Thoughts on contraception

[LittleDeb]

I was thinking more along the lines of, “NFP users generally have more kids than ABC users, and the more kids one has, the less likely one is to divorce,” or, “NFP users are usually Catholic, and the Catholic Church doesn’t permit divorce, so few NFP users will divorce because if they care enough to respect the Church’s teaching on birth control then they will also respect the Church’s teaching on the permanence of marriage.” Correlation does not always equal causation.

These generalizations don’t illustrate the nuances very accurately. If you said that NFP users are more likely to want more children, or that they might be more open to a larger family, then that might be more accurate. We are called to a small family because of my very serious health problems. But if I were healthy I would have a large family.

Also, I have noted that a lot of people think the ‘NFP = Catholic’ perspective. Not so. My NFP teachers were Mormon. LDS teaching doesn’t have a problem with contraception, yet I know many LDS who use NFP. I also know many non-church goers who use it too. As I said before, all other things being equal, contraception use seems to play a large part in divorce.

But then one could argue that NFP-using couples more often stay together because they have, on average, better communication skills than ABC-using couples. It’s sort of a chicken-or-egg situation, isn’t it? Now, one could argue that NFP forces a couple to seriously communicate about sex and children before they marry, but no method of ABC has a 100% success rate, so it’s not like they have no need to take consideration of those things.

That is exactly what is being argued. The use of NFP forces communication. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard couples try to say “NFP ruined my life.” But then you start asking them the deep questions and it always turns out to be that they were poor communicators on every topic. The communication inherent to NFP forces the couple to have those difficult conversations. Those, “we are broke and I don’t think you help enough with the kids” kind of talks. To successfully use NFP, those conversations have to happen and they have to be resolved. ABC couples argue about it, use the contraception, and never fix the problem.

That is the whole point. Contraception changes the marital act! The ABC couple doesn’t find themselves closer after their intimacy. They just had a temporary diversion, but the problems remain. When we remember that sex makes babies, we treat it with more respect. Trying to break what it does, only breaks the relationship.

And this never happens when a couple uses NFP? In every couple there’s inevitably going to be a point at which the man and woman differ in their desire for sex.

Of course it happens with NFP! I think you are missing a major huge point of NFP. The real goal of NFP is to not have a need for it! The NFP couple seeks to bring our sexual urges in line with God’s plan for our family. One or both members of the couple could be wrong with what God wants for them. We all seek to do the will of God in all things. How is it any different with the marital act? What is HIS will for our family? NFP couples are seeking to find that. Couples who use nothing for planning have been able to accept every surprise God’s sends them.

Apples and oranges, though, isn’t it?. Contraception isn’t abortion, isn’t divorce, isn’t promiscuity, isn’t pornography, etc., etc. Contraception is contraception, and just like sex, one would think it can be used under the correct set of circumstances (i.e., in marriage).

Why? My whole point in joining in the beginning was because the ECF didn’t write about unity because they were writing about procreation. Since they cannot be separated, taking one away takes the other away. Contraception is an assault to unity. It is the assault on unity that leads to the other problems.

What’s probably a good thing about NFP is that it forces a couple to ask themselves, “Are we really prepared for the child which could result from this?” and I agree that the answer always should be “yes”, but if the answer is “yes”, then I don’t see why the couple cannot use contraception in lieu of their commitment to care for the child that may result in spite of that contraception, or even why the couple ought not to be allowed a mix of solutions (e.g., using ABC only during the fertile periods).

–Mike

Well, the sheer fact that couples use ABC during the infertile phases is really kind of dumb isn’t it? If they are infertile why do they need ABC?

The Anglican church tried to do exactly what you suggest. It just doesn’t work. Breaking the marital act leads only to problems. Knowing the “correct” way to rob a bank doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

There is one way and one way only to prevent pregnancy: by not having sex. The same rules apply to everyone.

 

[LeroyCRHP]

Great thread and makes it clearer the advantage of not using birth control. I know birth control sounds great to many people, have free sex anytime, no risk, no commitment, free to go, no kids. You can see why this leads to so many “partners” and broken marriages.

How about this jewel on contraception from Pelosi? Lightning is going to strike…if we don’t have the money, cut out the kids.

msunderestimated.com/2009/01/26/nancy-pelosi-birth-control-will-stimulate-the-economy-video/

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. **One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. **

 

[newbetx]

Great thread and makes it clearer the advantage of not using birth control. I know birth control sounds great to many people, have free sex anytime, no risk, no commitment, free to go, no kids. You can see why this leads to so many “partners” and broken marriages.

