Marital Sex

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Recently a friend said she wouldn't want to be a Catholic (she sends her child to a Catholic school, though) because "Catholics only have sex to procreate". I assured her that Catholics also believed that marital sex was a gift from God to be enjoyed. Am I correct? Since I'm past child-bearing years, I sure do hope that I'm still allowed to enjoy sex with my husband...!

-- Dee (Dee@none.sorry), August 08, 2003

Answers

Sex is definitely to be enjoyed in marriage! Sex is sacred in the fact that it is the means God has given us to participate in his creative power. This means that we are to not use artificial means to make sex simply a form of recreation even in marriage, or have the mentality / intention of using sex simply for selfish pleasure. Sex is to be enjoyed but also kept open to is other facet... that of the promotion of life. Please enjoy marital sex even if you are not able to conceive.

Joe

-- jbiltz (joebiltz@netzero.net), August 08, 2003.


Dee:

You might enjoy this book.

-- __ (__@__.__), August 08, 2003.


In fact, sex ONLY for the purpose of procreation would be a violation of Church teaching. The Church teaches that there are TWO essential purposes of sexual union - unitive and procreative - which cannot be validly separated. BOTH must be present in order for sexual union to be within the will of God.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 08, 2003.

Paul,

Am I understanding correctly that in order for marital sex to be within the will of God, that the married couple must intend (purpose) to both unify and procreate each and every time they have sex? So the couple must intend to make a baby every time they have sex or it's sin?

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, it seems that the often taught rhythm methods of abstaining from sex during fertile days would then constitute a sin as grave as using contraception. For if a couple only has sex on days they believe they can not procreate, then their intent or purpose is to avoid procreation. Correct? Then they would be just as sinful as a couple who uses contraception.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


So the couple must intend to make a baby every time they have sex or it's sin?

No, but the couple must be open to the possibility of procreation.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 08, 2003.



I better clarify before someone calls the semantics police:

The couple must always be open each and every time they share intimacy to the possibility that their union may be used by God as a vehicle for the creation of new life.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), August 08, 2003.


OK, I took this response out of the Catholic Encyclopedia and inserted my comments:

**********************

"Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing--prevent pregnancy.

Because you don't judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as NFP, but the ways they go about it are very different.

Humanae Vitae defines contraception as "every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" Comment - users of contraception fully realize that conception is possible - anywhere from 2% to 8% depending on the methods used. So the statement is not fully accurate in it's characterization.

(14). Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because "every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" Comment - Here, I view both the contraception user and Natural Family Planner on the exact same footing. Both are doing their best to withhold the "procreative good of the marital act" and both "remain [equally] open to the transmission of life" - statistically speaking.

(11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, "a lie in the language of the body." Comment - again, a couple having sex when they have clinically verified that the female is not fertile is "deliberating frustrating the procreative act".

If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice NFP is to take the Fifth. Comment- Not a good analogy. Since a NFP is taking deliberate, clinical actions to ascertain fertility, and avoiding sex when pregnancy is possible, it's not "taking the fifth" which implies total inaction. Natural Family Planning involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman's cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference Comment - But there really is no "difference" in many people's minds. It appears to be drawing distinctions where none exist. In both situations, the couple are entering into sex trying NOT to procreate yet realizing that statistically, procreation is very possible. (see Humanae Vitae 16).

During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God's gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.

One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while NFP, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring "serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (16). Thus it is not, as some have accused, "contraception Catholic style." Comment - but that's the way it appears and the entire argument comes off as being intellectually dishonest. We see sin as being rooted in the intention of the heart where Jesus taught us that lusting is sinful just as adultery is sinful. And the intent of the NFP'er and the contraceptioner are the exact same.

****************************

And I end my commentary with an observation for your consideration . . . If contraception is so apparently sinful to the Roman Catholic Church, why it is the Orthodox churches (the other Catholic church :-) do not hold to that view and allow their members to use contraception ?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


So the couple must intend to make a baby every time they have sex or it's sin?

Do you actually believe that the Catholic Church teaches this? I thought that the whole world -- except for some goofy hillbilly bigots -- knew, by now, that the Church doesn't teach this. Please don't say that the average non-Catholic thinks that the Church teaches this, because it might give me a heart attack!

