intimacy (that unitive aspect) during times that are highly likely to be fertile. They sacrifice and give something up because they believe that God is not calling them to have children at that current time. They show self-restraint. Sacrifice and self-restraint are important parts of marriage.

Contraceptive couples can practice restraint as well, just at different times.

 

[uncleauberon]

svoboda:

And NFP couples are in no way open to creating a new life, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of creating a new life. And this is the very reason why NFP was invented.

It’s all about the fun, the pleasure, the happiness without the consequences of pregnancy. But of course they do not MANIPULATE their bodies with birth control, they just carefully measure to be safe from pregnancy.

Once again you have equated “creating a new life” with “open to life”.

Your original question was questioning the apparent contradiction
of the Church saying sex must be both “uniative and procreative”

Yet, how can NFP users trying to avoid pregnancy be considered “procreative” ?

The definition is key.
If “procreative” means - “available for pregnancy” then you are correct.

If “procreative” means - “available for whatever natural fruits of life come through this action” then the church is correct.

{ perhaps a bag of Gold falling from the sky? }

In fact, the “uniative” aspect of sex brings many emotional, spiritual, and social benefits. These benefits will spill out into the community in many forms - good works of charity, children, good examples of fidelity, etc.
– These are all “procreative” outcomes.

The well ordered, natural sex act is “procreative”
just not in the way that you may expect. :tiphat:

And before anyone brings up “serious reasons”, if they don’t want to have sex just for the pleasure they can abstain until the serious reasons not to get pregnant are gone.

I suppose they could. Throughout history pious couples have done this; complete abstainance. Conversely, couples that should have children are not required to have sex only during fertile times.

With NFP the church has realized that it is not neccesssary to so so while still maintaining the natural order. Couple can have relations anytime within the natural order.

Once again the Church has shown itself to be the Mother of reason and balance - Not “either this /or that” - but rather - “both this and that” in balance & tension.

todd

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

Fine, I’ll use yours. NFP couples, pregnant couples, post menopausal couples etc. are having sex because it is emotionally intense, because it is physically pleasurable, becaues it is fun, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME being in comformity with nature, not manipulating nature directly, but in the case of NFP couples working within the system (which requires a lot of measuring and understanding) to enjoy the fun of sex without getting pregnant.

Contraceptive couples prevent the sperm from meeting the egg to enjoy the fun of sex wtihout getting pregnant.

Either way, the aim of both is to enjoy sex without the kids, and the result both achieve is fun sex without pregnancy.

One carefully measures every fertile sign and avoids sex when pregnancy can happen, the other uses a condom to prevent sperm from making its way to fertilize the egg.

One thing this does destroy is the idea that contraceptive couples are somehow lustful and selfish, they’re both doing it to have fun sex without the pregnancy that could otherwise result.

And NFP couples are in no way open to creating a new life, with good enough methods they can completely eliminate the possibility of creating a new life. And this is the very reason why NFP was invented.

It’s all about the fun, the pleasure, the happiness without the consequences of pregnancy. But of course they do not MANIPULATE their bodies with birth control, they just carefully measure to be safe from pregnancy.

And before anyone brings up “serious reasons”, if they don’t want to have sex just for the pleasure they can abstain until the serious reasons not to get pregnant are gone.

One works with God’s design and one works against God’s design. The problem we’re having here is that you are parsing arguments. You can’t take the intent, motivation, method, mindset by themselves.

 

[migurl]

Once again you are wrong, it isn’t about free time or doing what you love. A child is more important than fun or a career. Read some ensyclicals of JPII. Grave reasons are financial or medical reasons, not matters of convienence.

 

[svoboda]

migurl:

Once again you are wrong, it isn’t about free time or doing what you love. A child is more important than fun or a career. Read some ensyclicals of JPII. Grave reasons are financial or medical reasons, not matters of convienence.

I sent you a longer message in private for your benefit, not to argue or to refute, but just so that you know what I learned. Make of it what you will.

I used to be conservative just like you once.