How about this jewel on contraception from Pelosi? Lightning is going to strike…if we don’t have the money, cut out the kids.

msunderestimated.com/2009/01/26/nancy-pelosi-birth-control-will-stimulate-the-economy-video/

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. **One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government. **

HV is right on, again!

 

[newbetx]

I didn’t think to do it, so thank you! That is the one I would have added. You are always so great on making sure the details are covered. Thanks!!

I probably got that pointer from you one time. Thanks for helping out here!

 

[mpartyka]

These generalizations don’t illustrate the nuances very accurately.

That’s basically what I just said. The generalization that NFP-using couples tend to divorce less than ABC-using couples doesn’t illustrate the associated nuances (e.g., large families, religious affiliation).

As I said before, all other things being equal, contraception use seems to play a large part in divorce.

And what I’m saying is, it’s really hard to say “all other things being equal” when the subject of study is contraception due to the associated nuances.

The use of NFP forces communication…The communication inherent to NFP forces the couple to have those difficult conversations. Those, “we are broke and I don’t think you help enough with the kids” kind of talks. To successfully use NFP, those conversations have to happen and they have to be resolved. ABC couples argue about it, use the contraception, and never fix the problem.

I’m all for resolving rather than avoiding marital issues, but if resolution of the issues is what’s important, NFP is not the only way to bring this about.

The ABC couple doesn’t find themselves closer after their intimacy.

I tend to disagree with blanket statements like this. Is it more likely that the ABC couple doesn’t find themselves closer afterward? Perhaps. Is it guaranteed? No.

The real goal of NFP is to not have a need for it! The NFP couple seeks to bring our sexual urges in line with God’s plan for our family. One or both members of the couple could be wrong with what God wants for them. We all seek to do the will of God in all things. How is it any different with the marital act? What is HIS will for our family? NFP couples are seeking to find that.

Not really sure what you mean by all this. Is this a reference to a progression toward marital celibacy?

Couples who use nothing for planning have been able to accept every surprise God’s sends them.

I think the work you’re looking for is “ready”, not “able”. And I do see the value in this, really. But just because something does good in many or even in all cases doesn’t mean it should be a mandatory requirement upon all.

…the ECF didn’t write about unity because they were writing about procreation. Since they cannot be separated, taking one away takes the other away.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me what you’re saying is that the unitive purpose of sex in marriage is accomplished only through the attempt to actually make a baby (even if the attempt is unlikely to be successful).

Well, the sheer fact that couples use ABC during the infertile phases is really kind of dumb isn’t it? If they are infertile why do they need ABC?

Because there’s no guarantee of infertility. An illness, for example, might cause a woman’s body to generate signs of infertility when she is in fact fertile. The ABC, then, is “added protection.”

There is one way and one way only to prevent pregnancy: by not having sex.

Exactly. Which is why I still find it difficult to see a substantial difference between NFP and ABC since neither method is foolproof.

–Mike

 

[newbetx]

Originally Posted by newbetx

 

[newbetx]

We all want to be considerate of those who through what ever reason already have many kids, or have a medical condition should no longer get pregnant…The Anglican Church took the step it did to help just those people you talk about. What happened after the door was opened a crack was a flood of people running through the door wanting the same “right.”

We are given a guide to life by the Church. Living that is no guarantee that we’ll be rich, or healthy, happy or live a long life. We are expected to follow it because over the centuries, it is what works out best for the family and the community and eventually for our souls. I have to say that I’m not one to “stand up and salute” just because someone says to. I’ve come to this point in my belief because I lived that other culture and I can attest first hand that the propensity that HV predicted came true in my life because sex on ABC was a big part of it. I know the people that it hurt, including myself. I also know first hand about the advantages of NFP for a married couple. My experience is in line with the teachings. I’m not just spewing something someone else told me to believe. I’ve lived both sides. And at this point, I will testify again and again, that the Church has the right perspective.

Again, if you haven’t looked into TOB, I urge you to.

Peace.

 

[LittleDeb]

Mike,

You still aren’t getting the key points.

