Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Rau]

It is NOT an issue of contraception as the Church uses the term (this of course depends on exactly how one defines the term; here, the meaning of words are not mere semantics, they are crucial to understanding each other).

Please note that “open to life” is but a loose paraphrase of the actual doctrine, and easily misunderstood, as you seem to have done.

Yes, the debate - the point of contention - in the argument raised by Prodigirl rests entirely on wanting a word (contraception) or words (open to life) to have a particular meaning, which is not the meaning the other side intends.

It makes me think of the farce you get when two soccer teams play a game, but each side has a different understanding of what it means to be “offside”. Clearly they can’t agree on whether a player was offside in a particular play, can they? Yet if they each decomposed the word to the actual relationships among the players involved, they’d have no trouble agreeing on the facts, and recognising why they get into arguments when they use the word “offside”.

 

[underacloud]

The issue is that many people understand procreative aspect as intent to conceive.
The Church sees the procreative aspect as a way how to have sex.
Saying we are open to life but we don’t want to get pregnant at the same time leads to split personalities.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the term “open to life” is not a term that is used by the Church in its doctrines.

You can’t blame the Church for the vagueness and misunderstanding of this term. Stop using the term in these discussions and you might come to understand better. If you persist in using this term, of your own choosing, you will remain stuck in your misunderstanding, and muddy the waters for others too.

 

[Prodigirl]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the term “open to life” is not a term that is used by the Church in its doctrines.

You can’t blame the Church for the vagueness and misunderstanding of this term. Stop using the term in these discussions and you might come to understand better. If you persist in using this term, of your own choosing, you will remain stuck in your misunderstanding, and muddy the waters for others too.

What would you say if I was taught the entire concept of being “open to life” by the Church?

“Open to life” is not “vague.” What’s there to misunderstand? Why would the Church not make herself clear on this, instead of creating 21st century dogma out of 18th century concepts and phrases?

“God’s will” is abundantly clear, even to an atheist. Human interference in God exacting His will on a sexually active couple is evasive, a way of dodging a bullet, an act of contraception. No matter what terminology to attach to it, this is what I see. Dress it up all you want. If you tell me I “can’t blame the Church for the vagueness and misundestanding”, you will need to follow that up with an explanation why I cannot do so, since the Church is the entity that put the entire phrase and concept into my head, one which I rigorously and vehemently disdain.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We don’t have to intend conception every single time.
It’s OK to make the marital act infertile.

Those are two separate statements. Could you please connect the dots for me, and explain how the second statement follows logically from the first? And make your premises as clear as possible?

 

[Jaaanosik]

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the term “open to life” is not a term that is used by the Church in its doctrines.

You can’t blame the Church for the vagueness and misunderstanding of this term. Stop using the term in these discussions and you might come to understand better. If you persist in using this term, of your own choosing, you will remain stuck in your misunderstanding, and muddy the waters for others too.

I know what it means. Change the open to life for a certain way to have sex and the end result is the same - split personalities.

How about the marital act is supposed to be love giving and life giving.
That’s from one of the books about the teaching. Is that confusing enough?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Open to life” is not “vague.”

Sure it is. I know many couples who agreed before marriage they were “open to children”, but it turned out they didn’t mean the same thing when they agreed to that. The phrase “open to” is very vague.

 

[underacloud]

What would you say if I was taught the entire concept of being “open to life” by the Church?

I’d say someone (not the actual Church, but people in the Church) taught you wrong. That is not your fault, but it’s easily corrected. Just read Humanae Vitae. That document actually speaks for the Church.

“Open to life” is not “vague.” What’s there to misunderstand? Why would the Church not make herself clear on this, instead of creating 21st century dogma out of 18th century concepts and phrases?

The Church has made herself crystal clear. Read Humanae Vitae.

The term “open to life” does not appear in that document.

 

[Rau]

What about this, then [a quote from Humae Vitae]?

"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them … "

I read this to mean that men (not “man”) should not demand any “approved” sex act from his partner. If both partners are wanting to engage in intercourse, they may do so, with absolutely no thought as to the appropriate time in her cycle. If a child is conceived, great, they go with it; if not, great, no sweat.

“man” is a reference to “we humans”, not the male of the species… I’m sure you’re familiar with that usage.

It means nothing like what you have written. It means that responsible parenthood means using your brain in all things, not just your loins. The Pope explains in the very next paragraph:
“With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

And this?

"From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.
As far as I can tell, this precludes temperature taking, charting fertility, checking cervical mucus. It’s extremely wearisome to keep reading how NFP is NOT family planning. Again, NFP is used more to protect against pregnancy (possibly thwarting God’s will) than it is used to ensure conception. No argument you can attempt to make here will speak to me as loudly as these actual words of the Humanae Vitae.

No. How you arrived that - I cannot fathom. It means that people should feel an obligation to **discern what is right **for them in their life. It suggests the bias I referred to in an earlier post - that the default is to favour children (for this is central to marriage), unless there is a reason to not, rather than to take the reverse stance.

