F
fix
Guest
It is not only why, but how, births are spaced that matters. You need a good intention and a good means. This is true of other moral actions as well.
Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?
- Status
M
mark_a
Guest
If condoms are so wonderful, why do so many men put their wives on the pill?
The answer is that there is a huge difference that most men will not tolerate day-in and day-out.
H
hellopeople
Guest
My wife got pregnant on the pill. My wife and I use condoms now and it isn’t too bad. I don’t mind it to be honest. You get used to it.
M
mark_a
Guest
I see you understood exactly what I was speaking of.
If you had your preference, though, which would you choose???
From the Catholic perspective, the marital act should not be something that we “don’t mind” or need to get “used too”.
I, of course, am speaking only from a man’s point of view.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Using artificial birth control to frustrate the ends of the marital act while enjoying its pleasures is wrong. The pleasure is secondary, a gift to help unify the married couple. To take advantage of the pleasure without accepting the demands of the act is like stealing: taking something without paying for it.
The difference between using NFP and abc is that the former requires *abstaining *from the act when there is a serious reason to postpone children. It is moral to abstain from sexual activity because then you are *also *refraining from the pleasure.
Preventing procreation is not evil; taking the pleasure while avoiding conception is, because sexual activity and procreation need to be kept together.
When the Pope wrote the encyclical Humanii Generii, he predicted that if abc were permitted within a society, abortion would soon follow. How right he was.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
That’s ridiculous. The sexual act is made for enjoyment as well as for procreation. Are my ears only for hearing the cries of the poor and needy? Should I also stop listening to Beethoven, Mozart and Sarah Brightman? Are my eyes only for writing checks to charities? Should I also stop enjoying the beauty of a sunset? Sex is wonderful, giving, an act of sharing where the two become one being. It’s exciting, envigorating, stress-releasing, and a perfect way to bond in love. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks sex is only for procreation. You’re discarding a wonderful physical gift from God Himself because of your own sexual hangups. 
S
St_Francis
Guest
It is not only for procreation, it is also for the bonding aspects; however, the two are united in one act. To subdue the aspect that you do *not *want in order to experience the aspect you do want is like eating your most favorite food without paying for it.That’s ridiculous. The sexual act is made for enjoyment as well as for procreation. Are my ears only for hearing the cries of the poor and needy? Should I also stop listening to Beethoven, Mozart and Sarah Brightman? Are my eyes only for writing checks to charities? Should I also stop enjoying the beauty of a sunset? Sex is wonderful, giving, an act of sharing where the two become one being. It’s exciting, envigorating, stress-releasing, and a perfect way to bond in love. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks sex is only for procreation. You’re discarding a wonderful physical gift from God Himself because of your own sexual hangups.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Can you please explain where sexual “pleasure” is tied to procreation and morality? And as a secondary step, please explain how a couple who is well versed in NFP (the ones achieving 99% effectiveness, as the NFP brochure touts) and enjoying sex without the risk of children are any different than a couple using ABC, as you detailed above.
(I am holding your responsible Vico for pulling me back into this!
)
S
StillWondering
Guest
Conjugal relations in it’s entirety (this includes renewing the vows of marriage, the sexual intimacy and joy, and the total, faithful, fruitful, and free self-giving of oneself to one’s spouse) always properly contain the unitive and procreative aspects. The Church teaches that the natural order of physical self-giving as created by God always contain both the unitive and the procreative aspects of conjugal relations. Just to ensure we are using the same words, Unitive aspect is the nourishment the relationship – this is about bringing the spouses together in hearts, mind, and body. The purpose is not to make the spouses the same, but to make them into loving union. (This unitive aspect is where your “sexual pleasure” comes into play as long as you mean the good self-giving kind and not the degrading lustful kind.) And the procreative aspect refers to being open to life – this is different than physically having kids. It is a mental and spiritual state of being–that of choosing life as God wills including not having biological children if God so wills.Can you please explain where sexual “pleasure” is tied to procreation and morality? And as a secondary step, please explain how a couple who is well versed in NFP (the ones achieving 99% effectiveness, as the NFP brochure touts) and enjoying sex without the risk of children are any different than a couple using ABC, as you detailed above.
