Posted on 08/16/2005 1:48:10 PM PDT by NYer
Dear Salvation,
Thanks, although I read it first from Brian.
sitetest
Jesus said, "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." In context, of course, He was talking about divorce. However, the idea is equally applicable to contraception. God "joined together" sex and conception. For man to separate them, either by having sex while intentionally preventing conception, or by conceiving children outside the natural process, is a violation of God's design for humanity.
In contrast, the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy does not separate sex and conception. It simply avoids both, for a particular time. However, it's important to remember that the Church says that abstinence may be used to avoid conception only for "grave reasons" or "serious motives." Obviously, this is a very subjective question, but it's one that every couple is required to consider with real generosity. None of us can judge what is "serious" for another couple, but we can be sure that God is calling all of toward a conscientous openness to life, and not merely an objective acceptance of conception "if we have a surprise."
It could be that your "Couple A" has a serious medical reason for avoiding pregnancy. Or perhaps they have a disastrous marriage, but decide not to divorce due to their belief in the sanctity of their vows, in spite of the outcome. It is possible that their motives for avoiding pregnancy are within what the Church would consider "serious reasons." (Have you read "Humanae Vitae"? That would help a lot!)
Your Couple B is practicing sin, irrespective of the outcome. The seriousness of their sin depends on their level of knowledge and the nature of the relationship; as you know, mortal sin requires "Grave matter," which this is, but also "Full knowledge," and "Full consent of the will." From a personal standpoint (pardon my psychological baggage) I would not let a man use me as a toilet year after year, without being open to having children. He could have affairs, he could file for divorce, he could climb Mount Everest, but I simply wouldn't stand for it.
Both couples perverted their marriages differently. Couple A is deliberately childless. This is against the Church's teaching even if they used NFP. The Church only allows NFP for the purposes of pregancy prevention if prudent consideration exists to avoid a pregnancy at that particular time. For example, it is OK to prevent a pregnancy when probability of a birth defect is high, or there are grave health risks due to the age of the couple, or the couple truly cannot afford the child. It is also OK to delay a pregnancy for health or economic reason. It is not OK to prevent a pregnancy for frivolous reasons such as lack of affection for children or desire to maintain two careers, regardless of the method.
Couple B resisted the purpose of their marriage by denying themselves the gifts of unitive and procreative intercourse. Despite God's steering them in the right direction with the unintended pregnancies, they refuse to hear His command, They insult their children by referring to them as mistakes (whether or not they use the word themselves, their life objectively treats children as mistakes of contraception). The happy outcome of four children does not accrue to their merit because they resisted God's procreative work in them.
You might also want to invest $2 or so in Marilyn's "Managing Morning Sickness" brochure, just in case!
Before I go on I want to you undestand I am NOT trying to pick a fight. I'm just a person struggling mightily with this teaching. Allright then......
"In contrast, the use of NFP to avoid pregnancy does not separate sex and conception. It simply avoids both, for a particular time."
That is untrue! NFP allows couples to engage on a very calculating method....the pleasure of love-making WITHOUT the probability of conception. Yes, I know there is a time where there is a cease and desist. But there is also a time where the pleasure of love-making is engaged WITHOUT the chance of conception. And it is here that I struggle mightily with the Catholic teaching. There are couples who engage in sex while practicing birth-control and become pregnant and go on to have their children accordingly. NFP'ers brag about the effectiveness of their method. Think about that for a moment.....NFP practitioners brag about the effectiveness of their method over and above the "other" forbidden methods. They are essentially bragging about the ability to NOT BRING LIFE INTO THE WORLD!
It could be that your "Couple A" has a serious medical reason for avoiding pregnancy. Or perhaps they have a disastrous marriage, but decide not to divorce due to their belief in the sanctity of their vows, in spite of the outcome. It is possible that their motives for avoiding pregnancy are within what the Church would consider "serious reasons." (Have you read "Humanae Vitae"? That would help a lot!)"
What if that couple just wanted to be in line with the Catholic teaching....Nothing more!