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, it seems that the often taught rhythm methods of abstaining from sex during fertile days would then constitute a sin as grave as using contraception.

You must be misinterprting what he's saying. By the way, "rhythm methods" are not "often taught." They are NEVER taught -- and haven't been for about 30 years.

You may be thinking of the methods of Natural Family Planning (aka Natural Birth Regulation), which replaced the much less reliable "rhythm." NFP is not intrinsically immoral, but it can be practiced in a gravely sinful way -- namely, with a "contraceptive mentality," for insufficiently serious reasons. But even then, it is the will of the couple that is sinful, not the act of NFP itself. (With contraception, the act itself is sinful.) Cases of misuse of NFP are grave sins, but they are not as evil as contraception, because misused NFP does not place an actual barrier before the Creator God, while contraception does.

For if a couple only has sex on days they believe they can not procreate, then their intent or purpose is to avoid procreation. Correct? Incorrect. When the couple is practicing NFP for a sufficiently serious reason, their intent is to space their children responsibly -- to delay their first (or next) pregnancy, if that is also God's will.

Please read a few things to understand these matters better.

1. the pope's key 1968 document at http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

2. a parish priest's easy-to-understand explanation of Church teaching (six-part newspaper series, first published in 1998, being re-published right now -- no coincidence) at http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws030710.htm and http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws030717.htm and http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws030724.htm and http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws030731.htm and http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/98ws/ws980827.htm and http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/98ws/ws980903.htm

3. theologian Janet Smith's explanation (transcript of great lecture) at http://www.omsoul.com/pamview.phtml?idnum=135

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 08, 2003.


You posted more while I was preparing the above reply to your prior comments. So I'll add more.

users of contraception fully realize that conception is possible - anywhere from 2% to 8% depending on the methods used. So the statement is not fully accurate in it's characterization. It is fully accurate. The statement said that contraception "proposes ... to render procreation impossible". The fact that it sometimes fails doesn't make the sentence wrong. Those who make and use contraceptives really desire "to render procreation impossible." That is not true of couples who practice NFP morally. With few exceptions, contraceptors consider a pregnancy to be a failure -- and thus cometh abortion as "back-up birth control." But moral users of NFP consider a pregnancy to be a surprise blessing, never turning to abortion.

I view both the contraception user and Natural Family Planner on the exact same footing. Both are doing their best to withhold the "procreative good of the marital act" and both "remain [equally] open to the transmission of life" - statistically speaking.

You only have this "view" because of a mental block. With time and prayer, it can be removed. Users of NFP are not doing ANYTHING to withhold the procreative good of the marital acts in which they engage. They are letting God be God, saying "THY will be done."

But users of contraception do EVERYTHING they can to withhold the procreative good of the marital acts in which they engage. Sometimes, they even combine two methods (like condom and diaphragm) -- or they eventually resort to the horrendous butchery known as sterilization. They tell God, "MY will be done."

a couple having sex when they have clinically verified that the female is not fertile is "deliberating frustrating the procreative act".

There is no "clinical verification." Moreover, "frustration" can only be done by a positive "blocking" action of some kind -- as in contraception (blocking sperm movement or blocking ovulation -- which are things that God wants to have happen). With NFP, there is no blocking and no frustration. What God wants to have happen, happens.

Since NFP is taking deliberate, clinical actions to ascertain fertility, and avoiding sex when pregnancy is possible, it's not "taking the fifth" which implies total inaction.

No, twice. NFP is not "avoiding sex when pregnancy is possible." Only God knows when it is possible. "Taking the fifth" is not "total inaction," but a licit decision NOT to do something that could be done.

there really is no "difference" in many people's minds. It appears to be drawing distinctions where none exist. In both situations, the couple are entering into sex trying NOT to procreate yet realizing that statistically, procreation is very possible.

It does not matter whether there is "no difference in many people's minds," when their "minds" are improperly formed. What matters is reality, no matter how many or few understand reality properly.

"Distinctions" are drawn because they do exist. With time and prayer, you will grasp and embrace them. Completely contrary to what you stated, a couple morally using NFP do not "enter into sex trying NOT to procreate." It is only contraceptors who try NOT to procreate -- by intentionally frustrating that which is natural and pleasing to God through the use of something that is unnatural and displeasing to God.

Thus it is not, as some have accused, "contraception Catholic style." Comment - but that's the way it appears and the entire argument comes off as being intellectually dishonest.

