Posted on 08/19/2003 3:12:40 PM PDT by Diago
Maybe it is projection but I think my kids were satisfied having been learnt the objective Truth that all sexual activity outside marriage is sinful while being given a book on NFP and they were more at ease with that than if me and my wife sat down with them to discuss it and how it might/might not have applied to us.
To me, it is sort of creepy to entertain what you suggest.
Here is what Pope Pius XII said on the subject. He is the one who defined the Catholic doctrine.
On married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.This philosophy which Pope Pius XII condemned is the very definition of the NFP promotion industry. They wish to "avoid the fecundity of their union," while "continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality." Most apt is the phrase "to the full," since among the NFP promoters you will generally find all sorts of material about getting more satisfaction from one's sex life, using NFP to enhance marital intimacy, etc. All the while avoiding the "burden" of children.Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
So while the use of periodic continence in grave circumstances is allowable, the philosophy of the NFP promoters is, in the words of Pope Pius XII, "the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles."
You are made to feel old-fashioned, backwards, and "squeamish," but really you are just exhibiting the admirable qualities of delicacy and modesty. Some subjects are better not discussed. This has been emphasized by several popes. But there is a movement to turn virtue into a fault, and to make the faults of immodesty and indelicacy into virtues.
Probably. But NFP isn't sex. I am talking about discussing the charting and how to distinguish fertile from less-fertile times in each cycle. This is basic knowledge of female physiology, it's not talking about sex.
if me and my wife sat down with them to discuss it and how it might/might not have applied to us. To me, it is sort of creepy to entertain what you suggest.
Again, I am not talking about going into every detail of your sex habits and decisions. Merely explainaing by example how one goes about determining the various stages of the woman's cycle.
SD
Just for fun, let's highlight that instead. Serious motives may exempt husband and wife for a long period. So not every use of NFP is a violation as you seem to be saying.
Here's something to consider as well: The methods of NFP are morally neutral. Couples like my wife and I have used the techniques to try to conceive. To try to do our duty. Remaining ignorant about the fertility of one's spouse is certainly not a blessed thing when one has the duty to bring forth children.
This philosophy which Pope Pius XII condemned is the very definition of the NFP promotion industry.
Now we are to the meat. Where do we find this "promotion industry" and where are the evil things they say? Let me see them before we judge.
Most apt is the phrase "to the full," since among the NFP promoters you will generally find all sorts of material about getting more satisfaction from one's sex life, using NFP to enhance marital intimacy, etc. All the while avoiding the "burden" of children.
OK. Show me. I know my wife and I attended a class sponsored by the local Catholic Charities and I heard nothing like this. The teacher was even pregnant herself!
BTW, the idea of "enhancing marital intimacy" means that the man is not an oafish lout demanding sex when and where he wants it, but instead is cognizant of his wife's cycles. I know, this is just too much information for some "old school" types.
SD
We will just have to disagree here. I really don't think your way is superior to the way me and my wife conducted ourselves. Diffenrent strokes for different folks as the Hipppy-dippy's used to say.
We informed our kids about Catholic Doctrine and so we discharged our duties according to our abilities and sensibilities.
In fact, I said just the opposite -- "periodic continence" is not a moral violation when it's done for grave motives. Besides there were hardly any words of mine in the post. It was 90% Pope Pius XII.
The methods of NFP are morally neutral.
You're making this statement as your own opinion. But Pope Pius XII presented the issue differently. Violating the primary purpose of marriage is not morally neutral. Firing a gun is a morally neutral act. But firing one at a person is not a morally neutral act. Practising abstinence is a morally neutral act. But abstaining from sex only on the days when you might get pregnant is not a morally neutral act, it's a deliberate attempt to frustrate the purpose of marriage and the nature of the marital act.
Where do we find this "promotion industry" and where are the evil things they say?
Try the article that started this thread. That's what we're discussing, isn't it?
I know, this is just too much information for some "old school" types.
Here's some information that you might consider "too much." One of the most un-natural parts of NFP is that it means that the woman only has intercourse during the times that she has no inclination. By definition, the signs of NFP indicate whether the woman is receptive or not, and you only have intercourse during the times that she is not.
