NFP

[argent_paladin]

DJ, that is a red herring. As you know, being a miracle in a series of miracles, the marriage of the Holy Family is unique and not recommeded when constructing a system of morality.

But, if you like Thomas so much, you would know the answer. Basically, a marriage is true if it is uniative and procreative, or really ordered toward the union of souls and the begetting of children. Of course, Mary and Joseph pass the first test. And they pass the second because of the VIRGIN BIRTH.
However, for the rest of humanity, sex is a prerequisite for pregnancy and birth. So, while it is not strictly necessary to intend to have sex (only to intend to have children) in all other cases, barring Mary, they amount to the same thing.
I repeat, [b]it is not a valid marriage if the couple doesn't intend to have childen. [/b]If the couple doesn't intend to have sex, they do not intend to have childen (unless the Holy Spirit has visited you and concieved the Son of God in your womb).
So, you have still not replied to my question. If marriage is ordered toward unity and procreativity, most excellently displayed in the marriage act, then why exclude it when you said that it is morally permissible? And especially since, in reality, we need to account for our sinful nature, as Paul said and allow for couples to transform their concupiscence.
Here is Thomas on Mary:
[quote]Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Matthew 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse."

But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none."

[/quote]

[argent_paladin]

I was responding specifically to this sentence:
"Objectively it IS about regulating."

Objectively, it is about measuring and charting. Regulating is an intention and is therefore subjective. "I intend to regulate my pregnancies". This subjective intention, however, is not immoral because we don't know what the end of the intention is. But it is still not objective because we can't see or measure someone "regulating" only someone measuring and charting.

[God Conquers]

There's only one question I can answer on this thread:

Why does the subject of NFP make people's blood boil over?

Because it's about sex.

If Don John is correct in what he's saying, as are the others who support him, although maybe simply in that most people's intent in using NFP is misguided, then that probably means there are some people around who need to re-think NFP... ie rethink children and rethink sex with my wife.

If that wouldn't get me riled up, I'm not sure what would.

[IcePrincessKRS]

reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
[b]
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.[/b]
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.
3. To adjust a mechanism for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order.

I still think that one can say that regulating is objective. We disagree. Its all gravy.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:33 PM']There's only one question I can answer on this thread:

Why does the subject of NFP make people's blood boil over?

Because it's about sex.

If Don John is correct in what he's saying, as are the others who support him, although maybe simply in that most people's intent in using NFP is misguided, then that probably means there are some people around who need to re-think NFP... ie rethink children and rethink sex with my wife.

If that wouldn't get me riled up, I'm not sure what would.
[right][snapback]716016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:18 PM']i don't understand what anyone is saying  
[right][snapback]716001[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
me neither. but that won't stop me from expressing my opinion!
I basically think NFP is no good, unless there is a grave reason for it. And most people don't qualify. So, I believe that most people who use it, don't qualify and may need to reexamine themselves. I believe it fosters a contraceptive mentality, because the bottom line is: no babies.

actually, my opinion is found here, in two letters from Crisis I found:

NFP Can Be Abused

I want to thank Charlotte Hays for including papal documents on must-reads for NFP ("Solving the Puzzle of Natural Family Planning," December 2001). It is necessary for any Catholic, not just for those teaching NFP, to become immersed in Church documents in order to be true believers and to understand the larger moral picture of this issue.

As Hays illustrates in her article, there is a peril with NFP, which is presenting it as "an alternative to artificial contraception that the Church considers acceptable." In my view, this message reinforces a contraceptive men- tality. Even more so when it is followed by the assumption that persuading doctors and priests about NFP, and getting more people trained to teach NFP, will result in more Catholics practicing it.

Eight years ago, being engaged to an American and getting married in Spain, I attended two marriage preparation programs. Sadly, the marriage program I attended at my parish in Madrid had a nonbeliever OB-GYN giving the family planning classes, and he included artificial methods of birth control as part of it. My "controversial" conversation primarily was with the pastor for choosing him.

The program I attended here at a Catholic Family Center had two couples teaching NFP. Although believers, their focus was on the methods. "The spirit" was very much forgotten.

Yes, married Catholics should have "fertility awareness" but certainly with openness to life. That means understanding that NFP is a natural way of regulating procreation. Therefore, NFP is not beneficial per se, but only when "there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances" (Humanae Vitae).

That's why it puzzles me to see a "just-married" couple carrying "The Complete NFP Guide" on the cover of this issue! I wonder which well-grounded reasons for spacing children one might have at the beginning of married life!