1. Procreation does not mean reproduction.
2. NFP and ABC aren’t about the margin of error.
3. There is ONE guarantee. God is in charge.
4. *All *couples who use ABC are further apart after the marital act without even realizing it.
5. Each and every act must be a procreative act. But the design is that not every act is intended to be reproductive. That is the design. Think of it this way. Each and every act IS the wedding night. That is why I emphasized the term ‘consummation.’ Each and every act is a renewal of the wedding vows.
6. Supposed failure rate has absolutely zero to do with NFP or ABC. It is not effectiveness that is on trial here. ABC that fails 99% of the time would still be wrong each and every time.
7. ABC says no to God’s design!! ABC says God’s design is broken. God gave us the 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy. Contraception cannot be compared to glasses as most people try. When was the last time you saw someone with perfect vision wearing corrective lenses? The design is perfect. There is nothing to fix. Fertility is a state of health, just as natural infertility is also a state of health.
8. It doesn’t make sense to keep arguing that contraception will help couples when it changes the marital act. How does making a marital act *not *a marital act make the couple closer? An ABC act is just a different act.

Your argument has the same fatal flaws that every argument before yours. It begins with the end result, children, and works backwards. You must begin with the purpose of the act and move forward. It is only because we know that sex makes babies that people contracept in the first place.

 

[mpartyka]

The basic issue with contraception (or the contraceptive mentality) is that “You’ve got nothing to worry about! Why aren’t you taking care of my desire.” When we take away one part of the process (procreation), the other part (unity) suffers…Again. when we separate the act into two pieces, we generally dimish the unitive aspect because the act is no longer serious, “it’s just for fun.”

Obviously it’s not true that a couple using ABC has nothing to worry about, since no ABC has a 100% success rate, but I agree that ABC-users are less likely to concern themselves with the possibility of unintended pregnancy. However, that’s a problem of attitude, not method. But if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re saying, “ABC removes the gravity and seriousness of sexual intercourse.” (Not that sex can’t be fun, but it can’t be simply put on the level of any other recreational activity, either, because other recreational activities don’t potentially result in kids.)

Contraception isn’t abortion.

Yes it is. Abortion is just another contraception level. It’s what happens when “BC fails.”

I’m sorry, but this argument falls flat on its face. You simply cannot argue that there is no qualitative difference between contraception and abortion. Abortion is the extinguishing of a life that is already in existence. Contraception (natural or artificial) only lowers the odds that a life will come into existence. After an abortion, there is one less human being in existence. This isn’t true of contraception.

ABC promotes [promiscuity].

So does the internet. That doesn’t mean the internet should be off-limits to everyone.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

1. Procreation does not mean reproduction.

From thesaurus.reference.com:

Main Entry: procreation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: reproduction

1. NFP and ABC aren’t about the margin of error.

I get that. It’s just that some people keep using margin of error as an argument.

1. There is ONE guarantee. God is in charge.

That doesn’t mean I won’t put on a seat belt before I go for a drive.

1. All couples who use ABC are further apart after the marital act without even realizing it.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that’s true. I’m sure that sex w/o using ABC may bring a couple closer together than sex w/ ABC, but the idea that no sex brings a couple closer together than contraceptive sex (which is essentially what you’re arguing) doesn’t even remotely ring true.

1. Each and every act must be a procreative act. But the design is that not every act is intended to be reproductive. That is the design.

I’d still like you to properly define “procreative” (or use a more appropriate word).

Think of it this way. Each and every act IS the wedding night. That is why I emphasized the term ‘consummation.’ Each and every act is a renewal of the wedding vows.

Do you think, for some reason, that couples don’t use ABC on their wedding night?

1. Supposed failure rate has absolutely zero to do with NFP or ABC. It is not effectiveness that is on trial here. ABC that fails 99% of the time would still be wrong each and every time.

Okay, let’s talk about that aspect of it, then. I’m open to arguments in this area.

1. ABC says no to God’s design!!

So does a heart transplant! Do you think God made hearts to be switched around?

God gave us the 100% foolproof way to prevent pregnancy.

You’re referring to total abstinence, not NFP, right? Because even NFP isn’t foolproof.

Contraception cannot be compared to glasses as most people try. When was the last time you saw someone with perfect vision wearing corrective lenses?

Bad analogy. How about, “When was the last time you saw someone with perfect vision wearing sunglasses?”