 

[bear06]

I used to be conservative just like you once

Is this a warning that we might meet the same demise?!

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

Is this a warning that we might meet the same demise?!

A glimmer of hope that you might one day be free

 

[vluvski]

svoboda is correct in saying that the Church offers great latitude to couples in their discernment of a _____ (fill in preferred word here) reason to postpone pregnancy. The truth is that different sources and translations use different wording ranging from the emphatic “grave” reason to “serious” reason to “just” reason to the most lenient “Non-frivolous” reason. Trust me, I looked long and hard, and there is no list of “approved” reasons, nor is there any documentation stating that the couple must gain approval. This is a matter of conscience that is best discussed with a pious priest who knows the couple’s individual situation.

Please, let’s not hijack the thread with this discussion of when it is appropriate for a couple to avoid. This is a topic for another thread.

Resume previously scheduled programming.

 

[vluvski]

I used to be conservative just like you once.

Perfect proof that you are right to discourage people from blindly following the rules. The church does not make these rules arbitrarily, and if you follow them without understanding them (or with an incorrect understanding of them), you are left vulnerable to misleading half-truths that can be very convincing.
I am sorry for your loss.

 

[svoboda]

vluvski:

Perfect proof that you are right to discourage people from blindly following the rules. The church does not make these rules arbitrarily, and if you follow them without understanding them (or with an incorrect understanding of them), you are left vulnerable to misleading half-truths that can be very convincing.
I am sorry for your loss.

But it’s not just these rules, it’s the whole principle that God revealed himself to the Jews and then in Christ. I don’t believe it. Especially the “to the Jews” part because I’ve read too much of the Old Testament. If the harsh God of the OT is God, then I choose hell.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

svoboda:

A glimmer of hope that you might one day be free

Ah, but that’s just it, I am free. I have freely chosen God and His Church, and I pray that He will give me the strength necessary to continue to follow Him.

There’s this great praise and worship song I love:
Lord, You put my feet upon the rock and now I know
I love You, I need You
And though my world may fall I’ll never let You go

I don’t think anyone was trying to convince you to believe in Church teaching, svoboda. I believe only the Holy Spirit can do that! We just want to clear up the misconception that the Church’s teaching on love, marriage, sex, contraceptives and NFP contradicts itself. You may not agree with it, but it is consistent.

God bless.

 

[bear06]

svoboda:

But it’s not just these rules, it’s the whole principle that God revealed himself to the Jews and then in Christ. I don’t believe it. Especially the “to the Jews” part because I’ve read too much of the Old Testament. If the harsh God of the OT is God, then I choose hell.

You don’t believe they’re one in the same?! You might want to think before you make statements like that or you might want to invest in a whole lot of marshmellows for roasting!

 

[svoboda]

bear06:

You don’t believe they’re one in the same?! You might want to think before you make statements like that or you might want to invest in a whole lot of marshmellows for roasting!

I wouldn’t mind roasting marshmallows for an eternity. Okay, fine, I would. But I wouldn’t want to be in heaven with a God who created hell either. What if you went to heaven and found that most of your family and friends were burning in hell because they used birth control or remarried after a divorce? Would you think that God was loving and just or a ruthless dictator?

And don’t give me the line about how we create hell, or how we choose hell by rejecting God. God sustains mortal sinners here on earth, there’s no reason why he couldn’t let those who reject him forever continue to live the way we live here on earth.

Have you read the entire Old Testament?

 

[josea]

If OPENNESS TO LIFE is what is required, then this argument fails, because the fact that pregnancy is physically impossible when the woman is infertile renders the act sterile, there can be no procreative/life-giving dimension to it.

Dear svoboda,

My wife and I are having serious problems to follow the Church teaching in this matter. A pregnancy would risk her life. Since a couple of years I am fighting to understand the whole issue. One think I saw clearly is that OPENNESS TO LIFE is not the key to classify the sexual act as licit. The fact is that most of the sexual acts are infertile but THE NATURE OF THE ACT IS UNTOUCHED. That is the meaning of being OPEN TO LIFE which from my point of view is not the correct expression. The intention when engaged in NFP activities is to have sex without being OPEN TO LIFE. That is licit and the Church admits it in certain cases as when serious reasons are present. What is not licit is to make the sexual act ITSELF INFERTILE (ABC). What is evil is to ACTIVELY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ACT.