This philosophy claims that we can overcome concupisence.[sic]
It does? That's kind of funny... I've been studying personalism as well as the Theology of the Body (and they're two different things) for well over a year, and I don't recall any claims that we can 'overcome' concupiscence. You aren't being exactly clear with your use of the word 'overcome' there, though; if you're claiming that John Paul II has taught in the Theology of the Body that humans can completely rid themselves of concupiscence... well, I suppose I'd ask you for some kind of citation, because I've seen nothing of the sort. If, however, you're using the word 'overcome' to mean something like being able to resist the sinful tendencies caused by our darkened intellect and will and our disordered passions... well, then the Church claims exactly this--that we can resist them by God's grace.
Perhaps what you're alluding to in this way-off-base claim is the fact that, in the Theology of the Body (which is theology, not philosophy, although His Holiness' personalist understanding of the self does play into the theology, just as St. Thomas' Aristotelian philosophy was present in his theology), there is an emphasis on what human beings were like in the state of innocence--but only so that we can understand that from which we have fallen, in order that we have, where appropriate, the 'goal' of what we are aiming for in the moral life more clearly before our minds. His Holiness is very attentive to distinguishing between those parts of original innocence towards which we can still strive and those towards which we are not to strive after the Fall (since our salvation, and ultimately our glorification, in Christ is not a restoration of the preternatural graces). The Holy Father does say that he is doing something 'new' in focusing more specifically on the state of original innocence, but he is very attentive to the possible pitfalls of his approach, and he doesn't to my knowledge claim anything like what you are saying. In any event, all that the Theology of the Body seeks to do is to deepen our understanding of human nature and the human condition, primarily in light of what we can learn from the early chapters of Genesis. We do this (examine human nature) for the same reason that Aristotle and Thomas did in their ethics: to provide some clearer goals before our minds for the moral life.
For some reason, you're lumping personalism, which is a semi-major 20th century philosophical movement, with some of the theological writings of the current pope. Forgive me if this is incorrect, but it seems that your claim is the result of either ignorance or malice. While, as I said, the pope's theology involves certain personalistic ideas, there is a large body of personalist writing outside of the pre-pontificate philosophical writings of Karol Wojtyla and his theological writings as pope.
Now, as for the weird stuff that this Popcak character is saying... to condemn the theology of the current pope because one writer (I'll stand by Christopher West, by the way, with only a few exceptions) uses some inappropriate imagery and suggests some weird practices for educating children about human sexuality is rather silly. I don't know Popcak's work and I don't know how much what's quoted in this article is placed in its proper context, so I won't condemn him outright; however, no matter how bad Popcak's ideas are, you're making quite a stretch to condemn all personalism and all of the Theology of the Body. It's the same move that Martin Luther made in condemning Thomistic thought because of the weird excesses of the Scholastics of his day (who, in fact, misinterpreted Thomas all over the place).
You're making this statement as your own opinion. But Pope Pius XII presented the issue differently. Violating the primary purpose of marriage is not morally neutral. Firing a gun is a morally neutral act. But firing one at a person is not a morally neutral act. Practising abstinence is a morally neutral act. But abstaining from sex only on the days when you might get pregnant is not a morally neutral act, it's a deliberate attempt to frustrate the purpose of marriage and the nature of the marital act.
I'm sorry we're not communicating well. I thought I was clear that NFP can be used to try to conceive or to avoid conception. So when I said "the methods of NFP" I mean the scientific measurments and observations about the woman's body. Learning about the temperature changes and changes in cervical mucus consistency are morally neutral. It is just information. One can then decide what to do with the information.
Certainly, you would agree that using these methods to determine the best time to try to conceive is a better use of our "talents" than just having intercourse on a whim. If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.
Try the article that started this thread. That's what we're discussing, isn't it?
I didn't realize we were supposed to read the article before posting. It looks like a lot to slog through. ;-)
SD
I know my strengths (few) and my weaknesses (many) but I spoke with my children about Jesus, the Purpose of Life and objective morality from the get go. But sex? No. I would argue that speaking about sex violates the latency of children. Now, I hope nobody translates that into the idea I favor ignorance. I favor prudence, and modesty above techinical knowledge and I have found a Sensus Catholicus (sp?) serves one far better, at least for me, than technical expertise in matters of sex.