(I am holding your responsible Vico for pulling me back into this!
It is against the natural order to remove one aspect from the other because we as men and women are made in the image and likeness of God. We are destined to reflect, in our own limited ways, what God is in His infinite eternal ways. God, in his love for us, created us. The creation of us is the first step in His self-giving love. Procreation is a natural reflection of this supernatural giving love. After God created us, He called us His family. This is the next step in His self-giving love. Unifying the relationship is the bounding reflection of this supernatural love. Since God is perfect, He can do both perfectly. Despite us not being perfect, we are still required to never separate the two (the unitive and procreative aspects). In trying to understand the deepest levels of reality where there is tension between two truths, the inevitable answer in most cases is that both truths are needed and both truths are true. This is one of those cases. If anyone tells you one can exists without the other, they are denying the fullness of their own existance, made in the image and likeness of God.
How does this play out in the everyday life of married people? Well, we honor what God has made and given to us. For this thread and to answer PassingThru, we need to honor the fertility of the couple. If one spouse is infertile, you honor that by not using IVF or having a different sex partner to conceive. If both spouses are fertile, you honor that by using the fertile periods appropriately. This is why NFP is moral and often times good for the couple. It honors the fertile and the infertile periods and allows the couple to prayerfully make decisions on how they would use their fertility.
The dishonoring of the couples fertility is one of the many reasons why contraceptives are immoral. NFP is not a contraceptive since it does not interfere with the fertility of the couple. As for the existance of immoral uses of NFP, it is like using anything else immorally that is in itself moral. A couple can immorally use NFP by using it with a contraceptive mentality–i.e. having the intention of removing the unitive from the procreative aspects. Contraceptive does not honor the fertile and infertile periods. The most obvious example of this is using a condemn to prevent the fertility.
Let’s bring this down to a clear example. Let’s say Jill and Jim are practicing Catholics faithful to God and using NFP. They are good parents and only wish the best for their two children. Currently with the recession and no future prospects of raises beyond keeping up with inflation; they have just reasons to wait on their next pregnancy until they are financially more capable. This is not a decision to keep themselves on a good lifestyle. Instead, it is a decision based on their love for God who has given them two precious young ones to steward and nurture (ages 4 and 7). As long time users of NFP, they know when she ovulates with an error of 1 day. They also know that Jill has a fertile mucus buildup of 4 days, 1 peak day, and 3 post peak days. They also know that she has never had fertile mucus during or near her period. And lastly, you cannot have babies with just the wife, so they also know that the husband, Jim, is healthy and always fertile. Jill’s cycle last on average 33 days. This means that they prayerfully abstain for 8 (4+1+3) days in each 33 day cycle. That is it! The other 75% of the time, Jill is infertile and they can honor her infertility by renewing their marriage vows with conjugal relations if they wish. Throughout this process, their hearts, minds, and bodies never denies God, who both created us (procreative aspect) as well as called us to Him as family (unitive aspect).
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
As a former Protestant with two disagreements with the Catholic Church, I believe the contraceptive pill was God’s gift, given at the very time that population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world; largely developed by Catholic researchers, and which was recommended for use by married couples by a panel set up by the Vatican, only to contravened by a nervous Pope.
I think it’s a dud ruling.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
With NFP you get the pleasure without having children. So the only difference between NFP and artificial birth control is the masochistic, self-denial aspect. There is still a disconnection between unitive and procreative aspects.
With NFP sexual activity and procreation are not kept together.
So your answer does not address the issues I raised.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It sounds like you think that not being in a state of having sex is masochistic… That doesn’t seem right.
Christ died on the Cross for us. Self-denial in many areas is a small thing that we can do for Him.
Yes, but it is a disconnect that *God *created, not one that *we *created.
With NFP, the reason the two are not together is that God made women to be fertile only for a short time each month.
S
St_Francis
Guest
As a Catholic, you ought to understand that the Pope, and the Pope alone, is protected from teaching error.
And all this happened way back in the 1960’s. I would gather from this that every woman who went through this is beyond child-bearing anyway, and those women who are still in their child-bearing years have been raised with the idea that abc is wrong.
And there is no population problem.