NFP DOES NOT RENDER IN ANYWAYS THE SEXUAL ACT INFERTILE!

NFP is only sinful when the couple does not have any serious reasons to use it. The sin then is not the act itself that it is not changed in nature (nothing is done to render the SEXUAL ACT ITSELF sterile) but the INTENTION of not having offspring without serious reason.

I know it is difficult to see but you have to make the effort. You can go in circles again and again and start millions of threads about it, but it will change nothing: ACTIVELY rendering a sexual act sterile is evil. NFP does not do that. Having sex when reproduction is not possible is usually the normal thing and it is the case always after menopause.

Warm regards,

Jose

 

[svoboda]

josea:

Dear svoboda,

My wife and I are having serious problems to follow the Church teaching in this matter. A pregnancy would risk her life. Since a couple of years I am fighting to understand the whole issue.

I am very sorry for your situation. See, in my opinion you should fight to see the situation from my perspective, not the Church’s.

As you said yourself, a pregnancy would risk your wife’s life! If you got a vascectomy you would reduce the chance of a pregnancy to 0.02-0.1% theoretically and 0.02-0.2% actually. If you used NFP in conjunction with vascectomy the chance would be virtually 0.

I think this is a good enough reason to cut the tubes, it’s not as though you will ever be needing them. On the other hand, failing with NFP could mean your wife’s life. Complete abstinence could harm your marriage and love.

One think I saw clearly is that OPENNESS TO LIFE is not the key to classify the sexual act as licit. The fact is that most of the sexual acts are infertile but THE NATURE OF THE ACT IS UNTOUCHED. That is the meaning of being OPEN TO LIFE which from my point of view is not the correct expression. The intention when engaged in NFP activities is to have sex without being OPEN TO LIFE. That is licit and the Church admits it in certain cases as when serious reasons are present. What is not licit is to make the sexual act ITSELF INFERTILE (ABC). What is evil is to ACTIVELY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE SEXUAL ACT.

But why is it evil? We agree that the NFP couple is not open to life, they are enjoying the unitive purposes of sex for their own sake.

Why is it evil to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg? Why is it evil to have a vascectomy when you know you will never be having children? People modify their bodies all the time and the Church has no problem.

Your wife’s life is at stake. This is not a trivial matter.

NFP DOES NOT RENDER IN ANYWAYS THE SEXUAL ACT INFERTILE!

I agree, but for the purpose of the moral argument I was using a perfect method that may or may not be invented one day.

I admire your adherence to what you believe is right even when it could potentially cost your wife her life, but I think that for yourself and for your wife, instead of trying to make yourself understnad the Church and agree with its teachings, try to see the other point of view.

I disagree with the Church on many issues, but my disagreements can be summarized in that I choose people over rules any day. To me the lives of human beings, their health, their happiness are more important than rules. Rules are good if they help human beings, if they harm human beings they should be done away with.

If the Church’s prohibition of birth control ends up costing your wife her life, or ends up harming the unitive aspect of your marriage due to constant abstinence then I denounce those rules.

Isn’t the law supposed to be made for the people, not the people for the law?

 

[josea]

svoboda:

To me the lives of human beings, their health, their happiness are more important than rules. Rules are good if they help human beings, if they harm human beings they should be done away with.

Taking risks is an everyday issue. If you decide to smoke for pleasure you take the risk of getting cancer. But this thread is not about taking risks. That is a personal choice. Following the Christ’s doctrine is also a personal election.
According to your point of view Church and God teachings about divorce, masturbation, homosexuality, abortion etc… would prevent people to be happy, psychologically healthy and therefore they “harm” human beings.

If the apostles would have reason like you do now we would have never known that Jesus resurrected: spreading the good new was actually very unhealthy for them.

God bless you,

Jose