The design is perfect. There is nothing to fix.

Nobody’s suggesting anything’s “broken” by using ABC.

Fertility is a state of health, just as natural infertility is also a state of health.

Uh, huh…yeah…that’s just how the women in the Bible saw it.

1. It doesn’t make sense to keep arguing that contraception will help couples when it changes the marital act. How does making a marital act *not *a marital act make the couple closer? An ABC act is just a different act.

An ABC act is at least an approximation of the marital act, which one would think – dangerous words, I know – is better than no marital act at all.

Your argument has the same fatal flaws that every argument before yours. It begins with the end result, children, and works backwards. You must begin with the purpose of the act and move forward. It is only because we know that sex makes babies that people contracept in the first place.

Okay, let’s start with the standard list of purposes that married couples have sex:

1. One or both parties – hopefully both – wish to have a baby.
2. One or both parties – again, hopefully both – are interested in giving and/or receiving sexual pleasure.

I have a feeling we’re already going to have a disconnect here, so I’ll stop here and wait for you.

–Mike

 

[sonolady06]

Quote: I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that’s true. I’m sure that sex w/o using ABC may bring a couple closer together than sex w/ ABC, but the idea that no sex brings a couple closer together than contraceptive sex (which is essentially what you’re arguing) doesn’t even remotely ring true.

Oh, how mistaken you are. I’m not sure you understand the meaning of chastity. You say that not having sex cannot possibly bring a couple closer together. How do you think they expressed their love before marriage? If they followed the Catholic belief system, they lived chastely. This means they chose to love each other in the best way possible at a specific point in time. Sometimes, this means having to say no to sex. If sex is the only way a married couple connects, they need to examine their relationship.

 

[mpartyka]

You say that not having sex cannot possibly bring a couple closer together. How do you think they expressed their love before marriage? If they followed the Catholic belief system, they lived chastely. This means they chose to love each other in the best way possible at a specific point in time. Sometimes, this means having to say no to sex. If sex is the only way a married couple connects, they need to examine their relationship.

Not really what I was getting at. “No sex” doesn’t connect a couple in the same way that “sex without contraception” does. Now, where does “sex with contraception” fall between those two extremes? I don’t know…but I certainly don’t think it lies outside those two extremes (i.e., such that it inherently distances the couple from each other).

–Mike

 

[FM927]

Quote: I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that’s true. I’m sure that sex w/o using ABC may bring a couple closer together than sex w/ ABC, but the idea that no sex brings a couple closer together than contraceptive sex (which is essentially what you’re arguing) doesn’t even remotely ring true.

Oh, how mistaken you are. I’m not sure you understand the meaning of chastity. You say that not having sex cannot possibly bring a couple closer together. How do you think they expressed their love before marriage? If they followed the Catholic belief system, they lived chastely. This means they chose to love each other in the best way possible at a specific point in time. Sometimes, this means having to say no to sex. If sex is the only way a married couple connects, they need to examine their relationship.

Although I have changed my beliefs regarding many practices of the CC and accepted them, one thing that I just can’t seem to
reject fully is CONTRACEPTION.

I am 54 yrs old and I can honestly say that in all of my life, I have never known anyone who did not use ABC or who was a virgin when he or she got married!

I never knew that the ONLY reason to get married was to have children. I always thought it was up to each couple to decide.
I am so ashamed to say that I have been so ignorant of the details of my faith.

I always thought I was a good catholic because I love God with all of my heart. I thought that that was all that mattered.

Reading all the posts on this forum, makes me sometimes wonder
" Could it be that everyone on here is the “PERFECT CATHOLIC”
Everyone can quote the Bible, the Scriptures, everyone follows the Church’s teachings unquestionably.

I am so happy for all of you, but please be a little more tollerant of
all the other people that are just mere MORTALS!!! and sometimes may have different views that you all have.

Remember, you may all be Perfect Catholics, but no one is a perfect person!

 

[mark_a]

FM927:
I am so happy for all of you, but please be a little more tollerant of
all the other people that are just mere MORTALS!!! and sometimes may have different views that you all have.
Folks here may seem intolerant, myself included. But we are usually in the position of defending our Church’s teachings against folks who will tell us that Catholics are absolutely wrong about contraception.

We usually run into the same attitude concerning reconciliation. Protestants aren’t set up for it, and it’s no skin off my nose.

