Sexual concessions to married couples and homosexuality

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This discussion is fascinating to me. NFP theology is new. And The Church (especially those of us who like to fancy ourselves amateur theologians) Struggle with it. I have said before, that it is unlike any other issue in the Church because it is so ambiguous and the reasoning behind is not solid yet. Ultimately you must defend NFP apart from ABC as an obedience issue. We must be obedient to the Church. But trying to make NFP a “Catholic Birth Control” has resulted in an inability to defend it. NFP is the concession. Making babies is the default. When we drop that mentality or side of the equation we will not be able to give an adequate theological explanation for it. I know some on here are frustrated with the conversation but that does not mean that those who oppose you are being obtuse or disingenuous. My wife and I could not practice NFP correctly, so we abandoned it.

 

[Prodigirl]

Please explain how this is not a word game:

Prodigirl then tell us this means (in her view)…

I then explain how the usage of “man” is to be understood (which is how it has been used through copious Church literature, philosophy, prayers, and the like). *

and now you say:

But, it is the Pope’s words that you have sought to interpret, and **he said ***“man” (as in “mankind”), not “the man” or “men” (as in the male of the species / the husband). What **he **said is the point here!! And he is saying that responsible parenthood means using your brain (the brains of both parents!), not just going with your innate drives (the drives of both parents)! He goes on (in his next paragraph) to point to the factors that may weigh against one pursuing those innate drives at this time.

It’s as though you’d like to pretend the Pope was counselling husbands specifically. [Though even then, the following sentences of your interpretation have utterly no connection to the Pope’s sentence you quote…]

Look, Rau, I am pretending nothing. I am explaining my viewpoint. I am not asking you to like it. If anything, you are refusing to understand me by claiming I am misinterpreting something or other. You adhere to the dogma of the Church: I GET THAT. * I don’t.* UNDERSTAND THAT. My posts appear as discussion, and the aim of my words is not to do a bunch of backslapping and glad-handing over our similarities and our agreements. Believe what you will about NFP, about the Assumption, the Ascension, the virgin birth, the fishes/loaves, the water into wine … really, that’s fine. I just don’t subscribe. Discussion is an exchange of ideas. It is not a search for safety and similarity. If what I write causes you to circle the wagons or more concretely define what you believe, then it not NOT all for naught. Tell me how God is going to be disappointed with you in that.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Look, Rau, I am pretending nothing. I am explaining my viewpoint. I am not asking you to like it. If anything, you are refusing to understand me by claiming I am misinterpreting something or other. You adhere to the dogma of the Church: I GET THAT. * I don’t.* UNDERSTAND THAT. My posts appear as discussion, and the aim of my words is not to do a bunch of backslapping and glad-handing over our similarities and our agreements. Believe what you will about NFP, about the Assumption, the Ascension, the virgin birth, the fishes/loaves, the water into wine … really, that’s fine. I just don’t subscribe. Discussion is an exchange of ideas. It is not a search for safety and similarity. If what I write causes you to circle the wagons or more concretely define what you believe, then it not NOT all for naught. Tell me how God is going to be disappointed with you in that.

why in the world do you call yourself a Catholic???

 

[Rau]

Look, Rau, I am pretending nothing. I am explaining my viewpoint. I am not asking you to like it. If anything, you are refusing to understand me by claiming I am misinterpreting something or other. You adhere to the dogma of the Church: I GET THAT. * I don’t.* UNDERSTAND THAT. My posts appear as discussion, and the aim of my words is not to do a bunch of backslapping and glad-handing over our similarities and our agreements. Believe what you will about NFP, about the Assumption, the Ascension, the virgin birth, the fishes/loaves, the water into wine … really, that’s fine. I just don’t subscribe. Discussion is an exchange of ideas. It is not a search for safety and similarity. If what I write causes you to circle the wagons or more concretely define what you believe, then it not NOT all for naught. Tell me how God is going to be disappointed with you in that.