 

[underacloud]

It’s extremely wearisome to keep reading how NFP is NOT family planning.

Where are you reading this?

NFP is family planning. The document Humanae Vitae includes in its subheading the term “on the regulartion of birth”. It is a document specifically about family planning, and the acceptable means to acheive it.

You are not arguing with actualy Church teaching - only with your own misunderstanding of it.

 

[Rau]

What would you say if I was taught the entire concept of being “open to life” by the Church?

“Open to life” is not “vague.” What’s there to misunderstand? Why would the Church not make herself clear on this, instead of creating 21st century dogma out of 18th century concepts and phrases?

“God’s will” is abundantly clear, even to an atheist. Human interference in God exacting His will on a sexually active couple is evasive, a way of dodging a bullet, an act of contraception. No matter what terminology to attach to it, this is what I see. Dress it up all you want. If you tell me I “can’t blame the Church for the vagueness and misundestanding”, you will need to follow that up with an explanation why I cannot do so, since the Church is the entity that put the entire phrase and concept into my head, one which I rigorously and vehemently disdain.

Open to life is 3 English words strung together. The Church AFAIK did not use or define the term. It is a colloquialism. You blame others for misleading you in the past, but you don’t appear to be open to recognising error and learning anew. It’s as if it suits you to hold to the old error

God’s Will does not mean what you wrote at all! Here I have some sympathy for your error though - I read many Catholics to believe God’s will is whatever happens when the individual takes a “laissez faire” approach (as though turning off your God-given brain is entirely acceptable). Walk across the road blind–folded and get runover - it must have been God’s will! Have sex whenever you feel the innate urge (ignoring the exhortation to use your brain ie. responsible parenthood) and have more children than you can afford to look after and educate, well- must have been God’s will.

God’s will for you is that you do what is right. That you make Good decisions, properly motivated.

 

[Prodigirl]

It IS an issue of avoidance. As I’ve said all along.

It is NOT an issue of contraception as the Church uses the term (this of course depends on exactly how one defines the term; here, the meaning of words are not mere semantics, they are crucial to understanding each other).

Please note that “open to life” is but a loose paraphrase of the actual doctrine, and easily misunderstood, as you seem to have done.

Yes, people who use NFP are trying to manage fertility. Yes, we have all said this. That is the point of it; the reason the doctrine was written. The discussion then is regarding the *means *to acheive this. You don’t see a distinction between NFP and contraception - whereas the Church and Catholics who practise NFP do. And that distinction is described/defined in Humanae Vitae. Reading it would help you understand the Catholic position, which you claim to want to understand better. No doubt you will still disagree with it, but at least you will know with what it is you disagree.

The document also addresses your question “Why not just allow God to make all the decisions about your families.”

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

“The Church teaches that the sexual union of husband and wife is meant to express the full meaning of love, its power to bind a couple together and its openness to new life … When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more ‘casual.’” This is not a paraphrase or some loosely-worded moral concept… It comes from the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops.

 

[Prodigirl]

Open to life is 3 English words strung together. The Church AFAIK did not use or define the term. It is a colloquialism. You blame others for misleading you in the past, but you don’t appear to be open to recognising error and learning anew. It’s as if it suits you to hold to the old error

God’s Will does not mean what you wrote at all! Here I have some sympathy for your error though - I read many Catholics to believe God’s will is whatever happens when the individual takes a “laissez faire” approach (as though turning off your God-given brain is entirely acceptable). Walk across the road blind–folded and get runover - it must have been God’s will! Have sex whenever you feel the innate urge (ignoring the exhortation to use your brain ie. responsible parenthood) and have more children than you can afford to look after and educate, well- must have been God’s will.

God’s will for you is that you do what is right. That you make Good decisions, properly motivated.

How about “openness to new life”? One more word, right out of the U.S. Bishops’ mouths. See above.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“The Church teaches that the sexual union of husband and wife is meant to express the full meaning of love, its power to bind a couple together and its openness to new life … When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more ‘casual.’” This is not a paraphrase or some loosely-worded moral concept… It comes from the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops.

That passage is pretty clearly talking about the Pill, which suppresses fertility in women. NFP doesn’t make women any less fertile.

 

[underacloud]

“The Church teaches that the sexual union of husband and wife is meant to express the full meaning of love, its power to bind a couple together and its openness to new life … When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more ‘casual.’” This is not a paraphrase or some loosely-worded moral concept… It comes from the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This is a commentary on the doctrine, not the doctrine itself. Nevertheless, let’s look at it…

Please note the term “suppress fertility”.

When one practises NFP, they observe. There is no suppression of fertility. That’s what artificial contraceptives do - they supress fertility.

That is what the Bishops mean here. It is crystal clear, but if you still find it confusing, go back to the doctrine itself which is more exact in its language.