Again, your mental block is interfering. You say, that's "the way it appears." Appearances matter not. Facts do. If "the entire argument comes off as being intellectually dishonest," then Jesus would not have taught it to be passed down to our own times. If "intellectually dishonest," it would not have been universally held in Christendom, including Protesantism and Eastern Orthodoxy, until 1930. Rather, it WAS held for 19 centuries because it was true and from Jesus, but it was abandoned by some in a time of moral weakness and lack of clarity. That same dimness of vision is keeping you from seeing how "intellectually HONEST" is "the entire argument." You (and most Protestants) are like the blind man who needed the second application of mud to their eyes by Jesus. You see things only in a blurry or incomplete fashion right now.

Just as Moslems know that there is only one God, but cannot "see" how Jesus could be God, so you do not yet see how contraception could be sinful. The Moslems' inability does not render Jesus "non-divine" any more than your inability renders contraception "non-sinful."

We see sin as being rooted in the intention of the heart where Jesus taught us that lusting is sinful just as adultery is sinful. And the intent of the NFP'er and the contraceptioner are the exact same.

No. Both the "lusting" and "adultery" that you mentioned are always gravely evil, regardless of "intention." As mentioned above, there can be gravely sinful intention (lack of serious reason to delay conception) in NFP users. But the intention of contraceptors doesn't even matter, because their very acts themselves are intrinsically gravely evil. (Such is never the case with the mere acts themselves of NFP.)

If contraception is so apparently sinful to the Roman Catholic Church, why it is the Orthodox churches (the other Catholic church :-) do not hold to that view and allow their members to use contraception ? Jesus, through the Catholic Church (not "Roman"), teaches that contraception is a deadly sin. The Orthodox churches are not part of the Catholic Church, though we pray for reunification. Unfortunately, besides being schismatic (rejecting the authority of the pope to shepherd them), they are also heretical in a few respects, contraception being one of them. The Orthodox fell into this terrible error after the Anglican Protestants did in 1930.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 08, 2003.


Wow. Art, that last post was excellent! You gotta publish it or something!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), August 08, 2003.


Thanks, sir (if you are not an impersonator). I know nothing about publishing. Feel free to borrow, if you think that I relayed something helpful. I'm too ignorant to write without borrowing.

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 08, 2003.


I'm in agreement with all of the arguments against artificial contraception I've read here - I'd just like to put one more example in a slightly different way if it will help. I spent a great deal of time arguing this on another website (which I won't give you because there is no point arguing with the moral relativist mindset there). Some on that website say that by abstaining, or waiting for infertile times to have sex, the couple is deliberately trying to frustrate the procreative meaning of the sexual act. But think of it this way: in an act of abstaining, it is natural and quite expected that conception will not result. There is no contradiction between what the couple does and the outcome of the act. The same holds for waiting for an infertile time - it is highly likely (though perhaps not 100% so) that conception will not result. Therefore there is no contradiction between the act and expected outcome. There is, however, a contradiction between having sex during a fertile time, and doing something to frustrate the outcome that can be expected. The sin is in the contradiction between your action and what you "say" with the action.

A couple joining in the marital embrace (at whatever time, fertile or not) is saying something to each other and God. But if they use a condom/pill/device/surgical procedure to inhibit part of what can naturally happen in that embrace, they are now engaging in a contradictory message. In other words, there is a lie somewhere, isn't there? Try slapping someone in the face, and then earnestly saying 'I love you.' immediately afterwards. Surely your words lie, because the act of slapping does not connote love, even if 'in your heart' you intended to convey love. The action you choose to do it with matters.

I don't know how much different Protestant religions are influenced by situational ethics, but in the Catholic catechism, there is a section which effectively states that some actions, no matter the intent or outcome, are evil in themselves. The act(object chosen) itself is the sinful part. I am also not sure which particular branch of orthodox you are referring to - Greek, Russian, Albanian??? Unfortunately the Russian Orthodox Church has been an arm of the Communist Party in Russia, and we know what the Communist view of birth control is. So it would be helpful to know exactly who one is talking about when one says the Orthodox don't hold the same view as does the Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Deb Sullivan

-- Deb Sullivan (jsulmom@juno.com), August 10, 2003.


That was an outstanding addition, Deb.