It is not about dogma or beliefs. You demonstrated (through your misreading of HV, the US Bishops documents, the meaning of “man”, god’s will, etc) that you did not understand the Church’s reasoning. Some of these misreadings were so extreme, they suggested willfulness on your part - I apologize if that was not the case. I attempted to address these issues, not persuade you to believe or accept anything.

I am not aware of me “refusing to understand” you. I understand what you mean by contraception and how NFP properly fits into your definition. I understand the picture you paint of men demanding sex and women seeking to resist (a pretty sad picture). I understand your animosity toward the Church for the gross misbehavior of some of its clergy. If there are other things I’ve failed to understand, I will respond if you wish, though I suspect the conversation may have come to a natural end.

 

[Rau]

… But trying to make NFP a “Catholic Birth Control” has resulted in an inability to defend it. NFP is the concession. Making babies is the default. When we drop that mentality or side of the equation we will not be able to give an adequate theological explanation for it…

Absolutely, making babies is the default mentality, but it is ok to shift gears when the circumstances warrant.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Daddy
… But trying to make NFP a “Catholic Birth Control” has resulted in an inability to defend it. NFP is the concession. Making babies is the default. When we drop that mentality or side of the equation we will not be able to give an adequate theological explanation for it…

I don’t know why, but something inside the very core of my womanhood reared up in maternal rage at this proposal. My cynical inner hag said ‘only a man could say this’.

Making babies is NOT the ‘default’. Perhaps in nature copulation as a mutually desired thing is intrinsically linked to producing an offspring. Female creatures invite the male when she is on heat or in season… (In nature males aren’t so bound by seasonal instinct) but animals and organisms aren’t instinctively into life long committed union and lifelong family unit.

But even in nature, the overall fertility of species is heavily influenced by the ability of the physical circumstances of the environment to support a population. An interesting phenomenon in close tribal existence in humans is the syncranisation of female cycles which is another indication of the environmental circumstances to influence fertility.

But within human sexual realm made sacred by the marriage ritual, the default is the good of the family. The begetting AND education of children and the unity of the parents for the good of the family. From Gaudium et Spes…

Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love.

The ‘default’ is the the good of the family. That is what the conjugal life is fundamentally infused with when man and God are tight.

Hoosier I sometimes wonder if you have confused a strongly male instinct to have unrestricted sex with the idea that making babies is the default? Spacing children in the interests of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of the family unit is more consistent with the married state than making unlimited babies at the behest of an unrestricted drive for sex.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t know why, but something inside the very core of my womanhood reared up in maternal rage at this proposal. My cynical inner hag said ‘only a man could say this’.

Making babies is NOT the ‘default’. Perhaps in nature copulation as a mutually desired thing is intrinsically linked to producing an offspring. Female creatures invite the male when she is on heat or in season… (In nature males aren’t so bound by seasonal instinct) but animals and organisms aren’t instinctively into life long committed union and lifelong family unit.

But even in nature, the overall fertility of species is heavily influenced by the ability of the physical circumstances of the environment to support a population. An interesting phenomenon in close tribal existence in humans is the syncranisation of female cycles which is another indication of the environmental circumstances to influence fertility.

But within human sexual realm made sacred by the marriage ritual, the default is the good of the family. The begetting AND education of children and the unity of the parents for the good of the family. From Gaudium et Spes…

Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love.

The ‘default’ is the the good of the family. That is what the conjugal life is fundamentally infused with when man and God are tight.

Hoosier I sometimes wonder if you have confused a strongly male instinct to have unrestricted sex with the idea that making babies is the default? Spacing children in the interests of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of the family unit is more consistent with the married state than making unlimited babies at the behest of an unrestricted drive for sex.

I am quite confused.

The Default of sex within a marriage is for the procreation of children. NFP (as currently practiced) is a newer theology introduced to combat the culture of death. When you segregate it into gender issues, you fail to see the nature of why we even have marriage at all. It is not a woman thing or a man thing, it is a unified person (the married) being fruitful and fulfilling the first command God ever gave humans.

