Unitive and Procreative - But Why?

[Thinking10]

Who is more open to life?

The couple who only spends enough energy to use a condom, or a couple who spends every day charting and planning when to have sex? Both NFP and condoms have failure rates. Who has invested more time and energy into achieving the same goal? If the couple using condoms accepts children if they are conceived as much as the NFP couple accepts children, what is the difference between the couples? They both took active steps to avoid pregnancy. One couple just spent much more effort to avoid it than the other.

 

[Jaaanosik]

1. You are implying the standard of a health threat as the reason for taking one’s temperature. That is your own definition, but you can’t assume the Church or others share that view. Again, recording one’s temperature is natural for certain goals in life. One could just as easily argue that abstaining from sex for any reason isn’t “natural.” However, for many, it is the norm, and is part of the fundamental nature of their lives. Like NFP, couples do not HAVE to abstain if they do not wish to. They must however, be open to the possibility of life which could result from their actions.
2. The Church does not mandate the use of NFP. No one is obligated to use NFP. We are free to be intimate in marriage as we see fit, and let things play out. This whole discussion has the tone of implying a mandate for using NFP. Rather, the Church’s teaching is more focused on the prohibition of contraception and the unwillingness to be open to life and have no barrier with your spouse.

1. It’s not me saying that. It’s the human nature - capability to reason - common sense that says it.
   It was not natural to take temperature every day unless there was a health issue until the NFP showed up.
   This is becoming tricky - something unnatural becomes natural because of the end-result.
   The end justifies the means.
2. The Church wanted to allow people to have sex and to avoid pregnancies. The only way is the fertility cycle. That’s how NFP became the Church allowed method.
   It means that the Church approved something unnatural to become natural because of the end.

 

[fide]

1. It’s not me saying that. It’s the human nature - capability to reason - common sense that says it.
   It was not natural to take temperature every day unless there was a health issue until the NFP showed up.
   This is becoming tricky - something unnatural becomes natural because of the end-result.
   The end justifies the means.
2. The Church wanted to allow people to have sex and to avoid pregnancies. The only way is the fertility cycle. That’s how NFP became the Church allowed method.
   It means that the Church approved something unnatural to become natural because of the end.

First, your sense of “natural” is not appropriate to the context of the natural moral law. The natural moral law is that moral law of God put into human nature, and thus is the measure of the moral actions of all human persons. So, for example, taking one’s temperature is in no sense contrary to the natural moral law. Thus taking one’s temperature is perfectly consistent with human nature - thus, it is “natural.”

Second, the end does not ever justify the means. If the means are evil, no end whatsoever can make the action good, or just. In this context, speaking of contraception, the means of contraception used to regulate pregnancies is inherently evil because the means, contraception, is evil. No end whatsoever can justify that means.

Third, NFP is completely consistent with human nature - as God designed human nature - because He placed cyclic fertility into the nature of the woman. Thus NFP is a righteous means to the end of regulating conceptions and births as the Church permits.

Fourth, it is possible to abuse NFP and use it for the end of regulation births, but with an unrighteous intention. This abuse of NFP would not result in a good act, but an evil one. For example, if one wanted to regulate births to zero, permanently, so that the couple could buy all the silly toys their desires could think of and avoid the responsibility of children - but they used NFP to do so - then this abuse of NFP would be part of an evil act.

 

[Jaaanosik]

First, your sense of “natural” is not appropriate to the context of the natural moral law. The natural moral law is that moral law of God put into human nature, and thus is the measure of the moral actions of all human persons. So, for example, taking one’s temperature is in no sense contrary to the natural moral law. Thus taking one’s temperature is perfectly consistent with human nature - thus, it is “natural.”

Second, the end does not ever justify the means. If the means are evil, no end whatsoever can make the action good, or just. In this context, speaking of contraception, the means of contraception used to regulate pregnancies is inherently evil because the means, contraception, is evil. No end whatsoever can justify that means.

Third, NFP is completely consistent with human nature - as God designed human nature - because He placed cyclic fertility into the nature of the woman. Thus NFP is a righteous means to the end of regulating conceptions and births as the Church permits.

Fourth, it is possible to abuse NFP and use it for the end of regulation births, but with an unrighteous intention. This abuse of NFP would not result in a good act, but an evil one. For example, if one wanted to regulate births to zero, permanently, so that the couple could buy all the silly toys their desires could think of and avoid the responsibility of children - but they used NFP to do so - then this abuse of NFP would be part of an evil act.

How do we know what is moral and what is not moral according to the natural moral law?

 

[fide]

How do we know what is moral and what is not moral according to the natural moral law?

The natural moral law, which has been confused in man’s mind because of sin, has been clarified first by the divine revelation of the Commandments and God’s work in salvation history (i.e. the O.T.), and then finally in Christ and through the Spirit working in the Church.

Here is the section in the Catechism, available on-line and an excellent source for authentic Catholic teachings:

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597 )
1955 The “divine and natural” law (GS 89 # 1 ) shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. (St. Augustine, De Trin. 14, 15, 21: PL 42,1052 )
The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I )
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense … To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. (Cicero, Rep. III, 22, 33 )
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; (Cf. GS 10 ) it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (St. Augustine, Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678 )
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” (Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005 ) The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[Thinking10]

Third, NFP is completely consistent with human nature - as God designed human nature - because He placed cyclic fertility into the nature of the woman. Thus NFP is a righteous means to the end of regulating conceptions and births as the Church permits.

Why aren’t surgery or medication banned by the church? God designed our bodies to heal naturally. Why shouldn’t we let our bodies heal in the way God designed them to heal instead of altering the way it heals with medical devices and procedures?

 

[sw85]

But we do things that violate our design all the time. It’s the classic problem Hume revealed for us: just because something is natural does not mean it is right. Disease is natural, but we cure it, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard the argument before.

If that is, in fact, what Hume thought, then Hume misunderstands what the Church means by “natural.” (Which is not surprising since Hume was kind of an idiot).

“Natural” does not mean “occurring in nature.” Otherwise it would be impossible to say that anything is natural. By natural we mean “consistent with the nature of.” It is the nature of the eye, for instance, to see. Myopia is not “natural” in that sense, it is a distortion of nature. That’s why we call it a disorder, i.e., the absence of the proper ordering of things.

It just is the nature of the reproductive system to be reproductive. That’s why we call it the reproductive system. If God designed human nature (and he did), and if God created the world “and saw that it was good,” then obviously our nature as it was designed by God is good, and hence using our nature’s various faculties properly is essential for our own good and our own flourishing. He designed us with a reproductive system, hence it is good for us to use it reproductively.

 

[fide]

Why aren’t surgery or medication banned by the church? God designed our bodies to heal naturally. Why shouldn’t we let our bodies heal in the way God designed them to heal instead of altering the way it heals with medical devices and procedures?

God did design healing mechanisms into the body, but the consequences of original sin have weakened and are working to destroy the body. The damaging effects of that sin continue - death, the penalty for that sin, continues.

God now invites us to contribute to the battle against sin and death, with His invitation into life in Christ. One way He does this in a physical way, is by revealing paths of healing He has placed in the creation (medicines). Medical work that is aimed at relieving suffering and enhancing life is good, and can bring glory to God. Medical work can, of course, be used for evil - as some Nazi doctors showed so horribly in WW II.

Healing is “pro-life”, and is good. Contraception is anti-life, and is bad. It is that simple.

Do you have a “Question behind the questions”? I get the feeling that you are aiming at something else, and not these particular questions that keep coming up. Is there some more basic issue or matter that you are trying to resolve? Or am I wrong about that?

 

[Jaaanosik]

The natural moral law, which has been confused in man’s mind because of sin, has been clarified first by the divine revelation of the Commandments and God’s work in salvation history (i.e. the O.T.), and then finally in Christ and through the Spirit working in the Church.

Here is the section in the Catechism, available on-line and an excellent source for authentic Catholic teachings:

I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. (Leo XIII, Libertas praestantissimum, 597 )
1955 The “divine and natural” law (GS 89 # 1 ) shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. (St. Augustine, De Trin. 14, 15, 21: PL 42,1052 )
The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. I )
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense … To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely. (Cicero, Rep. III, 22, 33 )
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; (Cf. GS 10 ) it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. (St. Augustine, Conf. 2, 4, 9: PL 32, 678 )
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known “by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.” (Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005 ) The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

That’s nice, thank you.
Please, can you give us your translation of the above passage how do we know what is moral and what is not moral according to the natural moral law?

Even more, the natural moral law is universal. It’s supposed to be same for everybody, so how this can be achieved?

 

[Jaaanosik]

God did design healing mechanisms into the body, but the consequences of original sin have weakened and are working to destroy the body. The damaging effects of that sin continue - death, the penalty for that sin, continues.

God now invites us to contribute to the battle against sin and death, with His invitation into life in Christ. One way He does this in a physical way, is by revealing paths of healing He has placed in the creation (medicines). Medical work that is aimed at relieving suffering and enhancing life is good, and can bring glory to God. Medical work can, of course, be used for evil - as some Nazi doctors showed so horribly in WW II.

**Healing is “pro-life”, and is good. Contraception is anti-life, and is bad. It is that simple.
**
Do you have a “Question behind the questions”? I get the feeling that you are aiming at something else, and not these particular questions that keep coming up. Is there some more basic issue or matter that you are trying to resolve? Or am I wrong about that?

How can you tell hard working parents of 3 and more kids using contraception that they are anti-life or anti-procreation.
That’s not logical and in a way it would be an insult.
It’s not so simple as you say.

 

[fide]

How can you tell hard working parents of 3 and more kids using contraception that they are anti-life or anti-procreation.
That’s not logical and in a way it would be an insult.
It’s not so simple as you say.

I appreciate your directness, and I will try to be direct in return. I think that nothing is a bigger insult than a lie - and contraception is a lie.

Truth is simple, and necessary. Of course truth must be proclaimed with love - there is no truth without love, and there is no love without truth. Lies are the work of the evil one, who is a liar and the father of lies, as Jesus said.

Contraception is, itself, a lie. In the most intimate and loving act of marriage, when the spouses declare their mutual self-gift of each one to the other - in that moment, if contraception is used only part of the self is offered, and the rest is held back or blocked. When the act itself is saying, “I give myself to you in love,” contraception is denying the fullness of self-gift and thus is a lie. A marriage that revolves around the habitual incorporation of a lie is building its house on sand. The foundation of a marriage must be truth, and not lie, not deceit, not counterfeits.

NFP allows the full self-gift in every act of conjugal love, and does so in such a way as to allow the couple to plan the growth of their family in God’s way, as He designed the woman with cycles of fertility. NFP allows truth, where contraception uses a lie.

 

[seakelp]

If that is, in fact, what Hume thought, then Hume misunderstands what the Church means by “natural.” (Which is not surprising since Hume was kind of an idiot).

“Natural” does not mean “occurring in nature.” Otherwise it would be impossible to say that anything is natural. By natural we mean “consistent with the nature of.” It is the nature of the eye, for instance, to see. Myopia is not “natural” in that sense, it is a distortion of nature. That’s why we call it a disorder, i.e., the absence of the proper ordering of things.

It just is the nature of the reproductive system to be reproductive. That’s why we call it the reproductive system. If God designed human nature (and he did), and if God created the world “and saw that it was good,” then obviously our nature as it was designed by God is good, and hence using our nature’s various faculties properly is essential for our own good and our own flourishing. He designed us with a reproductive system, hence it is good for us to use it reproductively.