Could I have done better? Sure. But, given my limitations I did the best I could. I have no doubt my kids will be virgins on their wedding day. That confidence absolutely rankles my friends and acquaintances. When my kids are married adults, it is THEIR responsibility, as adults, to know what H.M. Church teaches. If they ask me any questions, I am fully prepared to shudder and say, "Go ask your Mom."
I just have an intuitive sense such matters should be approached very cautiously. Of course, that leaves me open to the criticism there is no siuch thing as Fatherly intuition. C'est la vie.
However, I have run into INCREDIBLY bright folks in here who have far more knowledge than me, so, I am willing to admit I am wrong.
I haven't seen where my approach with my kids has been wrong though.
Thanks for the encouraging word.
Actually, it seems that we're communicating better.
It is just information. One can then decide what to do with the information.
I'm troubled by this statement, but I'd have to do some more research and thinking before I could respond. Instinctively, however, my reaction is negative. It seems to me that information is rarely neutral.
If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.
Once again, my instinctive reaction is negative, although I would need to do some thinking and reading before I could respond intelligently. But this sounds wrong. If our goal is total reliance on divine providence, then this seems like an attitude that is just as far away as is the opposite one.
I'm troubled by this statement, but I'd have to do some more research and thinking before I could respond. Instinctively, however, my reaction is negative. It seems to me that information is rarely neutral.
The information is "what was your wife's body temperature this morning when she woke up." If you think this information contains some type of bias, I can't imagine what it might be.
If we are of a duty to create children, then I would think that all Cahtolics should learn how to determine the best times for such a thing.
Once again, my instinctive reaction is negative, although I would need to do some thinking and reading before I could respond intelligently. But this sounds wrong. If our goal is total reliance on divine providence, then this seems like an attitude that is just as far away as is the opposite one.
We have other Christian duties besides populating God's Kingdom, right? We should do good works and help the poor, etc. Do you think collecting information and trying to make intelligent decisions on how to help the poor is somehow taking away from our reliance on God's providence?
Should we just flail away blindfolded at whatever we are called to do, because gathering information and making use of it is somehow contrary to God's wishes?
Why is the subject of being open to children different? If we want children why shouldn't we know when would be the best time to attempt to conceive? Why is ignorance a better position?
SD
Oh my, that long, really? I will be too intimidated to discuss this topic with someone of your erudition.
You aren't being exactly clear with your use of the word 'overcome' there
Modern philosophies aren't exactly clear either. Ambiguity is one of their prime characteristics. That's why you have to search for the "meaning" of what they're saying.
His Holiness is very attentive to distinguishing between those parts of original innocence towards which we can still strive and those towards which we are not to strive after the Fall
Wrong. Let's take the topic that started this discussion -- the obedience and submission of wives to their husbands. It was a thread on that topic which brought up the issue of Popcak and personalism. The pope makes the egregious argument that Eve was not subject to Adam before the Fall, therefore, if we are striving towards "original innocence," then submission and obedience are not virtues but are effects of original sin. It's hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of the way in which searching for a lost "original innocence" leads precisely to the error which you claim it does not.
The Holy Father does say that he is doing something 'new' in focusing more specifically on the state of original innocence, but he is very attentive to the possible pitfalls of his approach
So we agree that this is not traditional Catholic theology. We can agree that this approach has no basis in tradition or magisterial teaching, or even in the accepted interpretations of Scripture. As to the pitfalls, he is not nearly attentive enough.
For some reason, you're lumping personalism, which is a semi-major 20th century philosophical movement, with some of the theological writings of the current pope.
"For some reason," yes what could it be? Maybe it's because JPII has come right out and said that his approach is "personalism"? Maybe because the week after the release of Humanae Vitae, Cardinal Wojtyla gave a major speech in support of the encyclical praising its new approach which would now be based on "personalism"? Maybe because Pope Paul VI himself said that the new approach represented by Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae was "thoroughly personalistic"? Maybe because every scholar who writes on the subject claims that the pope's "theology of the body" is an example of applied personalism? I wonder if these would be a few reasons to "lump them together"?
While I find your arguments unconvincing, I will not presume to accuse you of ignorance, malice, or copying the methods of Martin Luther. After a whole year of studying personalism, it's clear that at least the "ignorance" epithet would not apply.
