Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:00 PM']I was lamenting the fact that in our society it is so difficult to be in a situation where having large families is easy. Me and the fiance won't be getting married for a good 2 years (1-23-08 ) and what I meant by that was that I'm hoping by then to be well enough off financially that we can afford to not need to plan. It is not a positive thing that a couple has to plan out when to have their children and when not to. The preferable thing is a society wherein they would not be forced into that. and EENS, in the "olden days" the economic situation looked more favorably upon having more children. well, except during the great depression and well, even most Catholics didn't procreate big families during that time. today's economic climate has been drastically altered by the widespread use of birth control in that it is very difficult to get by having large families. of course, it can be done (and I think by most people) if sacrifices are made. expensive college is not a necessity of life to ever child you have. today's economic sitaution makes it difficult to be able to afford large families and that is an adequate reason for using NFP to space them (not indefinitely, because then the marriage itself is contraceptive). [right][snapback]904978[/snapback][/right] [/quote] i agree the economic situation does not favor large families that is a fact. i agree sacrifices can be made to fufill the this goal. We mustn't sacrifice truth becuase of an economic situation (i am not accusing you of this, you and i are actually agreeing on something). I have heard of many large catholic famiiles. i see a lot of young families with 4 or 5 kids at the indult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Humanae Vitae listed out a one size fits all categorically-- psychological, medical, or economic reasons. The economic reasons can be interpretted on a wide spectrum, everything from "my kids need to have the newest play station games all the time and every other modern device so I can't afford to have too many" which I would argue strongly against, even warning that such an attitude would be sinful twisting of the economic exception (play station was just an example, you know what I mean by it I assume, meaning the kid needs to get all the "stuff" all the "other kids" have blah blah blah) down to "we can't afford to feed a child", which is an end of the spectrum no one could argue against. somewhere along that spectrum a line is drawn, and the couple should consult an orthodox priest about where they need to draw that line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 6 2006, 11:59 PM']your right. these are the days of neo-modernism and novelty church teaching oops sorry i forgot [right][snapback]904975[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Sam, you need to learn not to speak when you know nothing of the subject at hand. The subject is "novel" because the "technology" of natural birth regulation really started to arise in the 20th century. Pope Pius XII approved it cautiously during his Pontificate, and the Church has since developed its teaching on the matter, as the technology itself has improved. John Paul's "Theology of the Body" has gone a long way to strengthening the theological argument behind NFP. Contraception is not a modern phenomena. Catholics contracepted in the "olden days" too. It was a particular temptation then, because people were generally poorer, and they knew nothing of natural birth regulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 you were arguing that is up to every couple to decided what constitues the contraceptive use of NFP. that rings of indifferntism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 [quote name='Aloysius' date='Mar 7 2006, 12:07 AM']Humanae Vitae listed out a one size fits all categorically-- psychological, medical, or economic reasons. [right][snapback]904985[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1) Humanae Vitae does not exhaust the Church's thought. 2) "Psychological, medical, and economic" are not one-size-fits-all definitions. They are general guidelines which require concrete application. This application, as I said, is flexible, and requires the moral discernment of each couple in the situation they find themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='Mar 7 2006, 12:12 AM']you were arguing that is up to every couple to decided what constitues the contraceptive use of NFP. that rings of indifferntism. [right][snapback]904991[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No, Sam, it has nothing to do with indifferentism. One factor may legitimately justify the regulation of pregnancy in one situation, while the same factor may not justify the regulation of pregnancy in another situation. This is a matter of moral application, and you can't define such application in a moral theology manual. It has to be addressed in real life situations, by each couple, with the guidance of their confessor. Edited March 7, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul recognized conjugal love as eminently human, but rooted in God's love for His people. He saw it as the dynamic element in every marriage, bringing permanence to the marriage and enabling the couple to make wise, generous, and responsible decisions about the spacing of births and the size of their family. Humanae Vitae provides a positive and dignified understanding of sexuality as a gift from God which ennobles, enriches, and reconciles married couples. Through sexual union, couples strengthen their marital relationship and participate in a special way in God's creation of new life. From this follows the profound meaning of a life of intimacy--that communion of two persons who must be open to each other in a mutual self-donation that reaches its apex in the loving union that bears fruit in children. Spouses are called to celebrate their conjugal love by becoming one flesh in the Lord, and to see their sexual intimacy in the context of God's creative role and the nature of marriage itself. By remaining open to life each time they come together in the conjugal embrace, by preserving "the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning" (HV 12), married couples reverence the presence of God in their union. In truth, the Church teaches that there are two aspects of marital intercourse--the strengthening of interpersonal unity between the spouses, and the procreation of new life. These two goods are inseparable--not in the sense that both must be achieved in every act of conjugal intimacy, but in the sense that one may not deliberately act against either good in any act of conjugal intimacy. Responsible parenthood, then, implies a positive openness to life. It is a decision that couples make mutually and prayerfully, confident that God's grace will complement their generosity. Couples should make decisions about spacing