Agreed, concerning what natural law is. I think that’s a more insightful understanding of things, but I’ll have to think about it more.

 

[Thinking10]

It just is the nature of the reproductive system to be reproductive. That’s why we call it the reproductive system. If God designed human nature (and he did), and if God created the world “and saw that it was good,” then obviously our nature as it was designed by God is good, and hence using our nature’s various faculties properly is essential for our own good and our own flourishing. He designed us with a reproductive system, hence it is good for us to use it reproductively.

Is it good for us to only use it reproductively?

 

[Jaaanosik]

I appreciate your directness, and I will try to be direct in return. I think that nothing is a bigger insult than a lie - and contraception is a lie.

Truth is simple, and necessary. Of course truth must be proclaimed with love - there is no truth without love, and there is no love without truth. Lies are the work of the evil one, who is a liar and the father of lies, as Jesus said.

Contraception is, itself, a lie. In the most intimate and loving act of marriage, when the spouses declare their mutual self-gift of each one to the other - in that moment, if contraception is used only part of the self is offered, and the rest is held back or blocked. When the act itself is saying, “I give myself to you in love,” contraception is denying the fullness of self-gift and thus is a lie. A marriage that revolves around the habitual incorporation of a lie is building its house on sand. The foundation of a marriage must be truth, and not lie, not deceit, not counterfeits.

NFP allows the full self-gift in every act of conjugal love, and does so in such a way as to allow the couple to plan the growth of their family in God’s way, as He designed the woman with cycles of fertility. NFP allows truth, where contraception uses a lie.

A man withdraws sperm using condom.
A woman withdraws ovum using NFP.
What’s the difference?
It seems the NFP is a lie as well by your definition. It’s not a full self-gift.

Edit: Please, explain the questions about the natural law.

 

[sw85]

Is it good for us to only use it reproductively?

Yes, if by “only use it reproductively,” you mean “only use it in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction.”

 

[Thinking10]

Yes, if by “only use it reproductively,” you mean “only use it in a manner consistent with the end of reproduction.”

Is this statement true too?

Yes, if you mean “only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition.”

 

[sw85]

Is this statement true too?

Yes, if you mean “only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition.”

Yeah, hence why, e.g., gorging yourself and then inducing vomiting so you can gorge yourself more, a la the ancient Roman aristocracy, would be a pretty grave sin.

 

[fide]

A man withdraws sperm using condom.
A woman withdraws ovum using NFP.
What’s the difference?
It seems the NFP is a lie as well by your definition. It’s not a full self-gift.

Edit: Please, explain the questions about the natural law.

The woman does not withdraw anything. Do you understand the cyclic fertility of the woman, created in her nature by God? You are effective charging God with contraception. Is that your goal? Is that honestly your understanding of the facts?

Questions about the natural law? What was not answered?
Are any of your questions actually questions, or are you actually challenging under the guise of asking? Frankly, if you are merely setting up “questions” to express your contrary pre-existent opinions, then I’ll pass. If you honestly don’t understand but would like to understand, I’ll try to help you. But please, no lies. Let’s be honest with one another.

 

[sw85]

A man withdraws sperm using condom.
A woman withdraws ovum using NFP.
What’s the difference?
It seems the NFP is a lie as well by your definition. It’s not a full self-gift.

Edit: Please, explain the questions about the natural law.

The morality of an act is not determined primarily by its consequences. That’s consequentialism, which is formally condemned, most recently by JPII in Veritatis Splendor.

 

[Thinking10]

Yeah, hence why, e.g., gorging yourself and then inducing vomiting so you can gorge yourself more, a la the ancient Roman aristocracy, would be a pretty grave sin.

You didn’t answer the question.

Is this statement true too?

Yes, if you mean “only use eating in a manner consistent with the end of nutrition.”