Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

Aaaaannnndd now we’re back to Women As Brood Mares.

Great.

Why exactly do you think women are affected by NFP in a way that men are not affected? The Catholic notion of gift of self exposes everyone who gives to inconvenience and loss of comfort. Valuable gifts always involve real cost.

But you get more than you give. I wouldn’t trade my five kids for all the convenience, pleasure, and freedom in the world.

 

[Prodigirl]

Prodigirl;12237557:

Why exactly do you think women are affected by NFP in a way that men are not affected? The Catholic notion of gift of self exposes everyone who gives to inconvenience and loss of comfort. Valuable gifts always involve real cost.

But you get more than you give. I wouldn’t trade my five kids for all the convenience, pleasure, and freedom in the world.

Dare I say your wife certainly must have gotten more than she gave?

The “gift of self” and contracepting are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the whole notion of opening oneself up to conception as the sole or even the primary definition of the “gift of self” makes me retch.

Perhaps this points to the fact that I am 30 years older than you and a second-wave feminist. I make no apology. If you want to live your life and your marriage within what I consider narrow boundaries, and by what I believe to be inadequate definitions, I would be the last person to try to stop you or convert you. We simply do not agree.

 

[Jaaanosik]

No.

In what way do you think it does?

Casti Connubii says here:

“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”

Some theologians argued regarding what exactly “reasons either of time or of certain defects” means; whether this was merely referring to menopause and other types of permanent infertility, or whether it refers to periodic infertility (the basis for NFP). Humanae Vitae (written later) thus clarified the matter to make it clear than NFP is acceptable, in keeping with this teaching from Casti Connubii.

This above paragraph also helps clarify the misunderstanding regarding the term “procreation”. Some people think it means that a couple must intent to have children when they have sex - this is not the meaning. Some people think it means conception must be possible when a couple has sex - again, this is not the meaning. The meaning is that sex must preserve “the intrinsic nature of the act”. NFP respects nature; it relies on nature; it observes nature. Contraception over-rides nature, changing the intrinsic nature of the act - that is the exact purpose of contraception.

The CC talks about the primary end - procreation as conception intent.
It’s good to have sex when the marital act aims at the primary end, nothing else is needed.
That’s the purpose of the CC, that’s what it describes.

Then there is the above mentioned paragraph.
How a couple practicing NFP is subordinated to the primary end?
It appears the couple works against the primary end, don’t you think?

Then there is an issue that HV requires the unitive aspect to be present at the marital act.
It does not appear the CC is saying that.

 

[underacloud]

The CC talks about the primary end - procreation as conception intent.

You’re using your own words here (“conception intent”), not the words used in the documents you seem to be criticising.

This is why “semantics” are important - so people don’t mistate what the Church teaches and thereby attack a mere strawman. If you stick to the words used in the documents, and stop juxtaposing your own words, the doctrine should (hopefully) become clearer.

It’s good to have sex when the marital act aims at the primary end, nothing else is needed.

Yes, that’s good. It’s also good to have sex for the other ends - unity. This is by no means a new notion, and yes CC does raise it when it says “cultivating of mutual love”.

It appears the couple works against the primary end, don’t you think?

A couple using contraception works against the primary end. A couple who uses natural times of infertility works with nature, as nature intended, as GHod intended, than a woman is not always fertile.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The “gift of self” and contracepting are not mutually exclusive; in fact, the whole notion of opening oneself up to conception as the sole or even the primary definition of the “gift of self” makes me retch.

Perhaps this points to the fact that I am 30 years older than you and a second-wave feminist. I make no apology. If you want to live your life and your marriage within what I consider narrow boundaries, and by what I believe to be inadequate definitions, I would be the last person to try to stop you or convert you. We simply do not agree.

I guess you could call my wife and I “third wave feminists”. We think women should be free to choose to do whatever they want in life, but we also think that mothering is one of the most beautiful and rewarding things that God has made women specially suited for.

 

[Rau]

…the whole notion of opening oneself up to conception as the … primary definition of the “gift of self” makes me retch.