births and the size of their families free of coercion or pressure. Taking into account their mutual responsibilities to God, themselves, their family, and the society of which they are a part, in a correct hierarchy of values, a couple may responsibly decide to delay childbearing. Or a husband or wife may conclude that they are unable to have more children. In the formation of their consciences, however, the couple must be well-instructed in and guided "by objective standards . . . that preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love" (Gaudium et Spes 51). [quote name='USCCB']As we reflect on the teaching of Humanae Vitae, we recognize the advances in natural family planning [NFP] and the efforts of scientists, pastors, and married couples committed to "instilling conviction and offering practical help to those who wish to live out their parenthood in a truly responsible way" (FC 35). With proper instruction, married couples can readily understand the cycle of fertility and they are able to plan and space births in a way that is both consistent with God's law and supportive of their own intimacy and unity. Natural family planning, as Pope John Paul II reminds us, "involves accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self-control" (FC 32). And as Paul VI noted in Humanae Vitae, its benefits to married couples are many: It demands continual effort, yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one's partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love, and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring (HV 21). Natural family planning gives couples a richer appreciation of human sexuality and of their own marital relationship, and it strengthens their openness to childbearing.[/quote] I think that looking at what the USCCB says, what the Church teaches and what our conscience speaks to us, we can see that what impregnates (pun intended) the whole of this is responsibility. Sometimes it is more responsible to abstain from sexual intimacy during those times when it would not normally be natural to do so. As humans, we have the gift of reason. We can choose to abstain and we can choose to be responsible in the areas of parenting, sexuality, and a myriad of other areas. This separates us from other animals which are based solely on instinct. Natural Family Planning is not, I repeat not contraception. It is responsible conception. What is the purpose of NFP? Achievement of pregnancy by understanding the fertility cycle better and learning when the probability of concieving is highest. Then engaging in the sexual act at that time. Remember, having sex is not a right, it is a privelege. Even those who are married are called to chasitity. Part of this is continence. There are times within the marriage, in which the sexual act is not appropriate. NFP, optimizes the sexual action. It does not prevent the sexual union but sacntifies it. Remember the threefold meaning of the sexual action. 1. Sacramental 2. Unitive 3. Procreative Does NFP contradict any of these things? No. Does contraception contradict any of these things? Yes. Can NFP be used inappropriately? Yep. It can be used as contraception, in order to avoid pregnancy. This mindset is not in keeping with Catholic teaching. The Catholic mindset of NFP is as stated above. It is not to avoid pregnancy, but rather to promote, through proper chastity, the conception and birth of a child. Three quotes from Fr. Frank Pavone: [quote]NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.[/quote] [quote]NFP is not just a "method" based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, "I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge." Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple's sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.[/quote] [quote]As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that "we don't want children at this time", there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing "family planning", but "family avoidance"![/quote] These are my thoughts I have posted here on NFP over the last year or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 (edited) I think all couples need to start out with a clear understanding of their vocation, which is intimately bound up in the begetting of children. A couple which is lukewarm in its desire to beget children would be like a missionary who is lukewarm in their desire to convert souls. When this first principle is understood and truly taken to heart, I think the couple will have a strong foundation on which to discern their situation and whether or not they should delay pregnancy. It won't be a question of selfish desire (as in the Playstation example), but a true committment to responsible parenthood. Edited March 7, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 NFP can never be used as contraception by definition. It does not interupt the sex act. Contraception always changes the physical act itself to try to interupt procreation. NFP never introduces changes to the conjugal act, merely regulates when the conjugal act takes place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Yes, which is why Paul VI says the method in itself does not in the least offend moral principals. but it can be used with a contraceptive mentality, and it wouldn't be the method offending moral principals but the mentality behind the method in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Right. In the same way the conjugal act itself can become lustful, even if there are no illicit physical practices introduced. Contraception is ultimately a mentality, a "using" of the other person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 could it be argued that NFP is morally neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 I believe this subject has been touched upon (in the context of its use by newlyweds) in a previous thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39329"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39329[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 [quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 7 2006, 06:24 PM']I believe this subject has been touched upon (in the context of its use by newlyweds) in a previous thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39329"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=39329[/url] [right][snapback]905845[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I was just getting ready to give a link to that! That thread got locked after getting rather ugly. Here we go again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photosynthesis Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 well, I didn't want things to get ugly at all... a friend of mine (who recently decided to return to the sacraments and study the Catholic Faith) and I were talking about this topic and both of us had some questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts