Birth control.

[Michie]

Well the NFP'ers claim going that route enhances courtship & romance during fertile times they are abstaining. It also enhances their prayer life. You have to enjoy your spouse in other ways during this time other than falling back on sex. You talk, you do things together, you court & anticipate being able to have sex again without worry. A lot of things couples on contraceptives neglect. Sort of like annual dating, etc.

 

[Irenaeus]

The Fire Rises,

I see you are familiarizing yourself with some of the hallmark texts/talks on Pro-Life issues. Familiaris Consortio is one of those. Casti connubii is another, by Pius XI. Of course, one can't also miss own on JP II's Theology of the Body, even though some of it can be very dense, but it is full of meaning if you're patient with him.

The Creighton Method (NFP) constantly talks about 'SPICE', or Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Communicative, and Emotional sharing. These are absolutely critical because sex is only one expression of intimacy.

I liked Rhamiel's analogy. It is perfectly possible that someone could use NFP in a contraceptive way, or with a contraceptive spirit. However, the method itself is not illicit, because it avails of the body's natural infertile periods.

 

[The Fire Rises]

Yeah, and I think there's something to that. (This is in response to Michie by the way) The nearly non-existent divorce rates I think is a pretty big testament for it.

The reality that the Church needs to accept, and I think it has, is that not everyone is capable of supporting half a dozen or more children, especially considering the economic times we live in. Yes, of course, it's wonderful when you bring new life into the world, we get it. But on the other hand, what's the point of cranking out babies if you simply haven't the money to take care of them? What kind of life are you going to be giving them as they grow up?

Maybe the difference between condoms and NFP is that condoms can be used without a second though, and the sole purpose then becomes to fulfill personal craving and desires, not much thought goes into it, and you begin to value the act itself rather than your spouse (which don't get me wrong, should be fulfilled sooner or later. It's unhealthy to just ignore natural desires and let them build up).

Whereas, as the Pope said, NFP requires dialogue, thoughtful communication, self-control, and makes couples value the many other things about their partner besides their bodies.

 

[The Fire Rises]

The Fire Rises,

I see you are familiarizing yourself with some of the hallmark texts/talks on Pro-Life issues. Familiaris Consortio is one of those. Casti connubii is another, by Pius XI. Of course, one can't also miss own on JP II's Theology of the Body, even though some of it can be very dense, but it is full of meaning if you're patient with him.

The Creighton Method (NFP) constantly talks about 'SPICE', or Spiritual, Physical, Intellectual, Communicative, and Emotional sharing. These are absolutely critical because sex is only one expression of intimacy.

I liked Rhamiel's analogy. It is perfectly possible that someone could use NFP in a contraceptive way, or with a contraceptive spirit. However, the method itself is not illicit, because it avails of the body's natural infertile periods.

Well there's the kicker, you hit the nail right on the head there.

How does on NOT use NFP with a contraceptive mentality? Isn't the sheer fact that they are following NFP at all suggest that they are wanting to avoid children?

 

[Irenaeus]

The reality that the Church needs to accept, and I think it has, is that not everyone is capable of supporting half a dozen or more children, especially considering the economic times we live in. Yes, of course, it's wonderful when you bring new life into the world, we get it. But on the other hand, what's the point of cranking out babies if you simply haven't the money to take care of them? What kind of life are you going to be giving them as they grow up?

The Church acknowledges that this is one of the grave reasons for which one may legitimately space births.

However, I think you may be missing something, namely, to question why modern society is making it so prohibitively expensive to economically support children, especially when these same technocratic societies require at least replacement birth rates to support their Public Welfare apparatus. I think we all need to ask ourselves what children really "need", and be critical of a consumerist approach to life which leads not only to tremendous waste as a society at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. It is a cultural vision fixed solely at the present, with no sense of either eternity or even the temporal future.

Hence why contemporary governments heap massive amounts of sovereign debt that cannot conceivably be repaid, which rests upon the shoulders of unborn generations who will never be able to remedy the situation.

 

[Irenaeus]

How does on NOT use NFP with a contraceptive mentality? Isn't the sheer fact that they are following NFP at all suggest that they are wanting to avoid children?

The Church acknowledges there are grave reasons for which it would be necessary to space births. That is not a question for us.

However, what I mean by a "contraceptive mentality" is a non-openness to new life in general, rather than for a serious reason. So for instance, a Catholic family who doesn't want another child because they want a slightly more comfortable life.

 

[Michie]

The Church acknowledges that this is one of the grave reasons that one may legitimately space births.

However, I think you may be missing something, namely, why modern society is making it so prohibitively impossible to economically support children, especially when these same technocratic societies require at least replacement birth rates to support their Public Welfare apparatus. I think we all need to ask ourselves what children really "need" and an consumerist approach to life which leads not only to tremendous waste as a society at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged, but also a cultural vision fixed solely at the present, with no sense of neither eternity or even the temporal future.

Hence why contemporary governments heap massive amounts of sovereign debt that cannot conceivably be repaid, which rests upon the shoulders of unborn generations who will never be able to remedy the situation.

Wow... excellent answer. I must save this post.

 

[The Fire Rises]

That's a valid point. I'm pretty convinced at this point that NFP is simply the healthiest way to go, both physically and spiritually. What I would struggle with is if the Church condemns NFP if the couple uses it with a "contraceptive mentality", as I said above.

It is being used to control when pregnancies occur via natural means, while at the same time fulfilling natural human desires that NEED to be fulfilled at some point or another, at least for most couples. Would that be considered a contraceptive mentality? What if a couple is not open to life at all? Are they simply not allowed to have sex, ever?

EDIT: sorry I didn't see your above post, we keep over-lapping each other

 

[Irenaeus]

What I would struggle with is if the Church condemns NFP if the couple uses it with a "contraceptive mentality", as I said above.

Remember that the Church in her moral discernment draws a distinction between actions, motivations, and circumstances. NFP is a moral method/action of spacing births. The motivations of individuals can be wrong. They practice NFP for the wrong reason. That doesn't make NFP illicit, just a person's motivation for using it. It's essential to understand that distinction when breathing "Catholic air."

It is being used to control when pregnancies occur via natural means, while at the same time fulfilling natural human desires that NEED to be fulfilled at some point or another, at least for most couples. Would that be considered a contraceptive mentality?

I don't think so. Honestly I am not of the "Catholic Amish" school of thought on this, and I know many clergy who are not, but are completely orthodox.

For instance, a close Priest friend of mine was once invited to a house to celebrate the birth of a man's 13th child. My friend said, "Why should I go to congratulate him for that? The man may just be oversexed...and his poor wife, she was pregnant for almost 13 years of her life?!"

That is not to say, by the way, that having 13 children is wrong. But there is a sense in some orthodox Catholics that more kids equal better Catholic practice.

I think an unfortunate counter-reaction to dissent on the teaching of birth control is the overemphasis on "numerical fecundity."

I remember when I entered Seminary the Vocation Director looked at me eschew when I mentioned that I was an only child (which is becoming more and more common), because somehow it reflected badly on my parents that they didn't have more than one child. It wasn't even considered my Mom has a very serious chronic disease and I was born as a high risk pregnancy. My parents practiced NFP.

We have to remember especially that after the Industrial Revolution but before the introduction of the pill, it was common for couples to occasionally sleep in separate rooms, to be modest even with each other, so that they didn't "test fate." This may not have been necessary when infant mortality was high, but now especially self-control is.

 

[The Fire Rises]

Okay but what about Catholic couples who simply aren't interested in ever having children? (Do those even exist?)

Either they could never have sex, which isn't that viable, or they could follow NFP. But if they follow NFP, then would the church look at them and say, "Hey, WAIT a minute...you've been togther "x" number of years and you still don't have children? What's the deal?"

What if some couples want to enjoy the gift of sex that God has provided, but are not interested in raising children? I don't think it's sinful to not want children.

 

[MikeK]

What if some couples want to enjoy the gift of sex that God has provided, but are not interested in raising children? I don't think it's sinful to not want children.

A competent Priest would advise that couple not to marry. NFP is meant to be used in unusual, limited circumstances, not throughout a couple's fertile
years.

Some NFP proponents claim that the practice strengthened their marriage. I can say that it put near fatal stresses on mine.

 

[Irenaeus]

Okay but what about Catholic couples who simply aren't interested in ever having children? (Do those even exist?)

Of course they do. For instance, if the wife especially acquires in the course of the marriage some sort of physical illness, and to conceive would almost certainly mean death.

Then there are Catholic couples who aren't interested in having children at all, and are otherwise healthy. Quite honestly (and not to open another can of worms) these couples, if they entered the marriage explicitly with that intention to never conceive, they do not have a sacramental marriage.

Either they could never have sex, which isn't that viable, or they could follow NFP. But if they follow NFP, then would the church look at them and say, "Hey, WAIT a minute...you've been togther "x" number of years and you still don't have children? What's the deal?"