The non-Catholic Christian needs to know too that users of NFP, who "tell the truth with their bodies," are much more likely to have happy marriages. They fall into divorce less than 5% of the time, compared to the 50% (or worse) of those who "lie with their bodies" by using contraception.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 11, 2003.


Sorry, but you guys are sounding like Bill Clinton trying to deny that he had sex with that woman . . . depending on what your definition of "is" is. :-)

No amount of word-twisting or semantical nuances will change the fact that a couple using NFP or contraceptives are both intending to do the same exact thing - have sex without resulting in a pregnancy.

That is the intent of their heart which seems to be violating the very principle who've put forth as a requirement for valid sex, specifically, a couple must intend to procreate.

Art can try to say the couple is intending to manage or space apart their children and think that's somehow different than the couple using contraception doing it for the exact same reason. But in both cases, they are still not wanting a pregnancy to result from this particular act of sex. And according to your own rules, that's wrong.

The bottom line is, if NFP'ers were truly trusting in God as you claim, they wouldn't be using NFP, they would just have sex whenever they felt the desire. By using NFP, they are in the same boat as contraceptioners.

As for which Orthodox church, I was specifically referring to the Greek Orthodox which is the only one I had specifically researched.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), August 11, 2003.


Dave,

You missed the point. According to the Catechism, actions have three components, not just one. There is object - the act itself, the intent, and the outcome. I was talking about object - not intent, or outcome. Abstaining and using a condom may very well have the same intent, but they are very different objects. To fall back on my example again, I may very well have in my heart the same intent to show love for a person when I hug them as when I slap them. But the actions, no matter what's in your heart, convey completely different meanings. A hug entails warmth; a slap entails pain.

Nobody said that abstaining or waiting for an infertile time is NOT intended to avoid pregnancy with that particular act. All I'm saying is that there is no contradiction between waiting to have sex until a relatively infertile time, and the intent or outcome of that particular act. Having fertile sex, and trying to make that act into infertile sex involves a lie between the act you choose and the intent you have.

Deb

-- Deb S. (jsulmom@juno.com), August 11, 2003.



Dave,

I may be wrong, but I'm also seeing confusion on your part as to 'Catholic rules' concerning the avoidance of pregnancy. Catholic morality does indeed allow for the spacing of children for very serious reason. A couple does not need to be *trying* to procreate with every single marital act, but within a particular sexual act, a couple may NOT do anything TO THAT ACT to change its fertility status. If the sexual act is fertile, the couple must leave it so. Couples using condoms/pills/devices/surgery do not leave it so, do they? If it is to be less fertile, the couple will still leave it so ( an exception obviously being non-abortive fertility treatments, if there is some medical problem). That is the whole meaning behind "being open to life" in every sexual act. If you choose the sexual act, you take it AS IS. If you can't take it as is, then respectfully abstain until you can.

Deb

-- Deb S. (jsulmom@juno.com), August 11, 2003.


It's not confusion you're seeing Deb, I now understand the Catholic position on this, I just disagree with it's flawed logic.

It's simply a contradiction to say that you must have a procreative intent in every sex act and then insist that it's OK to use NFP techniques to avoid pregnancy, which is what the official/original explanation states.

And I understand why it's important to you as a Catholic to frame it in such a way as to reconcile NFP with the Church law, by softening the position to say things like "frustration" must be an actual "blocking" of a pregnancy (using Art's terminology), but that's not what the originator of the law intended. Art even concedes saying that it's possible for a NFP'er to have a contraceptive mindset which would be a grave sin . . . and then he goes on to say it's OK to manage or space out the children . . but THAT IS the contraceptive mindset. That's why the logic is flawed and can't be reconciled with NFP proponents.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), August 11, 2003.


Dear Non-Christian Dave

in many ways this draws out the problems that you, and all other protestants, will face. you demand TOTAL PERSONAL SATISFACTION on each point of faith. your faith is ipso facto your own creation.

how by any standards do you call that "faith". its what you want to believe, but you stll consider the origin of such beliefs a god. you are the only "god" in such a scenario.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), August 11, 2003.


Last time, N-CC, I mentioned (more than once) that you seemed to me to have a "mental block" that would need time and prayer to remove. Having read your last two posts, though, I think that, rather than just one "block," you may have a high and thick wall made of bricks, and that could REALLY be hard to tear down! Worth a try, though.

I have to say a little prayer for patience now, because my previous batch of patience was worn thin by some things you wrote. I think that Deb and I really replied well to all of your concerns, but you just didn't grasp some of the things that we said. It seems to me as though you are fighting, resisting the truth. It feels as though you may be desperate to justify what you may have been doing for many years -- rather than to admit that it has been wrong, contrary to God's will. If that is what is happening here, it would be a showing of human weakness on your part, something that you would need to overcome.

(from two messages back) ------- That is the intent of their heart which seems to be violating the very principle you've put forth as a requirement for valid sex, specifically, a couple must intend to procreate.

(from one message back) ------- It's simply a contradiction to say that you must have a procreative intent in every sex act and then insist that it's OK to use NFP techniques to avoid pregnancy, which is what the official/original explanation states.

Notice that in both of these statements, you claim that we have said that "a couple must intend to procreate" or "must have a procreative intent in every sex act."

But somehow you missed the fact that I explained that we believe NO SUCH THING!!! I even ridiculed the redneck Bible-thumper's notion that Catholics think that God demands such an "intent in every sex act." Rather than "intend to procreate," we spoke of the requirement to be truly open to new life in every act, if that be God's will -- and to express that openness by not imposing a barrier to frustrate God's creative hand.

And so, you were so terribly wrong just now, when you told Deb, "It's not confusion you're seeing Deb, I now understand the Catholic position on this." Actually you still had a lot of "confusion," and you did not "understand the Catholic" teaching "on this." I hope that what I have just explained will remove some of your confusion -- ripping at least one brick off the wall. And because you were still confused, I won't take seriously your next few words -- "I just disagree with its flawed logic." Actually, as one should expect from an institution founded by God himself, there are no flaws in Catholic teaching on marriage, and that's why it has stood up to all scrutiny for 2,000 years -- even helping to draw some Protestant clergy and their wives into the Church. (You need to read or hear Scott and Kimberly Hahn on this.)

Art can try to say the couple is intending to manage or space apart their children and think that's somehow different than the couple using contraception doing it for the exact same reason. But in both cases, they are still not wanting a pregnancy to result from this particular act of sex. And according to your own rules, that's wrong.

Aha! Another couple of bricks that can be torn out of the wall.

First, while the contraceptors really "are not wanting a pregnancy to result" (their intention in contracepting), the virtuous NFP users don't have that mentality of "We want!" or "We don't want!" Instead, they are calmly open to God's will.

Second, you are trying to say that, if both NFP users and contraceptors have the goal of spacing children, the actions of the first couple are morally no better than those of the second. Terribly wrong! To use that illogic, you would have to approve of BOTH girls who passed a test, even though one studied hard, while the other used a "cheat-sheet." Likewise, you would have to approve of BOTH heads of household who brought home the bacon, even though one sweated honestly on the job, while the other snatched a purse. The point is that the end does not justify the means. The NFP users space children in a moral way, while the contraceptors space children in an immoral way. Today's contraceptors are, in the sexual sphere, the cheating girl and the purse-snatcher. And many of them are far worse, because they don't just space children responsibly but SELFISHLY -- having fewer children than they could (sometimes even none) -- so that they can enjoy more "creature comforts." Don't take this personally, because I know that you may not be guilty of selfishness yourself. The point is that such selfishness is very common among contraceptors, but almost totally non-existent among NFP users. The selfishness of so many contraceptors is one of the major factors in the profound deterioration of civilization in the last forty years.

The bottom line is, if NFP'ers were truly trusting in God as you claim, they wouldn't be using NFP, they would just have sex whenever they felt the desire. By using NFP, they are in the same boat as contraceptioners.

Certainly not! Another brick easy to remove from the wall here! God requires not just generous parenthood, but responsible parenthood. He expects prudent spacing of children -- which is his will -- and so he gives a couple a natural way of doing his will. It would be irresponsible, and against God's will, for many couples to engage in intercourse "whenever they felt the desire," because they might then not be able properly to care for all the children they would have.

I understand why it's important to you as a Catholic to frame it in such a way as to reconcile NFP with the Church law, by softening the position to say things like "frustration" must be an actual "blocking" of a pregnancy (using Art's terminology), but that's not what the originator of the law intended.