Perhaps this points to the fact that I am 30 years older than you and a second-wave feminist. I make no apology. If you want to live your life and your marriage within what I consider narrow boundaries, and by what I believe to be inadequate definitions, I would be the last person to try to stop you or convert you. We simply do not agree.

But the “probability” of conception is not generally binary, as the “effectiveness” measures of various means to avoid conception demonstrate. The only way to absolutely avoid conception is to avoid sex entirely till after menopause. A person may be attracted to increasingly effective means in proportion to their desire for sex, and their dread of children.

That a sexual act is pro-creative does not make it a “gift of self” - no, that’s not a sufficient definition (let alone primary). A procreative sex act without love is also seriously lacking. I assume that is why your bolded text is expressed so strongly (ie. we agree ) OR, are you expressing a personal view on the notion of becoming pregnant?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That a sexual act is pro-creative does not make it a “gift of self” - no, that’s not a sufficient definition (let alone primary). A procreative sex act without love is also seriously lacking.

 

[Rau]

The CC talks about the primary end - procreation

Primary end of what…Marriage, or each sex act?

Being prepared to have children is a requirement when entering marriage. There is no requirement, not a hint, in any Catholic teaching that:

• taking a view on limiting family size is always wrong;
• sex without the intent to conceive is wrong;
• sex in the knowledge that conception is unlikely is wrong.

 

[Prodigirl]

I won’t argue with you over what is or is not illicit. But on the facts, a diaphragm messes with the act, and avoiding the act does not.

Who’s talking about avoidance? I’m talking about calculated efforts to not conceive when having intercourse, not when watching “The Bachelorette”.

 

[Rau]

Who’s talking about avoidance? I’m talking about calculated efforts to not conceive when having intercourse, not when watching “The Bachelorette”.

The calculated efforts (as you call them) are directed solely toward estimating whether one is fertile or not. The outcome of the “efforts” is to inform the decision to avoid or to partake.

It is OK to choose to have sex when the chance of pregnancy is low, and to avoid when the chance is high.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You’re using your own words here (“conception intent”), not the words used in the documents you seem to be criticising.

This is why “semantics” are important - so people don’t mistate what the Church teaches and thereby attack a mere strawman. If you stick to the words used in the documents, and stop juxtaposing your own words, the doctrine should (hopefully) become clearer.

Yes, that’s good. It’s also good to have sex for the other ends - unity. This is by no means a new notion, and yes CC does raise it when it says “cultivating of mutual love”.

A couple using contraception works against the primary end. A couple who uses natural times of infertility works with nature, as nature intended, as GHod intended, than a woman is not always fertile.

Does this sound that CC talks about procreation as open to life - how to have sex?

1. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: “As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,”[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”[20]

1. Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state.

It’s all about making babies -** procreation of new life.** That’s the primary end.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

A couple using contraception works against the primary end. A couple who uses natural times of infertility works with nature, as nature intended, as GHod intended, than a woman is not always fertile.

Yes, God gave you legs to move from point A to point B. That’s the natural way.
Do you use only natural way of transportation or you use a car as well?

You really should not use a car because it’s not natural way how to move, you know?

 

[underacloud]

It’s all about making babies -** procreation of new life.** That’s the primary end.

It’s not “all” about making babies. The Church teaches that there are other good/valid reasons to have sex - unity, mutual fidelity, quietening of concupisence. And this is nothing new - it goes back to the teachings of St Paul, and further back the unitivee dimensions can be inferred clearly in the Song of Songs.

One does not need to intent conception every time they have sex. The Church merely teaches that we must preserve the “intrinsic nature of the act” That’s what “ordered to procreation” means - not that conception is intended, nor even possible, but that it is not deliberate prevented (eg via contraception) when one is engaging in the act.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes, that’s right. But X-rays are not unnatural, and condoms aren’t unnatural either – not in the relevant sense. Doing an X-ray on a human being is unnatural, yes, because of the natural end of a human being in terms of health.

Only actions can be unnatural. Objects cannot be unnatural.

Do you understand that in case of X-rays and many other things the end justifies the means?
That’s the double effect principle in a nutshell.