Blanca Reilly
Vienna, Virginia


NFP and Birth Control-What's the Difference?

Your December issue featured a lengthy article on NFP ("Solving the Puzzle of Natural Family Planning"), and it emphasized that NFP is morally permissible, but the use of contraception is not-that is, contraception is a mortal sin. I cannot accept this teaching for this reason: Either both NFP and birth control are morally permissible, or both are mortally sinful. It violates logic to say that NFP is fine, but contraception is mortally sinful.

In his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) Pius XI says: "Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and nature, and those who indulge in it are branded with the guilt of grave sin." I submit that the phrase "any use" in this passage includes NFP as well as contraception, and so a literal reading of Casti Connubii must lead one to the conclusion that the pope is condemning NFP as well as contraception. He makes no distinction between the two in his encyclical.

Most moral theologians hold that it is a person's intention that defines whether an act is sinful or not, and those using NFP have the same intention as those using contraception: to prevent the conception of a child in the mother's womb. It is impossible to explain to most people's satisfaction why one method is permissible and the other is sinful.

A fundamental teaching of the Catholic and Christian faith is the primacy of conscience-that a person must follow his or her conscience in all things. It is possible that a person's conscience might tell him or her that in a given situation the use of contraception within marriage is morally permissible, and that person's decision in conscience must be respected. Anyone who would tell such a person that he or she will go to hell if he or she uses contraception in good conscience is not a Christian but a Pharisee, and we know that the people whom Christ condemned more than anyone else were the hypocritical, judgmental Pharisees.

James P. Ward
Claymont, Delaware






Anyway, I agree with God Conquers. Anytime you make someone examine themselves it tends to get heated...That's why I always assume I've done the worst thing possible. It makes it easier to accept correction and keeps me humble.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:28 PM']DJ, that is a red herring. As you know, being a miracle in a series of miracles, the marriage of the Holy Family is unique and not recommeded when constructing a system of morality.

But, if you like Thomas so much, you would know the answer. Basically, a marriage is true if it is uniative and procreative, or really ordered toward the union of souls and the begetting of children.  Of course, Mary and Joseph pass the first test. And they pass the second because of the VIRGIN BIRTH.
However, for the rest of humanity, sex is a prerequisite for pregnancy and birth. So, while it is not strictly necessary to intend to have sex (only to intend to have children) in all other cases, barring Mary, they amount to the same thing.
I repeat, [b]it is not a valid marriage if the couple doesn't intend to have childen. [/b]If the couple doesn't intend to have sex, they do not intend to have childen (unless the Holy Spirit has visited you and concieved the Son of God in your womb).
So, you have still not replied to my question. If marriage is ordered toward unity and procreativity, most excellently displayed in the marriage act, then why exclude it when you said that it is morally permissible? And especially since, in reality, we need to account for our sinful nature, as Paul said and allow for couples to transform their concupiscence.
Here is Thomas on Mary:
[right][snapback]716011[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is not a red herring, you were the one who said not having sex in marriage was gravely immoral, not I. You didn't even put conditions on the statement, for example I would agree that withholding sex from a spouse without their consent or extremely grave reason such as having sex has areasonable chance of being fatal or the like, would be immoral, but throughout history consentual abstainance with in mariage has been considered licit or even exemplary-- Edward the Confessor springs to mind, as does the fact that it was not uncommon for married people to both go live in religious life during the middle ages, this was not condenmed but praised.

[argent_paladin]

"1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law."

That's exactly why I used the examples. Inherent in the definition of "regulate" is "according to a rule". However, there is no objective way to know if someone is taking an action according to a rule or just taking an action for another reason. If someone is regulating, we must know that they are acting according to a rule, but the only way we can know that is to get inside their head, to understand their motivation. That is subjective. Therefore, regulation is a subjective term.

[argent_paladin]

DJ, I don't think we are really disagreeing too much about the issues. It is more style than substance. I think the examples of the past were usually when the woman was past child-bearing years and the couple decided to offer their sexuality as a sacrifice to God, which is good. But, if one intended to refrain from sex from the moment of marriage, it would be invalid. That is the difference. I think you will be interested in the other NFP thread that I started, since it deals with a similar issue.
But you still haven't answered my question:
Why do you say that it is better to refrain from sex for a couple of years rather than practice NFP if it is morally acceptable. I have asked the question about three times and still am awaiting an answer. I assume that you don't mean it is better for a handful of saints but better for most faithful Catholics. I don't follow your reasoning.