The Church isn't terribly interested, again, in "numerical fecundity." Personally, I don't care how many children you have. It is up to a couple in the privacy and context of their relationship to decide what they can do within reason, and then utilize all moral means to do it. They have to work out their salvation like anyone else with Christ's help. I for one don't think "the Church" would be picky about the number of kids. We'd just be happy that they are following Christ's commandments and are witnessing to him.

What if some couples want to enjoy the gift of sex that God has provided, but are not interested in raising children? I don't think it's sinful to not want children.

You are obviously born after 1968. It is obvious that with sex comes children, unless something is physically awry. It is a modern absurdity that anyone would say they want sex without kids. Only our technology has made it possible for a statement like that to even be possible.

In the Church's teaching, if anyone enters a marriage with the explicit desire never to have children, their marriage is negated. A marriage must be faithful, monogamous, and open to children. If either the bride or the groom approaches the Sacrament with an intention that nullifies any of those three ends of marriage, the Sacrament of Marriage does not happen.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I'm very glad that the Church accepts NFP, but frankly I still don't see how using a system to deliberately avoid pregnancy does not qualify as another "obstacle" that is put in the way of creating life?

Condoms and pills are bad because they are deliberate means of reducing the possibility of life, right? But NFP's one and only goal is just that, to significantly decrease the possiblity of creating life, as in you are deliberately following a "monthly plan" to make sure that you can satisfy your desires without the possibility of having a child. The method is different, but the motive is the exact same, is it not?

Again, I'm not against NFP, but part of me thinks, "If the Church allows and promotes a program that shows people how to avoid creating life, how is simply using a condom any different?"

Maybe I'm just confused : l

You're right to be confused.

The underlying basis for the questioning of HV as teaching is just that.

The logic on which it is reasoned can be easily construed as unclear and in need of clarification.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

The Church acknowledges that this is one of the grave reasons for which one may legitimately space births.

However, I think you may be missing something, namely, to question why modern society is making it so prohibitively expensive to economically support children, especially when these same technocratic societies require at least replacement birth rates to support their Public Welfare apparatus. I think we all need to ask ourselves what children really "need", and be critical of a consumerist approach to life which leads not only to tremendous waste as a society at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. It is a cultural vision fixed solely at the present, with no sense of either eternity or even the temporal future.

Hence why contemporary governments heap massive amounts of sovereign debt that cannot conceivably be repaid, which rests upon the shoulders of unborn generations who will never be able to remedy the situation.

NFP as a solution for the failing of trickle down economics.

The creativity of the human species never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Rhamiel]

In what way do they disagree with the teaching?

Do they think they should be able to used contraceptives as well, or do they think that even NFP should not be allowed?

a lot of Catholics use condoms even though the Church says no
some of them feel guilty about it but make excuses for it
others just say "they Pope has no bussiness what I do in my bedroom"

a very very small minority think NFP is just as bad as condoms and are agianst that too, but that is such a small number who think like that it is hardly worth considaring

 

[Gwendolyn]

Choosing to be childfree - actively choosing to not have children - is a violation of marriage vows. So not only would a childfree couple be in mortal sin (for not being open to life but having sex), but their marriage would also be invalid and not sacramental.

 

[Irenaeus]

NFP as a solution for the failing of trickle down economics.

The creativity of the human species never ceases to amaze me.

I didn't say that and you know it. You're too intelligent.

 

[The Fire Rises]

I've reconciled many Catholic practices/teachings that I once though I never would (Marian devotion, the Sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Papal infallibility, perhaps even Purgatory). I can already tell that this may be the biggest obstacle that blocks me from joining the Church.

Does anyone know of any good articles/books that cover this in-depth? Or any Catholic speakers who are known for being defenders of this? That would be great. I'm really conflicted about this and while I appreciate all the answers I've gotten, I'm gonna need more than online forum discussions to settle this matter for me.

 

[ebia]

I've reconciled many Catholic practices/teachings that I once though I never would (Marian devotion, the Sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Papal infallibility, perhaps even Purgatory). I can already tell that this may be the biggest obstacle that blocks me from joining the Church.

Does anyone know of any good articles/books that cover this in-depth? Or any Catholic speakers who are known for being defenders of this? That would be great. I'm really conflicted about this and while I appreciate all the answers I've gotten, I'm gonna need more than online forum discussions to settle this matter for me.

Read the encyclical itself.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Couldn't agree more....same experiences for us, near fatal

A competent Priest would advise that couple not to marry. NFP is meant to be used in unusual, limited circumstances, not throughout a couple's fertile
years.

Some NFP proponents claim that the practice strengthened their marriage. I can say that it put near fatal stresses on mine.