Hoosier I sometimes wonder if you have confused a strongly male instinct to have unrestricted sex with the idea that making babies is the default? Spacing children in the interests of their wellbeing and the wellbeing of the family unit is more consistent with the married state than making unlimited babies at the behest of an unrestricted drive for sex.

What is interesting to me is that you took it that way and to that level. I never even addressed the “good of the family” or any such “argument” Honestly I don’t think it has anything to do with what I said, perhaps your own biases are leading you to see something that I did not type.

Take the emotion out of it and put the logic and THEOlogic into it.

Pope Francis has addressed “Fruitfulness” many times. Here is the most recent.
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=22235&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

As you can see, the stability of the family is not really addressed as being a problem of fruitfulness. In fact rarely in the modern world would it be.

Mankind has been tainted by ABC. We have come to expect it is our ability and God given right to plan out our futures, our family and our lives. I have seen people use NFP to this end as well. And while we may be called to responsible parenthood, it has to be uniform in morality. If it is immoral for an American making 150k a year to have more than 8 kids, then it certainly must be immoral for the less fortunate or those who would have been born in different times of salvation history.

I’m sorry but I just don’t see the gender battle here. You may, but I cannot even debate that with you because I don’t find it has anything to do with the subject of NFP.

 

[Prodigirl]

why in the world do you call yourself a Catholic???

I have been taught that once a Catholic, always a Catholic. If I were to become a Buddhist or a deist or an atheist, it has always been my understanding that the Catholic Church would still hold me accountable for sins committed under Catholic dogma. The Church would not recognize a marriage, a divorce, any ritual performed under any other doctrine. Thought crimes (thinking about a particular sin, contemplating it, even briefly entertaining the notion) would be punishable, even if the sin were not committed. This nullifies free will.

This indoctrination goes back to 1957. I never said I was a good Catholic, only that I am a Catholic.

 

[Rau]

Absolutely, making babies is the default mentality, but it is ok to shift gears when the circumstances warrant.

With NFP, if one has been avoiding, one reviews that each month to determine is avoiding still the right course. If it is, one may act accordingly. If not, the method can be ceased. A conscious, well-founded decision is required to avoid. The contrary position is to seek to exclude children by default until one has a view to pursue them - I believe that is the wrong “default” mentality.

I believe this is how the Church views the matter.

 

[Prodigirl]

I am quite confused.
NFP (as currently practiced) is a newer theology introduced to combat the culture of death.

Yes, yes you are confused.

Natural family planning has been recognized and practiced for millennia. St. Augustine wrote about it in 388. It is not a “newer theology introduced to combat the culture of death.” It was introduced as a method to manage and control reproduction. Pope Pius XII spoke of it in 1951. Are you referring to the “culture of death” as a political or philosophical position, or as a knee-jerk reaction to Roe or what?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes, yes you are confused.

Natural family planning has been recognized and practiced for millennia. St. Augustine wrote about it in 388. It is not a “newer theology introduced to combat the culture of death.” It was introduced as a method to manage and control reproduction. Pope Pius XII spoke of it in 1951. Are you referring to the “culture of death” as a political or philosophical position, or as a knee-jerk reaction to Roe or what?

No, modern NFP as practiced by different methods. Creighton, Marquette, Sympto thermal C2CL etc. Observance of cycles is indeed as old as mankind. The difference is in the modern idea of not having children, or rather planning them out like a car purchase.

NFP was not a part of marriage prep or offered in any sort of pre or post cana classes. In fact, decades ago the term NFP did not really exist.

 

[Prodigirl]

No, modern NFP as practiced by different methods. Creighton, Marquette, Sympto thermal C2CL etc. Observance of cycles is indeed as old as mankind. The difference is in the modern idea of not having children, or rather planning them out like a car purchase.