Deny yourself all God’s blessings you don’t want, but realise that some Catholics are not part of the contraceptive culture we live in.

Remember, you may all be Perfect Catholics, but no one is a perfect person!

You got that right, all except for the perfect Catholic part.

 

[LittleDeb]

Oh Mike,
This is exactly where I knew your argument would go…including trying to reference sunglasses AND saying that contraceptive sex is better than no sex at all. Even referencing something like a damaged heart and trying to say that was against the argument. I loved your whole post. I could have written it ahead of time and in fact, I almost did.

As I said, your argument is old and worn out. But look on the bright side. In my 4+ years here at CAF I have only encountered 1 argument with even a glimpse of being new, and you aren’t even on the same playing field as that discussion. So an old, worn out argument is nothing to be ashamed of.

Using sunglasses has to with charting. I cannot tell you how much I wanted you to point out that distinction!! They do nothing to change healthy eyes. They merely allow you to engage in more activities on sunny days. They are the equivalent of sexual activity on a non-fertile day. Charting is merely information. We can choose to act on that behavior or not act on that behavior. We can choose to stay inside, or wear sunglasses or a hat and go outside. You aren’t gouging out your eyes or cursing the sun. You are making choices based on information. Nothing is broken. (Oh please go to the “but it is protection, just like a condom is protection.” Oh please go there, please?)

A damaged heart is a state of ill-health. Isn’t that a ‘well duh?’ kind of moment? Fertility is healthy. I said that to take a healthy body and damage it is what ABC does. A heart transplant or corrective lenses are the equivalent of licit fertility treatments. They are fine if they are needed. I said that the glasses argument *didn’t *work because corrective lenses are needed because the eyes are damaged.

Please show me where in Scripture that fertility is considered a diseased state. You made the claim. You back it up. Don’t try to bring out how long it took to heal after giving birth. That was not the assertion you made.

Sorry, but procreative is the Church’s word. That you are following Victorian usage of it is your problem, not mine. Procreation has always meant, ‘ordered towards life,’ or I will even give you ‘towards creating life.’ But it does not mean ‘reproduction’ just because a segment of society chose to try to redefine it. The word ‘marriage’ is currently under threat of redefinition by a segment of society. Are you going to follow that path too?

I can say this next sentence with full understanding and no contradictions. “The primary purpose of the marital act is procreation.” We have proven that the ECF said that, and we have proven that current Church teaching says it. If ‘procreation’ is defined as ‘reproduction’ then the ECF were wrong. Because we know (and knew then) that the marital act does not always result in reproduction. Your definition is the broken one, not mine. Although I will grant you that your definition might be the more popular one, it does not mean it is correct. (If all of your friends jumped off the bridge would you jump too?)

Yes, we have a disconnect. Your standard list is inaccurate. For one, you personally, haven’t the slightest clue why married couples have sex. Nor should you know. It isn’t any of your business. If you meant to say objectively “What is the purpose of the marital act?”…then we have somewhere to go and some room to speak.

There is one thing I am struggling to understand. Why all this hang-up on the fact that sex is pleasurable? It just IS. God made it that way. He made eating and sleeping pleasurable too, yet I don’t see you arguing that there should be vomitoriums to eat merely for pleasure. Or that sloth should be disregarded as a sin and instead we should sleep whenever want, whether we need it or not.

The fact that we as humans seek activities that are pleasurable is not wrong. God made the activity pleasurable so we will do more than once. My heart truly goes out to people who feel marital sex is the equivalent of a root canal. The only point about pleasure that I ever made is that you do not engage in pleasure for pleasure’s own sake. That leads to greed, gluttony, sloth, lust…well you get the idea.

We as humans are to engage in activities for the purpose of the activity and then enjoy the pleasure that results. We eat because we need nourishment. The fact that eating is pleasurable is so we will do it more than once. God made it that way. I know, I am married to a chef! ALL of our meals are pleasurable in our house… even a simple cheese sandwich is a delight! But to eat for the sheer sake of pleasure, is gluttony. Having sex for the purpose of pleasure is lust.