S
St_Francis
Guest
I was talking about the moral good effects of the marital act. I am sorry, I thought that would be clear since this is a Catholic board and we are talking about abc v NFP rather than fornication.
Because the couple using NFP *abstains *from the act rather than engaging in it and frustrating it.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
St Francis, you’re twisting my words.
Do you deny that practising NFP is difficult?
I don’t think that NFP IS natural, but in any case natural is not synonymous with “good” or “holy” or “God’s will”, unless you wish also to forego medical care and die when God intended you?
Do you deny that practising NFP is difficult?
I don’t think that NFP IS natural, but in any case natural is not synonymous with “good” or “holy” or “God’s will”, unless you wish also to forego medical care and die when God intended you?
J
jrgiancola
Guest
I have to laugh at some of you as you attempt to describe what is a “moral” relationship between husband and wife. Obviously, some of you have never been married, or been married and truly IN LOVE with your spouse, or simply have some sexual problems that you’ve never resolved appropriately.
My wife and I married at 19. We were HEAVILY into lust for each other at that time. We did not try to prevent pregnancy, as we wanted children. But we certainly did not have sex only to have children. The lust was intense and we loved and enjoyed every minute of it. We literally spent days in bed naked.
God then blessed us with two children, one when I was 21, one when I was 23. We were ecstatic and loved being parents. After the second child, we did not want anymore, at least not right away. We used condoms, feeling that the BCP was dangerous and risky for my wife’s health. Our passion and lust never died, but rather increased. We literally spent days in bed just to enjoy each other’s bodies.
By the time we reached our 30’s, we felt, wrongly we later learned, that we were too old to raise any more infants. We continued to use condoms and still our lust and passion increased rather than decreased. I used to call in sick and skip work at times just to be home with her in bed when the kids were at school.
Much to our surprise, God blessed us with a third child (NO, condoms are NOT 100% safe) when I was 34. We were ecstatic and found that we could indeed raise an infant at our ages. Still, our lust for each other was overflowing. After #3, we were determined we did not want another child, as my wife began to have problems with her blood pressure and a 4th would be dangerous for her. Condoms again were the choice. Abstinence for any period of time was out of the question since we honestly could not keep our hands off of one another any length of time.
Then #4 came, unexpectedly. My wife had a difficult pregnancy, nearly died, but we had #4. She turned out to be so precious that I can’t imagine life without her now.
Two years ago, God couldn’t stand any longer not having my wife with Him, so He took her. I understood His reasoning; she was much to wonderful to live on this planet. I was blessed to have her for the 35 years.
Now that she’s gone, I have no interest in becoming involved with anyone, especially sexually. My heart is NOT broken; it’s just that I can never feel the same way about any other woman, ever. She was the absolute best woman who ever lived.
My point? Lust within a marriage when two people love each other is perfectly normal, and extremely desirable in any marriage. It does NOT have to be tied to procreation, and need not be solely for the purpose of procreation; nor does it have to be open at all times to procreation. People do not sign a marital contract to form a business; they get married because they are “in love” AND “hot” for each other. Anyone who marries without these two prerequisites, even if it’s only to have children, should not be married because they will never find happiness in that marriage and eventually will commit adultery to satisfy their unmet needs.
God made us “burn” for our partners so that we have no desire for others outside the marriage. Many married people stay together for the sake of the kids; I admire their commitment to responsibility. But they remain together in a state of perpetual unhappiness, and are very vulnerable to the attentions of others outside the marriage.
I thank Him every day for the time He gave me with my wife. Ours was a love beyond time and reason, never to occur again for me. As the poet said, “It IS better to have loved…”
My wife and I married at 19. We were HEAVILY into lust for each other at that time. We did not try to prevent pregnancy, as we wanted children. But we certainly did not have sex only to have children. The lust was intense and we loved and enjoyed every minute of it. We literally spent days in bed naked.
God then blessed us with two children, one when I was 21, one when I was 23. We were ecstatic and loved being parents. After the second child, we did not want anymore, at least not right away. We used condoms, feeling that the BCP was dangerous and risky for my wife’s health. Our passion and lust never died, but rather increased. We literally spent days in bed just to enjoy each other’s bodies.