"For example, it is OK to prevent a pregnancy when probability of a birth defect is high, or there are grave health risks due to the age of the couple, or the couple truly cannot afford the child."
So then.......the difference is INTENT and NOT the method by which the intent is applied. If that's the case......a couple nearing the age of infertility is not in grave danger if they had a vasectomy, right?
So does this mean that to be a good Catholic ya gotta have a dozen or so kids wether or not you can afford to care for them properly?
So? The Church does not forbid enjoyng sex within marriage when the chance of pregnancy is ordinarily nil. The Church does not forbid from exercising prudent judgement and even praise such effective judgement. What it does forbid is
(1) any gesture of disrespect or exclusion of God, especially in matter where God plays a pivotal role;
(2) any violation of the commandment to be fruitful over the course of marital life, -- that is, it forbids deliberate childnessness.
It is not in line with Catholic teaching to avoid conception without a serious reason. Have you read the Catechism? Have you read "Human Vitae"? It is not "Catholic teaching" to use natural methods to avoid conception universally.
If they wanted to be "in line with Catholic teaching" straight up, they would view the primary end of their marriage as the procreation and education of children, and would therefore have as many children as naturally resulted during the marriage. The use of NFP to avoid pregnancy is AN EXCEPTION to the generalization that children are an unmerited gift from God, for which we should long, which we should accept without reservation.
Dear Prolifeconservative,
Between NFP and artificial means, it doesn't have to do with intention, but rather it has to do with the inherent nature of the METHOD.
That's why the analogy of the dieter versus the bulimic.
It's tough to fault the dieter for trying to shed a few pounds by eating a little less.
Nonetheless, that we accept the worthiness of dieting does not mean we must accept the worthiness of bulimia.
As for folks who use NFP to NEVER have children, well, we'd call a dieter who diets to extreme excess an anorexic, which is also a disordered state. The INTENTION is also important, and for the anorexic, the intention has gone beyond what is healthy.
Intention is important, but using means that are not intrinsically evil is equally important.
sitetest
I could split the hairs again in your post to me. I am not going there anymore. I will just remain utterly confused on this one teaching of the Catholic Church.
As I said in my opening post, I think the spiritual difference between NFPer's and those practicing artificial birth control are very, very minute. The bottom line for me, they both are INTENT on preventing a pregnancy/bringing life into the world at a particular time in their lives. The method by which they accomplish this is, at least to me, simply splitting hairs.
The difference is both intent and the method. The use of NFP to avoid pregancy is invalid if the intent is invalid, namely if the intent is, for example, to have two uninterrupted careers.
The use of contraception is invalid method even when the intent, as with an older couple, is valid.
Vasectomy, on top of everything else, is self-mutilation, which is an additional sin.
This moral teaching about intent and method should not surprise anyone, as we are familiar with it in other areas of life. For example, we don't steal money (improper method of getting rich) even though the intent might be proper, to pay for the college. Nor do we display wealth in order to impress the neighbor (improper intent) even though the method of making that money, engaging in honest commerce, is proper.
If you think that's true, then you've never tried to figure the conception date of a child, and ended up saying "Dang it - there's no way ... but here it is anyway!" There is *always* a possibility of conception if a couple is (a) not infertile for some medical reason, and (b) not deliberately preventing conception through barriers, chemicals, etc.
View my profile page, and note my Sally (the guileless blonde, holding flowers, sitting with her grandfather.) There is *always* a possibility of conception.
Well, God didn't give us pacemakers as part of our anatomy, is that also sinful and a perversion of the God-given heartbeat? For that matter, he also didn't give us stomach feeding tubes, so is it sinful to insert one into a person's belly?
The difference is roughly, between coming to church to pray and coming to church, turning your back to the altar, plugging in earphones and listening to Smashing Pumpkins. The intent in both cases is to be in church...
A heart attack is a bad thing. Starvation is a bad thing. Avoiding those outcomes (by any moral means) is good. A child is a good thing. Avoiding that outcome, even by morally-acceptable means, requires a strong reason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.