Again, you’re aruguing with your own misunderstanding, not the actual doctrine.

 

[Prodigirl]

That passage is pretty clearly talking about the Pill, which suppresses fertility in women. NFP doesn’t make women any less fertile.

I see no difference in suppressing fertility and managing the data of fertility. The quote said nothing about the Pill.

 

[Prodigirl]

This is a commentary on the doctrine, not the doctrine itself. Nevertheless, let’s look at it…

Please note the term “suppress fertility”.

When one practises NFP, they observe. There is no suppression of fertility. That’s what artificial contraceptives do - they supress fertility.

That is what the Bishops mean here. It is crystal clear, but if you still find it confusing, go back to the doctrine itself which is more exact in its language.

Again, you’re aruguing with your own misunderstanding, not the actual doctrine.

No, I am calling into question your obvious willingness to accept NFP as a divinely-inspired, absolutely pure and guilt-free method of contraception.

All of your points: disagreed. Are you telling me the Bishops are just all muddled and confused about this, that their word is malarkey and their interpretations are obsolete or non-factual?

 

[underacloud]

No, I am calling into question your obvious willingness to accept NFP as a divinely-inspired, absolutely pure and guilt-free method of contraception.

While you insist on using words to suit your own argument there can be no genuine discourse.

You know full well that Catholics do not see NFP as a form of contraception. Your sentence above makes no sense at all in the realm of Catholic moral theology (noting that this forum is a Catholic moral theology forum).

All of your points: disagreed. Are you telling me the Bishops are just all muddled and confused about this, that their word is malarkey and their interpretations are obsolete or non-factual?

No, their words are clear and their interpretation correct when one understand what they mean by “suppress fertility”. You misunderstand it - either obstinately or deliberately to suit your reasoning.

The term “suppress fertility” refers to contraception; that is what the bishops mean. It does not apply to NFP (in which, as repeated often now, fertility is merely observed).

 

[Rau]

That passage is pretty clearly talking about the Pill, which suppresses fertility in women. NFP doesn’t make women any less fertile.

Choosing to interpret the words of the Bishops as being contradictory to other words of the same Bishops (and the pope and others), when that is clearly not the only interpretation, is the most unreasonable interpretation you could make. Would not other statements of the same bishops and Popes not suggest that, just maybe, you’ve picked the wrong interpretation?

 

[Rau]

“The Church teaches that the sexual union of husband and wife is meant to express the full meaning of love, its power to bind a couple together and its openness to new life … When married couples deliberately act to suppress fertility, however, sexual intercourse is no longer fully marital intercourse. It is something less powerful and intimate, something more ‘casual.’” This is not a paraphrase or some loosely-worded moral concept… It comes from the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The sexual union and sexual intercourse are referring to a marital act. Deliberate suppression does not mean choosing to have sex at an infertile time. Openness to new life refers to not messing with the act to render the act closed to life.

Choosing to interpret the words of the Bishops as being contradictory to other words of the same Bishops (and the pope and others), when that is clearly not the only interpretation, is the most unreasonable interpretation you could make. Would not other statements of the same bishops and Popes not suggest that, just maybe, you’ve picked the wrong interpretation?

 

[Prodigirl]

while you insist on using words to suit your own argument there can be no genuine discourse.

why would i choose words that suit your argument?

you know full well that catholics do not see nfp as a form of contraception

i most certainly do not know this, and neither do you, particularly in view of the fact that guttmacher’s analysis of data from the federal government’s national survey of family growth found that the vast majority of american women of reproductive age (15–44)—including 99% of all sexually experienced women and 98% of those who identify themselves as catholic—have used a method of contraception other than natural family planning at some point. you don’t know what goes on in every Catholic bedroom!

your sentence above makes no sense at all in the realm of catholic moral theology (noting that this forum is a catholic moral theology forum).

are you attempting to squash the discussion or walk away from it? You don’t seem willing to discuss anything.

no, their words are clear and their interpretation correct when one understand what they mean by “suppress fertility”. You misunderstand it - either obstinately or deliberately to suit your reasoning.

i meant precisely what i wrote. Feel free to disagree, but do not try to paint me as a knucklehead.

the term “suppress fertility” refers to contraception; that is what the bishops mean. It does not apply to nfp (in which, as repeated often now, fertility is merely observed).

if fertility were merely “observed”, what’s the basal thermometer and the charting and the multiple-times-a-day mucus testing all about? These are tools that provide information as to the fertile period and the less likely fertile period, no? Why, this woman has barely enough time left in her day to get the dishes done, she is so preoccupied with her body signals - signals which also give her infomation regarding the best times for a romp without conception; i.e. *** contraception.* “contra”: against; in opposition or contrast to; “cept”: take and receive. Now, if these women, or these couples, are not against conception, *of what use is any of the information that they are gathering through nfp? Answer: None. With the information supplied by NFP, however crude and inaccurate it might be, a couple can easily step from knowledge to suppression. *