NFP was not a part of marriage prep or offered in any sort of pre or post cana classes. In fact, decades ago the term NFP did not really exist.

I read this as a definition of contraception.

Thank you.

 

[Rau]

I read this as a definition of contraception.

Thank you.

LOL… Of course you do!

 

[on_the_hill]

Not that I agree with Prodgirl, because I’d never do that, but NFP sure seems like it could be used as a form of contraception, with a wink and a nod. Why else is it called Natural Family Planning? It’s a way of timing pregnancies. Which means there are times when a couple uses it to have a baby. And there are, by definition, times when a couple uses it to not have a baby.

Otherwise, what’s the point? Just do it all the time, I guess. Sometimes she’s fertile, sometimes she’s not. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

As soon as you start charting, you identify the fertile periods (supposedly–I have my doubts). Therefore, you identify infertile periods. So unless a couple is chaste during the infertile periods, and only having sex during the fertile periods, they are necessarily practicing a form of non-pharmaceutical contraception.

My wife and I did it for a while when we were trying to have our first child. She exhibited what were thought to be fertility problems, so we wanted to know for sure what was going on. Turns out it didn’t matter. What medical science and NFP both told us was wrong: she got pregnant despite the data.

And…and! And on this very forum, whenever a person posts about risks a woman may face with pregnancy–situations where a doctor has warned against pregnancy–the advice is always “practice NFP.” Practive NFP to avoid the risk of a dangerous pregnancy. Which is…drum roll…contracepting.

 

[Rau]

Not that I agree with Prodgirl, because I’d never do that, but NFP sure seems like it could be used as a form of contraception, with a wink and a nod. Why else is it called Natural Family Planning? It’s a way of timing pregnancies. Which means there are times when a couple uses it to have a baby. And there are, by definition, times when a couple uses it to not have a baby.

Otherwise, what’s the point? Just do it all the time, I guess. Sometimes she’s fertile, sometimes she’s not. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

As soon as you start charting, you identify the fertile periods (supposedly–I have my doubts). Therefore, you identify infertile periods. So unless a couple is chaste during the infertile periods, and only having sex during the fertile periods, they are necessarily practicing a form of non-pharmaceutical contraception.

My wife and I did it for a while when we were trying to have our first child. She exhibited what were thought to be fertility problems, so we wanted to know for sure what was going on. Turns out it didn’t matter. What medical science and NFP both told us was wrong: she got pregnant despite the data.

And…and! And on this very forum, whenever a person posts about risks a woman may face with pregnancy–situations where a doctor has warned against pregnancy–the advice is always “practice NFP.” Practive NFP to avoid the risk of a dangerous pregnancy. Which is…drum roll…contracepting.

On the decomposed facts (avoiding a debate over what the word “contraception” means), you are absolutely right and no one disagrees. The objective can be to reduce the chance of pregnancy by applying ones god given planning capacities to influence timing of children. The objective is not the issue of moral significance.

 

[Prodigirl]

LOL… Of course you do!

 

[Prodigirl]

On the decomposed facts (avoiding a debate over what the word “contraception” means), you are absolutely right and no one disagrees. The objective can be to reduce the chance of pregnancy by applying ones god given planning capacities to influence timing of children. The objective is not the issue of moral significance.

Is the objective of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child from an United States orphanage an issue of moral significance?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Is the objective of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child from an United States orphanage an issue of moral significance?

As Cardinal the current Pope called it a form of discrimination against children. De facto child abuse.

 

[Rau]

Is the objective of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child from an United States orphanage an issue of moral significance?

For whom? Adoption agencies need to place children with the best available candidate carers.

 

[Thinking10]

Is the objective of a gay couple wanting to adopt a child from an United States orphanage an issue of moral significance?

Is it about the child’s welfare or the gay couple’s satisfaction? There are more differences between men and women than anatomy. I certainly wouldn’t want to be raised by two men or two women who are partners. A man and a woman can provide a child with an upbringing that a couple made of only men or only women cannot provide.