It gets more complicated though. Do you know the difference between mutilation and amputation from moral law point of view?

 

[Jaaanosik]

It’s not “all” about making babies. The Church teaches that there are other good/valid reasons to have sex - unity, mutual fidelity, quietening of concupisence. And this is nothing new - it goes back to the teachings of St Paul, and further back the unitivee dimensions can be inferred clearly in the Song of Songs.

One does not need to intent conception every time they have sex. The Church merely teaches that we must preserve the “intrinsic nature of the act” That’s what “ordered to procreation” means - not that conception is intended, nor even possible, but that it is not deliberate prevented (eg via contraception) when one is engaging in the act.

Please, explain how you can logically get to the conclusions you mentioned based on the quote I provided (CC 17, 18).

 

[Rau]

It’s all about making babies -** procreation of new life.** That’s the primary end.

Perhaps it should naturally end at menopause?

 

[Prodigirl]

The calculated efforts (as you call them) are directed solely toward estimating whether one is fertile or not. The outcome of the “efforts” is to inform the decision to avoid or to partake.

It is OK to choose to have sex when the chance of pregnancy is low, and to avoid when the chance is high.

I have no problem understanding this. How many ways can you say it? I get it.

This is a standoff because there is no way I see NFP as anything but a natural form of CONTRAception.

 

[underacloud]

Yes, God gave you legs to move from point A to point B. That’s the natural way.
Do you use only natural way of transportation or you use a car as well?

You really should not use a car because it’s not natural way how to move, you know?

Now you are on to something.

The arguments seen in this thread so far attacking the Church’s teaching on NFP are poor and only show a lack of understanding of the actual teaching. But this issue is an understandable point of contention. The natural law argument, which underpins the teaching on contraception and NFP, is a difficult one. I do not claim to be capable of adequetaly defining or defending it. I would say I understand it enough for my own sake, but not well enough to explain to others adequately.

That said, there is a difference between what is or is not “natural”, and what is or is not moral under “natural law”. Natural law is far more complex than that. Thankfully, when natural law is hard to understand and define, we can trust Mother Church to define it for us, as she has done here (but not done with regard to cars). I expect that ultimately many Catholics who do pratcise NFP (and not use contraception) do so in defernce to the Church’s teaching, rather than being entirely convinced of it by their own reasoning.

 

[Rau]

I have no problem understanding this. How many ways can you say it? I get it.

This is a standoff because there is no way I see NFP as anything but a natural form of CONTRAception.

I guess that’s because of your definition of the word. You define it to span both things which the church regards as good and things which it teaches are not good. So the debate just collapses to a word game.

If one has the debate without using the word, but just it’s decomposed elements, perhaps the distinction becomes clearer.

For me, sex whenever you want with anti-conception measures in place bears little resemblance to limiting your indulgence! But there is no debate that both are motivated by a desire to not become pregnant at the present time.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Now you are on to something.

The arguments seen in this thread so far attacking the Church’s teaching on NFP are poor and only show a lack of understanding of the actual teaching. But this issue is an understandable point of contention. The natural law argument, which underpins the teaching on contraception and NFP, is a difficult one. I do not claim to be capable of adequetaly defining or defending it. I would say I understand it enough for my own sake, but not well enough to explain to others adequately.

That said, there is a difference between what is or is not “natural”, and what is or is not moral under “natural law”. Natural law is far more complex than that. Thankfully, when natural law is hard to understand and define, we can trust Mother Church to define it for us, as she has done here (but not done with regard to cars). I expect that ultimately many Catholics who do pratcise NFP (and not use contraception) do so in defernce to the Church’s teaching, rather than being entirely convinced of it by their own reasoning.

I spent a good time trying to understand the natural law behind NFP.
It’s just not there for me. I asked a professor that defends and wrote book about the Church’s teaching on the sexuality. No luck. He does not seem to have good answers so far.

I hope this thread will expose some issues. I’ll present more points of view in my next posts.

It seems that my last post shows you some cracks in the teaching. Believe me, I am disappointed that I see them. It’s not good. Especially when you got those three lines.