Is it Ok if the wife learns such things then?
I have tried to show that such knowledge of the workings of the woman can be used legitimately both for helping troubled couples to conceive and for spacing children out for grave reason. So is it OK if the woman at least can be taught this?
(BTW, it is exactly this idea that a man doesn't need to be involved in this type of knowledge that is why some say that "intimicy" increases when couples learn NFP. If a man and wife can't talk about such things with each other, then what happens when there are problems in conceiving?)
SD
Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant... my point was not that I am any expert in personalism or the Theology of the Body (which are, again, two different things, even if it is fair to call the Theology of the Body a personalistic theology). Rather, I have been studying them for some time, but I haven't run across any claims that man is, in fact, able to rid himself of concupiscence. I asked for a citation; instead of supplying one, you decided to ridicule me. Perhaps I should be more clear, though; I've studied personalist philosophy a lot more than I've studied the Theology of the Body--this is probably why I reacted as I did to your suggestion that personalism is the Theology of the Body; you said: The promoters of NFP are followers of a new philosophy called personalism, also known primarily by the title of the pope's Wednesday talks back in the early eighties, "Theology of the Body."
Again, I should have been more clear... but when I said you shouldn't lump personalism and the Theology of the Body, I mean that you shouldn't claim that they're the same thing. Personalist philosophy is a movement with a large body of writing that has noting to do with John Paul II's theology.
Modern philosophies aren't exactly clear either. Ambiguity is one of their prime characteristics. That's why you have to search for the "meaning" of what they're saying.
Well, I was more interested in the meaning of what you were saying when you used the word 'overcome.' It was Aristotle, and not Mounier, who said that definition is the beginning of argument.
I said: His Holiness is very attentive to distinguishing between those parts of original innocence towards which we can still strive and those towards which we are not to strive after the Fall. and you said:
Wrong. Let's take the topic that started this discussion -- the obedience and submission of wives to their husbands. It was a thread on that topic which brought up the issue of Popcak and personalism. The pope makes the egregious argument that Eve was not subject to Adam before the Fall, therefore, if we are striving towards "original innocence," then submission and obedience are not virtues but are effects of original sin.
Again, some kind of citation would be nice.. I don't recall at any point the Pope claiming that submission and obedience are not virtues. Again, the emphasis here is that I don't recall any such claim--if you could provide a citation for what you're claiming, I would appreciate it. There are some things which are only virtuous for man in his fallen condition, such as mortification of the flesh--it serves an end that is necessary only because man is afflicted by the wounds of sin. As I understand it, something similar is being claimed in the Pope's thought... the kind of obedience which is proper now is, in fact, proper for man because of his fallen condition. Your example here, at any rate, is not at all a rebuttal of my claim, which is that the Pope is attentive to the difference between those aspects of original innocence towards which we should strive and those towards which we shouldn't--another example of where the Pope clearly says we can't just "go back to the beginning" is the impossibility of returning to original nakedness... one place where I part company with Christopher West is with his notion of "nakedness without shame." The Pope is very clear that shame is an effect of the fall with positive effects, and it is impossible (and wrong) to try and wholly rid ourselves of shame. You simply miss the whole point when you seem to assume that the Pope's theology aims *only* at somehow restoring the state of innocence.
So we agree that this is not traditional Catholic theology. We can agree that this approach has no basis in tradition or magisterial teaching, or even in the accepted interpretations of Scripture.
Nor did the theology of St. Thomas have a clear basis in tradition or magisterial tradition when he was developing it. While many overplay the fact that during Thomas' life there were condemnations of some of his propositions by a bishop, the fact remains that St. Thomas' theology was in fact new and that his interlocutors were many.
While I find your arguments unconvincing, I will not presume to accuse you of ignorance, malice, or copying the methods of Martin Luther. After a whole year of studying personalism, it's clear that at least the "ignorance" epithet would not apply.
If you took my tone to be uncharitable, then I apologize. However, your seeming 1:1 equation of personalism with the Theology of the Body is incorrect, and the only possible motives I could think of were ignorance (you didn't know that personalism is a broader movement) or malice (you are so dismissive of personalism that you lose concern for being accurate in what you say about it). If there is some other reason, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.
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.