I have no idea what you mean by referring to the "originator of the law" and what he "intended." Be that as it may, Deb and I have just given you what was Catholic teaching before any of us was conceived! We haven't been "framing" anything or "reconciling" anything. What I said about frustration/blocking and the like was completely correct. That is what is wrong with contraception -- telling God, "NO! Keep out of our bodies. You may have wanted to create a new soul tonight, but we've got what it takes to stop ya, God!" It would never occur to virtuous NFP users to think such thoughts.

Art even concedes saying that it's possible for a NFP'er to have a contraceptive mindset which would be a grave sin . . . and then he goes on to say it's OK to manage or space out the children . . but THAT IS the contraceptive mindset.

Ouch! I explained this, but a brick got in the way, I guess! Let's tear it down. What I said before is that NFP users can demonstrate a contraceptive mind-set by using the practice without a serious reason to delay the first/next pregnancy. Note: "without a serious reason" -- i.e., selfishly, being closed to God's will. It is thus wrong to say that merely desiring "to manage or space out the children ... IS the contraceptive mindset." As I have now said many times, that mind-set also includes the rejection of God's desire to be the third participant in each marriage act, to bless it and sometimes to make it fruitful.

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 11, 2003.


Dave,

One more thing I would like to add on the matter of selfishness: The act of using artificial means to block fertility during an act of intercourse is INTRINSICALLY selfish. It doesn't matter that you have the best of intentions, and many contraceptors do. The act ITSELF vitiates what may be in your heart. The act ITSELF says to God 'we don't want to leave the gift of fertility You gave us as is.' Actions have a language all their own - that's why choice of object matters a great deal in this debate, and why you can't just dismiss it or ignore it. I ask again, how do those who either abstain or wait for infertile times CHANGE their fertility status in a PARTICULAR sexual act? Let's keep this discussion to analyzing objects chosen, because THAT is what is under debate here - not intentions or outcomes.

Deb

-- Deb S. (jsulmom@juno.com), August 12, 2003.


Dave - Consider this - God did not have to link sex with procreation. That is to say, He could, if He wished, cause women to randomly become pregnant whether they had sex or not. When He linked procreation with sex, He made human choice a factor, since a couple can choose not to have sex and therefore be certain no pregnancy can occur. Abstainence has always been availiable as a means of preventing pregnancy, and it is morally acceptable. It does not change the sex act in any way, since there is no sex act at all. NFP is simply a methoc of gathering information about a potential future sex act and it's likely consequences. The couple chooses whether to have sex or not. They may want to concieve, and choose to have sex on the most fertile day. I have used NFP to achieve pregnancy myself. Otherwise they may choose not to, in which case, there is no sex act to 'frustrate'. Sex during infertile periods is naturally infertile - it is God who made it so. Again, if He willed it, He could make women always fertile, or randomly fertile, but He chose that fertility should come and go in a predictable pattern with observable signs.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.

Sorry, Erika, I'm afraid I still don't agree (a year later :-) My arguments stated earlier have not yet been refuted and I still consider the act of an NFP couple avoiding sex to avoid pregnancy to be exactly the same thing as a couple using a condum to accomplish the same thing. I've considered the logic and reasoning presented by everyone on this thread, and still find it flawed if not intellectually dishonest. Thanks for taking the time to offer another angle for me to consider, I do appreciate it.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), December 05, 2004.


No you are being dishonest.

Contraceptive pills pollute the woman's biological ecosystem - which is why they work! Thus, even should the sperm survive the hostile environment (artificially produced) and fertilize the egg, the newly procreated human being may fail to attach, thus an early abortion due to the hostile conditions.

When however the woman is not fertile she is so for natural reasons, to wit, the muscus membrane's actual chemical composition is such that the sperm can't penetrate it. They aren't actively killed and the egg hasn't been released so it's not a question of a human induced chemical keeping the egg and sperm apart or killing them after they meet.

The intent to have sex while avoiding conception may be there, but the way this happens is not the same, ergo its not the same thing.

I may want to get money to buy a nice gift for my wife this Christmas. I can get a second job and thus earn the money, or use my free time to plot to hit a bank. Either way I will get the extra money and purchase a nice gift for my wife. But the first way respects the civil and moral law while the second doesn't.

Just because the consequence is the same, doesn't make the methods equal morally or really.