True confession: in this house we battle gluttony. I was a skinny minny before I married my husband. His food is so good that the temptation to have another helping when you are already full…Lord help me! Thank you for Lent! (Although that does not imply that the sex is not sooo good too, just that we have mastered that one a little better. )

I am glad to see that someone has already addressed your, “contracepted sex is better than no sex” argument. Do you know that it has been argued successfully that a marriage is not consummated until the couple has a non-contraceptive act? Get that? And Mike, if you really want to go down the “it is more loving to have contracepted sex than it is to not have sex at all” sorry argument, I have loads and loads of contradictions to throw your way. I have often said on these fora, “Many times the more loving thing to do is abstain.”

My favorite topic and my mouth runneth over yet again. Merit badges to anyone who makes it all the way through.

 

[LittleDeb]

FM927:
Although I have changed my beliefs regarding many practices of the CC and accepted them, one thing that I just can’t seem to
reject fully is CONTRACEPTION.

I am 54 yrs old and I can honestly say that in all of my life, I have never known anyone who did not use ABC or who was a virgin when he or she got married!

I never knew that the ONLY reason to get married was to have children. I always thought it was up to each couple to decide.
I am so ashamed to say that I have been so ignorant of the details of my faith.

I always thought I was a good catholic because I love God with all of my heart. I thought that that was all that mattered.

Reading all the posts on this forum, makes me sometimes wonder
" Could it be that everyone on here is the “PERFECT CATHOLIC”
Everyone can quote the Bible, the Scriptures, everyone follows the Church’s teachings unquestionably.

I am so happy for all of you, but please be a little more tollerant of
all the other people that are just mere MORTALS!!! and sometimes may have different views that you all have.

Remember, you may all be Perfect Catholics, but no one is a perfect person!I’m sorry that our posts are coming off to you that way. This is the Moral Theology forum. We are discussing morality from an objective perspective here.

For support and help in how to live the day to day life, I would suggest the Family Life Forum. My own posts there are much more geared towards sympathetic support and ideas for overcoming trials.

This forum (Moral Theology) is for understanding morality from an objective point of view. In this forum you will see that objectively, contraception is a mortal sin. We know that. Whether any particular person is in a state of sin is known only to God.

It saddens me to read that you knew of no one who married as virgins and were free from contraception. Since you revealed your age, I will say that the generation you come from had it especially hard. The upheaval in secular society led to some terrible misinformation abounding during that era. For that, I am truly sorry. I am one generation after you and personally, I barely made it out alive!

I commend you for staying Catholic during that difficult time.

 

[newbetx]

Originally Posted by newbetx

 

[CountryMom27]

So what do you do when a married Catholic couple has children, one person wants more children, the other doesn’t, and one has no problem with ABC and the other does?

I agree that ABC comes between a married couple except in cases where neither individual wants further children. In that case, sterilization should be an acceptable choice.

Oh, and I am happy to practice NFP but DH has said that he will not make love unless he uses ABC. So I have the choice of either being abstinent with my husband of 10 years or submitting to something that I feel pulls us away from God’s teachings.

His argument is that Jesus and the Bible never said a thing about contraception.

 

[mpartyka]

I am 54 yrs old and I can honestly say that in all of my life, I have never known anyone who did not use ABC or who was a virgin when he or she got married!

Let’s not get the issues confused here. Premarital sex is wrong regardless of whether or not ABC is used because it’s sex outside of marriage. We’re just focusing on whether or not ABC is acceptable for sex in marriage.

I never knew that the ONLY reason to get married was to have children. I always thought it was up to each couple to decide.

Having children isn’t the only reason to get married, but according to Church teaching it is one of the reasons – my limited understanding is that one of the couple’s goals in getting married should be to raise one or more children, even though those children may not be their biological children.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Sex IS about perspective. It IS about intent…Sex is addicting. Designed that way. For the purpose of unifying the couple. When used outside that purpose, it cheapens the act and the people involved.

Okay, couple of things:

1. If sex is about intent, and HV says that the intent of couples using NFP is the same as couples using ABC, then what makes the NFP couple right and the ABC couple wrong?
2. Granted, sex is designed to unify the couple, but the ultimate expression of sexual unity is a child. When an NFP couple decides to abstain to avoid having a child, isn’t God’s design already being thwarted by the NFP couple inwardly if not outwardly?

–Mike

P.S.: Please don’t reply within the quote blocks. That makes it difficult to quote your posts because text within quote blocks is automatically excluded from the “quote post” feature. (E.g., when I quoted your post, the only thing that showed up in my text window was "

^quote]" – nothing else.)