By the time we reached our 30’s, we felt, wrongly we later learned, that we were too old to raise any more infants. We continued to use condoms and still our lust and passion increased rather than decreased. I used to call in sick and skip work at times just to be home with her in bed when the kids were at school.
Much to our surprise, God blessed us with a third child (NO, condoms are NOT 100% safe) when I was 34. We were ecstatic and found that we could indeed raise an infant at our ages. Still, our lust for each other was overflowing. After #3, we were determined we did not want another child, as my wife began to have problems with her blood pressure and a 4th would be dangerous for her. Condoms again were the choice. Abstinence for any period of time was out of the question since we honestly could not keep our hands off of one another any length of time.
Then #4 came, unexpectedly. My wife had a difficult pregnancy, nearly died, but we had #4. She turned out to be so precious that I can’t imagine life without her now.
Two years ago, God couldn’t stand any longer not having my wife with Him, so He took her. I understood His reasoning; she was much to wonderful to live on this planet. I was blessed to have her for the 35 years.
Now that she’s gone, I have no interest in becoming involved with anyone, especially sexually. My heart is NOT broken; it’s just that I can never feel the same way about any other woman, ever. She was the absolute best woman who ever lived.
My point? Lust within a marriage when two people love each other is perfectly normal, and extremely desirable in any marriage. It does NOT have to be tied to procreation, and need not be solely for the purpose of procreation; nor does it have to be open at all times to procreation. People do not sign a marital contract to form a business; they get married because they are “in love” AND “hot” for each other. Anyone who marries without these two prerequisites, even if it’s only to have children, should not be married because they will never find happiness in that marriage and eventually will commit adultery to satisfy their unmet needs.
God made us “burn” for our partners so that we have no desire for others outside the marriage. Many married people stay together for the sake of the kids; I admire their commitment to responsibility. But they remain together in a state of perpetual unhappiness, and are very vulnerable to the attentions of others outside the marriage.
I thank Him every day for the time He gave me with my wife. Ours was a love beyond time and reason, never to occur again for me. As the poet said, “It IS better to have loved…”
P
PassingThru
Guest
OK, I might not have been clear enough. You tied the pleasure of sex to the acceptance of possible children as a result. You have drawn this simplified conclusion, please amend as you see fit:
ABC = breaking the union of pleasure with kids
NFP = pleasure only with possibility of kids
Well, I don’t follow your logic. You said it is evil to take the pleasure without the procreation. I fail to see how NFP does not fit this definition. You can have sex like drunken 17 year old teenagers for years with no kids as a result. Are you saying the “sacrificial abstinence” is what is required to make the NFP program moral? Most Catholics I have heard from strongly reject this line of thinking.
I absolutely concede that ABC breaks this “union” you are pushing. I don’t agree with the assumption, but that is not relevant. How can you possibly not see that NFP can just as easily break this union of pleasure with kids? The ONLY way it makes any sense is if you somehow use this “sacrificial alter” mentality of those days of the month you can not safely have sex without kids. Or am I off on this?
V
Vico
Guest
Was it something specific I posted? Or general?…
(I am holding your responsible Vico for pulling me back into this!
P
PassingThru
Guest
I am messing with you Vico! You brought this thread back from the dead, and I made it pages and pages before I posted again!!!
V
Vico
Guest
Alright, I understand now. Yes, it escalated, the time must have been right.
Notice that in my post this time I simplified the issues based upon Catholic canons rather than theological writings, except for one Papal statement. So now the issue (since when we last exchanged) comes down to definition of corrupted marital relations. Did anybody mention that a Catholic marriage is not considered as consummated when condoms are used because it is not unitive?
To be unitive the conjugal act must have at least two properties:
(1) it must be voluntarily done in a “humano modo” and
(2) it must be “actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro”
Latin
Can. 1061 § 1. Matrimonium inter baptizatos validum dicitur ratum tantum, si non est consummatum; ratum et consummatum,si coniuges inter se humano modo posuerunt coniugalem actum per se aptum ad prolis generationem, ad quem natura sua ordinatur matrimonium, et quo coniuges fiunt una caro.
English
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
- Status