If you really thought there was no moral difference between NFP and the pill, then why not choose NFP as it is superior for the sake of inter-spousal communication and cooperation?

Ah, because the pill is easier and thoughtless and doesn't require cooperation... which means on a psychological level the two methods are not the same either...

Who's being dishonest here?

NFP requires mature communication an informed couple. The Pill doesn't.

NFP doesn't pollute the woman's ecology, has no side effects, doesn't mess with her biological ecosystem (hormones are powerful things to mess with), where as the Pill does all those things.

NFP doesn't forcibly keep or kill sperm from the egg or act as an abortifacient. The Pill does.

Just because the goal (sex without conception) is either identical or similar doesn't make the methods morally equal.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


The pill??? Whoever made the pill an issue here? I didn't.

The bottom line, for me at least, is that no matter how it is explained, a couple can't practice NFP and still be have the intent to procreate with each act of sex in order to fulfill the Catholic requirements to avoid mortal sin. If they are practicing NFP, they are not intending to procreate - period. And I find no validity in arguments that address being "open" to conception or spacing out the kids, etc. There is a core contradiction in supporting the Catholic law as stated here and NFP. Jesus taught us that our intents and thoughts are indeed sin - which is why we are taught to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. And the Catholic law that explains why birth control is a mortal sin addresses the thoughtful intent of the couple entering into the sex act - which is something I understand. What can't be explained is how NFP is any different when it comes to the root of sin, the thoughts, which are identical to the couple using a condum.

There's no need to continue posting on the subject. I asked some questions, learned some things and have drawn my conclusions. Thanks for the discussion, it was educational.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), December 06, 2004.


Openness to procreation is all that is required. A couple does NOT have to have the "intent" to procreate every time they make love. If that were the case they would have to abstain during infertile period! Would you REQUIRE couples to have relations during the fertile period? If not, then you agree that voluntarily abstention during the fertile period is acceptable.

There are two separate issues here. One is intent, the other is means. Artificial contraception is always immoral because the means itself is intrinsically immoral. In NFP the means - voluntary abstention - is not intrinsically immoral, so we only need to look at the intent. IF NFP were used simply as a substitute for artificial contraception, by a couple who just don't want children, that would constitute an immoral application of an otherwise acceptable practice. However, that would never happen because a couple who is closed to the possibility of children would use an artificial means which does not specifically provide a window of possibility. NFP is acceptable as a means of family planning - not family prevention - because it does not preclude the possibility of conception, and therefore leaves the couple open to God's will for them, even while pursuing goals which they themselves view as beneficial to their plans for raising a family. Artificial contraception says to God - No, we are not having children, regardless of what you want. NFP says to God - We think that having our children later would be better from various perspectives, however Your will be done.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2004.


"Artificial contraception says to God - No, we are not having children, regardless of what you want. NFP says to God - We think that having our children later would be better from various perspectives, however Your will be done."

Paul, one could technically then make the argument that anyone using, say a condom, have it fail (due to human or Divine intervention it doesn't matter), but also accept the baby joyfully do essentially the same as you state above. On the other hand, if one aborts the baby, that is a tragedy, and wrong.

"The best-laid plans of mice and men".....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 06, 2004.


No, one could not make that argument because using a condom is immoral of itself, while voluntary abstinence is not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2004.

Of course, the only way to have relations only when the woman is fertile is to do NFP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-D so you know it's coming, or have lots of relations during the month...

Ever wonder why in the Mosaic Law, the woman was considered unclean during her menstral period? Yep, for 7 days at least. That meant that after the end of the period, the couple would have relations starting in the infertile phase and ending only at menstration. One would presume that this "open" period included the 1 day window of ovalation.

They didn't of course know when the woman was fertile - neither did most anyone until this past century. Now that we do know, what are we to do with this knowledge? Abstain until we're sure we can procreate?

I agree that people can MISUSE NFP - just as I could mis-use a shovel or car in a sinful way... but surely NFP is not in and of itself sinful...and surely relations during a time when the couple thinks it highly unlikely to conceive isn't sinful.

To be sinful we need to take into account the act (not contraceptive), the intention (not contraceptive) and circumstances (married couple).

If the couple made some weird act of the will against conception - yet had sex anyway, that would at most constitute a venial sin since they didn't put any barrier to conception!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