Yes, the intention is to act in concert with God, not against Him. There is no evil intent in avoiding getting pregnant for a legitimate reason.NFP seems pretty intentional to me.
Exactly. Every act. That means we may not suppress fertility by changing the nature of the act. How is having intercourse during a non ovulating time altering the act?HV says from your quote that "**every marital act **"must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
Procreative does not simply mean conception has the subjective possibility to happen. Procreative aspect of the act always exists objectively regardless of subjective circumstances as long the couple do not alter the act.From that article:
Actually, wouldn’t couple “N”'s actions be exactly the same as couple “C”, during the infertile times?
That’s the issue here. During the infertile times of the month, conception is not possible, hence:
“3. They decide to have sex, and they choose to prevent that possible baby from becoming an actuality.”
And Hence that act is not pro-creative.
Am I just totally alone and confused here, or do you see the point I’m trying to make?
But if fertility is not an issue, how does “changing the nature of the act” suppress fertility?…we may not suppress fertility by changing the nature of the act. How is having intercourse during a non ovulating time altering the act?
I am not saying fertility is not important. I am saying we should understand what is meant by being open to life.Grace & Peace!
But if fertility is not an issue, how does “changing the nature of the act” suppress fertility?
Who said it was simply a symbol? The nature of the act is both physical and moral. Why must we make only about physicality?If the response is: “the physical act is a symbol of the open-ness to life, even if the material manifestation of that symbol falls short of what is symbolized, such that changing the nature of the act is a symbolic rejection of fertility even if fertility is impossible,”
Again, the word symbol is your term not mine.then it could be argued that all that is needed is a re-juggling of the elements of the fertility drama to produce similar metaphorical results. That is, if a couple is committed to the symbol, or committed to being open to life, the act which corresponds to the expression of that commitment need not be expressly defined or prescribed.
“Normal sex” is self evident. All this parsing has happend because we have lost the fundamental understanding of God’s design.Unless Rome’s concern is principally with the control of the male orgasm (the female orgasm being largely immaterial to the jesuitical determinations regarding what “normal sex” is). Which is how it appears, at least to me.
It doesn’t withold what is not present . That is the point. Contraception witholds what is present. It puts an unatural barrier, an obstacle there . The husband gifts all that he is at that moment as does the wife. There is no biblical or moral prohibition against renewing the marital vows which is one way to understand the marital act during an infertile time.Practicing NFP not to conceive is very much intentionally witholding fertility from the act and from the partner.
NFP witholds the whole act at certain times. It’s not given half of yourself it’s giving none of yourself.It doesn’t withold what is not present . That is the point. Contraception witholds what is present. It puts an unatural barrier, an obstacle there . The husband gifts all that he is at that moment as does the wife. There is no biblical or moral prohibition against renewing the marital vows which is one way to understand the marital act during an infertile time.
I’m guessing the answer is no that you haven’t gotten the books yet?
So the answer is still no to my question, right? You still have not gotten the books that would help you understand the meaning of sexuality in marriage. You haven’t gotten Theology of the Body or Love and Responsibility or Christopher Wests books?NFP witholds the whole act at certain times. It’s not given half of yourself it’s giving none of yourself.
For many of us it’s done more damage than good.
My point is that NFP pracitices Non-procreativesex.
And, the unnatural barrier is still there, but it’s in the form of charts, pencils and thermometers.
Sorry, I missed that part of my response, got called away at work.So the answer is still no to my question, right? You still have not gotten the books that would help you understand the meaning of sexuality in marriage. You haven’t gotten Theology of the Body or Love and Responsibility or Christopher Wests books?
I can only assume at this point that you wish to remain in ignorance on the subject that would relieve you of some of the suffering you seem to be experiencing instead of the selfless sacrifice you feel by abstaining for the good of wife or family.
The union is still pro-creative.Just as when a couple who is past menopause engages in it.There may be a natural infertile component but nothing human has interfered with it. The meaning of the marital act is intact when a couple makes love during an infertile time and it is damaged when they contracept.Sorry, I missed that part of my response, got called away at work.
Yes, I have read TOTB and I have listened to all Christopher West’s talks available on TOTB.
I understand where he’s coming from, but I do not agree that NFP should be elevated to the pedistal that he and others put it on.
The basic point to this thread is that NFP is not procreative every time.
No it is not.The union is still pro-creative.